Letis on Inerrancy, and Warfield

[MW]

One last point. Richard Muller, a well-respected authority on such matters, states that there was a clear difference between the high orthodox and Warfield on this subject.

Turretin and other high and late orthodox writers argued that the authenticity and infallibility of Scripture must be identified in and of the apographa, not in and of lost autographa... The orthodox do, of course, assume that the text is free of substantive error and, typically, view textual problems as of scribal origin, but they mount their argument for authenticity and infallibility without recourse to a logical device like that employed by Hodge and Warfield.

PRRD, 2:415.

 

[Logan]

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.

Interesting, I can see why he thinks the term embodies a paradigm, but what do you make of this statement earlier in the article:

Surely with this response I felt he [James White] would see my point regarding the question of the inerrancy of the original autographs. But this was not the case as evidenced by how he followed-up his reply: “There were inerrant autographs . . .” he asserted. At no point did he offer any proof for this and so he continued his fallacy of begging the question. Nor did our little exercise help him to see his need to provide such proof before putting the question, particularly since he was addressing it to an historian. [Letis' emphasis]

Is he just being finicky? From a theological standpoint, does one need to "prove" that there "were inerrant autographs" when speaking to a fellow Christian?

I don't think the quote you provided answers his association (positively) with both Ehrman and Childs, so I'm not at all convinced it's a straw man I've created.

Also, included in the quote you provided is this statement:

it [inerrancy] restricts the theological notion of inspiration to the lost original autographs alone, thus leaving believing communities without a present infallible Bible.

Does not "inspiration" refer to the "lost original autographs" by definition? What does he mean by "present infallible Bible"? Infallible in doctrine? Truth? If so then Warfield would have agreed we have a present infallible Bible. Does he mean something else?

Thank you very much for sharing the number of quotes in your last few posts. I don't know if I'll reply, I'm rather spent on this subject and would like to pursue some more profitable ones.

 

[Edward]

You bare the burden of proof.

In the American usage, at least, it would be 'bear' as in bearing a burden, not bare. Is this from an historical usage?

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

A brief note: in Prof. Warfield’s mouth the term “inerrancy” refers to the lost original autographs alone, and not to infallible present apographs, that is, not in the sense of the Westminster Confession. Warfield would say it does apply to the present texts, although what he means is latently in the mass of mss, and is to be dug out of them by critical experts, and that is not the WCF’s meaning.

Logan, there are interesting investigations that may be made into Letis’ views and beliefs, but the “main argument” (as you put it) is whether he was accurate in ascribing to Prof. Warfield a departure from the Confession in his view of the status of the New Testament in Greek as per section 1:8, and this has been established clearly and beyond doubt.

Rev Winzer remarks on this wise are correct and to the point.

Anything further by way of discussion on this particular point would be redundant and obfuscatory.

 

[MW]

You bare the burden of proof.

In the American usage, at least, it would be 'bear' as in bearing a burden, not bare. Is this from an historical usage?

No, just a failure on my part to use the correct spelling. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I have corrected it in the post.

 

[MW]

Is he just being finicky? From a theological standpoint, does one need to "prove" that there "were inerrant autographs" when speaking to a fellow Christian?

This is a discussion about textual criticism, and much of the impetus for "restoration" of the text derives from the idea that inerrancy is to be found in the autographs alone. From a "presevationist" viewpoint too much is being made concerning autographs which cannot be consulted. If one insists on empirical evidence one should be ready to prove autographic inerrancy on that basis. If it cannot be proved (which is a given) it should be readily admitted and textual theory adapted accordingly.

I don't think the quote you provided answers his association (positively) with both Ehrman and Childs, so I'm not at all convinced it's a straw man I've created.

As far as I know there was no "association." Ehrman and Childs have contributed in their fields. Letis has utilised their research. That is how academia works.

Ehrman has challenged the idea that variants do not result in doctrinal changes. Anyone who looks into scholarly works on textual criticism will find that this is actually a working hypothesis in the field and that the idea of "orthodox corruptions" has been a part of the science for about two centuries. Childs' Canonical Process Approach is well accepted in even conservative seminaries as it provides a means of looking at the text post-critically.

Does not "inspiration" refer to the "lost original autographs" by definition? What does he mean by "present infallible Bible"? Infallible in doctrine? Truth? If so then Warfield would have agreed we have a present infallible Bible. Does he mean something else?

For those who confine "inspiration" to the process by which Scripture is written it is obvious that only the autographs can be inspired. In 2 Tim 3:15, 16, however, the copies of the Scriptures with which Timothy was acquainted were to be regarded as profitable because they were "theopneustos." In Heb. 3:7, an original Hebrew text is quoted in Greek with the affirmation that the words were to be regarded as the saying of the Holy Ghost in the present. According to biblical testimony, therefore, "inspiration" does not wear out in transmission or wash out in translation.

Warfield's divergent views on preservation and criticism have been articulated. As the issue under discussion pertains to textual criticism I don't think there is any need to go into other areas.

 

[Logan]

although what he means is latently in the mass of mss, and is to be dug out of them by critical experts, and that is not the WCF’s meaning.

Didn't the Westminster Divines likewise refer to certain readings in the "mass of manuscripts"? I just don't understand why they could do it on a small scale, but Warfield is said to depart when he does it on a broader scale.

Rev Winzer:
So that I'm clear on your views, you believe that "inspiration" does not refer only to the immediately inspired autographs themselves. Does it refer to all apographs as well, or only faithful ones? That faithful copies can properly be called "inspired" (because they accurately represent the original) I agree, but I've always understood "inspiration" as a process that occurred only once: when the autograph was set down.

Likewise, I don't think it follows that someone (like Warfield, or White) must be ready to prove that the autographs were without error based on empirical evidence. Christians of every age have intuitively believed this and there has never been a need for empirical evidence. Neither did Warfield seek empirical evidence for this. He argued for it presuppositionally based on God's nature. I have yet to see that as inconsistent.

 

[Logan]

By the way, I urge anyone interested in seeing what Warfield's views actually are, and why he formulated "inerrancy" in the way he did, to read his own paper entitled "The Doctrine of Inspiration of the Westminster Divines". It is quite a scholarly and well-written work and I think clears up many misconceptions.

Edit: I'll add to this Bahsen's most excellent paper The Inerrancy of the Autographa

As well as this interesting statement from Warfield.

This [that inerrancy of the autographs is a modern doctrine] is a rather serious arraignment of the common sense of the whole series of preceding generations. What! Are we to believe that no man until our wonderful nineteenth century, ever had acumen enough to detect a printer’s error or to realize the liability of hand-copies manuscripts to occasional corruption? Are we really to believe that the happy possessors of “the Wicked Bible” held “thou shalt commit adultery” to be as divinely “inerrant” as the genuine text of the seventh commandment – on the ground that the “inerrancy of the original autographs of the Holy Scriptures” must not be asserted “as distinguished from the Holy Scriptures which we now posses”? . . . Of course, every man of common sense from the beginning of the world has recognized the difference between the genuine text and the errors of transmission, and has attached his confidence to the former in rejection of the latter. [my emphasis]

Edit 2: and one more quote from Warfield:

The defenders of the trustworthiness of the Scriptures have constantly asserted, together, that God gave the Bible as the errorless record of his will to men, and that he has, in his superabounding grace, preserved it for them to this hour – yea, and will preserve it for them to the end of time . . .. Not only was the inspired Word, as it came from God, without error, but . . . it remains so . . .. It is as truly heresy to affirm that the inerrant Bible has been lost to men as it is to declare that there never was an inerrant Bible.

Edit 3:
Disagree about Warfield about which copies to look at for the "providential preservation" of the text, or various readings, but I think we'd agree that this statement is correct and not a reinterpretation of the Confession.

[The Westminster Divines] meant to assert that the various readings in the several copies did not prevent the preservation of the text absolutely pure in the multiplicity of copies.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Logan,

Just to be honest with you it doesn't sound like you are listening.

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.

Also in the first quote above, Warfield's example of the Wicked Bible is a very feeble way to set up an argument and to divert attention away from the more complex areas of discussion which he argues against. There are bigger issues at hand concerning passages with the deity of Christ and whole sections of scripture that have been on the critical list that are totally omitted in the supposed oldest and most reliable mss. It isn't a mere word that is being left out by mistake as in the Wicked Bible and it isn't a mere mistake that omitted the whole sections of scripture.

Also Reverend Winzer has tried to convey the ground rules of what we are dealing with between the two authors and scholarly debate. You seem to be neglecting what he is trying to get you to see. I don't think you are doing it intentionally. I admit that I have had to sit back and listen a bit more intently to what Rev. Winzer has communicated to me a quite a few times. Sometimes in our discussions I didn't think he was answering me when in fact I found out he was taking me to a place where I needed to go first in order for him to clearly articulate what I needed to hear. My questions or propositions weren't the problem necessarily as much as the foundation for my reasoning and understanding. Reverend Winzer has needed to get me to back up a few steps before so that I could understand and ask the right questions. I think you would do well to listen to Rev. Winzer a bit more slowly here. JMO. I know how to be a Bull in a China Store also.

So to just reinforce things here. I believe that Steve is correct in this statement.

Logan, there are interesting investigations that may be made into Letis’ views and beliefs, but the “main argument” (as you put it) is whether he was accurate in ascribing to Prof. Warfield a departure from the Confession in his view of the status of the New Testament in Greek as per section 1:8, and this has been established clearly and beyond doubt.

Rev Winzer remarks on this wise are correct and to the point.

Anything further by way of discussion on this particular point would be redundant and obfuscatory.

 

[Logan]

Just to be honest with you it doesn't sound like you are listening.

Thank you for this and if that is the case then I apologize. Perhaps I've just got my nose buried too deeply in Warfield's writing and cannot see the forest for the trees, but I still have not been convinced that Warfield's views departed from the Confession, especially in the historical context in which Warfield was battling.

 

[Peairtach]

Thanks for this thread, Logan and others, including Steve and Matthew. I'm beginning to understand the textual debate a bit better, something I haven't had the inclination to look at in great detail, or found difficult to understand, possibly partly because people often repeat that the differences between all the MSS aren't quite so big, so what's the fuss?

I think the problem with Warfield and his ilk, from what I'm starting to understand, was that the "Received Text" was, through God's providential preserving of the text of the NT, publically well known and accepted in the Church, but Warfield et al, were willing to give a place for a different family or families of MSS, with significant differences, some of MSS which had, for instance, been recently recovered from a waste-paper basket on St Catherine's Monastery, Sinai.

By doing this Warfield wasn't treating the Received Text in a biblical way, as his approach and that of modern textual criticism, theoretically means that the settled text of the Bible which God has supposed to have preserved among us - as we learn from Scripture's view of itself, which view we must start and end with in textual studies - can be opened up at any time by new discoveries, thus undermining our confidence in what we have.

Theoretically, according to modernist textual criticism, there might be a Bible out there in the sands, very different to our own, which may yet be much more representative of the autographs. But that wouldn't be God preseving the text among us, bit allowing important textual material to languish in a place where few or none of God's people had access to it - which is incompatible with its preservation and perseverance among us.

Please correct me, Steve et al., since I'm a complete novice in this area of the text of the Bible, for whom the penny may be starting to drop.

Maybe a very basic book would help.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[MW]

So that I'm clear on your views, you believe that "inspiration" does not refer only to the immediately inspired autographs themselves. Does it refer to all apographs as well, or only faithful ones? That faithful copies can properly be called "inspired" (because they accurately represent the original) I agree, but I've always understood "inspiration" as a process that occurred only once: when the autograph was set down.

The Confession speaks of "immediate" inspiration in relation to what was initially written. That which is transmitted or translated is "mediate," i.e., accomplished by ordinary means being ruled (and overruled) by a special providence for the good of the church. Warfield's "superintendent" view of inspiration contrasts with the traditional "dictation" view, and his espousal of a mere general providence in relation to the copies of Scripture likewise contrasts with the traditional view that a singular care and providence was active in this business.

The question as to the mediate inspiration of "apographs" requires a clear definition of the term "apograph." It assumes the idea that what is copied is an accurate duplicate of the original. "Apographs" and "manuscripts" should not be regarded as synonymous. A selection process has already taken place and the apographs reflect that process.

Likewise, I don't think it follows that someone (like Warfield, or White) must be ready to prove that the autographs were without error based on empirical evidence. Christians of every age have intuitively believed this and there has never been a need for empirical evidence. Neither did Warfield seek empirical evidence for this. He argued for it presuppositionally based on God's nature. I have yet to see that as inconsistent.

One cannot have his cake and eat it too. If the presuppositionalism supporting the TR is to be devoured by the teeth of evidential criticism the only basis which remains for establishing the inerrancy of the autographs is evidentialism. Apart from belief in the special providence of God there is no basis for saying one word which exists in a manuscript is to be regarded as "the word of God." If one accepts special providence then the special object of that providence -- the church -- must factor into the rationale for canonising a certain text and rejecting others.

 

[MW]

Edit: I'll add to this Bahsen's most excellent paper The Inerrancy of the Autographa

Bahnsen also acknowledged that his view, which follows Warfield, is different from the view of Turretin, Owen, et al. See particularly p. 155 of "Inerrancy" ed. Norman L. Geisler.

 

[Logan]

Peairtach:
You probably would prefer someone besides me to answer, so I'll refrain unless you ask me specifically.

One cannot have his cake and eat it too. If the presuppositionalism supporting the TR is to be devoured by the teeth of evidential criticism the only basis which remains for establishing the inerrancy of the autographs is evidentialism.

I understand your position, but once again, I don't think it follows that one must empirically prove inerrancy, as neither did those men need to who were empirically comparing manuscripts for the TR. I'm at the very least encouraged that someone like Bahnsen who surely knew something about epistemology and presuppositions, believed the same. He mentioned something along those lines to Sandlin:

I should also humbly observe in passing, as someone with a bit of background in epistemology, that Sandlin has simply wandered into left field when he tries to make the issue "a rationalist standard of supposed scientific accuracy" to which we are allegedly trying to conform. To think that is the issue is to betray a fundamental misunderstanding of what the debate is about in the first place.

Bahnsen also acknowledged that his view, which follows Warfield, is different from the view of Turretin, Owen, et al.

I am aware that Warfield acknowledged differing from Turretin and Owen in at least several areas. Letis calls both "dogmaticians" of the 17th century, especially for their belief in the inspiration of the Hebrew points. That Warfield or Bahnsen differed from them in many areas isn't surprising, since not many even of their own day agreed with all their assertions.

Warfield's "superintendent" view of inspiration contrasts with the traditional "dictation" view

How so? I am not familiar with the terms, but found Warfield's extensive writings (and extensive citations of 17th century theologians in agreement) to be satisfactory.

 

[MW]

I am not familiar with the terms, but found Warfield's extensive writings (and extensive citations of 17th century theologians in agreement) to be satisfactory.

"Superintendence" is generally regarded as a basic construct of Warfield's extensive writings on inspiration. It might be worth your while to familiarise yourself with the concept. He consciously distanced his own view from the view of the 17th century.

 

[Peairtach]

Logan

Peairtach:
You probably would prefer someone besides me to answer, so I'll refrain unless you ask me specifically.

No. You can go ahead.

 

[MW]

That Warfield or Bahnsen differed from them in many areas isn't surprising, since not many even of their own day agreed with all their assertions.

Significantly the "not many" included the confessionally reformed, so an admission that Warfield and Bahnsen differed from them is a significant concession in favour of Letis' thesis.

To give one example, John Lightfoot, a Westminster divine, and one fully conversant with all of the critical issues related to the text of the Old Testament, wrote:

Some there be, that think the vowels of the Hebrew were not invented for many years after Christ. Which to me seemeth to be all one, as to deny sinews to a body: or to keep an infant unswaddled, and to suffer him to turn and bend any way, till he grow out of fashion. For mine own satisfaction I am fully resolved, that the letters and vowels of the Hebrew were,—as the soul and body of a child,—knit together at their conception and beginning; and that they had both one author.... Our Saviour, in his words of one 'Iota' and one small keraia (tittle) not perishing from the law, seems to allude to the least of the letters, Jod, and the least vowel and accent." -- (Works, 4:50.)

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Richard, I think your remarks are a succinct summation of the general principles of the matter.

---------

Steve: “although what he [Warfield] means is [the true text is] latently in the mass of mss, and is to be dug out of them by critical experts, and that is not the WCF’s meaning.”

Logan: “Didn't the Westminster Divines likewise refer to certain readings in the ‘mass of manuscripts’? I just don't understand why they could do it on a small scale, but Warfield is said to depart when he does it on a broader scale.”​

Two men went fishing, one in the polluted Hudson River, full of heavy metals and sewage, though there were a lot of big fish in it, and the other man went to a small stream in the mountains that had a clear and unsullied pool, and fished there; there were far less fish in it, but they were all healthy and clean.

The manuscripts and editions the Textus Receptus was / is comprised of are not of such a number as to be termed a “mass of manuscripts”*, neither do they have a vast variety of significant variant readings, but very few; the manuscript pool that Johann Griesbach and FJA Hort and BF Westcott used, however, has manuscripts that are not so numerous, but have significant variant readings that go into the many thousands, and they are – given the discrepancies between these mss – prima facie corrupted.

* From another point of view, the TR in its lineage does come from a vast pool of manuscripts, but they are extremely similar and the variants exceedingly minor.

To compare the pool Warfield and his colleagues – Messrs. Hort and Westcott – fished out of, to the Westminsterians, is of such disparity of degree one would really have to call it difference in kind.

 

[Logan]

I'll try to be extremely fair so as not to mischaracterize any position, undoubtedly I will be corrected.

possibly partly because people often repeat that the differences between all the MSS aren't quite so big, so what's the fuss?

That has largely been my attitude as well. I've used the ESV in a NKJV congregation for a long while and have never even noticed the difference. My wife used a KJV in a different congregation (she doesn't remember their translation) and said she didn't notice a difference. However, I think it comes down to a question of whether it is the very word of God, or only 99% the word of God. God's word is precious and should be treated as such. I think both sides have a high view of Scripture but differ as to where that Scripture is contained and how God preserved it.

The Hebrew was transcribed incredibly meticulously, so there are relatively few readings, so textual criticism usually is about the Greek. The Greek was transcribed by many different people, presumably some for private use, some for public use and there are many more variations, but even unbelieving textual scholars are astounded by how few they are and how little they affect the text. The most critical has to concede that what we have today is extremely close to any ancient copy ever discovered, contrary to the claim of many unbelievers that it has become so corrupt as to be unrecognizable.

As a side note, it seems to me that there are several camps one could choose:
A perspective that God preserved his word in all the extant copies.
A perspective that God preserved his word in the Greek churches especially, perhaps called the Byzantine Priority and derived from this mainly, the Majority text (a hypothetical text created by taking the readings that have the most manuscripts, regardless of antiquity).
A perspective that God preserved his word within certain Byzantine texts, used for the Reformation.

Note that all groups must perform some kind of textual criticism simply because no two manuscripts are exactly alike. Most of the variations are extremely minor and non-translatable. Many are slips of the pen, obviously a typo.

I think the problem with Warfield and his ilk, from what I'm starting to understand, was that the "Received Text" was, through God's providential preserving of the text of the NT, publically well known and accepted in the Church, but Warfield et al, were willing to give a place for a different family or families of MSS, with significant differences, some of MSS which had, for instance, been recently recovered from a waste-paper basket on St Catherine's Monastery, Sinai.

It's a little more nuanced than that but I think that is mostly a fair assessment from the "Received Text" (TR) side. TR advocates would say that God doesn't leave his church without his entire word, therefore, what the church had during the time of the reformation must have been what was providentially preserved. It is a little more nuanced because for years, though the TR was certainly the standard text, nearly every commentator or student would talk about "older manuscripts" or "the oldest and best". So though they believed what they had accurately represented the word of God, they also apparently believed there could still be mistakes in it, though it is certainly arguable they wouldn't have assumed that there were as many variants as Warfield did.

Though at this point it's a bit difficult to compare, because textual criticism was really in its infancy. Many truly seemed to have no idea how many variants they were until things like Walton's Polyglot (which collated all the known variants) appeared. Bahnsen said it is like judging 17th century doctor's knowledge of medicine using 21st century standards.

As a side note about the "trash can" story, note that Tischendorf's account says that he found some monks cleaning out some old manuscripts, among them some leaves from the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament). Tischendorf became very excited and asked for more and the monks clammed up. Several years later he came back and after presenting one of the monks with some of his work, the monk showed him, in a closet, wrapped in red cloth, the Codex Sinaiticus (some say that's an indication of honor). It could be said that the monks realized it's value and put it back to be stored safely, but it's not clear from Tischendorf's account that this was actually the case. This was in the early 1800s so not sure how "recent" you'd consider that.

By doing this Warfield wasn't treating the Received Text in a biblical way, as his approach and that of modern textual criticism, theoretically means that the settled text of the Bible which God has supposed to have preserved among us - as we learn from Scripture's view of itself, which view we must start and end with in textual studies - can be opened up at any time by new discoveries, thus undermining our confidence in what we have.

That seems to be the TR position, though I wonder if earlier generations, using a particular form of Scripture would have felt the same: that God had preserved his word in their current Greek texts and these TR folks had no right to mess with it using other data. Also note that (at least from my perspective) it is a little more nuanced than that because not all families of Greek texts were the same. Christians in different parts of the world had different Greek texts, which line was the preserved line? TR advocates would probably say the one in the Greek speaking church, where they were used the most and copied the most. That is probably reasonable if you assume one line of preservation. It's also a little bit tricky because the main place the Greek manuscripts were copied would have been in Greek-speaking churches, most others copied the Latin as far as I know, so naturally there are more copies in the Byzantine family. One could reasonably assume (from a TR preservationist standpoint) that they would also be the most accurate.

Theoretically, according to modernist textual criticism, there might be a Bible out there in the sands, very different to our own, which may yet be much more representative of the autographs. But that wouldn't be God preseving the text among us, bit allowing important textual material to languish in a place where few or none of God's people had access to it - which is incompatible with its preservation and perseverance among us.

I don't know if that's the case. Note that I'm not really a Critical Text (CT) advocate but I don't know that anyone would accept a different reading based on one manuscript. I do have some concerns that some readings are alleged to have been based off of one or two manuscripts in the CT, I have not studied these myself though. But comparing manuscripts can be a very tricky subject. Age alone isn't enough because you might have an old manuscript that has been copied a dozen times by incompetent transcribers, while another relatively recent copy (say, 11th century) was copied directly from an older copy that was copied directly from the autograph. So sometimes textual critics seem to think in terms of "generations", a "third generation" manuscript, even if copied much later, is of more importance than a twelfth generation manuscript, even if much older. So age, family, level of care, all can play a role in assigning a "reliability" to the copy. But note once again that Erasmus had to do something similar when he was working on the original edition of the TR.

But yes, I think that is a valid concern: that God's people would not have had the real words for most of their history.

Things become a little more tricky because there is not just one edition of the TR. Erasmus produced several (the one Luther used differed slightly from later editions), Stephanus produced slightly improved copies of Erasmus, and Beza likewise worked from them. Between these three there are some 200+ variations, aside from marginal notes that mentioned alternate readings. The KJV Bible seems to have used all three, plus other sources, and produced their translation. Scrivener, in 1894 produced a new Greek text that essentially compiled the supposed Greek underlying the KJV (sort of a back-translation). It is this TR that many accept today. Did God providentially preserve his word in this or the others? Perhaps, though the Reformers and Puritans didn't have any problem "correcting" at least some readings from other Greek manuscripts. I also am concerned that certain readings have little Greek support, especially Revelation 22:19 where the term "book" of life can't be found in any but two Greek manuscripts, and both of those possibly made as a copy of Erasmus' edition. Most TR advocates don't seem to see this as a problem however, because they believe it to be preserved: that is primary and evidence is secondary.

I think it was partially this that made Edward Hills' view attractive: Yes, the TR has variants, we can't be absolutely certain which are the correct but it is this edition that gives us maximum certainty. It has the fewest variants and was counted reliable for a huge portion of the Christian Church.

So to kinda sum up. The TR position (if one can call it a solitary position, since everyone seems to have slightly different reasons), is that God promised to preserve his word. We have his word, we believe his promises, therefore what we have is it. This certainly I could see as the "safe" route.

One of the problems I see with that position is that it seems that any Christian community before could have claimed the same thing before the TR, the Waldenses for example, other Greek-speaking communities, for whom the TR represented closely, but not perfectly what they had.

On the other hand, the CT position places a lot of weight on more ancient texts more recently discovered, and it is quite easy to introduce human bias. Part of me is excited at the effort to "purify" the text as much and get as close to the originals as possible, the other part is uneasy in that human knowledge is fallible. It is certainly an area where one should tread with caution.

I would be fine if Christians still only used the TR. I very much enjoy my KJV and have also used a NKJV for many years. For the last 10 years or so I have used the ESV with great profit. If the ESV was based off of the TR I'd still use it. For all practical purposes, they have been the same for me. Let me put it this way: from my perspective there are far more differences in the way it was translated into English that affect meaning, than in which Greek text underlies it.

And above all, we can be thankful that God has preserved his word with so much certainty! Whether it is just 200 variants (as with the TR) or 3000 variants (with the CT), we can be absolutely certain that the truths contained in it have not changed. Someone said that if all a Christian had were the worst copies of the Greek, he would still believe the same things as one who had the best copies. That is truly marvelous in my eyes.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

The reason these textual threads attract so much attention – even by readers not members of PB – is that we who belong to Christ live by His word, even as He said, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matt 4:4). And if it is cast into doubt, even just parts of it, that’s a big deal.

Possibly we who are KJ or TR priority (that would include NKJ & MKJ, and Geneva) are a thorn in the side of those who prefer the CT / modern versions, as we cast doubt on their Scriptures. This is why I labor whole-heartedly to affirm their Bibles in the main even while objecting to particular readings. I do not want to weaken the faith of any brother or sister in the word of their God. My wife uses the NIV 1984, and we get along fine. She has heard me preach and teach many times – as well as in our own private conversations – talking of various readings that should be in one’s Bible. But I appreciate her heartfelt love for God’s word and her amazing knowledge of it. I don’t lord it over her in this.

I said earlier in this thread, “the whole field of text critical studies appears like a battleground of disparate views upon which the dust has not yet settled”, and I’m sure it is unsettling to many Christians that this is so. Okay, I think we can still function if all that is between us is difference of views regarding readings while we honor one another’s Bibles in the main, and still care for one another. Take heed friends, there are days coming when it shall be crucial that we “keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph 4:3), for only thus will the strengthening presence of our Saviour enable us to endure hardship and affliction “with all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness . . . Giving thanks unto the Father” (Col 1:11-12).

When I finish participating in this thread I want to get back to writing on Eschatology, for that is equally pressing to me. I know not everyone will agree with my avant-gard Amil teaching, but it will be good to have it in mind as a point of reference as the days unfold and events take place. I say “avant-gard” because I posit some historical referents to the visions of Revelation not usually made (but not unheard-of either), that will give an appreciation of John’s Apocalypse that may be lacking in some. Like a storm below the horizon there are days coming upon us that truly will “try men’s souls”.

For example, I was reading in a book of James K.A. Smith, “the point of apocalyptic literature is not prediction but unmasking—unveiling the realities around us for what they really are” [italics his]. Well, there is some prediction in Revelation, but his point is very well taken nonetheless. To see what is is to be forewarned – and as the saying goes, “Forewarned is forearmed.”

At any rate, I want to get back to this vein of the whole counsel of God.

 

[Peairtach]

Thanks for that, Steve and Logan.

So, reverent and presuppositional textual criticism involves recognising that the Bible is not a book like any other, whose preservation and extant copies must be viewed in the light of what the Bible says about itself and its preservation; that we know that the original autographs were without error because the Bible tell us so, not because we can prove it empirically; and that textual criticism involves the believing interpretation of God's providence regarding the MSS.

If you want to correct or add anything, feel free.

 

[Logan]

I'd say that's an excellent summary. Thanks!

 

[One Little Nail]

Thanks for that, Steve and Logan.

So, reverent and presuppositional textual criticism involves recognising that the Bible is not a book like any other, whose preservation and extant copies must be viewed in the light of what the Bible says about itself and its preservation;
that we know that the original autographs were without error because the Bible tell us so, not because we can prove it empirically; and that textual criticism involves the believing interpretation of God's providence regarding the MSS.

If you want to correct or add anything, feel free.

I'd say that's an excellent summary. Thanks!

Hello Logan, could I ask you what you believe when you use the term Inerrant 1 & how it may differ from the Classical usage of the term Infallibility in regards to the original autographs 2 and todays preserved and extant copies 3,
as you've agreed to Richards point on this matter and also precisely which do you hold to be God's providentially preserved manuscripts in this day 4.

I hope that in no way am I suggesting that you beat your wife

 

[Logan]

Hello Logan, could I ask you what you believe when you use the term Inerrant 1 & how it may differ from the Classical usage of the term Infallibility in regards to the original autographs 2 and todays preserved and extant copies 3,
as you've agreed to Richards point on this matter and also precisely which do you hold to be God's providentially preserved manuscripts in this day 4.

I'd be happy to explain my views.

As I understand it, the term "inerrant" or "without error" or "without mistake or deviation", is historically applied to the autographs alone, believing that when God inspired men, he also preserved them from making any errors in matters of faith, history, facts, etc. This was in direct opposition to those who restricted the Bible's "infallibility" to doctrine only, and that the inspired men could and did err when talking of science or history. It was a term used to directly counter those who said the autographs contained many errors. So the autographs could be called either infallible (even in a strict sense) or inerrant (Warfield used the terms almost interchangeably).

Infallibility means the property of not being capable of erring. The autographs certainly were infallible in the strictest sense, the apographs cannot be said to be infallible in the strictest sense as they contain many scribal errors. But because we believe the autographic text is preserved in the apographs, the apographs may be said to be infallible because they inherit that trait of being the infallible word of God. Because of this, are comfortable ascribing "infallibility" to translations into other languages, even though of course a translation could never be "inerrant".

Historically there does seem to have been a distinction, but not very well made because it wasn't necessary. Nearly everyone assumed that the Bible had been inspired and because God inspired it, it would have been without error. It wasn't until later that the church was attacked on this point (that the biblical authors had been inspired or had written without error), which elicited the response we see in Warfield and Hodge. Nevertheless, Warfield could still say the current Bible was infallible and authoritative because it inherited this from the autographs.

I don't know if it's a question of "which manuscripts" were providentially preserved, but "what words" were providentially preserved. It makes sense to me to compare all apographs, or what Christians from all over the world received as God's word. I would see God's preserving all these apographs for a reason and to neglect any one as slighting him. Is this elevating man's intellect? I don't think anyone gets away from that. A TR-advocate would prefer mainly the Byzantine apographs, and even more narrowly from there, only certain Byzantine manuscripts. He's made decisions based on evidence (perhaps that these were the most widely used). Erasmus had to make decisions where his manuscripts didn't agree, and did a remarkable (though I wouldn't say perfect) job. You can accept that what he produced is the end of the matter because God worked through him to preserve exactly what he wanted, though there I would point out that when the Reformers and Puritans compared and preferred certain readings from older manuscripts, it is evident that they didn't think it was a perfect work.

I would say that both groups believe God preserved his word. Both believed it was originally without error and both believe that we have the autographic text available in our copies. It is where one looks that becomes the differing factor. Note once again that I don't believe the CT does anything perfectly either, and they may indeed place too much stress on a few older copies.

 

[py3ak]

The question as to the mediate inspiration of "apographs" requires a clear definition of the term "apograph." It assumes the idea that what is copied is an accurate duplicate of the original. "Apographs" and "manuscripts" should not be regarded as synonymous. A selection process has already taken place and the apographs reflect that process.

Matthew, I think it might prove very helpful if you were able to give an explanation of on what basis certain manuscripts are recognized as apographs, or how the selection process takes place.

 

[MW]

Matthew, I think it might prove very helpful if you were able to give an explanation of on what basis certain manuscripts are recognized as apographs, or how the selection process takes place.

In brief, I maintain we are bound to follow the very same process by which the canon of Scripture is received by us. The church which witnesses to the books of Scripture has also witnessed to the text which makes up those books. But this will take the thread in a very different direction, and, to be quite frank, I seriously doubt the canon itself has been studied in sufficient depth for folk to appreciate the issues. Most "reformed" people simply accept the books of Scripture without identifying the basis on which they are received as canonical.

 

[py3ak]

Thank you, Matthew. With how interconnected these issues are, it is good to at least have a summary statement.

 

[One Little Nail]

Logan I'd like to thank you for your response, as a Textus Receptus & King James Bible man I was concerned with some of your posts in the Not KJVO,KJVP Thread and some in this thread also, I was fearfull that you
were undermining Confidence & belief in The Reformed & Verbal Plenary Preserved Text of The T.R. & KJB, though you seem genuine & honest in your beliefs & posts in these threads, though I still fear that you have an
aversion to The T.R. Text & don't fully understand the role of Faith in preservation of the Bible nor in God's Providential role in using The KJB (that is to say His endorsement of The KJB), & I thought that if the Letis post
continued you would continue to sow seeds of doubt which could prove to be detrimental to a defence of The T.R. & KJB for some.

As you understand it, the term "inerrant" or "without error" or "without mistake or deviation", is historically applied to the autographs alone, believing that when God inspired men, he also preserved them from making any errors in matters
of faith, history, facts, etc. This has merit, though I would apply it to the faithfully preserved copies or apographs myself on that issue you say these "cannot be said to be infallible in the strictest sense as they contain many scribal errors"
is this not because the Alexandrian family, particularly Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, Sinaiticus has been fond recently to contain 23,000+ corrections, while According to Herman C. Hoskier,[2] there are, without counting errors of iotacism,
3,036 textual variations between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in the text of the Gospels alone Comparison of codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
or if a Translation were an accurate & faithful rendition of The Original Languages would it not be Inerrant in your understanding of it, I would also say it has Integrity, Infallibility & have a Derived Inspiration.

I would say the Old understanding of Infallibility('infallible' means there can be no errors) has the sense of the modern Inerrancy, that it both in Rule of Doctrine,Faith & Practice as well as containing no errors in matters of history, facts, etc
this as well as a Belief that its Textual Integrity is Preserved, so Both the Corporal & Spiritual, the Temporal & Eternal aspects are kept in all ages pure.

 

[Logan]

I still fear that you have an
aversion to The T.R. Text & don't fully understand the role of Faith in preservation of the Bible nor in God's Providential role in using The KJB (that is to say His endorsement of The KJB), & I thought that if the Letis post
continued you would continue to sow seeds of doubt which could prove to be detrimental to a defence of The T.R. & KJB for some.

I've said before that I very much enjoy the KJV and am happy people still use it. The same with the TR, I just don't think it should be a matter of binding consciences to say one "must" use it. I am largely reacting to what seems to be the same three or four people appearing whenever someone makes a post about the ESV or NIV or NASB or NKJV, and telling them they should be using the KJV.

Steve's example in these areas is very commendable. He's willing to defend his position, but not attack others or cause them to lose faith in the Bible they use.

This [inerrancy only applying to the autographs] has merit, though I would apply it to the faithfully preserved copies or apographs myself on that issue you say these "cannot be said to be infallible in the strictest sense as they contain many scribal errors"
is this not because the Alexandrian family, particularly Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, Sinaiticus has been fond recently to contain 23,000+ corrections,

No, even if no other texts had ever been discovered since the time of Erasmus, I still wouldn't say the TR is infallible in the strictest sense of being without human-introduced or scribal error, and that is because there are variant readings. These may only amount to a few hundred but which readings are correct in order to give you your 100% preserved text? They can't all be. So are they the ones found in Erasmus' edition, Stephanus' edition, Beza's edition? That's not even counting the various readings in the margins of these editions, are some of those the correct ones? The KJV didn't use any one of them but apparently used all of them, so was it at this point that the "perfectly" preserved text came onto the scene, meaning that the Reformers didn't have it? Or was it in 1894 when Scrivener re-engineered the Greek texts underlying the KJV and came up with a TR? In which case God amazingly chose to preserve his word perfectly in English instead of Greek! So which one of these, or which of these readings is the "perfect" text?

So you see, even within the TR camp, preservation is talked about in broader terms than one perfect text. It usually encompasses the variants in the various editions as well. But as Steve says, the difference is not that both camps "fish" for variants, but that they fish out of different lakes. In his view, the TR camp fishes out of a small clear lake, while the CT camp fishes from the broader ocean, which contains pollutions.

According to Herman C. Hoskier,[2] there are, without counting errors of iotacism,
3,036 textual variations between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in the text of the Gospels alone or if a Translation were an accurate & faithful rendition of The Original Languages would it not be Inerrant in your understanding of it, I would also say it has Integrity, Infallibility & have a Derived Inspiration.

I don't know much about Sinaiticus or Vaticanus, but my understanding is that a huge number of the "corrections" were done to the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament) so the "corrections" really have no meaning there. As for the "corrections" done in the New Testament, how many of them were original? The scribes made some mistakes (accidentally left out a line) and inserted their own corrections of their work. Later "corrections" were also made, for what purpose? Are they marginal notes? Variant readings? Comparisons from later copies? Because they believed the manuscript had mistakes? Are the people using Sinaticus and Vaticanus using the "corrections" or the original text? I'm sure the manuscripts used in the TR had "corrections" too, but one can't outright reject them.

I would say the Old understanding of Infallibility('infallible' means there can be no errors) has the sense of the modern Inerrancy, that it both in Rule of Doctrine,Faith & Practice as well as containing no errors in matters of history, facts, etc
this as well as a Belief that its Textual Integrity is Preserved, so Both the Corporal & Spiritual, the Temporal & Eternal aspects are kept in all ages pure.

"Inerrancy" is more of a specialized or technical term referring to the original product and is closely tied with one's doctrine of inspiration. I would not apply "inerrant" to any copies today. "Infallible" is much more of a theological or practical term and could be applied to the autographs (in a strict sense) or the apographs, or even translations. Though we know translations can never be without error of translation, yet they may be said to be infallible because they present God's infallible word in a language we can understand.

 

[Cymro]

Having not studied the subject in hand, and also unqualified to enter into the debate,
nevertheless I must record my absorption with the debate and the benefit received.
It may have become a bit heated at times but that added interest and convictions.
Thanks to the participants for their learning and tenacity.
Amazingly and providentially during the discussion I had cause to go to one of our
wardrobes, and noticing a box on its floor, I opened it. Lo and behold, it contained
a 10 volume set of Warfield that had never been opened. Given many years ago,
I had forgotten all about them! For a purpose!
Steve, waiting eagerly for your A-Millennialist treatment.