Letis on Inerrancy, and Warfield

[Stephen L Smith]

You are arguing from silence. The main point is that modern textual criticism is seeking a text which does not exist -- a phantom. It begins with a presupposition that is unreformed and ends in a quest that is unrealistic.

You have given a very fine definition of the Received Text

 

[MW]

It is meaningless unless you are responding to people who either did not believe the original authors were inspired, or that God did not preserve them from error.

You are completely missing the point. Letis was dealing with textual criticism as an empirical science. As a science it claims to be based one hundred percent on "evidence." It is impossible to say, on the basis of empirical evidence, that the autographs are free from error. The autographs do not exist.

Whether he did or not has no bearing on why I quoted him, which was to point out that Warfield's view was no innovation.

Be that as it may, your haphazard way of dealing with sources does nothing to accredit your research.

Would you mind dealing with the entirety of the evidence before making that claim? It is not entirely from silence, there are a number of statements I've linked to. Including four independent sources that came to the same conclusion I did, and two interviews of Letis and two responses Letis made that allude to his views.

You haven't quoted anything from the man himself to substantiate your claim. That is an argument from silence.

Do you intend to keep picking out points like this or would you like to respond to the main arguments in my posts?

I did respond to the main points. I also showed the inaccuracies in your presentation. You are not exempt from the normal standards of critical appraisal.

 

[MW]

You have given a very fine definition of the Received Text

Textual critics have been able to identify it and have consciously departed from it. It is not a phantom.

 

[Logan]

You are completely missing the point. Letis was dealing with textual criticism as an empirical science.

If you will read my posts, you will see a quote from Letis that he believed textual criticism was a valid and necessary science, and the goal of getting back to the "primitive form" was necessary, but purely for academic purposes.

It is impossible to say, on the basis of empirical evidence, that the autographs are free from error. The autographs do not exist.

Is anyone saying that? Warfield (and I would say, reformed theologians from the 16th and 17th) believed as a matter of doctrine that they were free from error, there is no need for empirical evidence to support that just as there is no need for empirical evidence to support that they were inspired.

You haven't quoted anything from the man himself to substantiate your claim.

Perhaps you have not read my previous quotes from him, or looked at the linked audio files and letters.

I did respond to the main points. I also showed the inaccuracies in your presentation. You are not exempt from the normal standards of critical appraisal.

Respectfully, you did not. I posted extensively in defense that Warfield's view was no innovation. You have not addressed that at all.


Rev Winzer:
Do you believe that there were original autographs, penned by the apostles and directly inspired by the Holy Spirit. If so, do you believe these originals were without error?

 

[MW]

If you will read my posts, you will see a quote from Letis that he believed textual criticism was a valid and necessary science, and the goal of getting back to the "primitive form" was necessary, but purely for academic purposes.

The church and the academy are two different things. One is an institution of grace, and the other an institution of nature. It is not surprising that the two should function differently though dealing with the same field.

Every science develops its own prolegomena. Letis was meeting the science on its own territory. You are trying to make Letis say something in the area of "theological dogma" when his criticisms are aimed only at the dogma of a certain school of textual criticism.

Warfield (and I would say, reformed theologians from the 16th and 17th) believed as a matter of doctrine that they were free from error, there is no need for empirical evidence to support that just as there is no need for empirical evidence to support that they were inspired.

Precisely, "as a matter of doctrine." Theirs was a presuppositional approach, not an evidential one. If you follow through on this point you will be in a better position to appraise Letis' work.

Perhaps you have not read my previous quotes from him, or looked at the linked audio files and letters.

I read your material. Because he did not say the autographs are inerrant you conclude that he believed they are not. That is an argument from silence.

Respectfully, you did not. I posted extensively in defense that Warfield's view was no innovation. You have not addressed that at all.

I have addressed your statements on Letis as I believe you are doing truth a disservice by your misrepresentations. The sections related to Warfield do not pertain to this misrepresentation.

Do you believe that there were original autographs, penned by the apostles and directly inspired by the Holy Spirit. If so, do you believe these originals were without error?

Yes; but I am a presuppositionalist. I certainly would not attempt to prove this on the basis of empirical evidence.

 

[Logan]

Because he did not say the autographs are inerrant you conclude that he believed they are not.

No, he cites Hodge and Alexander (alleging they believed in errors in the originals) to support the case that no one taught inerrancy in the autographs before Warfield. He did not just refrain from saying it, he argued for the opposite.

Here is my own transcription of the lengthy audio file I referenced earlier, from the question and answer session, about 1:03 in the recording. Note that one should really get the context by listening to the entire thing but here he is talking about the inclusion of the Pericope Adulterae

When the apostles had to make decisions about which acts and events and speeches that Christ gave that they were to include, John tells us at the end of his gospel that the world couldn't be filled with all of the material, but they were nevertheless selective in what they chose. But they nevertheless were selective in what they chose. If Peter (this might be controversial, I don't know) but if Peter and Paul could have a falling out, a public falling out, and it is actually recorded in Scripture that they had a public falling out, it seems to me there may well have been a great deal of debate as to whether they should include this story or not. Maybe this was a story just for us, maybe it's not for the whole church, and I think that questioning might well have been present in the first century, I'm willing to grant that, because it doesn't make any difference to me because it was ultimately recognized as canon, and that canonical recognition process, was just that, it was a process, and it was the end result of the canonical process that's important, not just the antecedents.

Does this sound like a man who believed in the direct inspiration of the originals (note that he had a problem with "verbal inspiration" only being applied to the autographs)? Or that they were inerrant? Or rather one who believed the texts evolved to their present form during the first few centuries?

 

[MW]

Does this sound like a man who believed in the direct inspiration of the originals (note that he had a problem with "verbal inspiration" only being applied to the autographs)? Or that they were inerrant? Or rather one who believed the texts evolved to their present form during the first few centuries?

It sounds orthodox to me. Not everything an apostle said or wrote is canonical and authoritative but only what is inspired by God and written for our instruction in faith and life.

Again, it seems to me that you are failing to appreciate Letis' presuppositional approach and his meeting of the critics on their own ground. It should be observed that many of the critics, in seeking for an Ur-text, are not looking for a first century text, but believe the text evolved through communities. Hence, even though some pericopes are regarded as second century additions, they can still be accepted as original. This is where higher and lower criticism intermingle. Letis' contribution was to show how evangelicals cannot really separate the higher and lower criticism but are bound by the canonical principle, and how presuppositions are integral to the science.

 

[Logan]

It sounds orthodox to me. Not everything an apostle said or wrote is canonical and authoritative but only what is inspired by God and written for our instruction in faith and life.

It sounds orthodox to believe the pericope adulterae may not have belonged to the first century text but was added later and received as canon?

Also, if you are completely certain this was not Letis' view, can you tell me what his view actually was? From his writings?

Also, please carefully read through the criticisms made in the BJU letter and the James Price letter, and then carefully read Letis' responses. He responds to many criticisms (taking offense at many) but when it comes to responding to the accusation that he does not believe the originals were without error when originally penned (note here that others besides me interpreted Letis' views that way), that he did not deny it. I would not like to argue only from this silence, but it confirms all the other evidence I've seen.

Again, if I have misrepresented him, I beg to be shown, but so far you've done nothing but simply tell me I'm wrong, and that frankly has not been helpful. I have prayerfully and humbly decided to ask you to refrain from posting any more in this thread unless you have something better to offer.

 

[MW]

Again, if I have misrepresented him, I beg to be shown, but so far you've done nothing but simply tell me I'm wrong, and that frankly has not been helpful. I have prayerfully and humbly decided to ask you to refrain from posting any more in this thread unless you have something better to offer.

I have shown you the point at which you have misunderstood Letis, which is more than merely telling you that you are wrong. I will reiterate. Letis was dealing with textual criticism, not dogmatic theology. He was meeting the critics on the basis of their own claims of "empirical science," and showing how the phantom of infallible autographs cannot be proved on the basis of empirical evidence which does not presuppose the integrity of God's word in possession.

I don't doubt the opponents had much to say in seeking to discredit the position of Letis. As they are fundamentally non-reformed criticisms I see nothing in this opposition that is worthy of credit from a confessionally reformed perspective.

 

[Logan]

I don't doubt the opponents had much to say in seeking to discredit the position of Letis.

In this case two of his supporters also came to his view, and the two opponents had direct written responses from Letis.

Letis was dealing with textual criticism, not dogmatic theology. He was meeting the critics on the basis of their own claims of "empirical science," and showing how the phantom of infallible autographs cannot be proved on the basis of empirical evidence which does not presuppose the integrity of God's word in possession.

Feel free to share some evidence some time. So far all I've seen is completely unsubstantiated claims, nary a single quote. If I'm incorrect, show me what he really believed from his writings.

 

[MW]

Feel free to share some evidence some time. So far all I've seen is completely unsubstantiated claims, nary a single quote. If I'm incorrect, show me what he really believed from his writings.

You are the one making a case against Letis. You bear the burden of proof. Your argument from silence is the problem. I freely admit he was silent on the issue. The absence of evidence is all I need to prove silence.

 

[Logan]

I freely admit he was silent on the issue.

I'm afraid Letis disagreed with you.

one really must work rather hard, I must confess, to arrive at the synthesis [of my views] within the book which I am certain does exist.

Note once again that I gleaned an idea of his views from reading his essay (the evidences and views he thought relevant especially). Not wanting to believe it, I started to look at his other writings, nothing contradicted my impression but rather reinforced it. To gain more insight, I listened to two of his lectures and an interview, these were especially relevant and I think the entire context is needed. I then found two individuals (who sympathized with Letis) who had both read his entire book and both agreed this was his position. Lastly, I found the critiques of Letis book which were valuable mainly because he responded to each. Both claimed this was Letis' view. I have since found another review by Ron Minton who likewise says this is Letis' view.

I have read every article and listened to every recording I can find by Letis in an effort to disprove my initial impression, but was unable to do so. I did not come to this gleefully but with trembling. However, everything seemed to reinforce it, including re-reading his essay. I would gladly hear any evidence to the contrary.

 

[Dearly Bought]

_

 

[MW]

I have read every article and listened to every recording I can find by Letis in an effort to disprove my initial impression, but was unable to do so. I did not come to this gleefully but with trembling. However, everything seemed to reinforce it, including re-reading his essay. I would gladly hear any evidence to the contrary.

I can't provide evidence to contradict your "impression." Maybe your "impression" was the result of a spicy meal. I don't know. I don't really care. What I have before me is something which purports to represent a person's view but lacks any evidence to substantiate it.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

This subject prompts some rather strong reactions, obviously, and I've been involved with such discussions many times before; thus I do not wish to engage the heart of this matter, but only to note two things.

Firstly, as a student of Hodge, I can affirm that Logan's point is essentially correct: Hodge has a proto-doctrine of inerrancy that his son A.A. and successor B.B. Warfield develop. They are not out of line with the Princeton tradition at all on this matter, but simply develop what has been there in seed form.

Secondly, I am confused as to why it is thought that Letis should be accorded courtesy that Warfield is not. The former is not Reformed and the latter is universally regarded as one of the great Reformed scholars of modern times. It is an odd, parochial view that pays respect to Letis but permits one not simply to differ with Warfield, which is one thing, but to disparage him, which is another. Letis disparages Warfield. If one studies Warfield carefully, one can see rather quickly that none of us are his scholarly equal. Differ with him as you will but treat him with respect.

That we've come to a place where a man like Letis can disparage a Reformed giant like Warfield and be lauded for it on a Reformed board is indeed curious.

Peace,
Alan

 

[Phil D.]

Regardless of the actual personalities involved, the way this thread has been conducted seems unfortunate and a bit surreal to me. One party has bent over backward to become informed and share his observations in a useful way - including providing extensive first-hand quotations - but is nonetheless disparaged as one arguing from silence. Others, meanwhile, refuse to engage substantively in the quotations that have been provided - or to offer any first-hand counter-evidence - and simply give abrupt and sometimes even rather snide retorts. Maybe I'm just dense, but I really don't get it. This is supposed to be a "discussion" board, right? Dr. Strange's points are very salient too.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Before I commence my response to Logan, I want to address your recent remarks, Alan. As I speak to the issue of Hodge below (to Logan), I will only speak to the disparaging of Benjamin Warfield.

I agree with you in this – that such a great man who has done the church great good – should not be treated with disrespect, though I am not sure Letis does this, at least not in the three essays of his I posted (what Logan may have gleaned form the internet I am not sure of). Myself, in previous (as in some years earlier here at PB) discussions regarding Prof. Warfield I always sought to keep this balance: BBW was a truly great man, and – save only in the matter of the Bible – he was a mighty defender of the faith in difficult times. But as in the case of Luther, who was a man raised up of God for a mighty work, he did well, save only in the matter of the Jews toward the end of his life. Likewise with King David, who “did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite” (1 Kings 15:5). As with these men, so with Warfield, and this matter of the Bible is no small thing. That we are even having this contention over the Scriptures is a result, in great measure at least, of Warfield’s activity in that field. Now those who are CT or ET (Eclectic Text) adherents will dismiss my view out-of-hand; nonetheless, it is my view – and it is by Letis I have come to see it – that from those prominent in godly academia, starting with Prof. Warfield, the breaking of the unity of the churches around a common Bible started. True, the work of Griesbach and other of the German critics had already impacted those at Princeton before Warfield and Westcott and Hort – I speak to this below.

With David and Uriah, and Luther and the Jews, many have come to blaspheme the LORD thereby; with Warfield and the Bible, the shattering of the commonly-held authority of the Bible was effected. This is a major event, a watershed in the weakening of the church in perilous times.

Letis did no wrong in decrying this; was he balanced in all he did and said? I have already said he was not, particularly in regard to the Baptists, and possibly with regard to BBW (though I would have to see particular instances to agree). Great men are not exempt from scrutiny and critique, in fact it is more important in their cases because of their greater influence, both for good and for ill.

While he is not to be exculpated for his destructive impact, still we acknowledge the providence of God in it – this “destructive impact” – though we cannot see the good in it. Perhaps it is that we should exercise ourselves to keener discernment, and not take the state of the Scriptures for granted.

Anyway, thanks for your caution to stay balanced.

Edit: I also want to add that even in matters pertaining to the Bible, such as the forming of the canon, as well as other areas, I have found Warfield of great value in defending the faith.

------------


Hello Logan,

Now that I have more time freed up I shall be going down your posts from the top.

Looking at your post #1. You say, “Letis asserts over and over that this distinction between the autographs and the apographs is a post-enlightenment idea, and that to believe only the originals were ‘inerrant’ is distinctly Warfieldian.”

This and related thoughts of yours are what I referred to in an earlier post of mine re your presumption (“unwarranted”) in commenting on the ideas of Dr. Theodore Letis (TPL) without even consulting his seminal essay on the topic.

To sum it up in my own words, Letis’ problem with Warfield’s view is not that he objected to anyone ascribing inerrancy to the autographs per se (though he notes that some of the Reformed did not think the apostles – or rather their amanuenses – did not make mistakes in the original writings), but that he shifted the locus of infallible / inerrant Scripture to the autographs alone, and divested the apographa of infallibility so as to remove the texts-in-hand which the Westminster divines had held from the onslaught of destructive lower criticism, which wielded the variants as their primary weapon.

You may dance around this with various quotes (it is amazing how some of these writers – which both Warfield and Letis quote – utter vague or even contradictory statements), but it remains that my summation above is the gist of TPL’s gripe, along with the redefining of the Westminster men’s written assertion (cf WCF 1:8) that they had in hand the infallible apographa. Warfield’s novelty was this divesting the apographa of the quality of infallibility. I will demonstrate this in a moment, notwithstanding anything Warfield says that might appear to the contrary.

To be sure, BBW’s textual strategy in this warfare against the attack on the Bible was born of noble motives but, for all his brilliance and godliness, he misjudged the matter. This can easily be seen in his championing and heralding of the Westcott and Hort (W&H) critical Greek text and their English translation; and upon whose shoulders did W&H stand but the German rationalist critic, Johann Jakob Griesbach (1745-1812), who is named “a foe of orthodox Christianity” by D.A. Thompson. Griesbach was the student of Johann Semler, who said the book of Revelation “ ‘is the production of an extravagant dreamer’ and argued that it was not inspired or canonical.” BBW thought the “scientific” approach of the German rationalists would bring a neutral discipline to the study of the texts and would eventually result in the genuine text of the NT being restored, which anticipation failed miserably, as seen in 20[SUP]th[/SUP] century text critics' skepticism and doubt of ever discovering the true NT text! To wit:

The views of a good number of 20[SUP]th[/SUP] century critics are far less positive:

“The ultimate text, if ever there was one that deserves to be so called, is for ever irrecoverable” (F.C. Conybeare, History of New Testament Criticism, 1910, p. 129)

“In spite of the claims of Westcott and Hort and of van Soden, we do not know the original form of the gospels, and it is quite likely that we never shall” (Kirsopp Lake, Family 13, The Ferrar Group, Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1941, p. vii).

“…it is generally recognized that the original text of the Bible cannot be recovered” (R.M. Grant. “The Bible of Theophilus of Antioch,” Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 66, 1947, p. 173).

“The textual history that the Westcott-Hort text represents is no longer tenable in the light of newer discoveries and fuller textual analysis. In the effort to construct a congruent history, our failure suggests that we have lost the way, that we have reached a dead end, and that only a new and different insight will enable us to break through (Kenneth Clark, “Today’s Problems,” New Testament Manuscript Studies, edited by Parvis and Wikgren, 1950, p. 161).

“…the optimism of the earlier editors has given way to that skepticisim which inclines towards regarding ‘the original text’ as an unattainable mirage” (G. Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles, 1953, p. 9).

“In general, the whole thing is limited to probability judgments; the original text of the New Testament, according to its nature, must remain a hypothesis” (H Greeven, Der Urtext des Neuen Testaments, 1960, p. 20, cited in Edward Hills, The King James Version Defended, p. 67.

“... so far, the twentieth century has been a period characterized by general pessimism about the possibility of recovering the original text by objective criteria” (H.H. Oliver, 1962, p. 308; cited in Eldon Epp, “Decision Points in New Testament Textual Criticism,” Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, 1993, p. 25).

“The primary goal of New Testament textual study remains the recovery of what the New Testament writers wrote. We have already suggested that to achieve this goal is well nigh impossible. Therefore, we must be content with what Reinhold Niebuhr and others have called, in other contexts, an ‘impossible possibility’ ” (R.M. Grant, A Historical Introduction to the New Testament, 1963, p. 51).

“…every textual critic knows that this similarity of text indicates, rather, that we have made little progress in textual theory since Westcott-Hort; that we simply do not know how to make a definitive determination as to what the best text is; that we do not have a clear picture of the transmission and alternation of the text in the first few centuries; and accordingly, that the Westcott-Hort kind of text has maintained its dominant position largely by default” (Eldon J. Epp, “The Twentieth Century Interlude in New Testament Textual Criticism,” Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 43, 1974, pp. 390-391).

“We face a crisis over methodology in NT textual criticism. ... Von Soden and B.H. Streeter and a host of others announced and defended their theories of the NT text, but none has stood the tests of criticism or of time. ... [F]ollowing Westcott-Hort but beginning particularly with C.H. Turner (1923ff.), M.-J. Langrange (1935), G.D. Kilpatrick (1943ff.), A.F.J. Klijn (1949), and J.K. Elliot (1972ff.), a new crisis of the criteria became prominent and is very much with us today: a duel between external and internal criteria and the widespread uncertainty as to precisely what kind of compromise ought to or can be worked out between them. The temporary ‘cease-fire’ that most—but certainly not all—textual critics have agreed upon is called a ‘moderate’ or ‘reasoned’ eclecticism ... the literature of the past two or three decades is replete with controversy over the eclectic method, or at least is abundant with evidence of the frustration that accompanies its use...” (Eldon Epp, “Decision Points in New Testament Textual Criticism,” Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, 1993, pp. 39-41).

“…we no longer think of Westcott-Hort’s ‘Neutral’ text as neutral; we no longer think of their ‘Western’ text as Western or as uniting the textual elements they selected; and, of course, we no longer think so simplistically or so confidently about recovering ‘the New Testament in the Original Greek.’…We remain largely in the dark as to how we might reconstruct the textual history that has left in its wake—in the form of MSS and fragments—numerous pieces of a puzzle that we seem incapable of fitting together. Westcott-Hort, von Soden, and others had sweeping theories (which we have largely rejected) to undergird their critical texts, but we seem now to have no such theories and no plausible sketches of the early history of the text that are widely accepted. What progress, then, have we made? Are we more advanced than our predecessors when, after showing their theories to be unacceptable, we offer no such theories at all to vindicate our accepted text?” (Eldon J. Epp, “A Continuing Interlude in NT Textual Criticism,” Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, (Eerdman’s, 1993), pp. 114, 115).​

Jakob Van Bruggen’s, The Ancient Text of the New Testament, is an analysis of this sorry state of affairs. Prof. Warfield had a strong hand in these developments.

----------

You note Turretin’s view contra the authenticity of the “second Cainan” in Luke 3:36, and accept it, yet you assert Turretin erred “in his claims for support from the Greek” for 1 John 5:7 (this despite John Gill’s also stating that “out of sixteen ancient copies of Robert Stephen's, nine of them had it”) – how 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century of you, assuming superior knowledge ages after the fact! But with respect to Cainan, here is a brief defense of his rightful place in Luke 3:36:

Concerning Luke 3:36, which places Cainan in the lineage between Arphaxad and Salah (Sala), where the Genesis genealogy omits mention of Cainan, some remarks:

First, the absence of a person in the lineage does not annul the tightly interlocking numeric values between the patriarchs and their offspring. As Floyd Nolan Jones, in his Chronology of the Old Testament puts it,​

For regardless of the number of names or descendants that might be missing between Arphaxad and Salah (or any other two patriarchs) their lives are mathematically interlocked and a fixed relationship exists; when Salah was born, Arphaxad was thirty-five years old and so on across the entire span in question. Consequently, no time can possibly be missing even though names may so be. Strange as it may seem at first, in this instance the two concepts are mutually exclusive. (p. 34)​

Dr. Jones is firm that both the Genesis genealogy and the one in Luke 3 are correct and both the infallible word of God. While admitting there is no explanation for the omission given in Scripture, Jones gives a number of scenarios to show how it may have come to be. Here is one of them:​

In this scenario both Arphaxad and Cainan (Arphaxad’s son) married young. Cainan dies after conceiving Salah but before his birth. At age 35, Arphaxad then adopts his grandson, Salah (like Jacob adopted his grandsons, Ephraim and Manasseh) (Mat. 1:1; Heb. 7:9-10). [Footnote: Compare Ruth 4:17 which declares that “there is a son born to Naomi”, whereas technically she is his step mother-in-law. . .] (Ibid., p. 35)​

At any rate, the Cainan spoken of in Luke 3:36 poses no threat to the timeline of Genesis 11, only a mystery. The LXX versions of Genesis 11 which posit a Cainan in them are spurious, patently contriving to construct an order which fails.​

---------

While I am looking at Turretin’s view of things, please note that he fully supports the genuineness of the reading “book of life” in Revelation 22:19 in two places: Volume 1, pp 137 and 371.

---------

In your post #2, your quoting of Turretin, Vol 1, p 113, on the authenticity of Scripture in two senses, the original, and then the “faithful and accurate copies” of these. It would fall to reason that if the originals (we are talking autographs) were “inspired”, insofar as copies of them were truly “faithful and accurate” the inspiration of the former would be attributed to the latter. In this sense copies may be said to be inspired.

A simple case-in-point of BBW’s variance from both Turretin’s and the WCF’s views, was that BBW had no confidence in the faithfulness or accuracy of the common text of Scripture; note in the case of the “long ending of Mark”, he declares that this resurrection account is “no part of the word of God” and thus we are not “to ascribe to these verses the authority due to the word of God”. Ditto with numerous other egregious omissions which characterize Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, for this is the text – what we now call the Critical Text – BBW refers to as the superior text, all on the basis of his trust in W&H’s German rationalist methodology. It was a bold move, in the context of defending against a vicious assault on the Christian church’s Bible by both the higher and lower criticisms in the hands of modernists, German rationalists, deists, and Unitarians; yet as a strategy of war it failed, and that miserably.

-------------

Going into your post #19, Logan.

Some of your earlier remarks really have been derogatory and unwarranted, as you opined on his views of Warfield before becoming thoroughly familiar with the details of his view, as I showed above. It is apparent that you unjustly judged his views on the basis of incomplete knowledge.

You don’t like Letis’ “emotive language”? I wonder what you would think then of Burgon’s, who said with regard to W&H’s Critical Text,

“If, therefore, any do complain that I have sometimes hit my opponents rather hard, I take leave to point out that ‘to everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the sun’; ‘a time to embrace, and a time to be far from embracing’; a time for speaking smoothly, and a time for speaking sharply. And that when the Words of Inspiration are seriously imperiled, as now they are, it is scarcely possible for one who is determined effectually to preserve the Deposit in its integrity, to hit either too straight or too hard.” [Dean John W. Burgon, The Revision Revised, pp. vii-viii].​

As I noted above, accurate and faithful copies of the inspired autographs themselves have the attribute of “inspired” insofar as they reflect the originals.

You quoted from the article, “These [reconstructed copies], he [Warfield] now also argued, when once reconstructed, would be inerrant in a way which far surpassed the text thought to be inspired by the Westminster Divines.” I would agree with you, it is too bad he does not cite a source for this, yet is it not unmistakably obvious it is the case? For why would BBW abandon the common text in lieu of a different method of determining the true readings of the autographic NT documents? And we see the result of his new method: the adoption of the very Roman Catholic weapon the Counter-Reformation used against the Reformers’ Sola Scriptura! And with it the evisceration of numerous original readings – in short, whatever is the case with the Westcott-Hort production, a rival text to that which was the universal text among the Reformed communities.

This from the essay, “THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION AND THE ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS” (Pp 588-594, Selected Shorter Writings Of Benjamin B. Warfield – II, 1973, P&R),

And so they [the Westminster Assembly] proclaimed the perfect preservation of Scripture, in its absolute purity, through all ages, in entire consistency with the recognition that many copies might come from the press filled with corruptions, and that no copy would ever be made by men, wholly free from error . . . they looked for the pure text of Scripture, not in one copy, but in all copies. (p 592)​

This pure text would be obtained, Warfield asserted, in “the safe preservation of the Bible as God gave it, so as to be accessible to all men, in the use of the ordinary means of securing a trustworthy text” (Ibid, p 594). And what would these “ordinary means of securing a trustworthy text” look like? Would it not certainly be – in Professor Warfield’s view – those labors and fruits of Johann Griesbach and his disciples, Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort?

Would the Westminster divines concur with what BBW was asserting, both as to the doing away with the common Bible and its distinctive readings, and the adoption of the secular (“scientific”) German rationalist approach to determining the truth of texts? And that from men whose godliness and appreciation for Biblical truth were null?

The brilliant scholar and theologian – a noted expert – led the church into a disarray from which it shall not recover fully, but shall go into the end times with, limping from the grievous wound.

All this, Logan, is not to say that some of the divines were not in agreement with a text critical approach, and having looked over your notes re Chas. Hodge and his Romans Commentary, on verses 3:28, 8:1, and 8:11 (and I shall add 7:6 to your list), I will have to concede you are right that he was willing to defect from the common text in places in lieu of other than TR variants.

-----------

You quote Letis as saying, “[Warfield] avoided altogether, however, any mention of the threat textual variants posed to verbal inspiration...”

And then you commented,

“It makes me wonder how could textual variants pose a threat to verbal inspiration? Unless one believes in continuing inspiration, the term ‘inspired’ only refers to the originals, even while faithful copies are to be considered likewise authoritative. Is this not always how the term ‘verbal inspiration’ has been used?​

It has been noted above that faithful and accurate copies of inspired Scripture have the attribute of (albeit derivative) inspiration insofar as they reflect the original. Are you aware that Bart Ehrman’s primary thrust against the Christian Scriptures is that if God didn’t care enough for His word to definitively preserve it (he refers to the chaos among the versions, the variants, the apparent contradictions, the unsettled state of the NT text), then why would one think He would care enough to preserve it in the first place? Ehrman uses the variants as a weapon against the concept of inspiration.

I’m not sure what you mean here:

“In his [Letis’] treatment of Warfield's view of the ending of Mark, he confuses correlation with causation. Just because Warfield's position that it was not originally part of the canon was also the position of the higher critics does not mean it was Warfield's reasoning.”​

BBW was convinced re the last 12 verses of Mark by what? There is no evidence save that of the higher and lower (for they have merged) critics.

Because Warfield treated the text according to the “scientific” method of the faithless Germans (and then the Brits in W&H), which is that any literature – even that considered Divine (which Warfield did indeed consider it) – “is to be determined solely by the evidence” and not by a faith-based approach, this is the Enlightenment method and not the believing Christian method.

Logan, you do not think Warfield saw a radical discontinuity between the pure and inspired autographs and the “corruption-ridden” Textus Receptus so loathed by his mentors, Griesbach, Hort, and Westcott? You do not think there is a radical discontinuity between the Bible of Roman Catholicism and that of the Reformation? Between Vaticanus / Sinaiticus and the Textus Receptus of Stephanus and Beza?

Please note that I don’t want to be defending everything Dr. Letis asserts, but I have covered in the main those things where he is on target. I think you are right in discerning Hodge and Alexander were open to occasionally receiving variants from the German critical texts (Letis accepts this also); these men also were of the opinion that due to amanuenses’ errors even the apostolic manuscripts could possibly have mistakes in them, but this BBW would not agree with (nor would I).

I have more to say, but it shall have to wait till I have more time.

 

[Steve Curtis]

the way this thread has been conducted seems unfortunate and a bit surreal

Amen.
I am not conversant with the particulars of the issue at hand to have joined in the discussion, but the tone (from the dissenting side) has seemed, well, unseemly.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

This historical understanding Dr. Letis brings up makes the whole field of text critical studies appear like a battleground of disparate views upon which the dust has not yet settled. And Logan, your comments, some of which are quite on target, contribute to this sense of so much textual contention throughout the believing community. To my mind (and many others) the common text of the church, particularly the Reformation church, seems the most stable and faithful view, in line with God’s promises.

This essay, THE NEW TESTAMENT: WHICH TEXT! By Pr. William P. Terjesen, which I found a link to in something Logan linked to, gives a good view of the conceptual terrain, text-orientation-wise, including all camps, although his view of the KJO IFBs seems limited to such as Ruckman and Riplinger (GR), and not the genuinely scholarly ones. (Not that GR can’t be scholarly at times, but while checking out some of her statements, cross-checking them with the sources she cited, I found that too frequently she either did not cite them accurately or it was out of context, making her unreliable, that on top of her rabid anti-Calvinist views.)

So what is one to do? I would ask you, Logan, what Bible do you use, and are you confident it is the word of God intact and entire? That really is an important question.

Given the disparity of views, even among the Reformation dogmaticians, and those divines of the early Princeton school, along with the Majority / Byzantine Text camp, the Critical Text camp (with whom I would include the Eclectic Text), the full preservation AV camp, and the near full preservation camp of Hills and Letis (Hills allowed there were possibly 3 minor errors in the King James / Textus Receptus), I ask again, what is one to do?

To take a brief look at Hills’ view: Dr. Hills (who got his doctorate in text criticism at Harvard) writes concerning the matter of providential preservation (in Believing Bible Study, pp. 217, 218),

The Logic of Faith – Maximum Certainty

God's preservation of the New Testament text was not miraculous but providential. The scribes and printers who produced the copies of the New Testament Scriptures and the true believers who read and cherished them were not inspired but God-guided. Hence there are some New Testament passages in which the true reading cannot be determined with absolute certainty. There are some readings, for example, on which the manuscripts are almost equally divided, making it difficult to determine which reading belongs to the Traditional Text. Also in some of the cases in which the Textus Receptus disagrees with the Traditional Text it is hard to decide which text to follow. Also, as we have seen, sometimes the several editions of the Textus Receptus differ from each other and from the King James Version.

In other words, God does not reveal every truth with equal clearness. Hence in New Testament textual criticism, as in every other department of knowledge, there are some details in regard to which we must be content to remain uncertain. But this circumstance does not in the least affect the fundamental certainty which we obtain from our confidence in God’s special, providential preservation of the holy Scriptures. Through this believing approach to the New Testament text we gain maximum certainty, all the certainty that any mere man can obtain, all the certainty that we need. Embracing the common faith, we take our stand upon the Traditional Text, the Textus Receptus, and the King James Version and acknowledge these texts to be trustworthy reproductions of the infallibly inspired original text. Admittedly there are some readings which remain undecided, but these are very few. For the special providential preservation of the Scriptures has kept this element of uncertainty down to a minimum.​

Throughout Hills’ books he does take this stance, that in a very few instances there are small errors, or variants about which we do not have certainty. There are other KJVO defenders who will not allow even this minimal uncertainty. In this case Romans 7:6 is more of an issue (to me, at any rate) than 1 John 5:7 (which I hold as genuine). Concerning Romans 7:6 (one of the three instances he admits) Hills says concerning the readings,

that being dead wherein we were held, opposed to, being dead to that wherein we were held​

that the latter phrase is the correct one, and this error was due to “Conjectural emendation by Beza; correct reading given by KJV translators in margin.” I am still considering this.

Let’s look at this matter of certainty versus uncertainty for a moment. To do some numerical comparing: the three phrases Hills says are errors (BBS, p. 83) comprise nine Greek words. In the Greek of the Textus Receptus (1894 edition) there are 140,521 words. Hills’ words then are .0064% or sixty-four one thousandths of one percent. The questionable portions of the Critical Text are immensely greater, and of the Byzantine / Majority not at all that large but still significantly so. (And this Byz admittedly is but a provisional text, not at all settled.)

This is what Hills means when he says we opt for maximum certainty instead of maximum uncertainty.

As for those with the audacity to hold that the Lord is able to preserve His word to the minutiae – perfectly – is this really to be considered a fanatical and over-the-top view? How precisely should we take the Lord’s words? Remember, it was on the basis of one word of Scripture – “am” in Matt 22:32 – the Lord overthrew the arguments of the Sadducees, and in Galatians 3:16 Paul hinged his argument on one word, “seed” instead of “seeds”. Are individual words to be considered unimportant or negligible?

In light of the Lord’s saying that man should live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God, for one to say it is unreasonable to hold to a “minutely preserved” text is a bit risky. And when He assures us that “His divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness” (2 Pet 1:3) this may easily include that by which we must live, that being His “every word”. So those who make the claim for a perfectly preserved text have warrant for their presupposition that He would fulfill His promises to do so. It is neither far-fetched nor fanatical, although it must indeed take into account the providential – the supernatural – working of the Almighty.

In any event, we must come to some kind of understanding as to the state of the text of the Bible. Seeing as the history of the text and its transmission is sketchy in places, and that men waver and err, that “evidences” wax and wane, why should I not consider that, though every man be a liar, God is true, and His word certain to be fulfilled. Whether it be in the manner of Hills, or Holland and Kinney, I know the Bible I hold in my hand is trustworthy, and I can say I have God’s word intact and entire.

---------

This is something I noticed in your link to an exchange between Letis and Dr. James Price, regarding Letis’ view of Bart Ehrman (the comment is by Letis):

Ehrman is also a well armed authority, one who has blasted such a hole in the fortress of Westcott and Hort’s dogmatic assertion that no textual variants ever affects doctrine – a key tenet within the system of Warfieldian neo-orthodoxy – that those who have been duped into following W&H and Warfield would naturally find Ehrman’s evidence disturbing in the extreme. (From Letter to James Price)​

 

[Logan]

You note Turretin’s view contra the authenticity of the “second Cainan” in Luke 3:36, and accept it, yet you assert Turretin erred “in his claims for support from the Greek” for 1 John 5:7 (this despite John Gill’s also stating that “out of sixteen ancient copies of Robert Stephen's, nine of them had it”) – how 21st century of you, assuming superior knowledge ages after the fact!

I do not accept Turretin's view, I have not studied it. I merely maintain that Turretin was wrong to say that "all the Greek copies have it". But this is beside the point, the main point being that Turretin accepted it based on the authority of the Greek, not simply because it was in the TR and not on some "ecclesiastical text" that had been received by the church.

In your post #2, your quoting of Turretin, Vol 1, p 113, on the authenticity of Scripture in two senses, the original, and then the “faithful and accurate copies” of these. It would fall to reason that if the originals (we are talking autographs) were “inspired”, insofar as copies of them were truly “faithful and accurate” the inspiration of the former would be attributed to the latter. In this sense copies may be said to be inspired.

Absolutely. This is my position. Letis maintains this was not Warfield's position but that Warfield relegated all authority to the autographs. This is false, and I have quoted from Warfield to show it.

As I noted above, accurate and faithful copies of the inspired autographs themselves have the attribute of “inspired” insofar as they reflect the originals.

I completely agree. So did Warfield. Letis, apparently does not. Can you point to any place where Letis talks about faithful copies of the inspired autographs? Why would he say this at all? “[Warfield] avoided altogether, however, any mention of the threat textual variants posed to verbal inspiration...”

Are you aware that Bart Ehrman’s primary thrust against the Christian Scriptures is that if God didn’t care enough for His word to definitively preserve it (he refers to the chaos among the versions, the variants, the apparent contradictions, the unsettled state of the NT text), then why would one think He would care enough to preserve it in the first place? Ehrman uses the variants as a weapon against the concept of inspiration.

I am aware of this, I am also aware that Letis quoted Ehrman definitively on this very point:

But the most damning indictment of White’s book is the fact that because he is not, properly speaking, part of the text critical guild, he shows no knowledge whatsoever of the most important book written in text critical studies in the past fifty years, that is, Professor Bart Ehrman’s “The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament” (Oxford University Press, 1993). This, it should be added, was published the same year as Riplinger’s. Riplinger’s he knows; this book he does not know.

This, the most important book ever written on the very subject of the doctrinal influence of text critical practice---which White raises with such certainty---by the world’s leading authority on the subject, comes to just the opposite conclusion to which White himself arrives! Professor Ehrman would remind White that

The textual problems we have examined affect the interpretation of the familiar and historically significant passages of the New Testament: the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke, the prologue of the Fourth Gospel, the baptismal accounts of the Synoptics, the passion narratives, and other familiar passages in Acts, Paul, Hebrews, and the Catholic epistles. In some instances, the interpretations of these passages were understood by scribes who “read” their interpretations not only out of the text but actually into it, as they modified the words in accordance with what they were taken to mean…Naturally, the same data relate to the basic doctrinal concerns of early Christians---theologians and, presumably, laypersons alike: Was Jesus the Messiah, predicted in the Old Testament? Was Joseph his father? Was Jesus born as a human? Was he tempted? Was he able to sin? Was he adopted to be the Son of God at his baptism? At his resurrection? Or was he himself God? Was Jesus one person or two persons? Did he have a physical body after his resurrection? And many others. The ways scribes answered these questions affected the way they transcribed their texts.

[my emphasis]

Now while it might be alleged that Letis only quoted from Ehrman to show White was wrong to say doctrine is affected, it is incredible that he would quote the "most important book ever written on the very subject of doctrinal influence of text critical practice" by the "world's leading authority on the subject" and never offer any kind of a disclaimer. Was Letis so anxious to win against White that he would quote someone's heretical views? Without even a "I disagree on this point, however"? Note that he also went on a Christian Radio station and used the same quote without so much as a disclaimer to his audiences as to what Bart Ehrman believed.

Also CAREFULLYRead Letis' quote from a lecture he gave in Ireland, speaking about the Pericope Adulterae

When the apostles had to make decisions about which acts and events and speeches that Christ gave that they were to include, John tells us at the end of his gospel that the world couldn't be filled with all of the material. But they nevertheless were selective in what they chose. If Peter (this might be controversial, I don't know) but if Peter and Paul could have a falling out, a public falling out, and it is actually recorded in Scripture that they had a public falling out, it seems to me there may well have been a great deal of debate as to whether they should include this story or not. Maybe this was a story just for us, maybe it's not for the whole church, and I think that questioning might well have been present in the first century, I'm willing to grant that, because it doesn't make any difference to me because it was ultimately recognized as canon, and that canonical recognition process, was just that, it was a process, and it was the end result of the canonical process that's important, not just the antecedents.

As my wife said he doesn't seem to believe there was originally an inspiration process and that the Pericope Adulterae possibly wasn't even part of the Scriptures of the early church ("maybe this was a story just for us, maybe it's not for the whole church"). It appears his view is that it doesn't really matter what the apostles actually wrote, what matters is the "canonical process", else, why would he say that this "might be controversial"? Note also that it appears that Letis held the ending of Mark both as secondary, and as canonical. It seems to me that in his opposition to the uncertainty of the critical text, he overstepped in the opposite direction.

Steve, I ask you to carefully consider whether or not you are reading your own views as Letis'. He supported the TR, much as you do, but his reasons for doing so appear to be vastly different, thus his completely misunderstanding Warfield.

 

[Logan]

Steve,

Since I don't have access to "The Ecclesiastical Text" in its entirety, perhaps you can tell me what Letis' views of Brevard Childs were. Letis, in his own synopsis of his book, indicates he received his views favorably in chapters 4 and 5.

Childs seems to have espoused this view of "orthodox corruption" that eventually is received as canon, but that it is the canon we should focus our textual criticism on, not older documents. Was Childs' view (which he himself said was completely new) the orthodoxy of the 16th and 17th centuries?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Stand in my shoes. I was given Warfield 25 years ago by my Mentor. Then I was given Burgon by J. P. Green Sr. I have to admit that Warfield was above my understanding at the time but to know where his influences came from was not. The apple from the tree of the German's was poisoned. And Warfield ate from that apple.

 

[Logan]

Some other resources for Letis' views.

First, I mentioned this source before, in which the author said of Letis

However, if I understood our conversation correctly—and he seemed to enjoy mystifying—he basically accepted a fairly standard history of the text during the first four centuries, but believed that what the text that the church had come to receive was the locus of authority. For instance, he thought that Mark 16:9-20 was secondary and inspired. He was aware that some of his conservative constituency did not realize that his position involved this. [my emphasis]

That's someone claiming to have discussed this with him. But I wouldn't accept that alone as evidence. In addition to the quotes I gave earlier, here are some additional ones.
First

While Barth's own dogmatics were intended to replace that of the seventeenth century, we find they have not fully satisfied the modern sense of having lost a mother, that is, the mother Church-catholic tradition. It is my conviction that it is this catholic view of inspiration which must be reappropriated, in a post-critical, post-modern way, leaving behind the decidedly modern neo-orthodox paradigms of both Warfieldianism, as well as Barthianism.

A good question is, what does this "catholic view of inspiration" entail?

The struggle between the Church and the Academy continues. What Childs provides is an opportunity not to have to take sides. The canonical approach takes seriously all aspects of Biblical criticism-something neither the Warfield nor the Packer model will allow for-and yet permits the Bible to retain its sacred text status at the canonical level, something Barth disparaged. The implications of this are varied and promising. It means that the Academy retains her right of full autonomy, doing authentic Biblical criticism with integrity, not bound by any individual community's model of a 'believing criticism,' (which amounts to doing Biblical criticism with one hand tied behind one's back). Furthermore-and as a Lutheran, I speak in terms of a Protestant catholicism-the Church has an opportunity to rediscover, in a creative and discerning way, the rich, theological corpus of the Protestant dogmatic traditions, which operated with Scripture at the same level as does the canonical approach. This time, however, it can be in a fully informed and post-critical way.

So if I'm taking him correctly, he offers a compromise, one in which the textual critics can operate without a "believing criticism" and one in which the church gets her Bible, which was received as canon. Note here that he does not equate his "canonical approach" to that of the 17th century "dogmaticians", but it's apparently in his eyes equivalent for all practical purposes.

Secondly, about 58 minutes in,

The traditional text is the only form of the text that has ever served as Holy Scripture. Even the argument that the original autographs alone are authoritative isn’t valid because it isn’t the autographs that were canonized in the 4th century, or that were at least recognized authoritatively as canonical. The autographs were gone by then, it was an extant traditional edition of the Bible that the church made the decision about under the Holy Spirit’s guidance and said “This is the canonical New Testament”. It wasn’t the autographs that were canonized, it was an extant edition and it was the edition that continued to be copied and read and used in the liturgy and copied by monks in monasteries, that what was the identifying localized edition of that canonized text. And that’s the traditional text as it’s been known, the Byzantine text, the Koine text, the Majority text, what our institution calls the Ecclesiastical text, that is the only text that has served historically as Holy Scripture within believing communities.

While I am grateful that he mentions it was the work of the Spirit here, I would also note that he never seems to argue ANYWHERE (not just here), that these, by God's providence, accurately represented the autographs. That apparently isn't important to him. What is important is that the church received it as canon. The above linked PDF where Letis endorses Childs' views is especially telling in my opinion, if you know anything of Childs'.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello again Logan – I will be responding to your post #50 here.

In my post #47 I said,

“In your post #2, your quoting of Turretin, Vol 1, p 113, on the authenticity of Scripture in two senses, the original, and then the ‘faithful and accurate copies’ of these. It would fall to reason that if the originals (we are talking autographs) were ‘inspired’, insofar as copies of them were truly ‘faithful and accurate’ the inspiration of the former would be attributed to the latter. In this sense copies may be said to be inspired.”​

And you responded,

“Absolutely. This is my position. Letis maintains this was not Warfield's position but that Warfield relegated all authority to the autographs. This is false, and I have quoted from Warfield to show it.”​

BBW quote from your post #1:

“Warfield: 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.”​

I gather this is the quote you referred to above. Besides being a bit dense, I do not have the context it was in, but I do believe that when BBW (toward the end of it) speaks, saying, “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”, what he means is not what the Confession means.

My post #47, quoting Warfield:

“And so they [the Westminster Assembly] proclaimed the perfect preservation of Scripture, in its absolute purity, through all ages, in entire consistency with the recognition that many copies might come from the press filled with corruptions, and that no copy would ever be made by men, wholly free from error . . . they looked for the pure text of Scripture, not in one copy, but in all copies. (p 592)”​

Not just in the Byzantine mss or the editions of Stephanus and Beza, but evidently in Walton’s Polyglott, and that by men like Bishop Lightfoot (of the Revision Committee in the Jerusalem Chamber) “engaged in the most advanced work”. This sentence alone (from your quote) betrays the context of BBW’s view: “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.”

Do you honestly think that such thoughts would be in line with the framers of the Confession? But then they were relative rubes to the business of advanced textual criticism and reconstruction of the New Testament text!

No, the idea Prof. Warfield had with regard to the secondary inspiration (i.e., derived from the autographs) of the apographa was not that of the texts they had in hand, but rather that which was latent in the vast number of mss available and which would come to light through the labors of textual criticism. To his credit, he really believed this would be the highest boon to the church, and the demolishing of the destructive criticisms of the Bible . . . . but he misjudged, with catastrophic results.

Now let me say this, Logan – I appreciate all the work you have put into this discussion, and I have been influenced by it. One result is that I have distanced from Letis in some respects, at least until I investigate further his views on the autographs, and on the process of canonization, etc.

I will look over the chapter on Childs (I had distanced from Childs earlier as I did not appreciate his views as helpful). I will also look further into his views on Ehrman. Keep in mind that it may have been a couple of decades ago he appreciated Ehrman, before the latter became notorious as an adversary of the Faith and its Bible.

I am planning a paper against Ehrman from a TR / AV position, and have been collecting key works of his to interact with.

Is the “Ecclesiastical Text” you refer to Letis’ doctoral dissertation? I have it but have not read it save a little.

It is possible I have been reading some of my views into Letis’; I will look at this; still, I am clear that his take on Warfield vis-à-vis the WCF is sound.

I will look to get to your other questions shortly.

-----------

Chris Coldwell: Letis’ publisher sent me this note: “This essay was presented at a public lecture in Scotland and published in a journal. I believe you have every right to post it.”

 

[Logan]

Now let me say this, Logan – I appreciate all the work you have put into this discussion, and I have been influenced by it. One result is that I have distanced from Letis in some respects, at least until I investigate further his views on the autographs, and on the process of canonization, etc.

I will look over the chapter on Childs (I had distanced from Childs earlier as I did not appreciate his views as helpful). I will also look further into his views on Ehrman. Keep in mind that it may have been a couple of decades ago he appreciated Ehrman, before the latter became notorious as an adversary of the Faith and its Bible.

Steve, I very much appreciate you saying something like that. I really did spend a lot of time on this (as my wife will surely attest!). Thank you!

His comments on Ehrman were in the Pensacola video lecture in 1997, in the Southwest Radio Church program in 2000, and in the second edition (2000) of his book "The Ecclesiastical Text" (the appendix, which is a response to James White, is reproduced on the Theodore Letis site). The book he cited on all three occasions was "Orthodox Corruption", originally printed in 1996. I also linked to the Letis on Childs essay in my last post.

The "Ecclesiastical Text" I have been referring to appears to have been a collection of essays by Letis, 1st ed 1997, second edition 2000. This appears to be different from his book on the "Majority Text". Whether it was a similar collection or just renamed I do not know.

You may agree with Letis in the end result in lamenting Warfield's views and what they led to, that's not really my concern here. What was my concern is the method used to arrive at that lamentation, and I thought Letis misrepresented Warfield's quite unfairly.

Warfield almost undoubtedly took textual criticism further than anyone before and I don't know that I agree with him there. I have not yet formed my own views on textual criticism. However, I think it was the attitude of pious caution that caused men of old to retain readings that had even uncertain Greek, undoubtedly thinking that it is far better to include what may not be Scripture (yet does not contradict it and is something we can benefit by), than to excise what may actually be Scripture. I do think that the textual critic should pray long, hard, and carefully before daring to venture to say that this or that part is not truly Scripture, and I can definitely sympathize with those who want to be in the "safe" arms of the TR, which served the church well for so long.

 

[MW]

I find it odd when people do not care to become acquainted with the issues under discussion but nevertheless offer their comments as to what is or is not appropriate in response. I find such comments to be inappropriate and unfortunate.

How does one read tone without reading it into what the person has said?

I find it inappropriate when people do not care to become acquainted with the issues under discussion but nevertheless offer their comments as to what is or is not appropriate in response.

 

[MW]

That we've come to a place where a man like Letis can disparage a Reformed giant like Warfield and be lauded for it on a Reformed board is indeed curious.

We have not come to this place. No person has lauded Letis on this board for disparaging Warfield. But even if it had taken place, it would not justify misrepresenting Letis' position. Two wrongs would not make a right.

 

[MW]

The desire is to know whether Warfield accurately represented the reformed tradition or introduced an innovation. This is not relevant as to whether or not Letis taught the doctrine of "fallible autographs." Nevertheless, it is important in its own right. Warfield has been quoted earlier and Logan has agreed with his statement. Here is the quotation:

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.

I have quoted part of this statement on previous threads in order to show that Warfield himself accepted there was a more conservative bent in the Westminster divines when it comes to textual criticism. He says, "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." This is important since it comes from one who criticised the approach of Scrivener and Burgon. Simply let it be noted as such.

How does Warfield deal with the Confessional statement on preservation? He subtracts one important qualifier and adds one of his own. He leaves out "in all ages" and he puts in "amidst all the crowding errors of scribes and printers." In other words, he has custom made the statement of the Confession to suit his own methodology. The text to which the Confession ascribes "authenticity" is not the original autographs, nor is it an undefined text swimming in the sea of mss., some of which are yet to be discovered, but it is the text which is available to the church as the final court of appeal. For these divines of the 17th century it was the text available to them at that time, and to which they appealed in support of the propositional truth which they have set forth in this Confession; and this is nothing other than what has come to be known as the received text. It is the text which Warfield rejected in favour of a reconstructed text based on a different view of preservation and a novel view of criticism.

 

[MW]

I quote from a thread a few years back the words of Thomas Ford's Logos Autopistos. Ford was a member of the Westminster Assembly. He states uneqivocally that the providence of God has entirely preserved that which was committed unto writing:

As for the Originals, we are assured that they are entire, and not defective, as any can be sure of any thing that is of so long standing. And therefore we are bold to think, that they who question us, as they do in this kind, might rather have questioned God himself, for representing his mind and will in writing, when he could not but foresee that such manner of questions might be put in after-ages, as are made now-a-days. None dare say, that God never ordered his will to be written. And seeing it is so ordered by him, why should we question the wise and gracious hand of his providence, in contriving the preservation of these ancient Records unto all posterity, for whom he intended them? Methinks it were a more direct course for our Adversaries to take, if they would say downright, that God never committed his mind and will to writing, than now to say (as they do) that no man can be sure that these writings are the same which were at first. For this seems to cast an aspersion upon God, for taking such a way of representing his mind unto the sons of men, as must leave those of these latter ages of the world, under invincible doubtings about his will, that respects their greatest and only concernments.

 

[MW]

To return now to the position of Letis, I ask the reader to let him speak for himself. He wrote for Christianity and Society a piece intended to explain what he meant by calling the question of inerrant autographs a loaded question. It may be found here:

https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...57b88ef66c49/1480081690585/Volume+14+No+4.pdf

The sum of it is encapsulated in the final paragraph:

In short, the question “Do you believe in the inerrancy of the original autographs?” is both a loaded question and a question-begging question. Hence it is fallacious, as well as a defection from the standards of historic orthodoxy, because it restricts the theological notion of inspiration to the lost original autographs alone, thus leaving believing communities without a present infallible Bible. As such the phrase is in contradiction to the expressions of the historic orthodoxy of the past, which spoke in terms of initial inspiration and concomitant preservation and expressed this in the language of the infallibility of the apographs, rather than in the modernist phrase “inerrancy of the autographs,” as clearly outlined above. Furthermore, the phrase “inerrant autographs” demands the use of naturalistic textual criticism to give it reality, which the discipline has never been able to produce in two hundred years of diligent searching, whereas the historic orthodox doctrine of providential preservation demands that we believe in the infallibility of the existing texts of the Bible and the present reality of its absolute authority. These two phrases cannot “peacefully co-exist” because they represent two different paradigms, from two different ages, that are mutually exclusive and which actually cancel out each other. Hence one is forced to choose between the neo-orthodoxy of Warfieldism and the historic orthodoxy of the Reformation, by way of these theological terms, not unlike how fourth century Christians were defined by choosing between Homoousion (Nicene orthodoxy) and Homoiousion (Arianism). In that noble age believers gave up their very lives for the sake of one iota.

No doubt this explanation will disappoint those who do not accept Letis' position, but as an explanation it serves to show that Letis' refusal to subscribe to the statement should not be construed into a positive belief that the autographs are in error. The brother who has attempted to pin this positive belief on Letis has only succeeded in creating a straw man.