Traditional Text Interaction between Christian McSchaffrey, Brett Mahlen, and James White

T

Taylor

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Recently, the podcast coming out of Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary put out an interview with Christian McShaffrey and Brett Mahlen discussing their work and thought when it comes to textual criticism. They are both advocates of what is commonly called the "traditional text position." They are very learned and irenic, for which I am very thankful. You can listen to that interview here.

Yesterday, James White released a response to that interview, which can be found here. I figured I would post both of these as an interesting dialogue between the two camps. Frankly, I am finding myself more and more convinced of the "traditional text position."
 
Thanks for sharing these and giving both sides of the debate. This is a topic I've become much more interested in recently and look forward to listening to these over the weekend.
 
I am interested in White's proposition of how TR people actually do not need to talk about evidence / but they actually do / and they use different arguments for say Mark 16 longer ending and Eph 3:9. (i.e a majority text view for Mark 16 but a different view for Eph 3:9) / but again they do not have to talk about it because TR priority is not an evidential theory but a presuppositional theory rooted in providential preservation / and there is not much value in post-Beza appearances of manuscripts because they will not change anything since the TR is established------- (did I get White's view right?)

I wonder what is a textbook response to it from the TR priority view.
 
I will say, as I'm going through the White video, I'm becoming increasingly annoyed with White's tactics. He spends much if not most of his time caricaturing the other side and beating down a straw man. The things he is arguing against in this video might have been relevant when interacting with Gail Riplinger and Sam Gipp, but presenting McShaffrey's and Mahlen's position as he is, it's borderline mockery, and it's becoming more and more difficult to take him seriously.
 
John Yap said:
I am interested in White's proposition of how TR people actually do not need to talk about evidence / but they actually do / and they use different arguments for say Mark 16 longer ending and Eph 3:9. (i.e a majority text view for Mark 16 but a different view for Eph 3:9) / but again they do not have to talk about it because TR priority is not an evidential theory but a presuppositional theory rooted in providential preservation / and there is not much value in post-Beza appearances of manuscripts because they will not change anything since the TR is established------- (did I get White's view right?)

I wonder what is a textbook response to it from the TR priority view.
Click to expand...
To my knowledge the way TR people treat evidence (or at least, I do myself) is that evidence as mentioned above, is confirmatory, but not necessary to establish the validity of a reading. The extant manuscript evidence (though often appealed to as thousands upon thousands of manuscripts, though much is but shrubs and scraps of said manuscripts) that we have nearly 2,000 years later would not be the totality of manuscript evidence that existed throughout Christian history. Just as Christians were persecuted and their belongings plummeted, so too, there is plain evidence that there was a vast amount of those manuscripts destroyed and or lost. We often assume we have more knowledge and manuscripts now than Calvin, Beza, [insert whatever person here] had, but the truth is we don't know exactly what they had, and how much they had.

To me, the issue always reminds me of the apostles Creed, and the disputation on the subject of the Christ's "descent into hell". People question the validity of it because of the lack of extant evidence. "The evidence we have nearly 2 millenniums later seems to indicate it was inserted into the creed at XYZ time" - but that fact relies upon the lacking extant evidence we have at a much later period. Just sharing my thoughts, and I'm glad to hear Taylor you're approaching the subject through irenic resources.
 
Taylor said:
Frankly, I am finding myself more and more convinced of the "traditional text position."
Click to expand...
Likewise. I thought your old seminary, TEDS, was a bastion of critical text methodology. I'm interested in your journey. I ask because I am struggling with the issue myself. I have postulated that perhaps we do need a confessional text position, but it needs to be nuanced. The insert quote function is not working so I am doing a copy and paste. Recently I said:

On one hand I struggle to believe one can make a consistent defense of 1 John 5:7 or Beza's textual emendation of Rev 16:5 (the Geneva Bible agrees with modern translations). I am aware of James White's argument that if you defend 'obscure' texts you weaken your Biblical apologetic against Muslim critique.

That said, I am not really satisfied by the CT, a text that keeps changing. It seems to me 2 Tim 3:16 "All scripture is breathed out by God" implies a stable, reliable, text - not one that keeps changing. I am certainly open to a modern TR that seeks to grapple with these issues and desires a stable text.

I added:

Higher criticism assumes a naturalistic approach to Biblical doctrine, and much modern textual criticism also assumes a naturalistic approach. As a matter of interest it is worth listening to the debate on Eph 3:9 between James White [JW] and Jeff Riddle [JR]. When JW tried to argue one uses a scholarly textual criticism to determine the text of ancient writers such as Plato, JR correctly argued that the Bible is not a naturalistic book - it is a supernatural book. That said I think the argument is a bit more nuanced. The KJV has a number of text notes that suggest certain phrases or verses are not part of scripture. See for example the KJV notes at Luke 10:22, 17:36 and Acts 25:6. The KJV also appears to question parts of 1 John 2:23. Modern translations (including the NKJV) do not question this. I have previously mentioned Beza's textual emendation at Rev 16:5. My point is - do the KJV translators engage in some naturalistic textual criticism and doubt some passages of scripture with these changes/ footnotes? Someone like JW is quick to capitalise on these KJV textual issues. Coming back to the Eph 3:9 debate between JW and JR. I think JR was right to point out JW naturalistic assumptions. However JW pointed out that the slim textual evidence for the KJV reading of Eph 3:9 ignores the fact that God works through history. JW also pointed out that JR was inconsistent in that he defended the reading of the last few verses of Mark 16 by appealing to the majority of mss, but defended the KJV reading of Eph 3:9 by appealing to the minority of mss. It seems to me JW is correct on this point. That said I think JR was right to say that JW defence of the CT has produced a textual criticism that is uncertain and changing, based on the latest fads of modern textual scholars.

I then responded to a PB member's comments about textual criticism and presuppositional apologetics:

This argument certainly has some appeal for me. Perhaps the best Reformed TR scholar who argued for this position is Edward Hills. It is interesting that James Price's book "King James Onlyism" ch 12 summarises Dr Hills argument and accuses him of circular reasoning. https://www.jamesdprice.com/images/King_James_Onlyism.pdf Maybe he is right. But is it not true that Presuppositional Apologetics has pointed out that all reasoning is circular by its nature. We presuppose the self-attesting nature of scripture based on the infallible authority of God who gave us the scriptures.

In the final analysis I am back to my original argument. It may be good to have a new edition of the TR but in the few places where it is problematic, it would be wise to revise it by the weightier mss of the Byzantine tradition.

Taylor, do you argue for a pure RT or do you think it needs revising in a small number of places? I did note that in the podcast you linked to, the speakers emphasised they believed in scholarship not fundamentalism. Does this mean a sensitive revising of the TR is appropriate? As I said I am still thinking through these issues myself.
 
Oof. I sympathize with the traditional text. With John Owen I'm of a mind that it's been in use for a while and it's probably good enough to keep using. I concur with a lot of the critiques of the critical text. But nor will I say the traditional text is beyond critique.

I wasn't going to comment but got less than five minutes into episode #269 and am finding myself wanting to clarify vehemently.
E.g., there was de facto an established text for 400 years, but there were numerous attempts at revision and numerous reformed scholars who took exception to various readings found in the TR, so to say it was "the established text for 400 years" as though that's the entire story is grossly simplistic. I'm finding the presentation a bit one-sided so far, to be honest :(

I find it so strange that the people who are looked to are Dean Burgon (Anglican), Edward Hills (Presbyterian layman?) and Theodore Letis (History PhD and Lutheran). Strange bedfellows, and Burgon wasn't even TR (he didn't defend 1 John 5:7 for example).
 
I saw the first word and following first letters in the thread title, and was hoping it was going to be about Tex-Mex vs traditional Mexican culinary fare. I was disappointed. Everybody please stay on topic.
 
A revision of the TR is a huge step from TR priority in my opinion. It means many tenets of TR priority are torn down- including the stable text advantage. That is why the logical end of TR priority , per JW , is you should not talk about evidence. What if evidences arises that Mark 16 longer ending is no longer in the majority of manuscripts? This majority is used in debates by TR priority for support of the longer ending. If you want to establish the stability of the TR then do not talk about evidence for evidences can change with new discoveries.

This is why JW claimed a victory of sorts when JR agreed to debate about evidence.

(Correct me if I’m wrong on any of the above)
 
You might check out Theodore Letis also. He has some criticisms of White also. http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/Letis.html


.....

.....
 
John Yap said:
A revision of the TR is a huge step from TR priority in my opinion. It means many tenets of TR priority are torn down- including the stable text advantage. That is why the logical end of TR priority , per JW , is you should not talk about evidence. What if evidences arises that Mark 16 longer ending is no longer in the majority of manuscripts? This majority is used in debates by TR priority for support of the longer ending. If you want to establish the stability of the TR then do not talk about evidence for evidences can change with new discoveries.

This is why JW claimed a victory of sorts when JR agreed to debate about evidence.

(Correct me if I’m wrong on any of the above)
Click to expand...
TR Translation, the Geneva Bible, Rev 16:5 says
"And I heard the Angel of the waters say, Lord, thou art just, which art, and which wast: and Holy, because thou hast judged these things."

TR Translation, the KJV, Rev 16:5 says
"And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus."

We still have to decide which TR is best.
 
Stephen L Smith said:
TR Translation, the Geneva Bible, Rev 16:5 says
"And I heard the Angel of the waters say, Lord, thou art just, which art, and which wast: and Holy, because thou hast judged these things."

TR Translation, the KJV, Rev 16:5 says
"And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus."

We still have to decide which TR is best.
Click to expand...

Even a very significant differentiator like the Comma Johanneum is not in all editions of the TR. It is not in the 1516 or 1519 editions of the Textus Receptus, nor Bibles based on it like the Luther Bible. In fact, it was not included in an edition of the Luther Bible until 1574, after his death.
 
Stephen L Smith said:
TR Translation, the Geneva Bible, Rev 16:5 says
"And I heard the Angel of the waters say, Lord, thou art just, which art, and which wast: and Holy, because thou hast judged these things."

TR Translation, the KJV, Rev 16:5 says
"And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus."

We still have to decide which TR is best.
Click to expand...
www.jeffriddle.net

WM 140: Responding to the "Which TR?" Objection

WM 140: Responding to the "Which TR?" Objection has been posted. Listen here . In the chapter “Why Not the Textus Receptus” ...
www.jeffriddle.net www.jeffriddle.net

this would be relevant to follow up.

But I have to wonder.. Codex Vaticanus—which was around during Erasmus' time and was preserved—TR priority would reject it as a providentially preserved manuscript for use, because Erasmus never (providentially) used it? I.e to say - Erasmus was unconsciously used by God to select providentially preserved texts, which are the only evidences by which a critical text (Textus Receptus) can be formed out of?
 
John Yap said:
But I have to wonder.. Codex Vaticanus—which was around during Erasmus' time and was preserved—TR priority would reject it as a providentially preserved manuscript for use, because Erasmus never (providentially) used it? I.e to say - Erasmus was unconsciously used by God to select providentially preserved texts, which are the only evidences by which a critical text (Textus Receptus) can be formed out of?
Click to expand...
By "preserved" I do not think confessional advocates mean "in existence." All the manuscripts we have in our possession today are by that definition "preserved," and there are many more we do not have that are waiting to be discovered that are also "preserved."

"Preserved" in this context speaks not only to mere existence, but also to recognition, use, attestation, and propagation by the church through the ages. This is why the papyrus fragments found in the sands of Egypt are not considered "preserved," because they have not been used, studied, copied, and passed down through the ages in the church, and, in that sense, fail to achieve the church's recognition.
 
Thanks for the clarification. But when was the 'recognition, use, attestation, and propagation by the church through the ages' established? When Erasmus printed his first edition? (But he was not a church of course) Or during the translation of the AV? It seems like this recognition was more hindsight when we are talking about recognition, so I am confused.
 
Taylor said:
I will say, as I'm going through the White video, I'm becoming increasingly annoyed with White's tactics. He spends much if not most of his time caricaturing the other side and beating down a straw man. The things he is arguing against in this video might have been relevant when interacting with Gail Riplinger and Sam Gipp, but presenting McShaffrey's and Mahlen's position as he is, it's borderline mockery, and it's becoming more and more difficult to take him seriously.
Click to expand...
But don’t forget, he’s debated Bart Ehrman and does actual apologetics in the real world.
 
Eyedoc84 said:
But don’t forget, he’s debated Bart Ehrman and does actual apologetics in the real world.
Click to expand...
I’m not really sure what to do with this. Was this sarcasm? Was it a defense of his uncharitableness, since he has to deal with so many fanatics? What are you trying to argue here?
 
Taylor said:
I’m not really sure what to do with this. Was this sarcasm? Was it a defense of his uncharitableness, since he has to deal with so many fanatics? What are you trying to argue here?
Click to expand...
It was tongue in cheek. You said his tactics are wearing on you. I stopped listening to him a few years ago due to his penchant for picking on low-hanging fruit, act incredulous when presented with an argument that more ably attacks his position, and retreat to name-dropping Ehrman or Crossan and belittle other Christians who disagree with him by claiming that he does “real apologetics where it matters”.
 
Eyedoc84 said:
It was tongue in cheek. You said his tactics are wearing on you. I stopped listening to him a few years ago due to his penchant for picking on low-hanging fruit, act incredulous when presented with an argument that more ably attacks his position, and retreat to name-dropping Ehrman or Crossan and belittle other Christians who disagree with him by claiming that he does “real apologetics where it matters”.
Click to expand...
Gotcha. I thought that’s what you were doing, I just wasn’t sure.

I agree.
 
In the end, I couldn't even finish White's presentation. His caricatures, straw men, condescending elitism, and straight-up mockery of McShaffrey's and Mahlen's position was just too much to handle. Regardless of what side you fall on in this debate, I think we can all agree that, in terms of approach and demeanor, McShaffrey and Mahlen are models. White has become just plain disappointing.
 
John Yap said:
Man, I was hoping we could wade through all that and just talk about the opinions
Click to expand...
Well, me too, honestly. But it's kind of difficult when one side (in this particular instance) is offering a cool-headed presentation of their position, and the other side in response resorts to, "Well, I hope their conference at least has good food, because what else is there?"
 
NaphtaliPress said:
Seriously? That's not scholarship; that's just being a jerk. Why do people give the time of day for that?
Click to expand...
When speaking of this year's Kept Pure conference, entitled "Received Text Apologetics," here are White's exact words: "There is no apologetics in this position! [...] I'm not sure what they're going to be doing [at the conference]. I hope they have really cool food, and stuff like that, because [he shrugs here] there you go."

Of course, this kind of rhetoric doesn't make his position or opinions wrong necessarily. But it does reveal, I believe, something of his heart. He appears bitter. And I can understand a lot of that. He has spent years debating kooks like Riplinger, Gipp, et al. However, McShaffrey and Mahlen are OPC ministers—Reformed men, and brothers in the faith. They are approaching this from what they see as an explicit and deep-seated confessionalism. They know the issues; they are educated; they know the biblical languages; they are well-studied. They deserve better treatment than this.

So, as someone who has been looking into this debate for a number of years with a lot of confusion, I would love to just talk about the opinions. But when one man's opinions are so clouded by his mocking caricatures of the other side, there is little profit in discussing them.
 
Last edited:
Taylor said:
When speaking of this year's Kept Pure conference, entitled "Received Text Apologetics," here are White's exact words: "There is no apologetics in this position! [...] I'm not sure what they're going to be doing [at the conference]. I hope they have really cool food, and stuff like that, because [he shrugs here] there you go."

Of course, this kind of rhetoric doesn't make his position or opinions wrong necessarily. But it does reveal, I believe, something of his heart. He appears bitter. And I can understand a lot of that. He has spent years debating kooks like Riplinger, Gipp, et al. However, McShaffrey and Mahlen are OPC ministers—Reformed men, and brothers in the faith. They are approaching this from what they see as an explicit and deep-seated confessionalism. They know the issues; they are educated; they know the biblical languages; they are well-studied. They deserve better treatment than this.

So, as someone who has been looking into this debate for a number of years with a lot of confusion, I would love to just talk about the opinions. But when one man's opinions are so clouded by his mocking caricatures of the other side, there is little profit in discussing them.
Click to expand...
Exactly this. Reverends McShaffrey and Mahlen are dear friends and have been immensely helpful in my journey to where I'm at now as man under care of the same presbytery as Rev. Mahlen (and Rev. McShaffrey up until our presbytery was planted redrawing the boundaries) and will be licensed this coming fall should the Lord will. Despite the varied opinion on this issue in our presbyteries, there has been love and kindness displayed at every turn. I hope people look at that and know we all belong to Jesus Christ.

I stopped listening JW a couple years ago when I realized I was leaving each episode or video clip more angry than I was before. And that was with stuff I was in agreement about (like the woke stuff as of a couple years ago)!

Taylor,

I'm thankful for your thoughtful comments on the issue, and I'm encouraged by you, brother.
 
J.L. Allen said:
I stopped listening JW a couple years ago when I realized I was leaving each episode or video clip more angry than I was before. And that was with stuff I was in agreement about (like the woke stuff as of a couple years ago)!
Click to expand...
More precisely you said:
I haven't listened to JW in a long while. I found it was bad for my blood pressure! :)
 
John Yap said:
I guess then it’s time to close this thread.
Click to expand...
Odd comment. I posted the videos in hopes of highlighting the interaction. That’s what I said in the OP. And now that the interaction itself is being discussed, you want the thread closed?
 
I was hoping this thread was to be interaction on the points of textual criticism (Is this not the Translation sub and not General discussion) But it seems not to be so. Sorry for being disappointed. I didn’t think we were to be discussing the manner of interaction (which you yourself said you are turned off by, so why would you want to continue talking about something you are turned off by?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top