The "absolutist" tag could only apply to someone like Ruckman or Riplinger, where divine miracle is required to settle the text. For anyone who holds to a confessional view, ordinary but singular providence is the agency for textual preservation, and there is implicit acceptance of some kind of textual criticism at work in this providence. So to put "absolutist" and "confessional" in the same category is not going to give a true representation of the actual position. It sets up a straw man to be easily knocked down.
Byzantine-Priority Revisited
- Thread starter Boreal
- Start date
I've seen those videos. If I recall the hosts expressed the possibility that others would not regard the term as a fair representation. They were right. The taxonomy is designed to favour their position. Erasmus is classified as not being absolutist, yet it is acknowledge by confessional bibliology that he had an important hand in the development of the TR.
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
Hello, E.R.,
I have not the time to watch this latest video. Here's a question for you: do the Byzantine text proponents you know (excepting Pickering, who now holds to the Family 35 as the perfect text) assert they have a settled NT text, God's word intact? Or it is a provisional text, possibly to be amended as new discoveries come to light (and I know that Prof Robinson is a tireless researcher hunting for MSS the world over).
The LORD said He would give us His word intact (Isaiah 59:21KJV), and when He commanded HIs prophets of old that not a word of His be diminished from His book (Deut 4:2KJV; Jer 26:1KJV; Jer 26:2KJV), would He not conduct Himself even as He required of His men?
The almighty Sovereign does have the power and wisdom to control the minutiae of His providences pertaining to His Scripture, even as He controls the DNA and very molecules of our selves so that we come to be the people He knew before the foundations of the world (Eph 1:4KJV; Eph 1:5KJV).
I have not the time to watch this latest video. Here's a question for you: do the Byzantine text proponents you know (excepting Pickering, who now holds to the Family 35 as the perfect text) assert they have a settled NT text, God's word intact? Or it is a provisional text, possibly to be amended as new discoveries come to light (and I know that Prof Robinson is a tireless researcher hunting for MSS the world over).
The LORD said He would give us His word intact (Isaiah 59:21KJV), and when He commanded HIs prophets of old that not a word of His be diminished from His book (Deut 4:2KJV; Jer 26:1KJV; Jer 26:2KJV), would He not conduct Himself even as He required of His men?
The almighty Sovereign does have the power and wisdom to control the minutiae of His providences pertaining to His Scripture, even as He controls the DNA and very molecules of our selves so that we come to be the people He knew before the foundations of the world (Eph 1:4KJV; Eph 1:5KJV).
Last edited:
Hills and Letis are placed in this group. They denied what is being attributed to them. See the Introduction to Hills' the King James Version Defended by Theodore Letis:
"Finally, it must be stated that Hills did not hold to an uncritical, perfectionist view of the TR as some have assumed (Believing Bible Study 2d. ed., p. 83); nor did he advocate with absolute certainty the genuineness of the Johannine Comma (The King James Version Defended, p. 209). What he did argue for, however, was a “canonical” view of the text (KJV Defended, p. 106), because, in his experience, this was the only way to be assured of “maximum certainty” (KJV Defended, pp. 224-225) versus the results of a purely naturalistic approach to the text of the New Testament.
Theodore P. Letis"
Boreal
Puritan Board Freshman
Okay, that’s fine.
It is a very diverse group, with different emphases and nuance. Not every descriptor fits every person.
But it can’t be denied that a great many turn a blind eye to the textual criticism done to produce the text underlying the KJV, then decry textual criticism today for putting doubt into the minds of Christians and unbelievers alike, because they now can’t have “absolute certainty” about the text of scripture.
That’s a garden variety assertion made all over the place.
I think you will find that, regardless of the preferred text, there will be a major grouping of the Lord's people who are not trained in text critical issues and might say any number of things which are not correct. From the reformed perspective theology is fundamentally practical, not theoretical, and the purpose of the word of God is to feed the sheep. For them there is a need for certainty at the level of exercising faith. WCF 14.2, "By this faith a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God himself speaking therein."
Boreal
Puritan Board Freshman
Brother, you often have a flare for the dramatic! Of course we know God can preserve his word!
The fact of the matter is, your definition of preservation is too narrow, in my opinion. Your view doesn’t have a monopoly on it.
The two sides are at an impasse, and we just need to agree to disagree.
I’m thankful you have a translation (KJV) that you have so much confidence in. Praise the Lord! And I have mine.
And every pastor teaching and preaching from the good CT translations know with certainty that what they have is God’s word as well. Ask them, they are on this board.
——
We have gone a bit afield from comparing and contrasting text types here. If I could ask @Jerusalem Blade and @MW two questions, A) what specifically about the Byzantine Priority position do you take issue with? And,
B) Out of curiosity, why do you think God allowed more manuscripts to be discovered after the completion of the TR’s? (This is pure speculation, but still interesting).
Last edited:
In case this deteriorates into a debate please note that I am offering this post because I was asked the question.
I have to couch my criticisms in an overall commendation. The great bulk of the TR is in the Byzantine (majority) text. I can appreciate the work of all text critics regardless of what text they prefer because 90% of the text is shown to have good historical evidence. But I especially regard those working in the Byzantine text as they have laboured to remove some of the prejudice that has been mounted against the traditional text. However, from a confessional perspective I do not think textual criticism warrants the kind of elevation it receives from empiricism.
In general, it begins with the position that the text needs to be reconstructed, we can only arrive at likely conclusions, and it only brings us down to the 4th century. As such it is as good as any other text-critical method. It shows how little an evidence-based methodology can be relied upon to give us confidence in the Word as a fact of divine revelation, and that we really do not have enough evidence for the attempt at reconstruction.
In particular, "providence" becomes human rather than divine, where perpetuation, transmission, and supposed scribal habits are made controlling factors. The work of the Spirit and the priesthood of believers do not appear to have any significant place (if they do I may have missed it, and I would be happy to be corrected on this). One has to accept the "Byzantine" priority in terms of the genealogical principle and classification of families rather than a simple acknowledgment of guiding providence. And it seems to me the presupposition of special preservation is working in the background with an unwillingness to overtly acknowledge it for fear of being classified as unscholarly.
All in all it puts in a good academic showing, but it fails to provide a "doctrine of the Word" on which to base one's faith.
I have to couch my criticisms in an overall commendation. The great bulk of the TR is in the Byzantine (majority) text. I can appreciate the work of all text critics regardless of what text they prefer because 90% of the text is shown to have good historical evidence. But I especially regard those working in the Byzantine text as they have laboured to remove some of the prejudice that has been mounted against the traditional text. However, from a confessional perspective I do not think textual criticism warrants the kind of elevation it receives from empiricism.
In general, it begins with the position that the text needs to be reconstructed, we can only arrive at likely conclusions, and it only brings us down to the 4th century. As such it is as good as any other text-critical method. It shows how little an evidence-based methodology can be relied upon to give us confidence in the Word as a fact of divine revelation, and that we really do not have enough evidence for the attempt at reconstruction.
In particular, "providence" becomes human rather than divine, where perpetuation, transmission, and supposed scribal habits are made controlling factors. The work of the Spirit and the priesthood of believers do not appear to have any significant place (if they do I may have missed it, and I would be happy to be corrected on this). One has to accept the "Byzantine" priority in terms of the genealogical principle and classification of families rather than a simple acknowledgment of guiding providence. And it seems to me the presupposition of special preservation is working in the background with an unwillingness to overtly acknowledge it for fear of being classified as unscholarly.
All in all it puts in a good academic showing, but it fails to provide a "doctrine of the Word" on which to base one's faith.
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
Hello, E.R.,
You said in your opening remarks (post #6), "I just want the two positions contrasted so as to be able to differentiate."
But when this has been done with some care and effort so you could "make some clear distinctions" as requested, you then begin to argue against what has been given. So you have moved this beyond simply gathering information to debate, under the continuing guise of info-gathering.
You characterize my remarks thus, "Brother, you often have a flare for the dramatic—it sounds good and many people are swayed by that kind of speech"! Whoa! Please, let me make some observations here. This business of whether or not we have "a sure word of God", not merely in the main but in the minutiae, is not – to me, and to many others – just an academic subject, but one of our very lives and faith. Dramatic? Indeed! But please be clear this is not mere theatrics and rhetoric, but the drama of salvation of souls, our strength, our ability to persevere.
"... it sounds good and many people are swayed by that kind of speech" – as though it were but impassioned rhetoric designed / calculated to sway souls. Come on, now, E.R. I would you responded to the content and substance of my statements and not the godly fire of conviction as I stand on the word of God.
At 82 years of age my soul is about all I have left that is not enfeebled. Some 56 years ago the LORD saved me out of great darkness, and it became evident to me I needed to know the status of the Scriptures – the very words of God – were they infallible? And what about the textual variants, what was the story with them? I needed to know if I had a sure Bible I could hold in my hands and heart. I have studied and searched this out long and hard.
My manner of speech is that of a poet, the Lord's poet, "set for the defence of the gospel" (Phil 1:17KJV). This is who I am; I was a poet before I became a pastor and preacher. I speak from the heart.
Please let me restate what I said above: do the Byzantine text proponents you know (excepting Pickering, who now holds to the Family 35 as the perfect text) assert they have a settled NT text, God's word intact? Or it is a provisional text, possibly to be amended as new discoveries come to light (and I know that Prof Robinson is a tireless researcher hunting for MSS the world over).
The LORD said He would give us His word intact (Isa 59:21KJV), and when He commanded His prophets of old that not a word of His be diminished from His book (Deut 4:2KJV; Jer 26:1KJV; Jer 26:2KJV), would He not conduct Himself even as He required of His men?
The almighty Sovereign does have the power and wisdom to control the minutiae of His providences pertaining to His Scripture, even as He controls the DNA and very molecules of our selves so that we come to be the people He knew before the foundations of the world (Eph 1:4KJV; Eph 1:5KJV).
-------
Above, you asked,
We have gone a bit afield from comparing and contrasting text types here. If I could ask @ Jerusalem Blade and @ MW two questions, A) what specifically about the Byzantine Priority position do you take issue with? And,
B) Out of curiosity, why do you think God allowed more manuscripts to be discovered after the completion of the TR’s? (This is pure speculation, but still interesting).
RE A) have I not answered that sufficiently above? In case you missed it, they go by evidences and disregard Scripture and the theological presuppositions derived therefrom. Is not theirs a provisional text?
RE B) As He already provided a providentially preserved text at the time of the Reformation, He knew there would come other manuscript discoveries. If you have read what I have said in this thread you would have picked up the trail of transmission.
I know you asked this of Rev Winzer, but as it is an issue for me I will also respond to it: "If, hypothetically, you had a person in your congregation who just could not read KJV English with any kind of edification or real understanding, would you recommend to them the NKJV?"
I will give them NKJV Bibles – and even CT-based Bibles – so they can comprehend what is being said. For some English is not their first language, and others – from Africa – their English is good but their conceptual capacities need to be developed. The need to understand what God is saying is paramount. At the same time I endeavor to communicate to them the gold standard of the Authorized Version, and to carry themselves about textual matters as they see me do, looking to the AV when the margin notes in their Bibles concern them.
Perhaps Rev MW will answer this differently, as his gifts differ from mine, and he is good at saying complicated things simply and pithily.
And, for those looking in on this discussion, here is one more book I would recommend: Dr. Thomas Holland's, Crowned With Glory : The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version. It is a great classic, simply written, irenic, and covers both the OT and NT.
You said in your opening remarks (post #6), "I just want the two positions contrasted so as to be able to differentiate."
But when this has been done with some care and effort so you could "make some clear distinctions" as requested, you then begin to argue against what has been given. So you have moved this beyond simply gathering information to debate, under the continuing guise of info-gathering.
You characterize my remarks thus, "Brother, you often have a flare for the dramatic—it sounds good and many people are swayed by that kind of speech"! Whoa! Please, let me make some observations here. This business of whether or not we have "a sure word of God", not merely in the main but in the minutiae, is not – to me, and to many others – just an academic subject, but one of our very lives and faith. Dramatic? Indeed! But please be clear this is not mere theatrics and rhetoric, but the drama of salvation of souls, our strength, our ability to persevere.
"... it sounds good and many people are swayed by that kind of speech" – as though it were but impassioned rhetoric designed / calculated to sway souls. Come on, now, E.R. I would you responded to the content and substance of my statements and not the godly fire of conviction as I stand on the word of God.
At 82 years of age my soul is about all I have left that is not enfeebled. Some 56 years ago the LORD saved me out of great darkness, and it became evident to me I needed to know the status of the Scriptures – the very words of God – were they infallible? And what about the textual variants, what was the story with them? I needed to know if I had a sure Bible I could hold in my hands and heart. I have studied and searched this out long and hard.
My manner of speech is that of a poet, the Lord's poet, "set for the defence of the gospel" (Phil 1:17KJV). This is who I am; I was a poet before I became a pastor and preacher. I speak from the heart.
Please let me restate what I said above: do the Byzantine text proponents you know (excepting Pickering, who now holds to the Family 35 as the perfect text) assert they have a settled NT text, God's word intact? Or it is a provisional text, possibly to be amended as new discoveries come to light (and I know that Prof Robinson is a tireless researcher hunting for MSS the world over).
The LORD said He would give us His word intact (Isa 59:21KJV), and when He commanded His prophets of old that not a word of His be diminished from His book (Deut 4:2KJV; Jer 26:1KJV; Jer 26:2KJV), would He not conduct Himself even as He required of His men?
The almighty Sovereign does have the power and wisdom to control the minutiae of His providences pertaining to His Scripture, even as He controls the DNA and very molecules of our selves so that we come to be the people He knew before the foundations of the world (Eph 1:4KJV; Eph 1:5KJV).
-------
Above, you asked,
We have gone a bit afield from comparing and contrasting text types here. If I could ask @ Jerusalem Blade and @ MW two questions, A) what specifically about the Byzantine Priority position do you take issue with? And,
B) Out of curiosity, why do you think God allowed more manuscripts to be discovered after the completion of the TR’s? (This is pure speculation, but still interesting).
RE A) have I not answered that sufficiently above? In case you missed it, they go by evidences and disregard Scripture and the theological presuppositions derived therefrom. Is not theirs a provisional text?
RE B) As He already provided a providentially preserved text at the time of the Reformation, He knew there would come other manuscript discoveries. If you have read what I have said in this thread you would have picked up the trail of transmission.
I know you asked this of Rev Winzer, but as it is an issue for me I will also respond to it: "If, hypothetically, you had a person in your congregation who just could not read KJV English with any kind of edification or real understanding, would you recommend to them the NKJV?"
I will give them NKJV Bibles – and even CT-based Bibles – so they can comprehend what is being said. For some English is not their first language, and others – from Africa – their English is good but their conceptual capacities need to be developed. The need to understand what God is saying is paramount. At the same time I endeavor to communicate to them the gold standard of the Authorized Version, and to carry themselves about textual matters as they see me do, looking to the AV when the margin notes in their Bibles concern them.
Perhaps Rev MW will answer this differently, as his gifts differ from mine, and he is good at saying complicated things simply and pithily.
And, for those looking in on this discussion, here is one more book I would recommend: Dr. Thomas Holland's, Crowned With Glory : The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version. It is a great classic, simply written, irenic, and covers both the OT and NT.
Last edited:
Boreal
Puritan Board Freshman
Thank you for the response and added clarity about your position. I think sometimes it gets lost in the longer posts—at least for me.
That said, there is something far more important to me here than continuing our back and forth.
Before I begin, I must add that
1. This is not because I am personally offended (it’s something I’ve watched happen to others).
2. I freely admit that you know much more about textual criticism than me, and
3. I’m sure any of my previous words in this thread could have been misguided, in error, or misinformed—but what follows stands regardless.
I have seen countless textual posts of yours over the years, and though often times very gracious, there is also a tendency to make Luther-esque “Here I stand!” remarks as if your dialogue/debate opponent does not also stand for God’s truth.
You may not realize it, but you are implicitly belittling and disparaging your brothers in Christ with such words.
Whenever this happens, you immediately put others on the defensive, and establish yourself as the only one who truly cares for truth and righteousness. This isn’t persuasive, nor conducive to Christian dialogue.
Furthermore, your actual argumentation method is such that you explicitly charge others with denying that God preserves his word.
This happens when:
1. You present textual arguments that many solid and scholarly Reformed brothers strongly disagree with. (I’m not talking about myself)
2. You follow these arguments with a list of verses meant to show that God will preserve his word, and
3. You thus establish the argument in such a way that whoever disagrees with point 1. is neceasssrily rejecting point 2., God’s preservation of his word.
Frankly, your method binds men’s consciences. I feel sorry for anyone new to textual criticism who may be reading such a thread.
They could easily leave feeling that if they don’t believe in your definition of preservation, and come to your exact conclusions, that they are in sin and rejecting the aforementioned verses.
This is a topic about which godly men disagree and come to different conclusions. There is no need to set oneself up as the lone defender of orthodoxy, or he who possesses all certainty.
Yes, you offer the olive branch of peace at times; yes, you share how you have a use for CT translations, etc.; but then you argue in a way that leaves little doubt about what your really think.
Truly and honsestly my brother, there’s no satisfaction or edification in partaking in a discussion that’s framed in such stark terms—and again I acknowledge deficiencies in my own knowledge of the topic, and also in how I have dialogued/debated thus far.
If I have accidentally or by way of ignorance misrepresented you before this particular post, I apologize.
I am in no way claiming any moral high ground. I am simply sharing something that I have thought and felt for a long time, and now have the courage to say.
I sincerely hope that if there is any truth to my words, you will receive it.
May the Lord bless your zeal, your ministry, and your soul. I thank you and @MW for taking the time to engage a novice like myself.
Also, thank you for lighting a bit of a fire under me to dig into this topic deeper than before.
Grace and peace to you brother.
EDIT: Brother, since posting this I have been reading through a mega-thread from a couple years ago that was about the same general topic, and which got fairly heated part-way through. You may remember it.
Anyway, as I read the second half I saw many more moderate and unifying statements from you than I have seen before.
I still consider certain aspects of your argumentation method, and some of your language, problematic; but I want to give credit where it is due and acknowledge that that is not the be-all and end-all of your posts.
Last edited:
Logan
Puritan Board Graduate
If I may defend Steve a bit, I've almost always appreciated my interactions with him and never felt his comments to be disparaging. His "here I stand" comments are more aimed at those (textual critics perhaps) who he feels are trying to undermine his foundation, which he will not allow.
We have very different specific presuppositions and ways at look evidence but I respect Steve's position. I don't think he has ever implied that I don't have just as much a firm belief in the authority and preservation of Scripture even though we don't see the specifics or the outcome eye to eye.
Too many of us are quick to latch onto pieces of information that support our priors and ignore everything that doesn't. I can confidently say that Steve has actually modified his position based on discussions and counter-evidence that I have presented and I greatly respect him for that.
Steve also pointed me at various sources when I was first investigating the TR position, and that was very helpful. Thank you, Steve, for being respectful and gracious throughout all the ink spilled on this subject over the years!
We have very different specific presuppositions and ways at look evidence but I respect Steve's position. I don't think he has ever implied that I don't have just as much a firm belief in the authority and preservation of Scripture even though we don't see the specifics or the outcome eye to eye.
Too many of us are quick to latch onto pieces of information that support our priors and ignore everything that doesn't. I can confidently say that Steve has actually modified his position based on discussions and counter-evidence that I have presented and I greatly respect him for that.
Steve also pointed me at various sources when I was first investigating the TR position, and that was very helpful. Thank you, Steve, for being respectful and gracious throughout all the ink spilled on this subject over the years!
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
Thank you, Logan, I appreciate your kind and gracious remarks!
Hello, E.R.,
Reflecting on your thoughts of me and my style of defending the truth, Jude 3KJV comes to mind:
Then Jude was writing against the ungodly; I, on the other hand, am writing — speaking — against (at least here at PB) godly brethren over matters that are of the highest import to the children of God.
R.C. Sproul once penned a book, The Consequences of Ideas: Understanding the Concepts that Shaped Our World. I write as regards ideas in the matter of the trustworthiness of our Bible.
You said, I “ 'make Luther-esque Here I stand!' remarks as if your dialogue/debate opponent does not also stand for God’s truth.” What you are saying is that there are many truths and who am I — or who is anyone — to say the truth I uphold is more in accord with “God's truth” than my opponent? You see what you are doing, don't you? You are relativizing “truth”. We all have some truth, so don't take strong stands.
Was Luther right and the papists wrong? It is a good thing Luther didn't listen to the relativizers of his day!
You actually seem to be offended that I have the nerve to believe in what I believe, and, then, argue with my opponent to show his view is not based on facts, on Scripture, or sound reasoning. In these textual discussions, where we take opposing views, we both cannot be right (or course it is possible we both may be wrong!).
You go so far as to say, E.R., "Frankly, your method binds men’s consciences. I feel sorry for anyone new to textual criticism who may be reading such a thread." You appear to me to be projecting how you might feel or think onto others. Many scholarly, godly men, interacting with my views, certainly do not proceed as though their consciences are bound! That is because they believe as strongly that their views are right!
Further, you say, "This is a topic about which godly men disagree and come to different conclusions. There is no need to set oneself up as the lone defender of orthodoxy, or he who possesses all certainty."
I gather you have no strong convictions as to what "orthodoxy" consists of, apart from the relativity mentioned earlier. Instead of actually interacting with my reasoning from the Scripture, you avoid that endeavor entirely and go after my style of presentation — with an apparent strong aversion to my believing that what I say is correct! I gather it is because you are not able to refute my ideas — based on presuppositions derived from God's words on the matter in question!
IDEAS as regards the status of what is what in the realm of the providential preservation of Scripture by the sovereign God have immense consequences in the faith of many! Because of the many false ideas floating around, the faith of many in the possibility that we can even have a fully infallible intact Bible grows weaker by the month.
There are godly, scholarly men and women here at PB who have sufficient assurance in their views that they will counter my views — on scholarly grounds. Then, others looking on these exchanges will decide for themselves, on the basis of the sound arguments or the lack thereof presented, which views they will hold to.
Nor am I a "lone defender of orthodoxy", but belong to a school of thought where better men and women than I take the same stand. And with certainty. Is that a bad word or concept in your book? Perhaps in a few years, you may have a different view. Listening to select YouTube videos won't give you depth of knowledge unless you devote yourself to the topic.
And, truth be told, I am mild and gentle in manner compared to some who oppose my views (actually, I am not a good debater — too slow on my feet — am better at writing).
To conclude, you miss your mark aiming at my style of presentation, instead of where it would really count — dealing with my ideas, in a field where ideas currently cause great havoc, where many are losing their faith in our having a sure word of God we can hold in our hands.
I think it a good thing, actually, for other ideas than mine — here at PB — to be presented which others can be strengthened by. When teaching on these textual matters at a church — back in New York — I would be careful not to tear down the faith of those who believed in different versions being the best, as for those people that faith they had in their Bibles was their very lifeline to the God they loved and followed. I would not dare to hurt their faith.
Here at PB, we can discuss these things openly, and can make intelligent choices.
I do appreciate your milder thoughts at the end of your post, E.R.
Hello, E.R.,
Reflecting on your thoughts of me and my style of defending the truth, Jude 3KJV comes to mind:
Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. [emphasis added]
Then Jude was writing against the ungodly; I, on the other hand, am writing — speaking — against (at least here at PB) godly brethren over matters that are of the highest import to the children of God.
R.C. Sproul once penned a book, The Consequences of Ideas: Understanding the Concepts that Shaped Our World. I write as regards ideas in the matter of the trustworthiness of our Bible.
You said, I “ 'make Luther-esque Here I stand!' remarks as if your dialogue/debate opponent does not also stand for God’s truth.” What you are saying is that there are many truths and who am I — or who is anyone — to say the truth I uphold is more in accord with “God's truth” than my opponent? You see what you are doing, don't you? You are relativizing “truth”. We all have some truth, so don't take strong stands.
Was Luther right and the papists wrong? It is a good thing Luther didn't listen to the relativizers of his day!
You actually seem to be offended that I have the nerve to believe in what I believe, and, then, argue with my opponent to show his view is not based on facts, on Scripture, or sound reasoning. In these textual discussions, where we take opposing views, we both cannot be right (or course it is possible we both may be wrong!).
You go so far as to say, E.R., "Frankly, your method binds men’s consciences. I feel sorry for anyone new to textual criticism who may be reading such a thread." You appear to me to be projecting how you might feel or think onto others. Many scholarly, godly men, interacting with my views, certainly do not proceed as though their consciences are bound! That is because they believe as strongly that their views are right!
Further, you say, "This is a topic about which godly men disagree and come to different conclusions. There is no need to set oneself up as the lone defender of orthodoxy, or he who possesses all certainty."
I gather you have no strong convictions as to what "orthodoxy" consists of, apart from the relativity mentioned earlier. Instead of actually interacting with my reasoning from the Scripture, you avoid that endeavor entirely and go after my style of presentation — with an apparent strong aversion to my believing that what I say is correct! I gather it is because you are not able to refute my ideas — based on presuppositions derived from God's words on the matter in question!
IDEAS as regards the status of what is what in the realm of the providential preservation of Scripture by the sovereign God have immense consequences in the faith of many! Because of the many false ideas floating around, the faith of many in the possibility that we can even have a fully infallible intact Bible grows weaker by the month.
There are godly, scholarly men and women here at PB who have sufficient assurance in their views that they will counter my views — on scholarly grounds. Then, others looking on these exchanges will decide for themselves, on the basis of the sound arguments or the lack thereof presented, which views they will hold to.
Nor am I a "lone defender of orthodoxy", but belong to a school of thought where better men and women than I take the same stand. And with certainty. Is that a bad word or concept in your book? Perhaps in a few years, you may have a different view. Listening to select YouTube videos won't give you depth of knowledge unless you devote yourself to the topic.
And, truth be told, I am mild and gentle in manner compared to some who oppose my views (actually, I am not a good debater — too slow on my feet — am better at writing).
To conclude, you miss your mark aiming at my style of presentation, instead of where it would really count — dealing with my ideas, in a field where ideas currently cause great havoc, where many are losing their faith in our having a sure word of God we can hold in our hands.
I think it a good thing, actually, for other ideas than mine — here at PB — to be presented which others can be strengthened by. When teaching on these textual matters at a church — back in New York — I would be careful not to tear down the faith of those who believed in different versions being the best, as for those people that faith they had in their Bibles was their very lifeline to the God they loved and followed. I would not dare to hurt their faith.
Here at PB, we can discuss these things openly, and can make intelligent choices.
I do appreciate your milder thoughts at the end of your post, E.R.
Last edited:
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
E.R., in all fairness — considering what you have said based on writings of mine from years, even decades, ago — it is true that I spoke more harshly then than I do now. Being here since 2006, and interacting with godly men who gave me good feedback, has changed me. So if you address me based on an earlier, more primitive style — from which I have evolved — without taking into account how I am now in more recent years, you will miss the mark, and do me injustice.
I have not changed my basic views — though I have had to accept correction at times — but being on PB for 18 years has civilized me! For which I am grateful.
I have not changed my basic views — though I have had to accept correction at times — but being on PB for 18 years has civilized me! For which I am grateful.
Boreal
Puritan Board Freshman
@Logan, thanks for your post there, much appreciated. It helps me see the bigger picture with our brother; and this is especially valuable as I know you disagree with him.
@Jerusalem Blade I also thank you for following up. Though I disagree with a lot of it, I’m not going to press any issues further, and I have no ill will towards you. Oftentimes Christians don’t see eye to eye, and we must learn to live in unity.
I don’t have anything edifying to add to the actual textual discussion in this thread at the moment, so I believe it has run its course.
I may pose some questions in future threads for those more knowledgeable than I.
Thanks to all for participating.
@Jerusalem Blade I also thank you for following up. Though I disagree with a lot of it, I’m not going to press any issues further, and I have no ill will towards you. Oftentimes Christians don’t see eye to eye, and we must learn to live in unity.
I don’t have anything edifying to add to the actual textual discussion in this thread at the moment, so I believe it has run its course.
I may pose some questions in future threads for those more knowledgeable than I.
Thanks to all for participating.
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
E.R., stepping back and pondering the litany of accusations (cf. post #43), not merely of my “method” of presentation, but also against my motives and actions that are involved, really are amazing.
Another thing I find remarkable, E.R., is that never once have you interacted with the facts and substantial proofs supporting my assertions. You appear to gloss over these while attempting to disparage my character and integrity by dredging up outmoded — and now false — information.
And you go back to posts of mine 16, 17, 18 years ago when I was quite rough around the edges, and base your slanders on that. At an early point, maybe 15 years back, one pastor whom I respected and knew to be godly (Fred Greco) said to me that he believed differently as a matter of conscience and scholarship, and I should respect that. That was a major turning point for me in realizing I had to respect other viewpoints, whatever the consequences in the larger church. I apologized and changed my way. My transgressions were “under the blood”, as we say. But you have had no problem digging up what has been repented of and forgiven. You were ignorant, no doubt, of my change of heart. We should ask questions before shooting.
Both in the opening statement of my signature's Textual Posts (repeated from an earlier version), and in an early interaction with James White, Responding to James White of AOMIN, I stated my new attitude and abandonment of my old hardline approach, and asked him if he would do the same. This has been common knowledge here on PB for a good while.
I’m sorry if you were badly affected by my earlier approach of some 15-18 years ago. Can it be you did not see the change of attitude notices I posted around after that? How can it be you were stuck only in that limited period of my hard-line view?
What had prompted that initial approach were the shocking revelations of what had happened back in England, from the years around 1871 to 1881, according to the memoirs of their sons, respectively, Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892), regarding the initial commission given to these two young Greek classicists to modernize the English of the old AV, which they willfully rebelled against and pursued their own agenda of supplanting the old Greek text and introducing a new one. Both their sons, and many other researchers exposed and established the treachery of what happened, in their fathers’ own words.
But I came to realize there was no going back from this, for it was an accomplished coup d’état, and unlikely ever to be reversed in the churches at large, so now the efforts to promote the preserved text — the TR — would have to be done by scholarship, prayer, and careful reasoning.
You said in your last post, “Oftentimes Christians don’t see eye to eye, and we must learn to live in unity.” I do agree, but that has a bitter taste to it when I am asked to “live in unity” with the unrepentant perpetrator of a hatchet-job.
E.R., when you malign a person’s character publicly, imputing to them motives and actions that are not true, it is what’s called a 9th Commandment violation, bearing false witness. It is, in a sense, the attempted murder of a person’s reputation. You have gone after my character and integrity, and not my ideas. It is serious sin.
I have repented of and received forgiveness for my sins. You should do the same.
Another thing I find remarkable, E.R., is that never once have you interacted with the facts and substantial proofs supporting my assertions. You appear to gloss over these while attempting to disparage my character and integrity by dredging up outmoded — and now false — information.
And you go back to posts of mine 16, 17, 18 years ago when I was quite rough around the edges, and base your slanders on that. At an early point, maybe 15 years back, one pastor whom I respected and knew to be godly (Fred Greco) said to me that he believed differently as a matter of conscience and scholarship, and I should respect that. That was a major turning point for me in realizing I had to respect other viewpoints, whatever the consequences in the larger church. I apologized and changed my way. My transgressions were “under the blood”, as we say. But you have had no problem digging up what has been repented of and forgiven. You were ignorant, no doubt, of my change of heart. We should ask questions before shooting.
Both in the opening statement of my signature's Textual Posts (repeated from an earlier version), and in an early interaction with James White, Responding to James White of AOMIN, I stated my new attitude and abandonment of my old hardline approach, and asked him if he would do the same. This has been common knowledge here on PB for a good while.
I’m sorry if you were badly affected by my earlier approach of some 15-18 years ago. Can it be you did not see the change of attitude notices I posted around after that? How can it be you were stuck only in that limited period of my hard-line view?
What had prompted that initial approach were the shocking revelations of what had happened back in England, from the years around 1871 to 1881, according to the memoirs of their sons, respectively, Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892), regarding the initial commission given to these two young Greek classicists to modernize the English of the old AV, which they willfully rebelled against and pursued their own agenda of supplanting the old Greek text and introducing a new one. Both their sons, and many other researchers exposed and established the treachery of what happened, in their fathers’ own words.
But I came to realize there was no going back from this, for it was an accomplished coup d’état, and unlikely ever to be reversed in the churches at large, so now the efforts to promote the preserved text — the TR — would have to be done by scholarship, prayer, and careful reasoning.
You said in your last post, “Oftentimes Christians don’t see eye to eye, and we must learn to live in unity.” I do agree, but that has a bitter taste to it when I am asked to “live in unity” with the unrepentant perpetrator of a hatchet-job.
E.R., when you malign a person’s character publicly, imputing to them motives and actions that are not true, it is what’s called a 9th Commandment violation, bearing false witness. It is, in a sense, the attempted murder of a person’s reputation. You have gone after my character and integrity, and not my ideas. It is serious sin.
I have repented of and received forgiveness for my sins. You should do the same.
Hi Thomas. This might deserve a separate thread. I don't know about backtranslating but the textual tradition of the Vulgate is problematic because it needs textual criticism to settle its own text. Different scholars come up with different appraisals. From a majority text position it is usually stated that there is a trend from the old Latin to the Vulgate towards a Byzantine text type.
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
A friend thought what I said in the post here previously was too severe, and I know that mercy rejoices against judgment. So I will restate what I said.
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
A RETROSPECTIVE, AND A REPROOF
Although it was prompted by false accusations (more on that in a moment), nonetheless I have been intrigued in doing a fairly brief Retrospective of sorts on my involvement in textual studies here at PB from 2006 until the present, 2024 — 18 years of activity. It will be but a fly-over. I go back to my very first post on a thread here on PB! : [it was post 14]. The thread was titled,
Why do KJ Only types believe the Westcott and Hort manuscripts are bad? [June 29, 2006]
Then on July 1, 2006, in response to that thread I began to give an overview of Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892), and their influence on textual criticism. It was my first post on PB. The discussions got long, so after a while I began a second thread:
What is the authentic New Testament text?
Just looking over these two seminal threads (from 2006), I get an entirely different picture from what E.R. (the aforementioned accuser) has wrongly painted. There was a lot of interaction between differing views.
When, in the 2nd thread (still in 2006), at Maestro’s suggestion (Bill B.), I interacted at length with Dr. Price’s critiques supporting the CT, and his misleading and shallow published views of Dr. E.F. Hills. I do speak strongly here — but certainly not sinfully. Price carelessly interacts with Hills. My critique of Price pertained to views of his not here on PB, but elsewhere online (I do not think he is Reformed). When we are in a forum’s open discussion, and a person’s view of “providential preservation” etc does not comport with the Biblical standard of God’s view, should I not remark on this? I do not say this person does not believe in preservation, but rather that it does not conform to the Bible’s definition. That’s a big difference. When, for example, a person says God did indeed providentially preserve His words — not in this or that line of textual transmission, but in all the extant MSS — and we have but to find them through text-critical methods, while this is a fairly common view, it does fall short of the Biblical methods. What is the Biblical standard?
That appears to me self-evident. Though I certainly grant others may disagree. We may agreeably differ.
I’ve only looked at a few very early posts (linked to above), and what I see is that E.R.’s accusations are without foundation, but just vague “off the top of his head” remarks. No specifics or examples, no quotes. In the early PB threads there was a lot of interaction and gathering of new information from all quarters in those days. One person, Bill B. (Maestro), quite strongly opposed the TR / KJV view, but the interactions were benign, edifying, and respectful. I still consider Bill a friend.
I had long studied the documents and writings of those who supported the Biblical view of “providential preservation”, and brought my knowledge to bear in the discussions.
We here on PB have all grown since those days, and have learned to live with each other and our differing views. What I did in those early days of 2006 was introduce the scholarship — in minute extensive detail and examination — of the defenders of an inerrant, or nearly inerrant, text. It was extensive, and valuable. It came to pass that there were others who held to different views. Not everyone agreed. Now in 2024 all of us here on PB have grown and come to terms with the reality of a vast wealth of knowledge of textual studies among us. We have learned to accept and live peaceably with each other, even if we disagree.
What effected in me a real change of heart and approach happened around the year 2009 — 15 years ago! — in a discussion regarding confessional adherence to the WCF at 1.8, when pastor Fred Greco said to me, in effect, “If I, in good conscience and careful scholarship before my Lord, have a view of preservation different than yours, am I to be condemned as ‘unconfessional?’ ” Well, that powerfully affected me and raised my awareness, for I am not the lord over any man’s sincere and godly conscience. And in the years following the Lord has continued to work on my heart. I will talk more about the impact of Fred’s remark on me below. Keep in mind, please, that the interaction between Fred and myself was in the context of the Puritan Board community — a unique community. More on which shortly.
Having looked back more closely at the previously posted material, I do not think that I sinned in my early views or approaches — although initially I thought I might have, as I take criticisms seriously. As I just related, when pastor Greco said that it was in good conscience and in accord with his own scholarship he held to his differing views and I should accept that, I was stunned by the implications of his heartfelt response! First of all, he was right! — I should accept his view even if I disagreed, as it would be harmful and wrong if I tried to bind men’s consciences — and this despite my own strong convictions, for we are not a papal system to try to do that. The integrity of those that differ from us must be acknowledged and accepted. We may think them wrong, but their integrities must not be impugned!
And, second, my own realization following that, that even in the Reformed camp, we had so thoroughly capitulated to the text-critical standards of Westcott and Hort gone mainstream (which remains, despite disillusionment with their specific views) that there was no going back. We could no longer appeal to the old consensus as it had been destroyed in the perception and understanding of many. That had to be acknowledged as a fait accompli! Those two things, the right to stand of pastor Fred’s scholarly and conscientious view, and the seismic shift of opinion re the text-critical situation, mandated it!
I had gone to some lengths to give wide notice that my views had changed. Both in the opening statement of my Textual Posts (in my signature) repeated from an earlier version / collection, and in an early response to James White in 2009, Responding to James White of AOMIN, I stated my new attitude and abandonment of my old hardline approach, and asked him if he would do the same. This has been common knowledge here on PB for a good while.
I’m sorry if my accuser was badly affected by my earlier approach of some 15-18 years ago. I don’t know how he did not see the change of attitude notices I posted around after that. It is important to note that “hard-line” per se is not sinful. In my case it was a lack of perspective that would end up rendering ineffective my labors. Plus it would have been harmful if I had denied the right of another to hold to their conscientious scholarship. But it was at the first instance of being told I must yield to others the right of conscientiously differing, I whole-heartedly agreed, and afterward vigorously promoted that new understanding. I also want to emphasize that this new approach pertained specifically to the community here at Puritan Board. (It need not be applied to other Christian communities and churches, which have different policies and standards.) As I have often been on the mission field planting (and now re-planting) and pastoring churches, I have been without fellowship among likeminded Reformed people. This here — PB — has been my spiritual community, and it is of great value to me to belong here. It is a unique community.
It was, and is, also consciously acknowledged by me that the “the consequences of this [new understanding of mine] in the larger church” were profound. In the eyes of many there was no settled text. But even so, despite the uncertainty of the upcoming generations re the full reliability of the Bibles taking a toll, there was sufficient faith in the overall — in the main — integrity of Scripture to enable the churches and the people of God to grow in the nurture of God, and stand against the powers of darkness.
I am thankful for that certainty and faith here on PuritanBoard! I do see Puritan Board as a light reflecting gracious brotherhood — even in the midst of differences! — to the surrounding non-member Christian communities that visit our site. I no longer have to be dismayed at the situation! And I am glad to have the opportunity to give these final views of mine an open airing. We have all come a long way from those 18 years ago of seeking to learn and comprehend the textual situation.
A REPROOF
I will keep this simple, and short. E.R., you have wronged me with your allegations, providing no evidence or examples at all. It was wrong, and slanderous. I don’t want to be in contention with you over this, for I know the remaining corruption that still lies within me, and will until the day I leave this life. In the matter at hand I know before the Lord I have had a clean although at times ignorant heart.
Although it was prompted by false accusations (more on that in a moment), nonetheless I have been intrigued in doing a fairly brief Retrospective of sorts on my involvement in textual studies here at PB from 2006 until the present, 2024 — 18 years of activity. It will be but a fly-over. I go back to my very first post on a thread here on PB! : [it was post 14]. The thread was titled,
Why do KJ Only types believe the Westcott and Hort manuscripts are bad? [June 29, 2006]
Then on July 1, 2006, in response to that thread I began to give an overview of Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892), and their influence on textual criticism. It was my first post on PB. The discussions got long, so after a while I began a second thread:
What is the authentic New Testament text?
Just looking over these two seminal threads (from 2006), I get an entirely different picture from what E.R. (the aforementioned accuser) has wrongly painted. There was a lot of interaction between differing views.
When, in the 2nd thread (still in 2006), at Maestro’s suggestion (Bill B.), I interacted at length with Dr. Price’s critiques supporting the CT, and his misleading and shallow published views of Dr. E.F. Hills. I do speak strongly here — but certainly not sinfully. Price carelessly interacts with Hills. My critique of Price pertained to views of his not here on PB, but elsewhere online (I do not think he is Reformed). When we are in a forum’s open discussion, and a person’s view of “providential preservation” etc does not comport with the Biblical standard of God’s view, should I not remark on this? I do not say this person does not believe in preservation, but rather that it does not conform to the Bible’s definition. That’s a big difference. When, for example, a person says God did indeed providentially preserve His words — not in this or that line of textual transmission, but in all the extant MSS — and we have but to find them through text-critical methods, while this is a fairly common view, it does fall short of the Biblical methods. What is the Biblical standard?
The LORD said He would give us His word intact (Isaiah 59:21KJV; Matt 4:4KJV; Matt 24:35KJV), and when He commanded His prophets of old that not a word of His be diminished from His book (Deut 4:2KJV; Jer 26:1KJV; Jer 26:2KJV), would He not conduct Himself even as He required of His men?
That appears to me self-evident. Though I certainly grant others may disagree. We may agreeably differ.
I’ve only looked at a few very early posts (linked to above), and what I see is that E.R.’s accusations are without foundation, but just vague “off the top of his head” remarks. No specifics or examples, no quotes. In the early PB threads there was a lot of interaction and gathering of new information from all quarters in those days. One person, Bill B. (Maestro), quite strongly opposed the TR / KJV view, but the interactions were benign, edifying, and respectful. I still consider Bill a friend.
I had long studied the documents and writings of those who supported the Biblical view of “providential preservation”, and brought my knowledge to bear in the discussions.
We here on PB have all grown since those days, and have learned to live with each other and our differing views. What I did in those early days of 2006 was introduce the scholarship — in minute extensive detail and examination — of the defenders of an inerrant, or nearly inerrant, text. It was extensive, and valuable. It came to pass that there were others who held to different views. Not everyone agreed. Now in 2024 all of us here on PB have grown and come to terms with the reality of a vast wealth of knowledge of textual studies among us. We have learned to accept and live peaceably with each other, even if we disagree.
What effected in me a real change of heart and approach happened around the year 2009 — 15 years ago! — in a discussion regarding confessional adherence to the WCF at 1.8, when pastor Fred Greco said to me, in effect, “If I, in good conscience and careful scholarship before my Lord, have a view of preservation different than yours, am I to be condemned as ‘unconfessional?’ ” Well, that powerfully affected me and raised my awareness, for I am not the lord over any man’s sincere and godly conscience. And in the years following the Lord has continued to work on my heart. I will talk more about the impact of Fred’s remark on me below. Keep in mind, please, that the interaction between Fred and myself was in the context of the Puritan Board community — a unique community. More on which shortly.
Having looked back more closely at the previously posted material, I do not think that I sinned in my early views or approaches — although initially I thought I might have, as I take criticisms seriously. As I just related, when pastor Greco said that it was in good conscience and in accord with his own scholarship he held to his differing views and I should accept that, I was stunned by the implications of his heartfelt response! First of all, he was right! — I should accept his view even if I disagreed, as it would be harmful and wrong if I tried to bind men’s consciences — and this despite my own strong convictions, for we are not a papal system to try to do that. The integrity of those that differ from us must be acknowledged and accepted. We may think them wrong, but their integrities must not be impugned!
And, second, my own realization following that, that even in the Reformed camp, we had so thoroughly capitulated to the text-critical standards of Westcott and Hort gone mainstream (which remains, despite disillusionment with their specific views) that there was no going back. We could no longer appeal to the old consensus as it had been destroyed in the perception and understanding of many. That had to be acknowledged as a fait accompli! Those two things, the right to stand of pastor Fred’s scholarly and conscientious view, and the seismic shift of opinion re the text-critical situation, mandated it!
I had gone to some lengths to give wide notice that my views had changed. Both in the opening statement of my Textual Posts (in my signature) repeated from an earlier version / collection, and in an early response to James White in 2009, Responding to James White of AOMIN, I stated my new attitude and abandonment of my old hardline approach, and asked him if he would do the same. This has been common knowledge here on PB for a good while.
I’m sorry if my accuser was badly affected by my earlier approach of some 15-18 years ago. I don’t know how he did not see the change of attitude notices I posted around after that. It is important to note that “hard-line” per se is not sinful. In my case it was a lack of perspective that would end up rendering ineffective my labors. Plus it would have been harmful if I had denied the right of another to hold to their conscientious scholarship. But it was at the first instance of being told I must yield to others the right of conscientiously differing, I whole-heartedly agreed, and afterward vigorously promoted that new understanding. I also want to emphasize that this new approach pertained specifically to the community here at Puritan Board. (It need not be applied to other Christian communities and churches, which have different policies and standards.) As I have often been on the mission field planting (and now re-planting) and pastoring churches, I have been without fellowship among likeminded Reformed people. This here — PB — has been my spiritual community, and it is of great value to me to belong here. It is a unique community.
It was, and is, also consciously acknowledged by me that the “the consequences of this [new understanding of mine] in the larger church” were profound. In the eyes of many there was no settled text. But even so, despite the uncertainty of the upcoming generations re the full reliability of the Bibles taking a toll, there was sufficient faith in the overall — in the main — integrity of Scripture to enable the churches and the people of God to grow in the nurture of God, and stand against the powers of darkness.
I am thankful for that certainty and faith here on PuritanBoard! I do see Puritan Board as a light reflecting gracious brotherhood — even in the midst of differences! — to the surrounding non-member Christian communities that visit our site. I no longer have to be dismayed at the situation! And I am glad to have the opportunity to give these final views of mine an open airing. We have all come a long way from those 18 years ago of seeking to learn and comprehend the textual situation.
A REPROOF
I will keep this simple, and short. E.R., you have wronged me with your allegations, providing no evidence or examples at all. It was wrong, and slanderous. I don’t want to be in contention with you over this, for I know the remaining corruption that still lies within me, and will until the day I leave this life. In the matter at hand I know before the Lord I have had a clean although at times ignorant heart.
Last edited:
Steve, I hope it is not out of place if I also offer a retrospective view for your encouragement. The thoroughgoing presentation of material in your posts is appreciated by all on every side of the discussion. Even when people disagree with you they are generally appreciative of what you give them to chew on. As for the warmth of your rhetoric, that is also appreciated. It shows it is a subject worth spending time on because it matters. And it should matter! We are speaking about the word of God. It may be that some are personally convicted by what you have to say and therefore take what you say in a personal manner. But there is nothing personally derogatory in your comments. Mature thinkers know how to separate their personal feelings from the facts under discussion and will avoid taking offence where none was offered. Blessings, dear brother!
Last edited: