Verses that prove providential preservation of TR tradition?

[Bill The Baptist]

Interestingly enough, I listened to James White presenting a class on the TR and textual criticism a week or two ago on youtube here. I had bought the edition of the TR published by the Trinitarian Bible Society, not knowing that it was the Scrivener translation.
Why would that be a problem ? Well ... according to David Norton, in his The King James Bible, A Short History, From Tyndale To Today, Skivener edited the original edition of the Cambridge Paragraph Bible by making changes he 'thought' were accurate, without the textual evidence to prove it.
Page 180;


In the aforementioned video @ 3:10 James White says that Scrivener used manuscripts by Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and compared them with one another, then back translated 'his' TR from the English translation of the KJV. Apparently Scrivener wanted a TR text that was as close as possible to what the KJV translators had. This was more difficult because they relied so much on Tyndale, further obscuring the original textual sources.

James White says, "This is a Greek text based on an English translation." JW says somewhere in the video, that there is no Greek manuscript in existence that reads exactly as the Scrivener translation.That said, it is a really nicely done edition, as far as the fonts, and the quality of the printed book. Whether Scrivener, as in the Cambridge Paragraph Bible, allowed his presuppositional biases to influence his translation is something I wonder about. At this stage of my struggle to learn koine it isn't an issue, because I'm still a neophyte with a long way to go to have the ability to read it fluently. I only bring it up to disseminate the information.

While I certainly appreciate Dr. White, his assertions regarding textual criticism are often inaccurate.

 

[TylerRay]

Thank you for the clarification Tyler. Here is a bit of info I found on a site devoted to the TR. I found it in a google search, so I don't endorse it since I only discovered it tonight, but below is a little bio of Scrivener's TR ;

That's a fair statement. The thing I run into from time to time is people claiming that Scrivener essentially made up Greek translations of portions of the NT. What he actually did was collate manuscripts/editions of the GNT to produce an edition that reflects the readings that the KJV translators chose. Think of the significance of that, especially at a time when almost everyone was still using the KJV: now, you can go straight from your KJV to your GNT to help with exegesis.

What makes it all the more interesting is that Scrivener himself didn't believe that all the readings in his TR were authentic!

 

[Tom Hart]

I will tell you my position: the Word of God has been kept pure in all ages. Notice that the word "absolutely 100%" does not occur prior to the word "pure" in the WS, nor does it in the phrasing of my opinion.

Consider me an interested bystander. I know too little about these issues to make a case one way or the other, but your definition of pure strikes me as odd.

Imagine a glass of pure water. Then imagine I dropped a tiny drop of ink into it. Once it's been mixed in, you might not even be able to see with your naked eye or taste it on your tongue. But once that ink has been added, can the water truly be called pure?

Normally, of course, we don't put our drinking water under a microscope to find any sort of corruption in it. Most of the time we just drink it without a second thought, since we trust that it is pure enough. But under a microscope that ink will show up.

You are saying that "pure" does not have to mean "one hundred percent pure", or that if one means "one hundred percent pure" then one has to say exactly that. In fact, if you use the word pure to mean "less than 100% pure" then, aware of it or not, you are using it differently to any widely understood sense.

I would also ask how you think the Westminster Divines themselves would answer your understanding of the term. They were not ambiguous elsewhere; further, the context of "pure in all ages" does not seem to lead to your view.

The TR is mostly pure, and the pure doctrine of God comes through it. Its errors of transmission are mostly insignificant in nature. The CT offers a corrective to the TR that can make it even more pure.

Once more, if something is already pure, how can it be made more pure? Your peculiar use of the word pure is causing me some confusion here.

If God has kept his word pure in all ages, how can we by our effort make it more pure?

My argument is not with CT; I simply don't see the views you have expressed as consistent with the WCF.

 

[RamistThomist]

If God has kept his word pure in all ages, how can we by our effort make it more pure?

If the TR isn't attested in the earliest mss, then we are simply assuming that it is in the earliest mss because God kept his word pure. That is asserting the consequent.

 

[Tom Hart]

I am quite prepared to be educated here.

First off, what did the Wesminster Divines mean by "pure in all ages"? Can that view stand today?

 

[RamistThomist]

I am quite prepared to be educated here.

First off, what did the Wesminster Divines mean by "pure in all ages"? Can that view stand today?

As Mr Coldwell said, we don't know. We don't have any minutes on that (that I am aware of).

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I asked this above also. I have found a partial answer to it in a review done in last year's issue of The Confessional Presbyterian. Garnet Milne in his book offers a whole chapter on the question of what is meant by "pure in all ages", for which he marshals sources (I don't have the book but I assume he found the same thing that the Minutes themselves shed no light on the question of what was meant by pure in all ages). But you can see from the below review by a trustworthy scholar, Dr. Ben Shaw (GPTS) that the chapter is not clear. Ben offers his summation of what he thinks Milne means, with which he agrees. Ben also gives me an answer to my other question, that in actuality the differences in the critical text are more significant than the corruptions the Reformers noted in the Latin text in their polemics against Rome in her claims the Latin text was superior because of the many corruptions they saw between the Greek texts of the day. So I have to ask, what would the reformers have thought, and the Romanists, of a critical text that upturned the argument completely in being more 'corrupt' than the vulgate was 'corrupt' compared with the Greek manuscripts the Protestants had up to the time of the Westminster assembly? Again the context of 1.8 is Rome's claim. What impact does that have on the Westminster divines' intent in 1.8. Ben Shaw, "Review: Garnet Howard Milne, Has the Bible Been Kept Pure? The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Providential Preservation of Scripture (Author published, 2017), The Confessional Presbyterian 14 (2018), 226. You can purchase the journal here. Milne's book can be bought in digital version for $2.99 here.

Milne concludes this key chapter with the following statement: “When the Westminster divines wrote that God had kept the Scriptures pure in all ages (WCF 1:8), they specifically stated that these were the original texts that had been immediately inspired by God. This means that the very same text God had dictated to the penmen of Scripture had been kept intact and as a consequence, it was deemed “authentical”, containing their own intrinsic authority, and this text was therefore to be appealed to by the Church “in all controversies of religion’” (149). This again appears to be a problematic statement. It is at best unclear, and certainly confusing.​

I think that what Milne ultimately intends to communicate is the following: first, the Westminster divines believed in the preservation of the biblical text by a special providence of God. Second, this special providence did not extend to the perfection of each manuscript copy. Instead, by a careful collation of the copies available, the pure Scripture was attainable. Third, this Scripture, preserved among many copies, was available to the church in any age, and would continue to be so available, due to the special providence of God.​

If that is indeed what Milne intends, I have to agree with him. However, I found the book less than helpful. There were too many instances, like those cited above, where Milne was unclear, or his language was insufficiently precise. I agree with his assessment of the modern situation, in that it often appears that New Testament text critics have little confidence that the Word they have is the final Word of God. I do not, however, think that Warfield and a few others are those primarily responsible for the present situation. Instead, that responsibility goes to Westcott and Hort, and the many who adopted the Westcott-Hort approach to textual criticism in the late nineteenth century. In some sense, textual criticism in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries has been a long footnote to the work of Westcott and Hort.​

As an interesting aside, I found in the course of researching for this review that the New Testament text held as standard by both the Roman Catholic Church (the Vulgate) and the Eastern Orthodox Church are both much closer to the Textus Receptus than to the modern eclectic text. Both the Vulgate and the Eastern Orthodox Greek text contain the long ending of Mark, the pericope adulterae (John 7:53-8:11) and 1 John 5:7, the so-called Johannine Comma.​

I am quite prepared to be educated here.

First off, what did the Wesminster Divines mean by "pure in all ages"? Can that view stand today?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

As Mr Coldwell said, we don't know. We don't have any minutes on that (that I am aware of).

James Ussher's Body of Divinity provides us with some help (note that I say some help; it does not answer every question):

How can the certain understanding of the Scriptures be taken out of the Original Tongues; considering the difference of Reading, which is in divers Copies both of Hebrew and Greek; as also the difficulty of some Words and Phrases upon which the best Translators cannot agree?

Although in the Hebrew Copies there hath been observed by the Masorites some very few differences of Words, by similitude of Letters and Points; and by the Learned in the Greek Tongue there are like diversities of Reading noted in the Greek Text of the New Testament, which came by fault of the Writers: yet in most by circumstance of the place and conference of other places, the true reading may be discerned. And albeit in all it cannot, nor the Translator in all places determine the true interpretation; yet this diversity or difficulty can make no difference or uncertainty in the sum and substance of Christian Religion; because the Ten Commandments, and the principal Texts of Scripture on which the Articles of our Faith are grounded, the Sacraments instituted, the Form of Prayer taught, (which contain the sum and substance of Christian Religion) are without such diversity of Reading, or difficulty of Translating so plainly set down, and so precisely translated by consent of Learned Men in the Tongues, that no Man can make any doubt of them, or pick any quarrel against them.

James Ussher, A Body of Divinity: or, the Sum and Substance of Christian Religion, ed. Michael Nevarr (1648; Herndon VA: Solid Ground Christian Books, 2007), p. 20.

 

[Logan]

I am quite prepared to be educated here.

First off, what did the Wesminster Divines mean by "pure in all ages"? Can that view stand today?

By "pure", the Westminster Divines almost certainly do not mean what many proponents of the TR imply. In addition to Ussher's quite above (which is critical), Warfield compiled a list of writers from the period (including Westminster Divines) who said much the same thing (which I can type up if interested). The essentials were uncorrupted, the true reading can in most cases be discerned, the truth is to be found in all and not any one, etc.

I'm going to post some extensive quotes. I strongly urge anyone interested in the question of "pure" and what the Reformers and Divines would have meant, to read these, particularly as Turretin responds to the Roman Catholic claim of corruption. I can look up the page numbers later (Turretin was Vol 1 around pg 110) but I got these from my copies of Warfield's works and Turretin's Theology.

No doubt the authors of the Confession were far from being critics of the nineteenth century: they did not foresee the course of criticism nor anticipate the amount of labor which would be required for the reconstruction of the text of, say, the New Testament. Men like Lightfoot are found defending the readings of the common text against men like Beza; as there were some of them, like Lightfoot, who were engaged in the most advanced work which up to that time had been done on the Biblical text, Walton's "Polyglott," so others of them may have stood with John Owen, a few years later, in his strictures on that great work; and had their lot been cast in our day it is possible that many of them might have been of the school of Scrivener and Burgon, rather than that of Westcott and Hort. But whether they were good critics or bad is not the point. It admits of no denial that they explicitly recognized the fact that the text of the Scriptures had suffered corruption in process of transmission and affirmed that the "pure" text lies therefore not in one copy, but in all, and is to be attained not by simply reading the text in whatever copy may chance to fall into our hands, but by a process of comparison, i.e. by criticism. The affirmation of the Confession includes the two facts, therefore, first that the Scriptures in the originals were immediately inspired by God; and secondly that this inspired text has not been lost to the Church, but through God's good providence has been kept pure, amidst all the crowding errors of scribes and printers, and that therefore the Church still has the inspired Word of God in the originals, and is to appeal to it, and to it alone, as the final authority in all controversies of religion.

The question does not concern the irregular writing of words or the punctuation or the various readings (which all acknowledge do often occur); or whether the copies which we have so agree with the originals as to vary from them not even in a little point or letter. Rather the question is whether they so differ as to make the genuine corrupt and to hinder us from receiving the original text as a rule of faith and practice.
The question is not as to the particular corruption of some manuscripts or as to the errors which have crept into the books of particular editions through the negligence of copyists or printers. All acknowledge the existence of many such small corruptions. The question is whether there are universal corruptions and errors so diffused through all the copies (both manuscript and edited) as that they cannot be restored and corrected by any collation of various copies, or of Scripture itself and of parallel passages. Are there real and true, and not merely apparent, contradictions? We deny the former.

The reasons are: (1) The Scriptures are inspired of God (theopneustos, 2 Tim 3:16). The word of God cannot lie (Ps 19:8-9; Heb 6:18); cannot pass away and be destroyed (Mat 5:18); shall endure forever (1 Pet 1:25); and is truth itself (John 17:17). For how could such things be predicated of it, if it contained dangerous contradictions, and if God suffered either the sacred writers to err and to slip in memory, or incurable blemishes to creep into it?

(2) Unless unimpaired integrity characterize the Scriptures, they could not be regarded as the sole rule of faith and practice, and the door would be thrown wide open to atheists, libertines, enthusiasts and other profane persons like them for destroying its authenticity and overthrowing the foundation of salvation. For since nothing false can be an object of faith, how can the Scriptures be held as authentic and reckoned divine if liable to contradictions and corruptions? Nor can it be said that these corruptions are only in smaller things which do not affect the foundation of faith. For if once the authenticity of the Scriptures is taken away (which would result even from the incurable corruption of one passage), how could our faith rest on what remains? And if corruption is admitted in those of lesser importance, why not in others of greater? Who could assure me that no error or blemish had crept into fundamental passages? Or what reply could be given to a subtle atheist or heretic who should pertinaciously assert that this or that passage less in his favor had been corrupted? It will not do to say that divine providence wished to keep it free from serious corruptions, but not from minor. For besides the fact that this is gratuitous, it cannot be held without injury, as if lacking in the necessary things which are required for the full credibility of Scripture itself. Nor can we readily believe that God, who dictated and inspired each and every word to these inspired men, would not take care of their entire preservation. If men use the utmost care diligently to preserve their words, especially if they are of any importance, as for example a testament or contract, in order that it may not be corrupted, how much more, must we suppose, would God take care of his word which he intended as a testament and seal of his covenant with us, so that it might not be corrupted; especially when he could easily forsee and prevent such corruptions in order to establish the faith of his church?

The principal arguments for the integrity of the Scriptures and the purity of the sources are four. (1) The chief of these is the providence of God, who as he wished to provide for our faith by inspiring the sacred writers as to what they should write, and by preserving the Scriptures against the attempts of enemies who have left nothing untried that they might destroy them, so he should keep them pure and uncorrupted in order that our faith might always have a firm foundation. (2) The religion of the Jews who have always been careful even to the point of superstition concerning the faithful keeping of the sacred manuscripts. (3) The diligence of the Masoretes who placed their marks as a hedge around the law that it might not in any way be changed or corrupted. (4) The number and multitude of copies, so that even if some manuscripts could be corrupted, yet all could not.

Although we give to the Scriptures absolute integrity, we do not therefore think that the copyists and printers were inspired, but only that the providence of God watched over the copying of the sacred books, so that although many errors might have crept in, it has not so happened (or they have not so crept into the manuscripts) but that they can be easily corrected by a collation of others (or with the Scriptures themselves). Therefore the foundation of the purity and integrity of the sources is not to be placed in the freedom from fault of men, but in the providence of God which (however men employed in transcribing the sacred books might possibly mingle various errors) always diligently took care to correct them, or that they might be corrected easily either from a comparison with Scripture itself or from more approved manuscripts. It was not necessary therefore to render all the scribes infallible, but only so to direct them that the true reading may always be found out. This book far surpasses all others in purity.

By the original texts, we do not mean the autographs written by the hand of Moses, of the prophets and of the apostles, which certainly do not now exist. We mean their apographs which are so called because they set forth to us the word of God in the very words of those who wrote under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

The question is not, are the sources so pure that no fault has crept into the many sacred manuscripts, either through the waste of time, the carelessness of copyists or the malice of the Jews or of heretics? For this is acknowledged on both sides and the various readings which Beza and Robert Stephanus have carefully observed in the Greek (and the Jews in the Hebrew) clearly prove it. Rather the question is have the original texts (or the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts) been so corrupted either by copyists through carelessness, or by the Jews or heretics through malice, that they can no longer be regarded as the judge of controversies and the rule to which all the versions must be applied? The papists affirm, we deny it.

Although various corruptions might have crept into the Hebrew manuscripts through the carelessness of transcribers and the waste of time, they do not cease to be a canon of faith and practice. For besides being in things of small importance and not pertaining to faith and practice (as Bellarmine himself confesses and which, moreover, he holds do not affect the integrity of the Scriptures), they are not universal in all the manuscripts; or they are not such as cannot easily be corrected from a collation of the Scriptures and the various manuscripts...

A corruption differs from a variant reading. We acknowledge that many variant readings occur both in the Old and New Testaments arising from a comparison of different manuscripts, but we deny corruption (at least corruption that is universal).

I think most CT people, particularly reformed, would not disagree with Turretin here, correct? At least acknowledge that? If the approach is textual emendation, then yeah, sure, there could be a problem, but is that really the case?

 

[Logan]

Linked here is Scrivener's New Testament Greek (which I believe is the TBS TR and the TR many use as standard). Many CT people have their own positions to think more thoroughly through, but it is things like this that make me question the consistency of many of the positions stated by TR folks, things I think they just aren't aware of or have considered the implications of. It might seem a side-trail but I believe the implications are important, which is why I brougt it up earlier.

https://books.google.com/books?id=Ih43AAAAMAAJ

Here is what Scrivener says in the preface:

The publication of an edition formed on this plan appeared to be all the more desirable as the Authorised Version was not a translation of any one Greek text then in existence, and no Greek text intended to reproduce in any way the original of the Authorised Version has ever been printed.

In considering what text had the best right to be regarded as "the text presumed to underlie the Authorised Version," it was necessary to take into account the composite nature of the Authorised Version, as due to successive revisions of Tyndale's translation. Tyndale himself followed the second and third editions of Erasmus's Greek text (1519, 1522). In the revisions of his translation previous to 1611 a partial use was made of other texts; of which ultimately the most influential were the various editions of Beza from 1560 to 1598, if indeed his Latin version of 1556 should not be included...the fifth and last text of 1598 was more likely than any other to be in the hands of King James's revisers, and to be accepted by them as the best standard within their reach. It is moreover found on comparison to agree more closely with the Authorised Version than any other Greek text...There are however many places in which the Authorised Version is at variance with Beza's text; chiefly because it retains language inherited from Tyndale or his successors, which had been founded on the text of other Greek editions. In these cases it is often doubtful how far the revisers of 1611 deliberately preferred a different Greek reading; for their attention was not specially directed to textual variations, and they might not have thought it necessary to weed out every rendering inconsistent with Beza's text, which might linger among the older and unchanged portions of the version. On the other hand some of the readings followed, though discrepant from Beza's text, may have seemed to be in a manner sanctioned by him, as he had spoken favourably of them in his notes; and others may have been adopted on independent grounds. These uncertainties do not however affect the present edition, in which the different elements that actually make up the Greek basis of the Authorised Version have an equal right to find a place. Wherever therefore the Authorised renderings agree with other Greek readings which might naturally be known through printed editions to the revisers of 1611 or their predecessors, Beza's reading has been displaced from the text in favour of the more truly representative reading...It was manifestly necessary to accept only Greek authority, though in some places the Authorised Version corresponds but loosely with any form of the Greek original, while it exactly follows the Latin Vulgate.

The goal of the project, and an admirable one, was to reproduce the Greek underlying the KJV, even where the KJV followed the Latin Vulgate and no known Greek. The result is almost of necessity going to be a franken-text, not representing any textual transmission processes. I have no idea why this is considered acceptable and "pure".

 

[greenbaggins]

Tom, the short answer to your question is that if your definition of "pure" has to be taken with regard to the WS, then we do not have God's Word at all, unless you are willing to claim that the autographs are 100% equal to a manuscript that we currently have. I am not willing to say that, and Stephanus was not willing to say that, since he based his edition on MORE THAN ONE manuscript. Logan brings up the other important answer to your question. The Westminster divines were almost certainly responding to RCC claims that Scripture had been badly corrupted in the manuscripts (hence the essential need for the magisterium). In that historical context, the Westminster divines were responding to the claim that the text was so corrupted that people couldn't read the Scriptures on their own.

Your analogy of a drop of ink doesn't wash, if you'll pardon the pun, because it makes the mistake of the word-concept fallacy. What I mean by that is that word-order differences, different spellings of the same name, removal or addition of particles that often don't affect the basic meaning of the text would not constitute, any of them, corruption of the meaning of the text. The meaning of the text remains intact, and therefore pure. So, when I say that the TR is 98% pure, and relegate by far and away the majority of the remaining 2% of the differences to non-meaning-changing differences, I can still say that God's Word remains pure. By the careful comparison of manuscripts, we can arrive at the original reading in almost all cases.

The problem here is that text-critical scholars often use the term "corruption" to describe something that is only a difference between two manuscripts. Then, when people see the term "corruption," they get really uptight about it, and start imputing intent to corrupt to the poor copiest who was only trying to do his best. It is one reason why I prefer the simpler and less fraught term "difference" to the term "corruption."

One other thing needs to be kept in mind, folks, and that is that saying "omit" and "add" prejudges the particular reading, as if a standard is already assumed, and manuscripts that change anything from the already assumed standard are corrupting the text. If there is a difference, it is more accurate and less prejudicial to say "plus" for additional material in one manuscript and "minus" for less material in the other. That way it is not prejudged whether one manuscript added something or the other took it away. Lack of caution on this point is particular bad in TR advocates, I have noticed. They simply assume that the Alexandrian texts "omitted" something, without considering the possibility that the Byzantine manuscripts "added" something. Each reading must be considered on its own, since each reading has a completely different set of manuscript witnesses to it.

 

[Johann Amadeus Schubert]

The God I read of in scripture often gives and takes away as he sees fit NOT as it makes sense to us. I am not trying to totally imply that with the preservation of his word, as I believe he has preserved it in all ages and in more manuscripts than the TR is based on. I am not willing to say God did not have a GOOD plan with the CT just because I cannot understand all the ways our Lord works. Even if we had 0 bibles left in the world, the Lord would still provide for his sheep I assure you.

Hello Grant,

God's word to man is necessary for salvation.

The CT has not been kept pure in all ages as we have newly discovered manuscripts that add or take away from what the church has always known. (I'm not saying the CT isn't sufficient for salvation)

 

[Grant]

The CT has not been kept pure in all ages

I fail to see this since we have them today and they date back for centuries. Just because “humans” did not find and use them does not mean they were not kept pure by our Lord. I see the discovery as a gift and not a curse from God.

If I pull out a bottle of wine from a 400 year old recently found wine cellar ... can I not say that the wine was being kept?

 

[Johann Amadeus Schubert]

That's true only if you equate the fullness of Scripture with the apographa. And historically if we have evidence that some fathers used these fragments, and then they were lost, then that seems like my point.

Hello Jacob,

I do equate the fullness of Scripture with the apographas. The providence of God would not permit one jot or one tittle to pass and his church labored to preserve it (Rom. 3:2). Although variants exist, they are not universal and they can be rectified through a collation of manuscripts.

Depends on the doctrine in question. Trinity? Sure, but because it was able to be defended by guys like Athanasius who did not resort to the Johannine Comma, for example.

God desired this doctrine to be preserved in writing (Luke 16:17).

But God didn't give us fully intact Protestant canons. Men had to do the hard work of recovering manuscripts, some of which were damaged in persecution, and others damaged by time.

Men had to do the hard work of discerning the correct reading from the various manuscripts that were always present with the church.

 

[Johann Amadeus Schubert]

Well, the science of textual criticism has, as its burden, determining the true text of Scripture by comparing and contrasting all of the existing manuscripts (both fragments and entire manuscripts). So, its job is to determine what Scripture says - so it's not a matter of textual criticism being "subservient" to the Bible, since it's determining what the Bible says (while not being involved with its interpretation).

Hello Richard,

Theology triumphs over science. And human reason must be brought in captivity when it exalts itself. Thus textual criticism should examine the manuscripts which the church has always known and preserved throughout the ages (Matt 5:18).

 

[Logan]

Hello Richard,

Theology triumphs over science. And human reason must be brought in captivity when it exalts itself. Thus textual criticism should examine the manuscripts which the church has always known and preserved throughout the ages (Matt 5:18).

Isn't that just pushing the problem back a step? Now we have to determine which manuscripts fit that qualification and we don't have a complete manuscript history so...

 

[Grant]

which the church has always known and preserved throughout the ages (Matt 5:18).

The verses you keep using do NOT specify that the Church is the preserver, but rather the Lord.

Vince, I appreciate your imput, but your unwillingness to apply your logic with the CT manuscripts toward the TR manuscripts as well, sticks out like a soar thumb.

Further God has promised to preserve his word and should not be limited to do that in ways that WE think he should. The Lord uses mysterious ways at timeS to accomplish his promises.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

KJV-only advocates tell me that God providentially preserved the TR manuscript tradition. What verses in the Bible speak about God's preserving a specific textual tradition?

In the hope of focusing the discussion, a re-read of this 2008 thread is recommended:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/wcf-1-8-and-ct.40915/

 

[RamistThomist]

The providence of God would not permit one jot or one tittle to pass and his church labored to preserve it (Rom. 3:2).

Except the earliest fathers seemed to be unaware of the Johannine Comma. Secondly, that's not what that verse means.

Although variants exist, they are not universal and they can be rectified through a collation of manuscripts.

Which would then involve human judgment. This is special pleading.

God desired this doctrine to be preserved in writing (Luke 16:17).

That didn't answer my question, nor is anyone disputing this.

Men had to do the hard work of discerning the correct reading from the various manuscripts that were always present with the church.

Precisely. It is the charge that many of the mss were not present.

 

[RamistThomist]

Thus textual criticism should examine the manuscripts which the church has always known and preserved throughout the ages (Matt 5:18).

Then demonstrate the existence of the Johannine Comma during the time of Ignatius of Antioch, Tatian, and Papias.

 

[Romans922]

Except the earliest fathers seemed to be unaware of the Johannine Comma

Tertullian/Cyprian aren't early enough?

Further, please demonstrate such early church fathers who are aware of 1 John 5:6 or 5:8. It seems to me that those verses are mentioned no more/less than v7...

 

[Dachaser]

I don't get this. Why are we talking about KJV or KJVO in this conversation that has nothing to do with English translations. It really is when you are start attacking whether on the puritanboard or elsewhere, it's just a strawman argument to somehow link those who believe in TR that they are somehow some of those crazy KJVO people. It's ridiculous and needs to stop.

I am not trying to attack anyone here on this issue, was just saying that based upon my encounters with those who are advocating for the validity of the TR being the best Greek text to use, nearly all of them also were in the KJVO position.
Other then those holding to the KJVO, who is advocating for the TR over either the MT/CT for use?

 

[Dachaser]

I prefer "cutting to the chase" rather than "oversimplifying"

Thanks for the response. I have great respect for people like Maurice Robinson and would love to see the TR folks come together and produce a more critical version based off of Burgon's studies, Scrivener's, Robinson's etc., and really the past five centuries of TR use.

Isn't the 1894 Scrivener's Greek text considered by many to actually be the true TR for today?

 

[Dachaser]

Unless it can be demonstrated that these fragments are earlier (e.g., being Used by Irenaeus, Tatian, etc).

And if we judge doctrine by the text, and not the other way around, then it is the text that determines doctrine, not doctrine that determines text.

What I am seeing is the exact same argument that EO use: "If we don't presuppose that God promised to be with his church and keep the doctrine pure, even if we don't have textual evidence for the earliest claims, then what can we possibly believe?"

Since many of the variants and manuscriptures were largely unknown at the time of the translation of the earlier English versions, are we just assuming here that they would have have just rejected all of them if available to them?
Did not both Erasmus and the KJV team themselves use some form of textual criticism?

 

[Dachaser]

Consider me an interested bystander. I know too little about these issues to make a case one way or the other, but your definition of pure strikes me as odd.

Imagine a glass of pure water. Then imagine I dropped a tiny drop of ink into it. Once it's been mixed in, you might not even be able to see with your naked eye or taste it on your tongue. But once that ink has been added, can the water truly be called pure?

Normally, of course, we don't put our drinking water under a microscope to find any sort of corruption in it. Most of the time we just drink it without a second thought, since we trust that it is pure enough. But under a microscope that ink will show up.

You are saying that "pure" does not have to mean "one hundred percent pure", or that if one means "one hundred percent pure" then one has to say exactly that. In fact, if you use the word pure to mean "less than 100% pure" then, aware of it or not, you are using it differently to any widely understood sense.

I would also ask how you think the Westminster Divines themselves would answer your understanding of the term. They were not ambiguous elsewhere; further, the context of "pure in all ages" does not seem to lead to your view.



Once more, if something is already pure, how can it be made more pure? Your peculiar use of the word pure is causing me some confusion here.

If God has kept his word pure in all ages, how can we by our effort make it more pure?

My argument is not with CT; I simply don't see the views you have expressed as consistent with the WCF.

The only pure source were the originals themselves...

 

[RamistThomist]

Tertullian/Cyprian aren't early enough?

Their use is more of an echo/summary than an actual quote. And this passage wasn't really debate in the Nicene debates, which is odd. Passages like Prov 8 got all the attention, not 1 John 5.

 

[Romans922]

Their use is more of an echo/summary than an actual quote. And this passage wasn't really debate in the Nicene debates, which is odd. Passages like Prov 8 got all the attention, not 1 John 5.

So virtually no one talks about v.6 or 8, and it's a problem that v7 isn't mentioned?

 

[Logan]

So virtually no one talks about v.6 or 8, and it's a problem that v7 isn't mentioned?

In the historical context of centuries of trinitarian debates...it's at least mystifying isn't it?

 

[RamistThomist]

So virtually no one talks about v.6 or 8, and it's a problem that v7 isn't mentioned?

I should have been more specific. It isn't quoted by the early Greek fathers. Cyprian does allude to it.

In any case, it's absent from the Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic, etc.

 

[greenbaggins]

Andrew, where do Tertullian and Cyprian show awareness of the Johannine Comma?