usernamecrtamil
Puritan Board Freshman
I've noticed an increased referencing of volume 2 of Muller's PRRD as an appeal and support of TR-Onlyism as the historical position of the Reformers. While that statement on it's face is obviously true based upon when the Reformer's were alive in the context of available Bible translations and manuscripts etc., the appeal and reference is more of an attempt to demonstrate that the Reformed Orthodox and even Reformers were overtly against Textual-Criticism either in their day or (anachronistically?) as it is practiced and utilized today.
My contention is that Muller himself seems to kick back (rather obviously) against this idea and notion, and it seems that TR proponents are reading portions of Muller's historical treatment in a vaccuum. For example, Muller writes:
"It needs to be noted here that the so called Textus Receptus, was merely a part of the sixteenth and seventeenth century process of establishing a normative or definitive text of the New Testament. The phrase "Textus Receptus" or "received text" comes from the Elzevir New Testament of 1633 --and as the context of the phrase itself and the use of the Greek New Testament in the seventeenth century both testify, there was no claim, in the era of orthodoxy, of a sacrosanct (meaning regarded as too important or valuable to be interfered with) text in this particular edition. Nor did it, in the era of orthodoxy, provide some sort of terminus ad quem (meaning the point at which something ends or finishes) for the editing of the text of the Bible: the statement that this was the "text now received by all" simply meant that it was the text by Stephanus and Beza and slightly reedited by the Elzevirs, that was then regarded by (by Protestants!) as the best available text of the Bible..."
Again he says:
"It would be a major error of historical interpretation, however, to place the work of text-criticism on one side of an intellectual and theological divide and the Reformed or their orthodox successors on the other. Not only was the era of orthodoxy a time of the flowering of textual criticism, it was also an era in which the critical establishment of the test of the Bible on the basis of collation and comparison of manuscripts and codices was understood as fundamental to the task of the orthodox exegete and theologian."
I've heard varying responses to this and in general ranging from, the Reformed Orthodox were dogmatically of the opinion that since the Autographs could not be proven by any extant manuscripts, Textual-Criticism was essentially foolish (which seems to be a rather self defeating argument and contra Muller's treatment) to defining what the Reformed Orthdox did (with regard to collating) as "Not doing text criticism, but having a method of collation that was simply an application of sola scriptura, under the assumption that scripture was principium cognoscendi and therefore self-evidencing and indemonstrable (thus incapable of being proven)." And setting that definition over and against "Textual Criticism", something I've never seen or heard any NT Text Criticism Scholar or Historian do.
Any thoughts anyone cares to share (on either side of the spectrum) are welcomed.
Soli Deo Gloria
My contention is that Muller himself seems to kick back (rather obviously) against this idea and notion, and it seems that TR proponents are reading portions of Muller's historical treatment in a vaccuum. For example, Muller writes:
"It needs to be noted here that the so called Textus Receptus, was merely a part of the sixteenth and seventeenth century process of establishing a normative or definitive text of the New Testament. The phrase "Textus Receptus" or "received text" comes from the Elzevir New Testament of 1633 --and as the context of the phrase itself and the use of the Greek New Testament in the seventeenth century both testify, there was no claim, in the era of orthodoxy, of a sacrosanct (meaning regarded as too important or valuable to be interfered with) text in this particular edition. Nor did it, in the era of orthodoxy, provide some sort of terminus ad quem (meaning the point at which something ends or finishes) for the editing of the text of the Bible: the statement that this was the "text now received by all" simply meant that it was the text by Stephanus and Beza and slightly reedited by the Elzevirs, that was then regarded by (by Protestants!) as the best available text of the Bible..."
Again he says:
"It would be a major error of historical interpretation, however, to place the work of text-criticism on one side of an intellectual and theological divide and the Reformed or their orthodox successors on the other. Not only was the era of orthodoxy a time of the flowering of textual criticism, it was also an era in which the critical establishment of the test of the Bible on the basis of collation and comparison of manuscripts and codices was understood as fundamental to the task of the orthodox exegete and theologian."
I've heard varying responses to this and in general ranging from, the Reformed Orthodox were dogmatically of the opinion that since the Autographs could not be proven by any extant manuscripts, Textual-Criticism was essentially foolish (which seems to be a rather self defeating argument and contra Muller's treatment) to defining what the Reformed Orthdox did (with regard to collating) as "Not doing text criticism, but having a method of collation that was simply an application of sola scriptura, under the assumption that scripture was principium cognoscendi and therefore self-evidencing and indemonstrable (thus incapable of being proven)." And setting that definition over and against "Textual Criticism", something I've never seen or heard any NT Text Criticism Scholar or Historian do.
Any thoughts anyone cares to share (on either side of the spectrum) are welcomed.
Soli Deo Gloria
Last edited: