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

[Taylor]

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?)

My thread was not asking about various points of textual criticism, but highlighting two very recent and related podcasts on the topic. Anything in them is fair game. I found White’s presentation to be woefully deficient for several reasons—not just his demeanor but also his argumentation, both of which I pointed out. For the opposite reasons, I found the GPTS podcast to be more compelling.

If you want to discuss some other points in the podcasts, no one is stopping you. Again, I’m not sure why you are requesting the thread be shut down, unless you just like James White and don’t like seeing him criticized.

 

[Polanus1561]

It’s just a stylistic preference of mine for this sub forum not to go into discussing personalities. You can use Facebook or whatever for that: But maybe I’m niche and just want to focus on the textual issues.

But anyway I’ll just pop by this thread again if there is good discussion going on. Don’t mind me. Till then

 

[StevieG]

I found it interesting that one of the men (apologise that I can't remember which name) in the Greenville podcast said that he read from the TR, but preached from the NASB and then commented on any significant differences in in readings. Would many others hold to this practice? I don't think I've ever come across this. Is it simple a pragmatic decision or inconsistent with their belief that the TR is a more accurate text?

I haven't gotten round to listening to James White yet.

 

[Polanus1561]

I found it interesting that one of the men (apologise that I can't remember which name) in the Greenville podcast said that he read from the TR, but preached from the NASB and then commented on any significant differences in in readings. Would many others hold to this practice? I don't think I've ever come across this. Is it simple a pragmatic decision or inconsistent with their belief that the TR is a more accurate text?

I haven't gotten round to listening to James White yet.

I believe it may be Dr Pipa who holds to the Majority but uses an NASB.

 

[StevieG]

Well that makes more sense. Apologies for the poor listening on my part, shouldn't have tried to listen while doing other things. Thanks for clarifying that for me.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I thought James brought up some good points if one is actually interested in what the Greek manuscripts that we have contain. As he noted, he is sympathetic to a Byzantine priority or majority text approach. What he is not sympathetic to is the notion that a Greek manuscript can be constructed by looking at the English translation from several manuscripts and coming up with a Greek manuscript that is appealed to on the basis of providential preservation.

The problem I have with TR arguments is that they are inconsistent. One could just as easily point to the use of the Vulgate for centuries in the Church and create a Greek manuscript that is faithful to how the Vulgate was used.

In writing this, I'm not arguing for a purely academic approach to determining what the original Greek text contained. What I'm noting, however, is that we see in Church history that translation choices were made that found there way into the thinking of the Church and the return to the Greek was a healthy thing in the history of the Church. Erasmus' and Stephanus (and others) work was very helpful in recovering the Greek text of the originals but I also don't believe that "Providential preservation" ends in the 16th and 17th centuries.

Most f the debates about this center around arguments like the idea we need to be certain that we have the actual translation in our hands or speculation that men somehow knew all the Greek manuscripts when they were spread around Europe before modern communications methods existed. We don't need to say they were not learned men, but neither can we argue that because they did their work that it is the final story on what the autographs contained.

The TR or traditional text arguments typically center around criticisms of other textual methods while submitting their own position to no possible criticism. At the end of the day, arguments for the textual choices are not appeals to actual Greek manuscripts that exist (for some readings) but upon the idea that, since it found its way into the original translation that it must now be "received" and any arguments to the contrary are somehow a disbelief in providential preservation.

 

[Polanus1561]

My question would be, when exactly was the TR being the providentially providence text, set in stone? And when did the church recognised and declared this was the ecclesiastical text?

 

[Taylor]

My question would be, when exactly was the TR being the providentially providence text, set in stone? And when did the church recognised and declared this was the ecclesiastical text?

I think the use of the phrase “set in stone” betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the traditional text position. McShaffrey and Mahlen do not appear to me to be arguing that the TR, in every jot and tittle, is “set in stone,” to the point where no reading could possibly ever be questioned, or no textual criticism could ever be done.

As McShaffrey pointed out in the interview, he is for and not against textual criticism. He finds the science helpful. He keeps up with the field. He recognizes that Erasmus engaged in textual criticism to produce the TR. What he challenges is the modern approach to the text of scripture, which is fundamentally evolutionistic. Many of the “canons” of New Testament textual criticism are arbitrary (Dabney is good on this, by the way).

At the end of the day, Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are fundamentally different than the text family that the Church has made use of throughout the ages. It has significant portions of Scripture missing. And by God’s providence, the Church has made use of a more stable, fuller textual tradition. I think that must mean something in light of WCF 1.8. Thee was never a “declaration” that this is the “preserved text.” It just was preserved as a matter of historical fact.

That’s how I understand things, anyway.

 

[Polanus1561]

Thanks Taylor, it helps to refine my thoughts:
Is this a correct summary? :

1. The TR is not a 100% confirmed view of every reading - there are TR variant readings and thus textual criticism was needed then and needed now.
2. What remains stable (and against the CT view), is that the TR tradition cannot be changed. Because unlike CT, the TR tradition will not welcome a Sinai or Vaticanus appearing and unstabilizing matters. The TR tradition is 'closed'.
3. What God has preserved is the TR tradition (Erasmus to Beza?) - however, textual criticism science is needed to deal with TR variants.
--
But what would help me understand further,
Why does the TR view argue evidentially for say the longer ending of Mark? (Assuming they do and I think they do)

and this was JW's point (if you can ignore whatever you dislike on the manner of his delivery), he considered it a victory when JR did a debate on Mk 16 and Eph 3:9 because not only was evidence debated, but JR used two different ways to argue. (25:00 onwards in the JW video posted in OP). JW views this as something to press the TR position on.

That is why JW is interacting with the TR view. Because there is discussion of evidences. That is why he likes to press on what is the TR methodology with regards to evidence?

So what confuses me and what JW is hinting at: why does the TR view talk about evidence and debating about it, when it actually hurts their cause because it gives ammo for JW to say: Hey you are using 2 different arguments for 2 different places (Eph 3:9 / Mark 16)?

A TR view (if I follow correctly) - should stay away from talking about evidences. The above is not to refute that the TR view is wrong but to question the interaction with the TR view and evidence (mainly Byzantine non-TR manuscripts that the TR view uses to support the longer ending).

Once you bring in evidence to support the TR (which does not need external evidence beyond the TR to determine any reading), it brings in an unstability to the stable TR view because evidences can change with discoveries. Using evidence to debate the longer ending means the debate remains open. And does this not go against the stability that the TR view offers?

So this is the summary for me: If I was a TR person, I would stay away from talking about non-TR evidence, instead the focus is using theology (and history) to show forth that we only need to talk about the TR tradition for the word of God because it is the providentially preserved text. Methodologies textual criticism etc ought to be discussed only when talking about the TR tradition and its variants.

 

[Taylor]

Thanks Taylor, it helps to refine my thoughts:
Is this a correct summary? :

1. The TR is not a 100% confirmed view of every reading - there are TR variant readings and thus textual criticism was needed then and needed now.
2. What remains stable (and against the CT view), is that the TR tradition cannot be changed. Because unlike CT, the TR tradition will not welcome a Sinai or Vaticanus appearing and unstabilizing matters. The TR tradition is 'closed'.
3. What God has preserved is the TR tradition (Erasmus to Beza?) - however, textual criticism science is needed to deal with TR variants.
--
But what would help me understand further,
Why does the TR view argue evidentially for say the longer ending of Mark? (Assuming they do and I think they do)

and this was JW's point (if you can ignore whatever you dislike on the manner of his delivery), he considered it a victory when JR did a debate on Mk 16 and Eph 3:9 because not only was evidence debated, but JR used two different ways to argue. (25:00 onwards in the JW video posted in OP). JW views this as something to press the TR position on.

That is why JW is interacting with the TR view. Because there is discussion of evidences. That is why he likes to press on what is the TR methodology with regards to evidence?

So what confuses me and what JW is hinting at: why does the TR view talk about evidence and debating about it, when it actually hurts their cause because it gives ammo for JW to say: Hey you are using 2 different arguments for 2 different places (Eph 3:9 / Mark 16)?

A TR view (if I follow correctly) - should stay away from talking about evidences. The above is not to refute that the TR view is wrong but to question the interaction with the TR view and evidence (mainly Byzantine non-TR manuscripts that the TR view uses to support the longer ending).

Once you bring in evidence to support the TR (which does not need external evidence beyond the TR to determine any reading), it brings in an unstability to the stable TR view because evidences can change with discoveries. Using evidence to debate the longer ending means the debate remains open. And does this not go against the stability that the TR view offers?

So this is the summary for me: If I was a TR person, I would stay away from talking about non-TR evidence, instead the focus is using theology (and history) to show forth that we only need to talk about the TR tradition for the word of God because it is the providentially preserved text. Methodologies textual criticism etc ought to be discussed only when talking about the TR tradition and its variants.

Your post is quite long, so I’m not sure I can deal with all or even a lot of it. I would like to ask, though, where do you get the idea that the TR position is against the use of evidence? I didn’t get that from the GPTS interview at all. I don’t think it’s a matter of whether to use evidence or not, but rather how the evidence is approached and dealt with.

 

[Polanus1561]

My questions may go beyond your OP content, and my words to you from that post was just the 3 point summary, not necessarily the whole post brother.

If my post is too long I concede that of course. But if you or anyone, feel free to just help me understand how the TR view approaches non-TR evidence. How to use it.. goal of using it etc. don’t need to interact with my very wordy post

And my crux is not that the TR is against the use of evidence but I don’t think they should (non-TR evidence) : I know this is opening for someone to outright refute me and I welcome that (to learn).

 

[Logan]

Your post is quite long, so I’m not sure I can deal with all or even a lot of it. I would like to ask, though, where do you get the idea that the TR position is against the use of evidence? I didn’t get that from the GPTS interview at all. I don’t think it’s a matter of whether to use evidence or not, but rather how the evidence is approached and dealt with.

If there were a consistent methodology, I would agree with that. I think many TR advocates believe they are approaching it from an evidence standpoint (and in the main they are correct). But there are specific instances where evidence is slim to nothing; weaker than you'd see in anything in the CT, yet that's apparently acceptable for the TR.

You have Hill saying that it appears that 1 John 5:7 was lost to the Greek church, but preserved in the Latin churches, and then providentially restored to the Greek. Yet that methodology wouldn't be conceded for a moment if the CT employed it (nor would any of the Reformers have held that position). Nor would that methodology be used for other passages in the TR. The evidence acceptable shifts from passage to passage and that isn't objective.

Ultimately, if only pros are considered as evidence, and cons are just ignored, then it's a methodology that isn't really about the evidence, it's confirmation bias.

That's why I've said that if someone wants to say "I believe that it was providentially established on this date and this is the text we are using" then that's fine, I can somewhat respect that, but using inconsistent evidence to bolster it is troubling. And then there is still the issue of "which TR", because even though the variants are more minor, there are variants.

I'm a fan of a methodology that is clearly established and objective. I am not a fan of a methodology that can only be established after the fact. Produce a methodology and then do the collation and produce the text and I'll respect that. Reverse it and produce the text and then later establish a methodology and I find that extremely subjective.

That's why I respect Robinson's Byzantine Priority view. He has a heavy sympathy toward the texts that have been in use for centuries, critiquing the Critical Text's methodology, but also producing what he believes is a reasonable alternative that isn't simply defending what happens to already be there, despite the evidence against.

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

I listened to the podcast and to White’s critique. My brief response -

* The OPC ministers were very irenic , but the arguments I heard made a lot of assumptions and appealed to emotions, tradition, and sentiment.
* White was practically incredulous, could be somewhat harsh, but his facts and data seemed to line up with reality. He didn’t turn me off but definitely needed to tone down the negativity.

 

[retroGRAD3]

I listened to the podcast and to White’s critique. My brief response -

* The OPC ministers were very irenic , but the arguments I heard made a lot of assumptions and appealed to emotions, tradition, and sentiment.
* White was practically incredulous, could be somewhat harsh, but his facts and data seemed to line up with reality. He didn’t turn me off but definitely needed to tone down the negativity.

This is essentially how I would review as well.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Logan, you said,

You have Hill saying that it appears that 1 John 5:7 was lost to the Greek church, but preserved in the Latin churches, and then providentially restored to the Greek. Yet that methodology wouldn't be conceded for a moment if the CT employed it (nor would any of the Reformers have held that position). Nor would that methodology be used for other passages in the TR. The evidence acceptable shifts from passage to passage and that isn't objective.

The TR position is not based on a particular methodology, but on the Scripture-based presupposition of providential preservation, plus evidences peculiar to whatever reading is being considered, even if the evidences are scant.

As for what the Reformers would have held regarding 1 John 5:7,

The Johannine Comma was cited a proof text for the Trinity in the following confessions and catechisms:

Westminster Confession of Faith 1646 2.3
Westminster Larger Catechism Q&A 6
Westminster Shorter Catechism Q&A 6
The London Baptist Confession of 1689 2:3
The Belgic Confession of 1561, Article 9 quotes the passage: “There are three who bear witness in heaven– the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit– and these three are one.”
The Heidelberg Catechism of 1563, Lord’s Day 8, Q&A 25, footnote 5

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

I listened to the ' "Kept Pure in All Ages," Confessional Bibliology, & the Received Text' podcast Taylor linked to, and will listen to Dr. White's remarks when I have a little time, and comment on that. The aforementioned podcast was great in that it's showing awareness rising as regards the TR's validity, and gets an A from me.

 

[retroGRAD3]

Listened to both, I think James White is absolutely correct in his analysis. Was he prickly, sure, but his arguments against the TR position actually made sense and could be logically followed. The TR guys made a bunch of assertions, but couldn't tell me why they believed them. Basically they assert that is it the confessional position and it has been kept pure in all ages. My question is why? How do you know that it is the TR specifically that has been kept pure? Why isn't it the NASB? Why isn't it the vulgate? Also, if the reformers had access to the NA28 and the TR, would they have still said the TR? A lot of their assertions were anachronistic in nature. Maybe I'm just still to uneducated in this area, but the Greenville presentation just made me more in favor of the CT position. The TR is a product of reconstruction as well, so why it is the correct one and not the NA28 or even the majority text? In any case, the OPC gentlemen are brothers in the Lord, in my own denomination, and I was glad to hear the position presented from a non cultic standpoint (IFB), but I came away completely unconvinced. The position almost seems anti intellectual in nature. "This is it and that's it". These thoughts are what was running through my head as I listened. I'm not trying to insult anyone. I am also more than willing to be taught. I would love to hear more reasons why it is specifically the TR. However, saying things like it's confessional is not convincing by itself. Most OPCs use the ESV, so apparently that is confessional too. I didn't have to take any exceptions to the confession because I like the NASB. Also, saying we believe the Bible has been kept pure in all ages, yes I believe that too. I believe it is through the critical text that God is using means and providence to preserve his word. The fact that variants exist does not affect my faith one bit. Pretending they don't exist doesn't solve any problems either. I am confident that I can read the ESV, NASB, or NKJV and be reading the word of God and understand what the gospel is.

 

[Andrew35]

Listened to both, I think James White is absolutely correct in his analysis. Was he prickly, sure, but his arguments against the TR position actually made sense and could be logically followed. The TR guys made a bunch of assertions, but couldn't tell me why they believed them. Basically they assert that is it the confessional position and it has been kept pure in all ages. My question is why? How do you know that it is the TR specifically that has been kept pure? Why isn't it the NASB? Why isn't it the vulgate? Also, if the reformers had access to the NA28 and the TR, would they have still said the TR? A lot of their assertions were anachronistic in nature. Maybe I'm just still to uneducated in this area, but the Greenville presentation just made me more in favor of the CT position. The TR is a product of reconstruction as well, so why it is the correct one and not the NA28 or even the majority text? In any case, the OPC gentlemen are brothers in the Lord, in my own denomination, and I was glad to hear the position presented from a non cultic standpoint (IFB), but I came away completely unconvinced. The position almost seems anti intellectual in nature. "This is it and that's it". These thoughts are what was running through my head as I listened. I'm not trying to insult anyone. I am also more than willing to be taught. I would love to hear more reasons why it is specifically the TR. However, saying things like it's confessional is not convincing by itself. Most OPCs use the ESV, so apparently that is confessional too. I didn't have to take any exceptions to the confession because I like the NASB. Also, saying we believe the Bible has been kept pure in all ages, yes I believe that too. I believe it is through the critical text that God is using means and providence to preserve his word. The fact that variants exist does not affect my faith one bit. Pretending they don't exist doesn't solve any problems either. I am confident that I can read the ESV, NASB, or NKJV and be reading the word of God and understand what the gospel is.

To say nothing of the fact that any one of those (ESV, NASB, NKJV, or KJV, NIV for that matter) is head and shoulders in quality above the translations most languages have to work with--often as their only option.

 

[Logan]

The TR position is not based on a particular methodology, but on the Scripture-based presupposition of providential preservation, plus evidences peculiar to whatever reading is being considered, even if the evidences are scant.

And that's repeating the problem that I stated. It's a presupposition that cannot, by definition, be disproven, because only evidence for is considered, and evidence against is explained away. It's a position that sounds good in the main, but falls apart in the minutiae.

It's a methodology and apologetic that can only be developed after the fact. It works backwards and finds the evidence to fit the presupposition and ignores evidence that doesn't. If there cannot, by definition, exist any evidence that defeats the position, then citing evidence for the position is disingenuous.

As for what the Reformers would have held regarding 1 John 5:7,

The Johannine Comma was cited a proof text for the Trinity in the following confessions and catechisms:

I'm aware of that. What I said is that the Reformers would not have accepted Hills' methodology. For example, Turretin believed the Comma was genuine because he was led to believe that it was "in all the Greek copies", not because he presupposed that it must be genuine and worked backward to assume that it must have been preserved in the Latin.

Can you show any reformed theologian who did not critique the text he was using, comparing it with other Greek manuscripts? That doesn't sound like a presupposition that their printed copies were providentially preserved and there it stopped. It sounds like they believed they needed to always go back to the sources and verify their printed copies were representing the Greek faithfully. They didn't have your presupposition (in the minutiae).

 

[retroGRAD3]

Kept Pure in All Ages | Conference on the Text of Scripture

www.keptpure.com

Since this is in my backyard I will likely go to this. If Dr. Riddle is one of the best person to hear this position from, then I am willing to hear him out. If it is going to be similar to the Greenville conversation, I am not sure I will be convinced, but I won't go into the presentations with a closed or stubborn mind. If nothing else, it will be a good opportunity to meet others in the OPC and fellowship with some Christian brothers and sisters. Maybe I will also bring the King James Only Controversy for Dr. Riddle to sign (kidding on this last sentence).

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

I don’t want to spend a lot of time on this – supposedly my day off, between sermon prep, Bible study prep, pastoral care, and regular life – but it is important not to be cowed by Dr. White’s views, and those he influences here on PB. As I have to get back to my duties I may not be able to respond to the likely voluminous opposition this could generate. So please note, it not because I cannot respond, but because I must simply get to the labors of dispensing the light I have in my Bible to God’s flock, and those He may be drawing. I no longer have the leisure to spend on "academic" matters like this.


Some responses to Dr. White’s talk against the TR / Kept Pure position on the Greenville podcast

He said:

“The Reformers did not have their views ‘with knowledge…the information we have today…it is historically anachronistic to say these things…’ ” they affirmed…

I reply: It is natural James disregards their views, as he ignores / disdains their frame of reference, which is that God gave them the manuscripts and editions He purposed for them to have in the fulness of time to fully preserve His word, in the face of the increase of knowledge in this field that would occur, knowing that men would try to overthrow His word in the centuries to come. He gave them what they needed to keep intact the Bible – despite the ravages of prior time – and make it available as the great missionary movements covered much of the world.

He said:

“This position is making the assertion the TR is the word of God without question, and there is no need of further study… and [say the TR onlies] that all textual discoveries and all scholarship henceforth are irrelevant…have no meaning and no benefit to the church at all. That’s it. No need for further scholarship.”

I reply: further study can be helpful in many respects, but the promises God gave to keep His word intact were fulfilled by His providential care. One can see the results of the “textual criticism” of the last centuries: Rome, in its hatred of the evangelical faith supported by the sola Scriptura doctrine and the preserved Hebrew and Greek translated into common tongues, this instrument of the devil has convinced multitudes that their (Rome’s) take on sola Scriptura was true, and the Protestants do not have a reliable Bible. Many professional text critics have given up ever recovering the genuine NT text – it’s now all a crapshoot, as the efforts of men are at odds with one another, and there’s no standard by which to judge any outcome. Even the conservative textual scholars, with no plumbline to judge by, can only offer an ever provisional text.

He said:

“Didn’t Erasmus and the other TR editors do reconstruction, and textual criticism? But no more – this is it [as far as further scholarly work to be done]… Such a position is indefensible, it can’t do apologetics.”

I reply: So the Reformers, and scholars, and preachers who held to the TR and versions translated in the following centuries did not defend their faith against many opponents? Their apologetic endeavors were nil? Not a credible statement.

He said:

“Burgon was working with a completely different set of facts than we have today… Burgon didn’t have knowledge of the papyri – Burgon would be thoroughly embarrassed that his writings would be used today as they are, defending a text [now debunked].”

I reply: Yet the Lord gave him and the Reformation divines and editors that which He knew they needed to produce what He wanted produced. The wisdom of men vs the wisdom of God. Burgon gave us valuable knowledge / ammunition to fight against those who would seek to destroy God’s work in keeping the text intact.

He said:

The Greek exemplar used by the TR folks is worthless, and that the history of how it came to be, from Erasmus up through Stephanus, Beza, and then Scrivener’s 1894 – its history – “Ehrman would tear through such an argument” and its textual bases.

I reply: So he says, as his dismal view of the TR’s validity could not have him think otherwise. Ehrman, for all his erudition, is more vulnerable than he thinks. Both White and Ehrman have formidable debating skills, but many can and do write well against both of them.

He said:

“We have so much more information today because of the technology which allows us to collate; we now have massive databases, and more information than Christian scholarship has ever ever ever ever ever had” – this is a good argument for the CT position.

“I’m stunned when someone goes 140 years into the past – where people simply could not do what we can do today – this is not modern hubris, it is just recognizing that we have bypassed the “high tech” card catalogue of the last century, and we’re way beyond that now” in this century!

I reply: James again falls back on his own approach which denies the providential preservation view of the Reformation. It is imperative that he seek to destroy the validity of their view of God’s preservation, for it is the fortress of the TR position.

He said:

Re the “Reconstructed text” [33:14] of the Reformation text editors, they were making text critical decisions and thus reconstructing the text, although they had a minuscule amount of information in comparison to what we have today, and were not consistent.

“The [Reformation] ‘fathers’ had no idea of about 98% of the information in here” [holding up the N/A Critical Text #28].

I reply: Nor did they need it, having what God gave them to work with – what He knew they needed for the dark days to come re the textual situation, when men would deny that God has actually given His church an intact Bible one can hold in one’s hand, whether it be the 1894 TR or a faithful translation thereof.

He said:

The four, Burgon, Hills, Letis, and Riddle, are all part of a “fringe perspective – extremely fringe” – not reflecting the Reformed churches.

I reply: There may be some truth in this, as we are presently a minority. Yet it is a wonder of God’s faithfulness that He has raised up such men to hold forth the truth concerning the Bible, so that those churches and individuals who desire more than the provisional or error-riddled versions offered by the Textual Criticism Industry, may have God’s word intact.

He said:

The Westcott and Hort revised Critical Text of 1881, based on B and Aleph, are greatly different than the NU text.

I reply: Yet the significant variant readings found in the 1881 are present in the NU, and that is the primary issue between the TR and the CT. These variants are the main departure from the faithful apographs, and their source is B and Aleph.

He said:

According to the TR position, most Christians did not have the pure word of God up through the ages, as the final TR came into being only after the beginning of the Reformation.

I reply: Here we get the “adequate preservation” phenomena, slowly leading up to the minute preservation at the beginning of the Reformation, where God kept the readings of the autographs in His text. Was this reconstruction? To re-construct – i.e., to re-build – the NT, or was it but retainingit? Were there text critical decisions made to this end? This is nuanced. It is better to say the TR editors were discerning what had been de-structed and keeping it in the edition now being made – keeping the NT text intact. Is this but semantics? Or do these nuances have profound meaning and significance?
_____

In sum:

“The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages…” WCF 1.8

So how, and what was “kept pure in all ages”? — 1) an entire and intact Greek NT? And that throughout the church age till printing came to be? I don’t think so. 2) Or the pure READINGS of the autographs kept in various Greek mss, and then compiled in an authoritative edition, and then printed? Which edition would that be? I know of none. 3) Or the pure READINGS of the Greek autographs kept in various mss—mostly the Traditional (Byzantine) Greek, but a very few kept in other versions due to attacks and mutilations on the Greek—and then put into print in the Greek Textus Receptus editions (known to and used by the Westminster divines), having also been put into the English, Dutch, and other translations? I hold to the third option. No reconstruction here, but keeping.

This way the WCF / 1689 are not made to bear the burden of asserting there was an entire and intact NT extant throughout the church age before the Reformation, but rather the authentic readings of the entire Greek NT were “by [God’s] singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages”.

 

[retroGRAD3]

I don’t want to spend a lot of time on this – supposedly my day off, between sermon prep, Bible study prep, pastoral care, and regular life – but it is important not to be cowed by Dr. White’s views, and those he influences here on PB. As I have to get back to my duties I may not be able to respond to the likely voluminous opposition this could generate. So please note, it not because I cannot respond, but because I must simply get to the labors of dispensing the light I have in my Bible to God’s flock, and those He may be drawing. I no longer have the leisure to spend on "academic" matters like this.


Some responses to Dr. White’s talk against the TR / Kept Pure position on the Greenville podcast

He said:

“The Reformers did not have their views ‘with knowledge…the information we have today…it is historically anachronistic to say these things…’ ” they affirmed…

I reply: It is natural James disregards their views, as he ignores / disdains their frame of reference, which is that God gave them the manuscripts and editions He purposed for them to have in the fulness of time to fully preserve His word, in the face of the increase of knowledge in this field that would occur, knowing that men would try to overthrow His word in the centuries to come. He gave them what they needed to keep intact the Bible – despite the ravages of prior time – and make it available as the great missionary movements covered much of the world.

Why do you believe this? Why it is the TR that accomplishes this?

He said:

“This position is making the assertion the TR is the word of God without question, and there is no need of further study… and [say the TR onlies] that all textual discoveries and all scholarship henceforth are irrelevant…have no meaning and no benefit to the church at all. That’s it. No need for further scholarship.”

I reply: further study can be helpful in many respects, but the promises God gave to keep His word intact were fulfilled by His providential care. One can see the results of the “textual criticism” of the last centuries: Rome, in its hatred of the evangelical faith supported by the sola Scriptura doctrine and the preserved Hebrew and Greek translated into common tongues, this instrument of the devil has convinced multitudes that their (Rome’s) take on sola Scriptura was true, and the Protestants do not have a reliable Bible. Many professional text critics have given up ever recovering the genuine NT text – it’s now all a crapshoot, as the efforts of men are at odds with one another, and there’s no standard by which to judge any outcome. Even the conservative textual scholars, with no plumbline to judge by, can only offer an ever provisional text.

I don't think your response refutes White at all here. Why is the TR the fulfillment of God's promise? Why wasn't the Vulgate? Why isn't the majority text?

He said:

“Didn’t Erasmus and the other TR editors do reconstruction, and textual criticism? But no more – this is it [as far as further scholarly work to be done]… Such a position is indefensible, it can’t do apologetics.”

I reply: So the Reformers, and scholars, and preachers who held to the TR and versions translated in the following centuries did not defend their faith against many opponents? Their apologetic endeavors were nil? Not a credible statement.

This appears to be a disagreement with White's position, but doesn't really offer anything to refute it.

He said:

“Burgon was working with a completely different set of facts than we have today… Burgon didn’t have knowledge of the papyri – Burgon would be thoroughly embarrassed that his writings would be used today as they are, defending a text [now debunked].”

I reply: Yet the Lord gave him and the Reformation divines and editors that which He knew they needed to produce what He wanted produced. The wisdom of men vs the wisdom of God. Burgon gave us valuable knowledge / ammunition to fight against those who would seek to destroy God’s work in keeping the text intact.\

What leads you to believe that your reply is accurate? Why do you believe this? These are serious questions that I have not seen answered. Why is the TR what God wanted to produce and not another reconstruction/collation? His point about Burgon not agreeing with 1 John 5:7 appears to stand as well and that he would not agree with the TR only position.

He said:

The Greek exemplar used by the TR folks is worthless, and that the history of how it came to be, from Erasmus up through Stephanus, Beza, and then Scrivener’s 1894 – its history – “Ehrman would tear through such an argument” and its textual bases.

I reply: So he says, as his dismal view of the TR’s validity could not have him think otherwise. Ehrman, for all his erudition, is more vulnerable than he thinks. Both White and Ehrman have formidable debating skills, but many can and do write well against both of them.

I didn't hear a response to Ehrman in the Greenville presentation at all. If I understood correctly (and maybe I didn't) they basically said, they will show him the TR and say, this is it. The question continues to be why?

He said:

“We have so much more information today because of the technology which allows us to collate; we now have massive databases, and more information than Christian scholarship has ever ever ever ever ever had” – this is a good argument for the CT position.

“I’m stunned when someone goes 140 years into the past – where people simply could not do what we can do today – this is not modern hubris, it is just recognizing that we have bypassed the “high tech” card catalogue of the last century, and we’re way beyond that now” in this century!

I reply: James again falls back on his own approach which denies the providential preservation view of the Reformation. It is imperative that he seek to destroy the validity of their view of God’s preservation, for it is the fortress of the TR position.

Why do you believe the TR is God's providential preservation?

He said:

Re the “Reconstructed text” [33:14] of the Reformation text editors, they were making text critical decisions and thus reconstructing the text, although they had a minuscule amount of information in comparison to what we have today, and were not consistent.

“The [Reformation] ‘fathers’ had no idea of about 98% of the information in here” [holding up the N/A Critical Text #28].

I reply: Nor did they need it, having what God gave them to work with – what He knew they needed for the dark days to come re the textual situation, when men would deny that God has actually given His church an intact Bible one can hold in one’s hand, whether it be the 1894 TR or a faithful translation thereof.

Same question as above.

He said:

The four, Burgon, Hills, Letis, and Riddle, are all part of a “fringe perspective – extremely fringe” – not reflecting the Reformed churches.

I reply: There may be some truth in this, as we are presently a minority. Yet it is a wonder of God’s faithfulness that He has raised up such men to hold forth the truth concerning the Bible, so that those churches and individuals who desire more than the provisional or error-riddled versions offered by the Textual Criticism Industry, may have God’s word intact.

If the TR position is the accurate one to hold (and maybe it is), there needs to be more of an argument that "this is the providential preservation". People like me want to know why it is the TR specifically.

He said:

The Westcott and Hort revised Critical Text of 1881, based on B and Aleph, are greatly different than the NU text.

I reply: Yet the significant variant readings found in the 1881 are present in the NU, and that is the primary issue between the TR and the CT. These variants are the main departure from the faithful apographs, and their source is B and Aleph.

He said:

According to the TR position, most Christians did not have the pure word of God up through the ages, as the final TR came into being only after the beginning of the Reformation.

I reply: Here we get the “adequate preservation” phenomena, slowly leading up to the minute preservation at the beginning of the Reformation, where God kept the readings of the autographs in His text. Was this reconstruction? To re-construct – i.e., to re-build – the NT, or was it but retainingit? Were there text critical decisions made to this end? This is nuanced. It is better to say the TR editors were discerning what had been de-structed and keeping it in the edition now being made – keeping the NT text intact. Is this but semantics? Or do these nuances have profound meaning and significance?
_____

In sum:

“The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages…” WCF 1.8

So how, and what was “kept pure in all ages”? — 1) an entire and intact Greek NT? And that throughout the church age till printing came to be? I don’t think so. 2) Or the pure READINGS of the autographs kept in various Greek mss, and then compiled in an authoritative edition, and then printed? Which edition would that be? I know of none. 3) Or the pure READINGS of the Greek autographs kept in various mss—mostly the Traditional (Byzantine) Greek, but a very few kept in other versions due to attacks and mutilations on the Greek—and then put into print in the Greek Textus Receptus editions (known to and used by the Westminster divines), having also been put into the English, Dutch, and other translations? I hold to the third option. No reconstruction here, but keeping.

Saying that there is no reconstruction doesn't seem to line up with the facts. It was a reconstruction of sorts and it appears it is your chosen version. I want to know why you hold to these beliefs? What leads you to these conclusions beyond just saying "providential preservation"?

This way the WCF / 1689 are not made to bear the burden of asserting there was an entire and intact NT extant throughout the church age before the Reformation, but rather the authentic readings of the entire Greek NT were “by [God’s] singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages”.

I was not trying to come across as angry or prickly, but communicating emotion in written text can sometimes be difficult. At the end of the day, I am willing learn and be corrected. I am not a CT guy where nothing will ever change my mind. As I mentioned, I will go to the Dr. Riddle conference and listen to what all of the gentlemen have to say. However, the arguments presented here are not convincing. I do not say that in a disrespectful tone either. I am truly trying to see what is so convincing about this position and I just don't. My conclusion is, people holding to this position don't like that there is textual variants. The solution is to say the TR specifically (and apparently the Schrivner) is the Bible that has been kept pure in all ages because God promised to preserve his word. I agree with the promise and that kept pure part, but nothing I see leads me to believe it is the TR specifically that has done this.

 

[Logan]

but it is important not to be cowed by Dr. White’s views, and those he influences here on PB.

I don't know of anyone who is cowed by Dr White's views and I'm certainly not influenced by him (I ignore him except when someone posts something like this).

So how, and what was “kept pure in all ages”? ... 3) Or the pure READINGS of the Greek autographs kept in various mss—mostly the Traditional (Byzantine) Greek, but a very few kept in other versions due to attacks and mutilations on the Greek—and then put into print in the Greek Textus Receptus editions (known to and used by the Westminster divines), having also been put into the English, Dutch, and other translations? I hold to the third option. No reconstruction here, but keeping.

This way the WCF / 1689 are not made to bear the burden of asserting there was an entire and intact NT extant throughout the church age before the Reformation, but rather the authentic readings of the entire Greek NT were “by [God’s] singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages”.

I'm very curious to know how many TR advocates would share your view here, because it seems to me that this is precisely what the Reformed proponents of the CT would adhere to: they agree with you on what "kept pure" means, but disagree that the TR was the providential end product.

I think you're trying to have your cake and eat it too: that the WCF framers meant it was kept pure in all ages means in the various readings, AND that it was also completely pure in their printed copies. Once again, show me any of them that didn't point to various manuscripts in contrast to their printed copies. They all did, to my knowledge. I've seen no demonstration that there was any assumption that this was it, that this was where providential preservation and keeping pure ended. Instead, they recognized that what they had represented the Greek manuscripts very accurately, while still recognizing that it probably was not yet perfect.

 

[Eyedoc84]

“THE PAPYRI!!!”

Exactly what major disputed reading do the papyri shed light on?

“We have so much more than the Reformers did!”

And we don’t have all the info they had either. Some of their manuscripts have since been lost or destroyed. Besides, there is not a single major variant being discussed today that they were not well aware of and discussed. Not the longer ending of Mark, not Eph 3:9, not the CJ, not the PA, not Rev 16:5, not the authorship of various epistles, not the inclusion or exclusion of various canonical books, etc....

————————————————
[unrelated to the above but pertinent to the discussion in general]

The reason printed editions matter is because that is how the scriptures were copied, translated, and distributed throughout the world after the invention of the printing press. Hand-copied mss were no longer the primary vehicle.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

The history of the papyri also matters and the historical writings that have referenced the scriptures. These are things that should be discussed also.

 

[Eyedoc84]

The history of the papyri also matters and the historical writings that have referenced the scriptures. These are things that should be discussed also.

I place a high value on quotations and translations because they testify to acceptance of the reading. We would never accept the translation or quotation as scripture on that basis alone (it must be attested in the Hebrew or Greek), but it lends credence to a reading in dispute. So for instance, the longer ending of Mark is quoted ~150 years prior to its “disappearance” in Codex B, and made its way into early translations.

While the CJ is admittedly poorly attested outside of Latin, Cyprian alluded to it 100 years before Codices Aleph and B, it was quoted by Priscillian contemporaneously to Aleph and B, and quoted at the Council of Carthage 100 years after. And while the contested verse has only sparse support in the Greek mss, the truth is 1 John in general is poorly attested for the first millennium, with less than 10 extant witnesses if my count is correct, most of which are heavily fragmented, and I think only 3 or 4 contain the disputed section (all of which omit the comma).

 

[Taylor]

And while the contested verse has only sparse support in the Greek mss, the truth is 1 John in general is poorly attested for the first millennium, with less than 10 extant witnesses if my count is correct, most of which are heavily fragmented, and I think only 3 or 4 contain the disputed section (all of which omit the comma).

I am still undecided on the Comma, but you bring up an important note that Jeff Riddle brought out for me in one of his podcasts. One of the problems I have with many of the textual footnotes in modern translations is that many of them are misleading. So, for the Comma, many translations make it seem like it is missing from hundreds of manuscripts. Yet we only have, as you said, three of four fragments that even contain the periscope in which the Comma exists.

 

[Logan]

Yet we only have, as you said, three of four fragments that even contain the periscope in which the Comma exists.

Are you sure? According to Timothy Berg, this is a list of Greek manuscripts of 1 John that don't contain the Comma:

Manuscripts Produced Before the 700s: 01, 03, 02, 048, 0296
Manuscripts Produced in the 700s-800s: 018, 020, 025, 049, 0142, 1424, 1862, 1895, 2464
Manuscripts Assigned to the 900s: 044, 056, 82, 93, 175, 181, 221, 307, 326, 398, 450, 454, 456, 457, 602, 605, 619, 627, 832, 920, 1066, 1175, 1720, 1739, 1829, 1836, 1837, 1841, 1845, 1851, 1871, 1874, 1875, 1880, 1891, 2125, 2147,
Manuscripts Assigned to the 1000s: 35, 36, 2, 42, 43, 81, 104, 131, 133, 142, 177, 250, 302, 325, 312, 314, 424, 436, 451, 458, 459, 462, 464, 465, 466, 491, 506, 517, 547, 606, 607, 617, 623, 624, 635, 638, 639, 641, 699, 796, 901, 910, 919, 945, 1162, 1243, 1244, 1270, 1311, 1384, 1521, 1668, 1724, 1730, 1735, 1738, 1828, 1835, 1838, 1846, 1847, 1849, 1854, 1870, 1888, 2138, 2191, 2344, 2475, 2587, 2723, 2746
Manuscripts Assigned to the 1100s: 3, 38, 1, 57, 88, 94, 97, 103, 105, 110, 180, 203, 226, 256, 319, 321, 323, 330, 337, 365, 431, 440, 442, 452, 618, 620, 622, 625, 632, 637, 656, 720, 876, 917, 922, 927, 1058, 1115, 1127, 1241, 1245, 1315, 1319, 1359, 1360, 1448, 1490, 1505, 1573, 1611, 1646, 1673, 1718, 1737, 1740, 1743, 1752, 1754, 1850, 1853, 1863, 1867, 1868, 1872, 1885, 1889, 1893, 1894, 1897, 2127, 2143, 2186, 2194, 2289, 2298, 2401, 2412, 2541, 2625, 2712, 2718, 2736, 2805
Manuscripts Assigned to the 1200s: 4, 5, 6, 51, 204, 206, 172, 141, 218, 234, 263, 327, 328, 378, 383, 384, 390, 460, 468, 469, 479, 483, 496, 592, 601, 614, 643, 665, 757, 912, 914, 915, 941, 999, 1069, 1070, 1072, 1094, 1103, 1107, 1149, 1161, 1242, 1251, 1292, 1297, 1352, 1398, 1400, 1404, 1456, 1501, 1509, 1523, 1563, 1594, 1595, 1597, 1609, 1642, 1719, 1722, 1727, 1728, 1731, 1736, 1758, 1780, 1827, 1839, 1842, 1843, 1852, 1855, 1857, 1858, 1860, 1864, 1865, 1873, 2180, 2374, 2400, 2404, 2423, 2483, 2502, 2558, 2627, 2696
Manuscripts Assigned to the 1300s: 18, 62, 76, 189, 201, 209, 216, 223, 254, 308, 363, 367, 386, 393, 394, 404, 421, 425, 429, 453, 489, 498, 582, 603, 604, 608, 621, 628, 630, 633, 634, 680, 743, 794, 808, 824, 913, 921, 928, 935, 959, 986, 996, 1022, 1040, 1067, 1075, 1099, 1100, 1102, 1106, 1248, 1249, 1354, 1390, 1409, 1482, 1495, 1503, 1524, 1548, 1598, 1599, 1610, 1618, 1619, 1622, 1637, 1643, 1661, 1678, 1717, 1723, 1725, 1726, 1732, 1733, 1741, 1742, 1744, 1746, 1747, 1753, 1761, 1762, 1765, 1769, 1831, 1832, 1856, 1859, 1866, 1877, 1881, 1882, 1886, 1890, 1892, 1899, 1902, 2080, 2085, 2086, 2197, 2200, 2261, 2279, 2356, 2431, 2466, 2484, 2492, 2494, 2508, 2511, 2527, 2626, 2675, 2705, 2716, 2774, 2777
Manuscripts Assigned to the 1400s: 69, 102, 149, 205, 322, 368, 385, 400, 432, 444, 467, 615, 616, 631, 636, 664, 801, 1003, 1105, 1247, 1250, 1367, 1405, 1508, 1626, 1628, 1636, 1649, 1656, 1729, 1745, 1750, 1751, 1757, 1763, 1767, 1830, 1876, 1896, 2131, 2221, 2288, 2352, 2495, 2523, 2554, 2652, 2653, 2691, 2704
Manuscripts Assigned to the 1500s and Later: 90, 296, 522, 1702, 1704, 1749, 1768, 1840, 1844, 1861, 2130, 2218, 2255, 2378, 2501, 2516, 2544, 1101, 1721, 1748, 1869, 1903, 2243, 2674, 2776, 2473, 1104

That's not just three or four.

 

[A.Joseph]

Listened to both, I think James White is absolutely correct in his analysis. Was he prickly, sure, but his arguments against the TR position actually made sense and could be logically followed. The TR guys made a bunch of assertions, but couldn't tell me why they believed them. Basically they assert that is it the confessional position and it has been kept pure in all ages. My question is why? How do you know that it is the TR specifically that has been kept pure? Why isn't it the NASB? Why isn't it the vulgate? Also, if the reformers had access to the NA28 and the TR, would they have still said the TR? A lot of their assertions were anachronistic in nature. Maybe I'm just still to uneducated in this area, but the Greenville presentation just made me more in favor of the CT position. The TR is a product of reconstruction as well, so why it is the correct one and not the NA28 or even the majority text? In any case, the OPC gentlemen are brothers in the Lord, in my own denomination, and I was glad to hear the position presented from a non cultic standpoint (IFB), but I came away completely unconvinced. The position almost seems anti intellectual in nature. "This is it and that's it". These thoughts are what was running through my head as I listened. I'm not trying to insult anyone. I am also more than willing to be taught. I would love to hear more reasons why it is specifically the TR. However, saying things like it's confessional is not convincing by itself. Most OPCs use the ESV, so apparently that is confessional too. I didn't have to take any exceptions to the confession because I like the NASB. Also, saying we believe the Bible has been kept pure in all ages, yes I believe that too. I believe it is through the critical text that God is using means and providence to preserve his word. The fact that variants exist does not affect my faith one bit. Pretending they don't exist doesn't solve any problems either. I am confident that I can read the ESV, NASB, or NKJV and be reading the word of God and understand what the gospel is.

I have no idea what you guys are talking about, but I have to admit that I have a soft spot for James White. He is brilliant about so many things and I actually think he’s fairly restrained for how smart he is.

 

[Taylor]

Are you sure? According to Timothy Berg, this is a list of Greek manuscripts of 1 John that don't contain the Comma:

Manuscripts Produced Before the 700s: 01, 03, 02, 048, 0296
Manuscripts Produced in the 700s-800s: 018, 020, 025, 049, 0142, 1424, 1862, 1895, 2464
Manuscripts Assigned to the 900s: 044, 056, 82, 93, 175, 181, 221, 307, 326, 398, 450, 454, 456, 457, 602, 605, 619, 627, 832, 920, 1066, 1175, 1720, 1739, 1829, 1836, 1837, 1841, 1845, 1851, 1871, 1874, 1875, 1880, 1891, 2125, 2147,
Manuscripts Assigned to the 1000s: 35, 36, 2, 42, 43, 81, 104, 131, 133, 142, 177, 250, 302, 325, 312, 314, 424, 436, 451, 458, 459, 462, 464, 465, 466, 491, 506, 517, 547, 606, 607, 617, 623, 624, 635, 638, 639, 641, 699, 796, 901, 910, 919, 945, 1162, 1243, 1244, 1270, 1311, 1384, 1521, 1668, 1724, 1730, 1735, 1738, 1828, 1835, 1838, 1846, 1847, 1849, 1854, 1870, 1888, 2138, 2191, 2344, 2475, 2587, 2723, 2746
Manuscripts Assigned to the 1100s: 3, 38, 1, 57, 88, 94, 97, 103, 105, 110, 180, 203, 226, 256, 319, 321, 323, 330, 337, 365, 431, 440, 442, 452, 618, 620, 622, 625, 632, 637, 656, 720, 876, 917, 922, 927, 1058, 1115, 1127, 1241, 1245, 1315, 1319, 1359, 1360, 1448, 1490, 1505, 1573, 1611, 1646, 1673, 1718, 1737, 1740, 1743, 1752, 1754, 1850, 1853, 1863, 1867, 1868, 1872, 1885, 1889, 1893, 1894, 1897, 2127, 2143, 2186, 2194, 2289, 2298, 2401, 2412, 2541, 2625, 2712, 2718, 2736, 2805
Manuscripts Assigned to the 1200s: 4, 5, 6, 51, 204, 206, 172, 141, 218, 234, 263, 327, 328, 378, 383, 384, 390, 460, 468, 469, 479, 483, 496, 592, 601, 614, 643, 665, 757, 912, 914, 915, 941, 999, 1069, 1070, 1072, 1094, 1103, 1107, 1149, 1161, 1242, 1251, 1292, 1297, 1352, 1398, 1400, 1404, 1456, 1501, 1509, 1523, 1563, 1594, 1595, 1597, 1609, 1642, 1719, 1722, 1727, 1728, 1731, 1736, 1758, 1780, 1827, 1839, 1842, 1843, 1852, 1855, 1857, 1858, 1860, 1864, 1865, 1873, 2180, 2374, 2400, 2404, 2423, 2483, 2502, 2558, 2627, 2696
Manuscripts Assigned to the 1300s: 18, 62, 76, 189, 201, 209, 216, 223, 254, 308, 363, 367, 386, 393, 394, 404, 421, 425, 429, 453, 489, 498, 582, 603, 604, 608, 621, 628, 630, 633, 634, 680, 743, 794, 808, 824, 913, 921, 928, 935, 959, 986, 996, 1022, 1040, 1067, 1075, 1099, 1100, 1102, 1106, 1248, 1249, 1354, 1390, 1409, 1482, 1495, 1503, 1524, 1548, 1598, 1599, 1610, 1618, 1619, 1622, 1637, 1643, 1661, 1678, 1717, 1723, 1725, 1726, 1732, 1733, 1741, 1742, 1744, 1746, 1747, 1753, 1761, 1762, 1765, 1769, 1831, 1832, 1856, 1859, 1866, 1877, 1881, 1882, 1886, 1890, 1892, 1899, 1902, 2080, 2085, 2086, 2197, 2200, 2261, 2279, 2356, 2431, 2466, 2484, 2492, 2494, 2508, 2511, 2527, 2626, 2675, 2705, 2716, 2774, 2777
Manuscripts Assigned to the 1400s: 69, 102, 149, 205, 322, 368, 385, 400, 432, 444, 467, 615, 616, 631, 636, 664, 801, 1003, 1105, 1247, 1250, 1367, 1405, 1508, 1626, 1628, 1636, 1649, 1656, 1729, 1745, 1750, 1751, 1757, 1763, 1767, 1830, 1876, 1896, 2131, 2221, 2288, 2352, 2495, 2523, 2554, 2652, 2653, 2691, 2704
Manuscripts Assigned to the 1500s and Later: 90, 296, 522, 1702, 1704, 1749, 1768, 1840, 1844, 1861, 2130, 2218, 2255, 2378, 2501, 2516, 2544, 1101, 1721, 1748, 1869, 1903, 2243, 2674, 2776, 2473, 1104

That's not just three or four.

Honestly, I’m just repeating from memory what I heard Jeff Riddle say on a podcast. I could be remembering what he said incorrectly. He may have been talking about only early manuscripts.

Even so, that seems like a lot of manuscripts of 1 John. Do all those witnesses contain 1 John 5:6-8? Or are they just manuscripts of 1 John in general? Genuinely curious.