Traditional Text Interaction between Christian McSchaffrey, Brett Mahlen, and James White

[Logan]

A summation of my own contribution to this subject can be found in my lectures at the 2019 Text and Canon Conference. There I set forth the canonical argument for the Received Text. The canonical approach directly answers the "why the TR" question, and why the 16th and 17th centuries...

I listened to the first 20 minutes. It's much like I've stated in this thread multiple times: if one wants to say that this is the providentially preserved text and leave it at that (a faith position) then that's fine, but I complain when the allowable evidence brought in to back up specific texts shifts depending on the specific text. That weakens the position.

And you still have the issue that the Puritans and Reformers did NOT approach the text as canonical in the same way you have. Every time a commentator uses a phrase like "some manuscripts say", that belies a belief in a more broad kind of providential preservation than you've allowed for. So I reject the attempts to fit them (and their confessions) into some narrow, specific view of providential preservation of specific texts that they simply didn't have.

 

[greenbaggins]

I haven't had a chance to listen to the podcast until this morning. Brett and Christian are dear brothers of mine. Before the latest planting of a new presbytery, we were all in the same presbytery, and Brett still is in the same presbytery as I am. As most who have followed the text-critical debates on the PB should know, my position is not pigeon-holeable as either TR, Majority, or Critical Text. I have been told my position is similar to Harry Sturz, but I have not yet read his book (though I now have it on order). Some things I think should be said in response.

Firstly, I agree with White's critique on the issue of reconstructing. What was Erasmus doing if not reconstructing the text? There is a definitional problem here with the word "reconstruction." It can have the connotation of "rebuilding something almost completely destroyed." Similar and related definitional problems accrue with the word "corruption," which can have the connotation of wicked and intentional perversion of something pure. A better definition of both words would look like this: "reconstructing" a text means comparing manuscripts with each other to discern what the reading is which is most likely to be original. This has an inherently receptive quality to it. Erasmus and modern text critics are, in other words, doing the same thing on this particular point. Whether they start from the same point is a distinct question, of course. But both are reconstructing. The definition of "corruption" should be "a change in the text from the original reading," without prejudicing the question of whether some perverted textual process happened. In other words, when modern text critics use the term, they are not intending (at least from what I've seen) to infer perversion. Rather, they are simply inferring a change from the original in a given instance. That is ALL it means.

This definitional clarity would have been helpful, as Mahlen and McShaffrey (shall I abbreviate them M&M?) claim that the TR position starts from the position of preservation, whereas the critical text position starts from the position of corruption. This is simply not true, at least of Reformed text critics. Reformed text critics start from the position that the original has been kept pure in all ages, and preserved, but also that all current manuscripts have some changes from the original. The original reading is in the apographs. The question is which apographs should be considered as contributing to the question. On this, I firmly hold that ALL manuscripts need to be taken into account and that, yes, certain manuscripts should be weighted more highly than others. I don't weight the Alexandrian text quite as highly as the typical CT guy does, and I weight the Byzantine tradition MUCH higher than the CT position does, but I still hold that ALL the manuscripts, most definitely including the ones discovered since the Reformation, need to be consulted and included. The M&M position implies that text criticism should stop at Scrivener's text.

The all-important question here is the nature of God's providence in preserving the text. Here I utterly differ from the TR position, which typically holds that only the texts that have been in use in the church can be said to factor into God's preservation of the true reading in the church. This is contrary to Scripture, actually. God's preservation and providence quite often involves things being hidden. Esther is a prime example of God's hidden providence. God Himself is hidden in Esther, as His name never once occurs, and yet His providence is directing all things. God's providence in manuscript preservation extends both to the ones used in the church and to the ones hidden so that they would not be destroyed, and could be used later on for greater clarity and correction. To deny God's hidden providence in the case of the hidden and unused manuscripts would actually be an impoverishing of the phrase "kept pure in all ages." It would be as much as to say that God's providence can only apply to what we can see in the text-critical world, and not to what God hides.

M&M also brought up the 3,000 differences between Vaticanus and Sinaiticus in the gospels, with the implication that such differences do not exist in such numbers in the TR tradition. This is highly misleading. There are hundreds of differences between any two manuscripts of the New Testament. Just because there are differences hardly means that the lion's share of them are even significant. Have M&M looked at any two manuscripts that form the basis of the TR and compared them to each other? If one is going to argue that the number 3,000 is significant, then one must have a base line with which to compare those differences. There is no base line in their argument for that number. The vast majority of differences are spelling differences and word order differences (which, as any student of Greek would know, usually amount to quite a bit less than a hill of beans). It is very easy to exaggerate the difference between TR and CT by citing such statistics. I haven't done the comparison, but I would be quite surprised if all the differences between TR and CT put together amount to more differences than there are between any two Homeric texts, and Homer is the next best attested ancient Greek text we have.

 

[Robert Truelove]

I listened to the first 20 minutes. It's much like I've stated in this thread multiple times: if one wants to say that this is the providentially preserved text and leave it at that (a faith position) then that's fine, but I complain when the allowable evidence brought in to back up specific texts shifts depending on the specific text. That weakens the position.

And you still have the issue that the Puritans and Reformers did NOT approach the text as canonical in the same way you have. Every time a commentator uses a phrase like "some manuscripts say", that belies a belief in a more broad kind of providential preservation than you've allowed for. So I reject the attempts to fit them (and their confessions) into some narrow, specific view of providential preservation of specific texts that they simply didn't have.

I think it would be helpful to offered your criticism AFTER you have listened fully to both lectures.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I haven't been up on this debate in years. It has always seemed to be a pick and choose your providence or evidence discussion which both sides actually hang on to. They just vary in degrees and evidences. I landed on the Majority / TR side mostly based upon evidences I saw in texts being quoted and used outside of scripture by date and by the references being used and context. I am way past going into notes and remembering things taught to me. My memory just doesn't hold on to things taught to me thirty years ago. At this stage in life I am lucky to remember what I did 5 minutes ago. Really. Ole J. P. taught me stuff from Burgon as he published him. I haven't seen much of his work being discussed in recent years . Has he been poo pooed and pushed aside as someone who is not relevant in the discussion any longer?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Oh yeah and I am not sure I have heard anything concerning the history of the critical text and how it was put together either. Not sure it has a healthy group of manuscripts to have as a root if they came from Arien influenced Bishops who may have had their hand in transcription.

Just a thought.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Firstly, I agree with White's critique on the issue of reconstructing. What was Erasmus doing if not reconstructing the text? There is a definitional problem here with the word "reconstruction." It can have the connotation of "rebuilding something almost completely destroyed." Similar and related definitional problems accrue with the word "corruption," which can have the connotation of wicked and intentional perversion of something pure. A better definition of both words would look like this: "reconstructing" a text means comparing manuscripts with each other to discern what the reading is which is most likely to be original. This has an inherently receptive quality to it. Erasmus and modern text critics are, in other words, doing the same thing on this particular point. Whether they start from the same point is a distinct question, of course. But both are reconstructing.

Lane, I have battled with this subject for some years. I grew up in a KJV only environment. I think all sides would agree there has been some reconstructing of the text. It seems to me the debate that Confessional text Christians make is that there has been a shift in textual criticism post Enlightenment. That is, during the Reformation Christians saw the text as supernaturally given. Today, it is argued that the text has to be studied naturalistically. This is the concern of Reformed scholars such as Edward Hills, and Confessional text adherents stand on his shoulders.

I am not sure what difference this debate (supernatural vs naturalistic) makes to the actual mechanics of textual criticism itself. But it needs to be said that a lot of textual apparatus has been formulated by men who are theologically liberal.

 

[Logan]

I think it would be helpful to offered your criticism AFTER you have listened fully to both lectures.

Respectfully, I've watched/listened to much of your material in the past. I've even interacted with you. I've watched Riddle. I've read Burgon, Hill, and Letis. Numerous articles on Confessional Bibliology and TBS, and participated in countless discussions on this board (Steve can attest to that!). So I feel like it would be hard to say that I'm uninformed

 

[Stephen L Smith]

I am not sure what difference this debate (supernatural vs naturalistic) makes to the actual mechanics of textual criticism itself.

Just to clarify a point I made earlier, even the KJV translators discussed textual variants. Eg, see KJV translator notes for Luke 10:22, 17:36 and Acts 25:6. Thus we cannot say modern scholars 'doubt' the text when KJV translators freely discussed variants. My underlying concern is that we acknowledge that the text has been supernaturally given to us (2 Tim 3:16). Perhaps the difficulty is how this truth applies in practice.

 

[greenbaggins]

Lane, I have battled with this subject for some years. I grew up in a KJV only environment. I think all sides would agree there has been some reconstructing of the text. It seems to me the debate that Confessional text Christians make is that there has been a shift in textual criticism post Enlightenment. That is, during the Reformation Christians saw the text as supernaturally given. Today, it is argued that the text has to be studied naturalistically. This is the concern of Reformed scholars such as Edward Hills, and Confessional text adherents stand on his shoulders.

I am not sure what difference this debate (supernatural vs naturalistic) makes to the actual mechanics of textual criticism itself. But it needs to be said that a lot of textual apparatus has been formulated by men who are theologically liberal.

There are supernatural and natural elements in how God's Word has come to us. It is supernaturally inspired, and (providentially) naturally preserved.

There certainly have been liberal men involved in textual criticism. However, that does not make any individual conclusion of theirs incorrect. We have to sift through their work like we would any theologian, and eat the meat and spit out the bones. Erasmus was hardly orthodox either. He stayed in the Roman Catholic Church, had a very high view of natural fallen man's will (Luther lambasted him for it), and disliked most aspects about the Reformation (especially justification by faith alone) except getting rid of graft in the RCC. Does that make his conclusions incorrect? I always find it ironic that some TR advocates blast the Vaticanus text because of its Roman Catholic pedigree, and fail to notice the TR's own Roman Catholic pedigree (not that you are doing this, Stephen). My own position is that one's theological position on liberalism or Catholicism can be relevant to conclusions drawn, and we always need to be aware of that possibility, but that it hardly makes skewing the data inevitable on their part

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I agree with Lane on his bent but the historical debate concerning roots and groups goes long before that even as I tried to note above.

 

[Robert Truelove]

Respectfully, I've watched/listened to much of your material in the past. I've even interacted with you. I've watched Riddle. I've read Burgon, Hill, and Letis. Numerous articles on Confessional Bibliology and TBS, and participated in countless discussions on this board (Steve can attest to that!). So I feel like it would be hard to say that I'm uninformed

So what's your take on things like the antilegomena in relation to canonicity and the 16th century?

 

[Robert Truelove]

Pastor Truelove, remind me, did you switch to a TR position from a Byzantine priority (Robinson-Pierpont) position? Including the CJ?

Yes, several years ago now. For me, the issue is a matter of the canon and must be settled foremost from a canonical praxis. I argue that it is no more a question answered from an and empirical praxis any more than is the authenticity the antilegomena and the other canonical books.

My position is not a rehash of the same TR arguments. My contribution to the subject is in the canonical nature of the text and demonstrates the Reformation as the watershed moment in history for all things canon (both the books and the text). It also demonstrates how it is a matter of "special providence", not "general providence"...these are actually confessional distinctives almost overlooked these days when we bring up the subject of providence.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

I stopped listening JW a couple years ago when I realized I was leaving each episode or video clip more angry than I was before. And that was with stuff I was in agreement about (like the woke stuff as of a couple years ago)!

More precisely you said I haven't listened to JW in a long while. I found it was bad for my blood pressure!

Ha! Bingo! Add it to the long list of things not conducive for healthy living

I should have thought of this solution sooner. Get Jae Kim to get you this hoodie

KEEP CALM NEW ZEALAND GUY

Keep Calm New Zealand Guy T-Shirt , Cozy heavy blend hoodie with a brushed interior. Features a double-lined hood, pouch pocket, 1x1 rib with spandex for stretch, seamless body, and eco-friendly tear-away label - Keep Calm And Let The New Zealand Guy Handle It

teespring.com

 

[J.L. Allen]

I should have thought of this solution sooner. Get Jae Kim to get you this hoodie

KEEP CALM NEW ZEALAND GUY

Keep Calm New Zealand Guy T-Shirt , Cozy heavy blend hoodie with a brushed interior. Features a double-lined hood, pouch pocket, 1x1 rib with spandex for stretch, seamless body, and eco-friendly tear-away label - Keep Calm And Let The New Zealand Guy Handle It

teespring.com

Ha! He always has things under control.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Ha! He always has things under control.

Back to the subject I will be interested to hear if you discuss textual criticism with Jae.

 

[J.L. Allen]

Back to the subject I will be interested to hear if you discuss textual criticism with Jae.

We haven't really discussed it much. A lot of the guys don't really think much about the topic. Some feel strongly one way or the other. It might be upwards to 1/3 of the students hold to TR/MT priority. We, of course, all know how to engage in the CT approach for the sake of papers and the like.