Review of Burgon's Revision Revised

[Logan]

David,

I'll try to say this gently, but I don't think any of your comments have added anything on this subject (whether in this topic or others) and are significantly below the level of what is being discussed (which make them irrelevant). I think it might be better all around if you read the topic and tried to learn without commenting.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

As for this, "With respect to your logical prowess, I would not want to have you as my attorney if I were being tried for the crime of being a Christian!" this is unworthy of you, Steve. Disagree with my arguments, fine. But to call into question my entire logical processes (my father taught logic at Covenant College, and taught me, and I have taught logic as well) having to do with a completely unrelated topic hits with WAY too big a cannon, and more than borders on disrespecting a minister of the gospel.

I apologize, Lane, and ask for your forgiveness, as I have not meant to disrespect you either as a minister, or as a person. Of course you could defend my being a Christian. I was meaning other than how it came across.

 

[greenbaggins]

I appreciate that very much, and of course I forgive you. Maybe you could clarify what you intended, then?

 

[Dachaser]

David,

I'll try to say this gently, but I don't think any of your comments have added anything on this subject (whether in this topic or others) and are significantly below the level of what is being discussed (which make them irrelevant). I think it might be better all around if you read the topic and tried to learn without commenting.

I appreciate your kind spirit here, but was just curious as to what I have posted here was wrong or not to the OP itself?

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Thank you, Lane. This phrase, “if I were being tried for the crime of being a Christian!”, I just pulled out of the air, unwisely I now think, and with no special significance. What I intended was simply that your use of logic left something to be desired, and would not serve me well were you my lawyer. I was trying to dramatically illustrate my view of your logical conclusions.

Your character is sacrosanct – meaning inviolable – and ought not be impugned, given the man that you are. Though your critical method is not sacrosanct, but open to critique if warranted. Your critical method is putting to use various skills that you have so as to support or tear down ideas that you come across.

I hope that your “logical processes”, i.e., how you use those gifts in textual discussion, are not beyond commenting upon negatively if warranted. Such would not reflect upon your character or your ministerial credentials, both of which I think above reproach, but rather your potential capacity to err in judgment re text critical matters.

 

[greenbaggins]

Thanks for the explanation, Steve. We're good, as far as I'm concerned. As I said in my earlier response, disagreement with my conclusions is perfectly fine. Disagreement with my logic on a particular issue is fine. It brings to mind a sign that one of my ruling elders used to have (he was a pretty high department head in an organization), and that I've always valued: "If you never disagree with me, you are missing a golden opportunity to be right!"

Disagreement is part of the give and take of debate. And anyone who can't handle that should go elsewhere. That being said (and now I'm generalizing my comments, and talking about all debate situations), it is always important to aim with the proverbial rifle, instead of with the proverbial shotgun. Precision helps avoid defensiveness. The second we hit more than we aim at is the second we have derailed the debate and made it about something it has no business being about, because the other guy is going to object to the additional targeting. It's generalizations from particular examples that are problematic.

 

[JimmyH]

To Reverend Keister and to Steve, I have avoided getting into this fray up until now since I didn't feel qualified to comment. But since logic has been mentioned I have a question for both of you gentlemen.

Since the CT has been overwhelmingly accepted as the text for which all but a few English translations have been sourced from since just before the turn of the last century, isn't it logical to presuppose that the many gifted scholars, philologists, and exegetes who've relied on the critical text trust that it is genuine and authoritative ?

For example, the NICNT commentary on Mark by William Lane, in the Editor's Forward F.F. Bruce says :

"We are sometimes asked why, at this time of day, we persist in using the American Standard Version of 1901 as the basic text for the New International Commentary. The principal reason for our persistence is that its excessively literal style of translation, however unsuitable it may be for other purposes, is admirably suited to serve as a basis of a commentary which endeavors to pay careful attention to the details of the text."

Again referring to the dominance of the CT in English translations since the Revised Version of the late 1800s, the old saying, 'Nothing succeeds like success' comes to mind.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Well, Lane, I think I did use a shotgun for a moment there. Sorry about that – I heartily concur, precision in such discussions is necessary.

Jimmy, one could say the fallacy of argumentum ad populum ("If many believe so, it is so.") applies. Though it does pose an interesting question: why do "many gifted scholars, philologists, and exegetes" hold to the CT?

One might ask, Why did BB Warfield?* There are many reasons that come to mind: the belief that newer is better; that the scientific method applied to textual criticism is sounder than theological reasons or presuppositions; or that a very few experts have swayed many non-experts; etc.

*Dr. Theodore Letis' essay, "B.B. Warfield, Common-Sense Philosophy and Biblical Criticism" (on Scribd). [The essays of Letis I post on Scribd I have done with the publisher’s permission, or recommendation.]

Also, Dr. (& pastor) Garnet Howard Milne's book, Has the Bible been kept pure? The Westminster Confession of Faith and the providential preservation of Scripture, has a substantial section on Warfield's view of the CT, and how it eventually became the paradigm for textual critics and many others.

 

[Dachaser]

To Reverend Keister and to Steve, I have avoided getting into this fray up until now since I didn't feel qualified to comment. But since logic has been mentioned I have a question for both of you gentlemen.

Since the CT has been overwhelmingly accepted as the text for which all but a few English translations have been sourced from since just before the turn of the last century, isn't it logical to presuppose that the many gifted scholars, philologists, and exegetes who've relied on the critical text trust that it is genuine and authoritative ?

For example, the NICNT commentary on Mark by William Lane, in the Editor's Forward F.F. Bruce says :

"We are sometimes asked why, at this time of day, we persist in using the American Standard Version of 1901 as the basic text for the New International Commentary. The principal reason for our persistence is that its excessively literal style of translation, however unsuitable it may be for other purposes, is admirably suited to serve as a basis of a commentary which endeavors to pay careful attention to the details of the text."

Again referring to the dominance of the CT in English translations since the Revised Version of the late 1800s, the old saying, 'Nothing succeeds like success' comes to mind.

Very good point here, as there are many gifted and learned men who see no problem with using the CT for translation and study, not have any problem using the MT/TR texts for that either.

 

[Logan]

I appreciate your kind spirit here, but was just curious as to what I have posted here was wrong or not to the OP itself?

Thank you for taking it kindly. You've not said anything wrong per se, but irrelevant. There are dozens (if not hundreds) of topics relating to this subject. The people posting in this topic are very familiar with it and have discussed the basics years ago. Bringing up things like KJVO, for example, is so far below the discussion at this point that it's almost painful. Start a new topic if you'd like to do that, or just sit back and learn from this one without commenting.

An analogy would be some people having a discussion or debate on whether to use Leibnitz or Newton's notation for calculus and you come in and say "it seems to me that addition is the adding of two or more numbers". It's not wrong, but it's far below the level of the discussion and irrelevant. If you're not extremely well-versed in this subject, it's best to keep silent, In my humble opinion.

 

[Dachaser]

Thank you for taking it kindly. You've not said anything wrong per se, but irrelevant. There are dozens (if not hundreds) of topics relating to this subject. The people posting in this topic are very familiar with it and have discussed the basics years ago. Bringing up things like KJVO, for example, is so far below the discussion at this point that it's almost painful. Start a new topic if you'd like to do that, or just sit back and learn from this one without commenting.

An analogy would be some people having a discussion or debate on whether to use Leibnitz or Newton's notation for calculus and you come in and say "it seems to me that addition is the adding of two or more numbers". It's not wrong, but it's far below the level of the discussion and irrelevant. If you're not extremely well-versed in this subject, it's best to keep silent, In my humble opinion.

Would you see the need for us to actually have a perfect greek text, or english translation in order to have the word of God to us for today?

 

[JimmyH]

Well, Lane, I think I did use a shotgun for a moment there. Sorry about that – I heartily concur, precision in such discussions is necessary.

Jimmy, one could say the fallacy of argumentum ad populum ("If many believe so, it is so.") applies. Though it does pose an interesting question: why do "many gifted scholars, philologists, and exegetes" hold to the CT?

One might ask, Why did BB Warfield?* There are many reasons that come to mind: the belief that newer is better; that the scientific method applied to textual criticism is sounder than theological reasons or presuppositions; or that a very few experts have swayed many non-experts; etc.

*Dr. Theodore Letis' essay, "B.B. Warfield, Common-Sense Philosophy and Biblical Criticism" (on Scribd). [The essays of Letis I post on Scribd I have done with the publisher’s permission, or recommendation.]

Also, Dr. (& pastor) Garnet Howard Milne's book, Has the Bible been kept pure? The Westminster Confession of Faith and the providential preservation of Scripture, has a substantial section on Warfield's view of the CT, and how it eventually became the paradigm for textual critics and many others.

Thanks for the reply Steve. I have read Dr Milne's book, thanks to your recommendation in another thread, and found it very informative. I was disturbed by his characterization of B.B. Warfield, and have been reading some of his work to try and draw my own conclusion on BBW's view of Scripture innerancy. He was certainly considered by many to be a true defender of Scripture, but that is a subject for another thread.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

I hope to be finishing my involvement in this thread with this post. I have found Rev. Lane’s arguments, especially his use of “logical fallacies”, to be wanting in dealing with the text critical realities Burgon deals with. I do think that you have, Lane, “a distaste for the Received Text” when it is posited as a standard of excellence to which the other MSS may be compared. That goes against your “textual egalitarianism”, which finds intrinsic worth as “God’s word” in all the MSS. While I would concur that insofar as any MS is in accord with what the WCF 1:8 and the Westminster divines held to be “kept pure in all ages”, such could be called “God’s word”, which the variant readings could not. And those MSS which had a plethora of such variants would be disqualified as corrupted.

I have shown in post 21 that “genealogical families” or “text-types” are not accepted as valid or helpful categories by critics today, even as Burgon showed in the 19th century. Your assertion that he is guilty of a “massive tu quoque” by using a genealogical argument against Hort fails. What he did show was something quite else. Hort had said,

“A presumption indeed remains that a majority of extant documents is more likely to represent a majority of ancestral documents, than vice versâ.” [Intro to the NT in the Original Greek, by W&H… p 45]

“The fundamental Text of late extant Greek MSS. generally is beyond all question identical with the dominant Antiochian or Græco-Syrian Text of the second half of the fourth century.” [Ibid, Intro., W&H p 92]​

He said this because he could not deny the actual preponderance of the dominant Antiochian or Græco-Syrian Text, aka the Byzantine or Majority Text; what he did was (to use your terminology) attempt to poison the well as regards its validity by positing / imagining an official recension (edition) of the Greek NT as a means to suppressing all other MSS. No text critics of today hold to that, and Maurice Robinson and other Majority Text proponents (Pickering, Van Bruggen, etc) ably refute it, and the views of Hort and Westcott in general. I keep using them, W&H, in my refutation of your critique of Burgon, because their textual paradigm warranted Burgon’s critical remarks that you take to task.

You use “why is it impossible…?” regarding textual things a number of times, as though such would make it feasible they could be true: “is it impossible for a manuscript to be housed in the devil's own library, and yet be virtuous?” Actually, it is possible, but in light of other facts in the case highly improbable.

You also say, “Is it completely out of the realm of possibility that the reason א and B have survived is because scribes thought it might be good to produce two excellent manuscripts and then put them away so that they might be brought out later to correct other manuscripts? Why is it impossible for God’s providence to have worked in this way” I would agree with you, that it is within the realm of possibility for God’s providence to have worked in such a manner as you propose – though most improbable. For there is more to the history of א and B than you’ve brought forth. Yes, “All of the extant manuscripts have been preserved by God's providence.” But not all of them were approved by the Reformation and post-Reformation divines as those that had been “kept pure in all ages”.

Why were all the MSS that exist preserved? Perhaps that we should “by reason of use have [our] senses exercised to discern both good and evil” (Heb 5:14).

When you say, “Burgon’s argument is so bizarre, that, if taken to its logical conclusion, it would cast doubt on the reliability of any ancient manuscript of any book.” In my own library, the most precious books I have are those Bibles I regularly use and consult – and they are the ones that most quickly wear out, and need replacement. Those books least used stay in the best shape. This is the norm. And most textual critics concur with this as a principle concerning the longevity of MSS. So to say it is bizarre is not sound. It may just seem bizarre to you who have a different paradigm re the NT MSS.

You say of Vaticanus, “Is it impossible that it was copied in a Bible-believing church, and then captured by Rome?” No, it is not impossible, but highly improbable. I give Burgon’s information with respect to Vaticanus’ and Aleph’s likely origin in the library of Origen in post 57.

You keep saying that my bringing up the involvement of the papacy with the CT of the United Bible Society – which critical text underlies all of the modern versions – but continues the fallacy of poisoning the well. Whereas I say that the CT, by this involvement, and by its history, has poisoned its own well.

You have said,

How the Vatican has used Vaticanus against the Reformation has nothing to do with whether Vaticanus is a valuable manuscript or not, either. They are abusing it (not using it legitimately) for doctrinal-twisting purposes. What Rome has done with Vaticanus is completely irrelevant to Vaticanus's value as a manuscript.​

The Vatican’s use of B, with respect to its variants, does indeed impact the Reformation doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Westcott and Hort were staunch Anglo-Catholics, and despisers of the Reformation and Evangelical spirit (easily documentable in their own words), and well knew what they were doing. It does not change things that you see the value of B and Aleph (and there is value, I must agree, in that we have a very old MS to compare with others). That you do not agree with W&H does not change the impact of B & Aleph on Sola Scriptura. It’s a done thing.

But Burgon could see it, and spoke to it. To those looking in on this discussion, I would say that if you wonder about the respective takes of Lane and myself on this issue of Burgon, and of textual criticism as well, you would be edified by simply reading in Burgon’s books to see the value of his labors. E.F. Hills wrote a chapter in D.O. Fuller’s Which Bible?, “The Magnificent Burgon, Doughty Champion of the Byzantine Text”, which is well worth the read. Not all learned men have such a view of Burgon as Lane.

 

[Logan]

One might ask, Why did BB Warfield?* There are many reasons that come to mind: the belief that newer is better; that the scientific method applied to textual criticism is sounder than theological reasons or presuppositions; or that a very few experts have swayed many non-experts; etc.

*Dr. Theodore Letis' essay, "B.B. Warfield, Common-Sense Philosophy and Biblical Criticism" (on Scribd). [The essays of Letis I post on Scribd I have done with the publisher’s permission, or recommendation.]

I've been pondering whether to reply to this or not and finally decided it would be best to. Not to counteract what Steve says but I want to warn that in another, older thread, Steve and I thoroughly interacted with the essay in question and I am thoroughly convinced that Letis was untrustworthy as a historian in this particular case. He repeatedly caricatures Warfield and rather than interact with Warfield's own words, draws his own inferences from isolated phrases, sometimes even contradicting what Warfield himself says in the very same work he quotes from. In other places he inexplicably ignores what Warfield says his own views are, instead postulating his own conjectures. If you take the time to go to Letis' sources (Warfield's work), you'll be stunned at the biased manner in which he treats Warfield. Warfield wrote prolifically on the subject, both in his works and in the two volumes of his collected shorter writings and all are well worth reading.

I'd recommend Warfield's own review of Burgon's work, "The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Vindicated and Established" (in vol. 10, pg 25). It is gracious and fair and Warfield praises Burgon for adding much needed discussion to the question and that many had followed after Hort too readily. It is well worth reading. Nevertheless, after a lengthy portion on the strengths of the work, Warfield makes this statement which I find very apt:

We would not willingly underestimate any item of the case for the "Traditional Text" [by Burgon] thus presented. But we are bound to bear witness that after an honest attempt to weigh it impratially, in its entirety and in its several parts, it seems to us to halt fatally. We cannot indeed fail to be impressed when we read such a statement as this: "The advocates of the Traditional Text urge that the Consent without Concert of so many hundreds of copies, executed by different persons, at diverse times, in widely sundered regions of the Church, is a presumptive proof of their trustworthiness, which nothing can invalidate but some sort of demonstration that they are untrustworthy guides after all." (I. p. 17; cf. p. 33). But we observe that its whole force turns on the phrase "Consent without Concert," which is the very point in dispute. Dr. Hort seems to have shown that the consent is due just to concert, and his exhibition of that fact, as yet unrebutted, transfers the presumption at once to the older though fewer witnesses, which, on the test of internal evidence of groups, evince themselves also as the better. So, again, we are far from accounting the appeal to Providence either illegitimate or active in preserving His inspired Word to his Church. We do not believe that, after giving the Scriptures of Truth to mankind, He "straightway abdicated His office; took no further care of His work; abandoned those precious writings to their fate" (I. p.11). But just because we believe in God's continuous care over the purity of His Word, we are able to look upon the labors of the great critics of the nineteenth century---a Tregelles, a Tischendorf, a Westcott, a Hort---as well as those of a Gregory and a Basil and a Chrysostom, as instruments of Providence in preserving the Scriptures pure for the use of God's people. Dean Burgon and Mr. Miller are able to reconcile with their appeal to Providence the early prevalence of a corrupt text which needed purifying in the fourth century: why cannot they reconcile with it also a further purification of this same text in the nineteenth century? The fact is, their point of view is determined not so much by a religious as by an ecclesiastical presumption. And when we probe their fundamental principle to the bottom, it is found to rest really on a high doctrine of the Church. Their prime consideration is, in a word, that "a certain exhibition of the Sacred Text---that exhibition of it with which we are all most familiar---rests on ecclesiastical authority" (p. 13). Their confidence in the "Traditional Text" is due to their view that that text "rests on the authority of the Church Catholic"; and they are strenuous in its defense because they cannot believe that the "probat of the Orthodox...Christian Bbishops" through so many years can be mistaken (p. 14): and therefore they fully recognize that the force of their appeal can be felt in its fullness only by "Churchmen." "How Churchmen of eminence and ability, who in other respects hold the truths involved in Churchmanship," they exclaim (p. 59), "are able to maintain and propagate such opinions" as those advocated by Dr. Hort, "without surrendering their Churchmanship we are unable to explain." In a word, the root of the opinions here set forth as to the purity of the "Traditional Text" of the New Testament is to be found, not in considerations drawn from the history of the transmission of that text or from a critical estimate of the relative value of its actual witnesses, but in considerations which lie outside of the text itself and its own history in a general doctrine of the continuous authority of the Church, which itself rests on a special theory of the Church peculiar to certain sections of the Christian body.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Logan,

As I was just looking over our old thread on Letis, I am reminded how carefully you studied him and his views, and to what lengths you went to amass material on him! While I still differ with your view “that Letis was untrustworthy as a historian in this particular case . . . [and that] He repeatedly caricatures Warfield and rather than interact with Warfield's own words, draws his own inferences from isolated phrases…” etc, I probably should have had the hindsight not to unearth the old topic of Dr. Theodore Letis. Not that Letis erred in his understanding of BBW and the WCF, but that his other writings and sayings cover a lot of terrain, and I would not want to become embroiled in a broader defense of him. I might have done better only referencing Garnet Milne’s work on the WCF, and his section on Warfield, as Dr. Milne is solidly Reformed and his research is unassailable, plus he is alive to explain and defend himself, if he wishes.

My point in bringing up BB Warfield in post 68 was to illustrate one among “ ‘many gifted scholars, philologists, and exegetes’ [who] hold to the CT” and an examination and critique of that one case – namely the allure and promise of the new (in the late 1800s and early 1900s) movement in text-critical studies to have a scientifically-based text rather than one theologically and presuppositionally-based. Milne’s book adequately shows Warfield’s departure from intents of the WCF’s framers, and as his book is in print it is available to those who wish to learn more on this topic.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Lane, I just want to express my sorrow at how things soured between us recently. In my post 73 where I spoke of Sproul’s “judgment of charity” – I deleted that, not wanting to justify myself at your expense. No way for a pastor to be treating another pastor. I really do hold you in high esteem – that’s not just talk – and I’m sorry I haven’t always lived that out. You’re a godly man and a good pastor, I think better than me on both counts. May your new year be your best yet!

 

[Dachaser]

Lane, I just want to express my sorrow at how things soured between us recently. In my post 73 where I spoke of Sproul’s “judgment of charity” – I deleted that, not wanting to justify myself at your expense. No way for a pastor to be treating another pastor. I really do hold you in high esteem – that’s not just talk – and I’m sorry I haven’t always lived that out. You’re a godly man and a good pastor, I think better than me on both counts. May your new year be your best yet!

Do you see the Critical and Majority Greek texts as being legit, but flawed, or neither of them at all the word of the Lord to us in the original language?

 

[greenbaggins]

Steve, as I said before, I am fine. There is nothing between us from my side. It was only the one comment, which you have fixed, so, smooth sailing as far as I am concerned. Is there anything you are still angry about?

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

No, not angry, Lane — disappointed, and I didn't deal with it in a godly way. And I'm fine with you also.

David, I have spelled out very clearly in this thread precisely what my views are vis-à-vis the CT and Byz Text. I'm afraid you're so into racking up posts to build up your count that it's become 2nd nature to you now — I do not think you're so dense you don't understand what many folks are saying to you — you just no longer even notice it, or care. It's not a good reputation to have.

Logan, as I said, I would have done better omitting reference to Letis given your view of him, and stuck solely with Milne's analysis of Warfield, which is far more detailed and insightful — given that Milne is solidly Reformed and firmly holds to the Westminster Standards, unlike the Lutheran Letis.

Milne leaves it unmistakably clear, through numerous quotes from Warfield's writings, and a searching analysis of what his view actually was, that he

"did more than anyone else to open the door for modern evangelicals, including those in the Reformed and Presbyterian churches, to embrace the paradigm that we still do not and may never possess the Word of God in its entirety; and that certain parts of recently discovered extant copies should replace the Greek New Testament text relied on by the Reformers and their heirs in many readings." (p 38)​

Then in subsequent chapters Milne proceeds to examine the views of the Westminster divines on the issue of what they meant concerning the NT texts with respect to their "being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, [and] are therefore authentical" — and all this in light of the Warfieldian view.

Although Letis opened up this matter to the world, he was vulnerable to critique by careful students of his various views, whereas Dr. Garnet Milne comes with impeccable credentials and reputation, and exposes once for all how Prof. Benjamin Warfield, for all his Biblical fidelity and theological might, nonetheless erred in this matter and caused great damage to the field of textual criticism.

Milne does not go into the area of Warfield's views on evolution, as that was not pertinent to the present study.

Even great men err — and gives all the more reason to critique such, lest we be carried away with their errors due to their exemplary work elsewhere — a danger we are seeing today with lesser great men among us.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Even great men err

Dr Milne lives in my country and I personally know this statement is true of him also.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Stephen,

Curious about your words above I had PM'd you enquiring as to what they signified. Upon further reflection, however, I recalled the Scripture,

1 Tim 5:19: Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.​

Warfield's error consisted in widely publicized statements that, upon analysis — and comparison of pertinent documents — misinformed the Christian public respecting their Scriptures. With the presumption that he did this ignorantly and without any intention to deceive, it is not reckoned sin to him, but error. Grave and tremendously damaging error, but not willful sin.

Your remarks concerning pastor Milne appear to be an accusation of some sort of wrongdoing. And if so would warrant corroborating witnesses. Or perhaps following the Matthew 18:15 direction would apply: "Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother." If it was a trespass against the church or a third party, it should be brought before the church, again, seeing it pertains to an elder, with witnesses.

These safeguard commands are put in place by the Lord to protect His servants from false accusations.

If pastor Milne has done something public such as Prof Warfield had then a public reproof might be in order, though one would think speaking to him personally first might be in order.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Hi Steve,

I have not met Dr Milne but have had email correspondance with him. One of my close friends knows him quite well. I worship with the Reformed Churches of New Zealand where he served as a minister for some time.

I used to be on the executive committee for the NZ Christian Apologetics Society. Dr Milne gave an excellent presentation on presuppositional apologetics - one ofthe best pesentations I have sen. He has also made a strong stand against New Zealand's tragic abortion rate, homosexuality, laws banning smacking of children etc. His public stands on these important issues, in my judgment, has been noble.

The problem is that Dr Milne left the Reformed Churches of New Zealand not on the best of terms. He was promoting his views on the King James Bible. The Reformed Churches of New Zealand are a confessional church and permit conservative Bible translations including the KJV. But many in the denomination felt he went beyond the denominations stance on Bible translations and promoted his own agenda. Of course Dr Milne would argue he was sincerely promoting his own views. The problem was they were not consistent with that of the Reformed Churches of New Zealand. My view was he lacked wisdom on how he handled it. It caused trouble in the denomination.

Your remarks concerning pastor Milne appear to be an accusation of some sort of wrongdoing.

I did not say he did wrongdoing but I do believe he placed himself in a situation where he lacked wisdom.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Thanks, Stephen, for that information. I would appreciate hearing it from his point of view as well, which I will try to obtain.

It may well be that he took a stand on what the WCF and its framers actually stated, the alternative to which is the confusion and wrangling we find now in our land and churches, and even in this thread.

In some classes I taught on textual criticism in the church I presently co-pastor, the approach I took—taking great care not to divide the church on this issue—was that all legitimate Bible versions (the JW’s New World Translation is not legit) are the word of God preserved in the main, and what is to be examined as legitimate or not are the variant readings. Thus we are to strive to determine the word of God preserved in the minutiae, not only in the main. In this way the various version are not delegitimized, so that no one loses faith in the Bible they use, and they can change to one based on better variant readings if they see fit.


David, looking over this thread I find that I haven’t said “precisely what my views are vis-à-vis the CT and Byz Text”, and I apologize for that. In this below you can see my views re the Byz, and as regards the CT what is in the present thread does show that.

The Majority Text (aka the Greek Byzantine text) represents the last development in a line of transmission from the apostles to the Greek-speaking churches in the Aegean area, Rome, and Palestine (note: no autographs / apostolic originals were sent to Alexandria, from which the Critical Text arose), and which remained in a mostly pure form in the Greek churches until the Reformation, and the final compiling of the Greek edition from which the King James Bible was translated. A clear and succinct presentation of this early history may be found in Wilbur Pickering’s chapter 5 of his, The Identity of the New Testament Text III.

The Received Text (Textus Receptus) is not at a far remove from the Byzantine / Majority textform – or the “Traditional Text” of Burgon, Hoskier, Miller, Scrivener, which is pretty much the same. I have said this of the situation via-à-vis the MT and the TR,

Be it known that while I fully use what is of value in the Byz/MT labors, which are immense and of precious value, I go beyond what they allow. We of the TR and AV school stand on their shoulders – or to perfect the metaphor, we leap from their shoulders to a high rock, upon which we take our stand.

It is this leap of faith (which is not without evidences) in God’s providence bringing certain readings back into the Biblical text that had been taken out of the Byzantine textform so the Reformation Bible could be made intact, it is in this leap that many Byz folks cannot follow us.​

You can find more concerning my views of the Byz here; and also here.

 

[Dachaser]

Thanks, Stephen, for that information. I would appreciate hearing it from his point of view as well, which I will try to obtain.

It may well be that he took a stand on what the WCF and its framers actually stated, the alternative to which is the confusion and wrangling we find now in our land and churches, and even in this thread.

In some classes I taught on textual criticism in the church I presently co-pastor, the approach I took—taking great care not to divide the church on this issue—was that all legitimate Bible versions (the JW’s New World Translation is not legit) are the word of God preserved in the main, and what is to be examined as legitimate or not are the variant readings. Thus we are to strive to determine the word of God preserved in the minutiae, not only in the main. In this way the various version are not delegitimized, so that no one loses faith in the Bible they use, and they can change to one based on better variant readings if they see fit.


David, looking over this thread I find that I haven’t said “precisely what my views are vis-à-vis the CT and Byz Text”, and I apologize for that. In this below you can see my views re the Byz, and as regards the CT what is in the present thread does show that.

The Majority Text (aka the Greek Byzantine text) represents the last development in a line of transmission from the apostles to the Greek-speaking churches in the Aegean area, Rome, and Palestine (note: no autographs / apostolic originals were sent to Alexandria, from which the Critical Text arose), and which remained in a mostly pure form in the Greek churches until the Reformation, and the final compiling of the Greek edition from which the King James Bible was translated. A clear and succinct presentation of this early history may be found in Wilbur Pickering’s chapter 5 of his, The Identity of the New Testament Text III.

The Received Text (Textus Receptus) is not at a far remove from the Byzantine / Majority textform – or the “Traditional Text” of Burgon, Hoskier, Miller, Scrivener, which is pretty much the same. I have said this of the situation via-à-vis the MT and the TR,

Be it known that while I fully use what is of value in the Byz/MT labors, which are immense and of precious value, I go beyond what they allow. We of the TR and AV school stand on their shoulders – or to perfect the metaphor, we leap from their shoulders to a high rock, upon which we take our stand.

It is this leap of faith (which is not without evidences) in God’s providence bringing certain readings back into the Biblical text that had been taken out of the Byzantine textform so the Reformation Bible could be made intact, it is in this leap that many Byz folks cannot follow us.​

You can find more concerning my views of the Byz here; and also here.

I appreciate this, and am still trying to see just exactly why you seemed to be so concerned about the Critical Greek text as somehow not being the word of God to us, as there is no direct apostolic link on copies for any of the various Greek texts used today, and the so called majority text would seem to be closer to the originals in content than the TR Greek text or the Bzt one is.
just appears to me reading through your various postings here, that you have to have a perfect Greek text or English text my Brother for you to accept them as being valid, but only the originals were that.

 

[Logan]

Steve can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe his view is more akin to accepting by faith, that God providentially purified the text leading up to the KJ version, so that the TR underlying it is in fact close (or identical with) the autographs. This is nearly true for the Geneva Bible as well.

 

[JimmyH]

Steve can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe his view is more akin to accepting by faith, that God providentially purified the text leading up to the KJ version, so that the TR underlying it is in fact close (or identical with) the autographs. This is nearly true for the Geneva Bible as well.

I wouldn't want to put words in Steve's mouth and then quote him either, but what you've stated is my impression of Steve's view as well.
What is a mystery to me regarding those who hold to that view, is why they don't think that God's providence wouldn't have extended to the CT as well ?

 

[Dachaser]

I wouldn't want to put words in Steve's mouth and then quote him either, but what you've stated is my impression of Steve's view as well.
What is a mystery to me regarding those who hold to that view, is why they don't think that God's providence wouldn't have extended to the CT as well ?

that view also seems to have the translators being inspired in the same sense as the Apostles were to create a perfect product, and Jesus just authorized that for the Apostles and the Originals.

 

[JimmyH]

that view also seems to have the translators being inspired in the same sense as the Apostles were to create a perfect product, and Jesus just authorized that for the Apostles and the Originals.

I don't say, or assume, that the translators were inspired then, or are inspired now. Just examining the 1st editions of the AV, with translator's notes in the margins, offering alternatives to various words/verses, demonstrates that the translators of the AV were not inspired.
On the other hand, God said His word liveth and abideth forever, so I take it that stands for the TR, MT, CT, regardless of variables in the texts.

 

[Dachaser]

I don't say, or assume, that the translators were inspired then, or are inspired now. Just examining the 1st editions of the AV, with translator's notes in the margins, offering alternatives to various words/verses, demonstrates that the translators of the AV were not inspired.
On the other hand, God said His word liveth and abideth forever, so I take it that stands for the TR, MT, CT, regardless of variables in the texts.

Based upon that posting, you and I see this issue in pretty much exact same fashion.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

David, the Critical Greek text is not the word of God insofar as its variants are false readings, such as the omission of the last 12 verses of Mark, or the incorrect Asaph and Amos in Matt 1:7, 10 (as the ESV reads from the CT original). It is the word of God insofar as its “variant” readings are true. That’s where the battle is.

Now here is my point: Corruptions / mutilations did enter into the text, even the Byzantine; why should not the God, in whose hand is the heart of kings, to turn them “whithersoever He will” (Prov 21:1), why should He not turn the hearts of those editors of His word to pick the words He wants restored to the text? This is consistent with my method: in the main God preserved the accurate reading of the autographs in the Byzantine tradition; in some minute particulars, where the Byz lost the true reading, but by Him “kept pure in all ages” in some other language manuscripts or traditions, and restored when He deigned to bring His word into the English language and those other language versions the great missionary movements sent forth throughout the world. As He is Lord of the Book, superintending it with His invincible care (“…for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name” Ps 138:2 AV [cf. ESV margin]), this is no big thing for the One who moved an empire to have His Son born in Bethlehem, who knows the names of all the stars in the billions of galaxies (in the known universe), who knows no limits to the care He will bestow on the Bride He has chosen for His Son, providing for her “all things that pertain unto life and godliness”, foremost of which is “every word that proceedeth out of [His] mouth” and by which we must live! (2 Pet 1:3; Matt 4:4)

Mine is a supernatural faith from beginning to end; my salvation is such, and the word by which I have been begotten is such. Why is it thought odd I should see the Book of God in this same light? My faith is not in the scientific scrutiny of men, in their theories of transmission and texts, but in the power and promises of the God of my life, His Book being one of those supernatural wonders. As the repentant emperor confessed, “...he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?” (Dan 4:35) And the apostle says the same, He “worketh all things after the counsel of his own will” (Eph 1:11).

Some might say to me, “But it is not written how He will work all things, especially with regard to His Book.” Agreed. I say those things to show how easily He could have brought readings back to His Book lost through error, accident, or design. In the realm of faith it is as sound a view – at the least – as marshaling evidences. But this does not mean we are bereft of such! Evidences are just not the foundation of our understanding.
_______

God’s providence has extended to the CT, in the main, but not in the minutiae, as seen in Mark 16:9-20’s absence, Asaph and Amos in Matt 1 as if they were in Christ’s genealogy, "their" instead of "her" in Luke 2:22, etc.

Translators are not inspired as were the writers of Scripture, period. Translations partake of the inspiration of the fully preserved original language apographs (copies) only insofar as they faithfully render the Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew, and no further. God has not said that errors “liveth and abideth forever”. They are where the battle over the versions is.

David, I hope this clarifies things for you.