Verses that prove providential preservation of TR tradition?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Excellent summary here on this important topic, and would just add that when those against the CT claim that it is subtracting from the text, but that is based upon their assumption that the TR is the exact copy of the originals to us.
We do not even have today settled as to what would be the true and real TR text, as Erasmus used 6 of them, and the one most seen today as being that is the 1894 Scriveners, but there is some doubt as to its full validity .
We do not need any Greek text to be 100 % exact copy to the Originals themselves to be seen as the word of the Lord to us, and the TR/MT/CT all can be seen as being that to us in the Koine Greek for today.
 
Excellent summary here on this important topic, and would just add that when those against the CT claim that it is subtracting from the text, but that is based upon their assumption that the TR is the exact copy of the originals to us.
We do not even have today settled as to what would be the true and real TR text, as Erasmus used 6 of them, and the one most seen today as being that is the 1894 Scriveners, but there is some doubt as to its full validity .
We do not need any Greek text to be 100 % exact copy to the Originals themselves to be seen as the word of the Lord to us, and the TR/MT/CT all can be seen as being that to us in the Koine Greek for today.

David, I mean this respectfully, but this makes almost no sense. I don't see any TR proponents (here at least) holding to these positions.
 
David, I mean this respectfully, but this makes almost no sense. I don't see any TR proponents (here at least) holding to these positions.
Those holding to TR will many times claim that the CT and thus the modern translations made form it are omitting, deleting out large parts of the true word of God, but that is due to them assuming that the TR amount of words is actually better reflecting the originals to us.
Back to the OP, there is no scripture that I am aware of that supports any Greek text to be THE preserved one unto us for today to use and study.
 
@Logan and @greenbaggins,

Thank you for your replies. You've given me a lot to think about on issues where my thinking is still not clear. I will be working on these issues, and I might eventually start a new thread.
 
In the midst of various duties I have carefully followed this thread. It seems to me Jacob’s OP question was rhetorical, to the end of drawing out an answer that could be shot down, as Andrew (Romans922) appreciated in his post 22.

About the “genetic fallacy”: Westcott and Hort (W&H) and their text critical enterprise was not merely a neutral historical event, but a deliberate, reasoned attack on the Received Text / common Bible of the day, as documented by their own writings recorded in the memoirs of their sons. The seed of their work—their stated intentions and views and hoped-for results—when brought to bloom, completely overturn any sort of “genetic fallacy” accusation. They worked with a specific agenda in mind. To look at their work—the Critical Text they produced—apart from their agenda, is naïve. They gloried in their defense of the Unitarian Pastor, Dr. Vance Smith, being on the translation committee, who in turn gloried in their striking down the common reading of 1 Timothy 3:16 in the Greek, theos / God, and in the English translation.

So with whatever esteem the CT is held in today—and Lane makes a good case for his position—it will not do to gloss over its beginnings with W&H.

I was interested in Lane’s view of CT-enamored folks in the Reformed camp, and he certainly expresses his—and many others’—position well, and convincingly. They hold what they believe in good conscience and rigorous scholarship (although “rigor”, in my view, does not always mean sound—but this is of course a moot point).

I also appreciated Logan’s continuing dogged examination of authors pertinent to the textual issue. This is such a wide-ranging and multifaceted discussion that for me to participate in it would require more time than I am willing to give, considering my duties.

In the end, I think Pastor Andrew Barnes’ view is that which is in accord with the WCF’s framers, though it be in the minority today. And Lane does well establish that the CTers among the Reformed do not lack godliness and are not to be looked down upon by their TR brethren, and vice versa.

This is one of the more civil extended TR-CT discussions on this board. And those convinced of their views appear to me to be like the Borg of Star Trek fame, who assimilate their opponents’ weaponry and come back stronger into the fray (this includes me), for we do grow from such interactions.

As a pastor (now retired) it has been incumbent upon me to preserve the unity of the church, and not divide it over the textual issues. I make it very clear in my teaching on textual matters that it is the variants I question and not the Bibles in the main. We should honor the word of God in all our Bibles, and keep this an academic and irenic discussion among good friends and brethren—for the Lord’s enemies are encircling us, and we need to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, for He is our strength, and the light of our lives.
 
Steve, thanks for your post. It is very encouraging. I agree that the thread has been profitable.

I do want to address the WH issue one more time. Even if WH had problems with their theology, that wouldn't make their textual decisions wrong. Besides, modern textual criticism has considerably nuanced and eclipsed WH's positions. For instance, CT advocates don't dismiss Byzantine readings nearly as thoroughly as WH did. And they don't weight Sinaiticus and Vaticanus quite as high as WH did either.

Furthermore, there is a growing recognition that "family" relationships have to be considerably more nuanced than they used to be. It used to be the case that if a family relationship was shown to exist, then all the mss in the "family" only counted as one manuscript. Now that is considerably more nuanced, since "daughter" mss can be corrected against mss from a completely different tradition. So, the genealogical method is much more chastened now than it used to be, and I think that it all to the good. As I look at the genealogical method, it needs to be a question of relative weighting, not absolute.

It is somewhat ironic in this discussion that reading Burgon's Revision Revised, while making me abhor his WAY over the top rhetoric on many issues, did convince me of his opinion on 1 Tim 3:16, of which his defense of the "theos" reading is quite masterful.
 
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.

Hello Grant,

The Lord preserves his word through the medium of his church. (Rom. 3:2, 1st Tim. 3:15)

Thank you. I appreciate your input too but presuppositions based on first principles do not allow me to apply my logic concerning the CT.

God has promised to preserve his word according to his providence as revealed in his word.

I am thankful for Pastor Rafalsky's wise and encouraging post.

Grace and peace.
 
Last edited:
Secondly, that's not what that verse means.

Hello Jacob,

The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law) from WCF 25.2

Unto this catholic visible Church Christ has given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God (from WCF 25.3)

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

Human judgment has various valid uses and should not be discounted but is not primary but secondary. Human judgment can be used but subservient to the faith. (Col 2:8)

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

Sorry, I didn't see a question. I was just stating the doctrine.

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

This is our fundamental difference.

I am thankful for Pastor Rafalsky's wise and encouraging post.

Grace and peace.
 
Steve, thanks for your post. It is very encouraging. I agree that the thread has been profitable.

I do want to address the WH issue one more time. Even if WH had problems with their theology, that wouldn't make their textual decisions wrong. Besides, modern textual criticism has considerably nuanced and eclipsed WH's positions. For instance, CT advocates don't dismiss Byzantine readings nearly as thoroughly as WH did. And they don't weight Sinaiticus and Vaticanus quite as high as WH did either.

Furthermore, there is a growing recognition that "family" relationships have to be considerably more nuanced than they used to be. It used to be the case that if a family relationship was shown to exist, then all the mss in the "family" only counted as one manuscript. Now that is considerably more nuanced, since "daughter" mss can be corrected against mss from a completely different tradition. So, the genealogical method is much more chastened now than it used to be, and I think that it all to the good. As I look at the genealogical method, it needs to be a question of relative weighting, not absolute.

It is somewhat ironic in this discussion that reading Burgon's Revision Revised, while making me abhor his WAY over the top rhetoric on many issues, did convince me of his opinion on 1 Tim 3:16, of which his defense of the "theos" reading is quite masterful.
Even Dean Burgon saw the obvious need to have the TR revised in his day, and the KJV that it was based upon also though.
 
Hello Jacob,

Are you able to show early, pre-2nd-century Greek mss having the rest of the New Testament?

Maybe start a new thread concerning the validity of the Johannine comma?

Thank you.
Here are search results on PB for Johannine. Plenty to read for those with the time and the inclination. There have been a few threads on the subject in the past ... :tumbleweed:
 
Are you able to show early, pre-2nd-century Greek mss having the rest of the New Testament?

are you asking if there is a pre second century complete Greek NT ms? Of course there isn't. That's not how the canonization process worked. We have specific copies of mss as early as 150 AD. Authors of Scripture wrote individual gospels or a specific letter in response to a specific location. Those deteriorated over time (because the parchment didn't have the property of immutability). Therefore, copies were made. Copies of copies. We have access to those. That's how the text works.

And to say that "one jot or tittle" means that God won't let his church be without his word is extremely problematic. The Syriac translations (very early) didn't have the book of Revelation, yet the Syrians were the most energetic preservers of Scripture.
 
Last edited:
And to say that "one jot or tittle" means that God won't let his church be without his word is extremely problematic.

Not to mention the fact that, exegetically speaking, Jesus in Matthew 5:17 ff. isn’t speaking of textual transmission, but of the abiding nature of the content of the law-word. I think that to apply this passage to textual transmission issues is dubious, at very best.
 
Not to mention the fact that, exegetically speaking, Jesus in Matthew 5:17 ff. isn’t speaking of textual transmission, but of the abiding nature of the content of the law-word. I think that to apply this passage to textual transmission issues is dubious, at very best.

That verse is cited in WCF 1.8.
 
Hi Jacob, from the below info from Jeff Riddle, it is clear there are no early MSS that have the text of 1 John 5:7-8, so to ask for them is pointless.

Jeff Riddle on his blog (http://www.jeffriddle.net/2017/08/wm-79-topics-on-text-and-translation.html) posts this:

First, I’d point readers to my blog post on the CJ and the Papyri. In that post, I point out that there is, in fact, very little early evidence (papyri evidence) for the general epistles and for 1 John. There are only two papyri with fragments of 1 John (p9 from the third century and p74 from the seventh century, and neither of these include the text of 1 John 5:7-8). What can be said is that the CJ is not the uncials Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, but these are clearly texts that do not support the traditional text, so this comes as no surprise.

Second, I’d note that it is not exactly accurate to say that the CJ is not supported by any ancient witnesses (even if those witnesses are not Greek mss.). It appears in Priscillian’s Liber Apologeticus (c. 382) and in several early Latin mss of the Bible. So, the CJ is clearly not a late fabrication, even if it does not appear in a Greek mss until the 15th century. Note: At least it does appear in several Greek mss, unlike the conjectural reading at 2 Peter 3:10 in the NA28 which has no Greek mss support at all!​

Vince, the post (137) by JimmyH shows how extensively and intensively the 1 John 5:7 issue has been discussed here. I think you’d enjoy it. I appreciate your thinking. You might like Riddle’s link just above on the CJ and the Papyri.

Even so, this discussion does not seem to be bearing fruit, as the present matter has been thoroughly examined, and no new info is being presented. Many of us are looking for new insights, clearer understanding, or new information. Why rehash old material?
 
Which the divines didn't want to put in there, as they were forced to by Parliament.

It's there, and the Divines put it there.

In any case, Jesus isn't referring to NT textual transmission, but to his own fulfilling of the Law and Prophets.

I'm pointing out that if you think that verse doesn't apply to textual transmission, you are at odds with the Assembly of Divines. Go ahead and disagree with it all you like, just be aware of your own position.
 
I'm pointing out that if you think that verse doesn't apply to textual transmission, you are at odds with the Assembly of Divines. Go ahead and disagree with it all you like, just be aware of your own position.

Given that I am 100% positive that Jesus didn't mean textual transmission of manuscript copies, I am confident in my position. If this puts me at odds with the divines, I am okay with that.
 
The WA did not want to put scripture proofs but that does not mean when it was clear they had to, that they believed the ones they were tasked with providing were somehow bogus.

Sure. I get that. But as Richard Muller pointed out, they also rejected the idea that Scripture could be casually proof-texted like that. Maybe Muller is wrong. I don't put all my eggs in the historical theology basket at the end of the day.
 
Who chose to put the verse there: the Divines or Parliament? Who chose what verse to put there: The Divines or Parliament?

Sure. Parliament made the divines do it. That doesn't faze me in the least. If my position is forced to choose between a scripture proof text the divines used, or what the evidence from the textual history actually says, I go with the latter. This might make me a bad Calvinist. I'm okay with that.
 
Given that I am 100% positive that Jesus didn't mean textual transmission of manuscript copies, I am confident in my position. If this puts me at odds with the divines, I am okay with that.

Sure. I just wanted to be clear, since it seemed you were saying that the Westminster Divines didn't mean that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top