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

[Eyedoc84]

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.

I’m not familiar with Tim Berg. I am somewhat familiar with Snapp. For the record, I was reporting mss pre-1000 from the online catalogs I found. Some of the numbers above aren’t in the catalogs I’ve found online. I do wonder if all the above actually contain the section in question, and not just parts of 1 John.

 

[Andrew35]

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.

Not extremely up on this debate, but it does strike me that if many of the later manuscripts are known to be copies of the earlier which contain it, that would kind of invalidate their witness.

That would mean it's just one witness, magnified.

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

I’m not familiar with Tim Berg. I am somewhat familiar with Snapp. For the record, I was reporting mss pre-1000 from the online catalogs I found. Some of the numbers above aren’t in the catalogs I’ve found online. I do wonder if all the above actually contain the section in question, and not just parts of 1 John.

Unless you have reason to think the author is being deceptive, I would give the benefit of the doubt that if the person says said MSS doesn’t have that passage, it DOES have the section it would be in.

 

[Logan]

I’m not familiar with Tim Berg. I am somewhat familiar with Snapp. For the record, I was reporting mss pre-1000 from the online catalogs I found. Some of the numbers above aren’t in the catalogs I’ve found online. I do wonder if all the above actually contain the section in question, and not just parts of 1 John.

I used this to check them some (but I don't have time to check all)

Manuscript Workspace - INTF

ntvmr.uni-muenster.de

All the ones I looked at contained 1 John 5:6/8 but not 7.

The overwhelming attestation from the Greek is that it's not there. It wasn't used in any of the Greek Trinitarian debates or writings, which surely indicates they didn't have it in the Greek. You only find it in the Latin fathers (and the Vulgate). Thus Hill's speculation that perhaps it was preserved in the Vulgate to be reincorporated into the Greek. The only Greek copies (three?) that have it are very late (14th/16th century) and appear to have been sourced from the Vulgate.

 

[Eyedoc84]

Unless you have reason to think the author is being deceptive, I would give the benefit of the doubt that if the person says said MSS doesn’t have that passage, it DOES have the section it would be in.

Well, to be fair, that actually happens a lot. Not necessarily intentionally, but I hear it quite often in these discussions. “We have thousands of Greek manuscripts, but only x number contain Y.”

 

[Logan]

This post also has a helpful analysis of the manuscripts that do contain the CJ (and they apparently have variations even among the few late copies).

The Greek Manuscripts of the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7–8)

An academic forum to discuss the Bible's manuscripts and textual history from the perspective of historic evangelical theology.

evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com

 

[Logan]

My point in bringing this up:

If a TR advocate will point to the evidence of manuscript support by saying "the vast number of Greek manuscripts/Byzantine text/texts actually in use by the church support the TR" but then turn around and with the Comma say "Oh yeah, we have evidence for that two" then the position is not really about evidence.

And many do say that it is a presupposition. They presuppose that the TR is the providentially preserved text against all others and ultimately brooks no critique. That's fine, but in that case, I wish they wouldn't be disingenuous and bring in evidence as though that is supposed to mean something to the position.

And I would further note that it is not a presupposition shared by any reformer or puritan that I'm aware of: anyone who commented on the Greek mentions manuscripts and readings other than the TR. There was no assumption that the printed text had completely supplanted all manuscripts. What they believed was that their printed copies were largely faithful to the manuscripts but that's a far cry from claiming it was above correction---they corrected it often.

I postulate that the Reformers, Puritans, framers of the WCF would not have supported the CT's methodology in its entirety (though they would have supported the collation of manuscripts); but they would not have supported today's TR "apologetic" either! Personally I am not really put out by it. I'm happy to use TR-based translations or CT-based translations. Ultimately God has preserved his word and I am blessed to be able to read it in my own language.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

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

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?...

Hello Jason @retroGRAD3 ,

You're relatively new here, so I assume you haven't seen my work in the textual area. I have indeed given many evidences and proofs for my assertions, which you are likely unaware of. My going over these again in this thread would make the post(s) way too long. Please see the Textual Posts I have compiled here for more on my views, if this is even of interest to you.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Logan – you said

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.

Re "It's a presupposition that cannot, by definition, be disproven", are you saying that my presupposition can not be disproven? I.e., the presup that God promised to preserve His word in the minutiae, upon which the doctrine of providential preservation is founded?

Are not all of our methodologies and apologetics developed after the fact? What can be wrong with citing evidences to support our presuppositions – to put flesh on the bones, as it were?

Disingenuous? (duplicitous, deceitful) Me? Or my method? (God forbid!) Is that a charge? Come on now, please.

Can there be any valid evidence against the presup of God's written promises, and what I build upon them, if they are in accord with said promises?

P.S. I will be updating my Collected Textual Posts and a link to them in my signature very shortly.

 

[Polanus1561]

My point in bringing this up:

If a TR advocate will point to the evidence of manuscript support by saying "the vast number of Greek manuscripts/Byzantine text/texts actually in use by the church support the TR" but then turn around and with the Comma say "Oh yeah, we have evidence for that two" then the position is not really about evidence.

And many do say that it is a presupposition. They presuppose that the TR is the providentially preserved text against all others and ultimately brooks no critique. That's fine, but in that case, I wish they wouldn't be disingenuous and bring in evidence as though that is supposed to mean something to the position.

And I would further note that it is not a presupposition shared by any reformer or puritan that I'm aware of: anyone who commented on the Greek mentions manuscripts and readings other than the TR. There was no assumption that the printed text had completely supplanted all manuscripts. What they believed was that their printed copies were largely faithful to the manuscripts but that's a far cry from claiming it was above correction---they corrected it often.

I postulate that the Reformers, Puritans, framers of the WCF would not have supported the CT's methodology in its entirety (though they would have supported the collation of manuscripts); but they would not have supported today's TR "apologetic" either! Personally I am not really put out by it. I'm happy to use TR-based translations or CT-based translations. Ultimately God has preserved his word and I am blessed to be able to read it in my own language.

Your first point is my question to the TR view: why even talk about evidence when you don’t need to (and it weakens your view)? Why go into the details?

The view of providential preservation is stronger without it. When TR people say in a way there is no harm in talking about evidence, I actually say there is - because as Logan says, once you talk about a methodology and evidence, you actually go down a route where MT and CT people scratch their heads at your view.

MT people would go : You side with us on longer ending of Mark but not on JC?

WM 138: Text Note: Ephesians 3:9

I have posted WM 138: Text Note: Ephesians 3:9 . Listen here . A popular internet apologist (PIA) has recently suggested that Ephes...

www.jeffriddle.net

When I see the above, I am confused (as someone learning the TR view), why would Dr Riddle go into so many details when again, the providential preservation view suffices?

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Because, John @John Yap , confirmation of a presupposition-based position by evidences which support it, demonstrates its validity in the eyes of those who might be doubtful. I don't believe that a naked presupposition – perhaps new and unfamiliar to some – is of itself credible to, or even understood by, everyone.

Hence the doubt many have re providential preservation in the minutiae based on God's promises. If it can be demonstrated that the presupposition and a position derived from it is in perfect accord with sound evidences, does not such confirmation tend to make it more credible?

 

[Jeri Tanner]

If it can be demonstrated that the presupposition and a position derived from it is in perfect accord with sound evidences, does not such confirmation tend to make it more credible?

Don’t we do this with other theological presuppositions, like 6-day creation/age of the earth/evolution, a global flood?

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

Your first point is my question to the TR view: why even talk about evidence when you don’t need to (and it weakens your view)? Why go into the details?

The view of providential preservation is stronger without it. When TR people say in a way there is no harm in talking about evidence, I actually say there is - because as Logan says, once you talk about a methodology and evidence, you actually go down a route where MT and CT people scratch their heads at your view.

MT people would go : You side with us on longer ending of Mark but not on JC?

WM 138: Text Note: Ephesians 3:9

I have posted WM 138: Text Note: Ephesians 3:9 . Listen here . A popular internet apologist (PIA) has recently suggested that Ephes...

www.jeffriddle.net

When I see the above, I am confused (as someone learning the TR view), why would Dr Riddle go into so many details when again, the providential preservation view suffices?

In addition to what Steve and Jeri said below, I’d just point out that you are making the assumption that the evidence for the TR position is weak or that the evidence supports the CT or MT view as opposed to TR. We don’t grant that. I’m not going to get further involved in this discussion as I don’t have time, and have discussed it at length before (fruitlessly of course).

One other thing to point out, the presupposition in question is both scriptural and confessional - that God has preserved his word. The basic difference between the TR position and the CT and MT positions (to the extent that their proponents actually hold that view at all, which we’ll assume that at least those on this board do), is that TR starts with that scriptural view and interprets the evidence in light of it (which is perfectly legitimate). The CT and MT positions purport to start with evidence and see where it leads them (though the Reformed who hold that view then have to explain how that’s consistent with believing in providential preservation if the evidence they choose to consider weighty doesn’t lead them there). To put your point on it’s head, it’s just as disingenuous to claim to believe in providential preservation and yet claim that your view is just based on evidence - isn’t your evidence based claim stronger without claiming to believe the confessional doctrine?

 

[Logan]

If it can be demonstrated that the presupposition and a position derived from it is in perfect accord with sound evidences, does not such confirmation tend to make it more credible?

If that were the case, then yes. But here's what I see:

TR position: The CT is completely wrong about 1 Timothy 3:16. Yes they rely on only a handful of manuscripts but the TR follows the vast majority. Look at the evidence!

Also TR position: the CT is completely wrong about 1 John 5:7. Yes, they rely on the vast majority of manuscripts but the TR follows a handful (and throws in a sprinkling of Latin references). Look at the evidence!

The "evidence" is always for the TR, no matter the evidence against it. If the evidence for 1 John 5:7 is good enough for the position, then one wonders what could possibly be not good enough! And if that's the case, then you're always falling back to your presupposition and the evidence really doesn't mean anything. It is disingenuous to say that the evidence "is in perfect accord" with the presupposition when you only entertain evidence that is, and dismiss evidence that is not (even overwhelming).

I would note that the presupposition that God preserved his word does not necessitate that it be the TR. I presuppose God preserved his word in all the manuscripts, in the TR, and in the CT. TR advocates start with the TR, and insist everyone else does too. It's a more particular presupposition than found in Scripture or Confessions and as such it shouldn't be above critique or modification.

 

[Polanus1561]

In addition to what Steve and Jeri said below, I’d just point out that you are making the assumption that the evidence for the TR position is weak or that the evidence supports the CT or MT view as opposed to TR. We don’t grant that. I’m not going to get further involved in this discussion as I don’t have time, and have discussed it at length before (fruitlessly of course).

One other thing to point out, the presupposition in question is both scriptural and confessional - that God has preserved his word. The basic difference between the TR position and the CT and MT positions (to the extent that their proponents actually hold that view at all, which we’ll assume that at least those on this board do), is that TR starts with that scriptural view and interprets the evidence in light of it (which is perfectly legitimate). The CT and MT positions purport to start with evidence and see where it leads them (though the Reformed who hold that view then have to explain how that’s consistent with believing in providential preservation if the evidence they choose to consider weighty doesn’t lead them there). To put your point on it’s head, it’s just as disingenuous to claim to believe in providential preservation and yet claim that your view is just based on evidence - isn’t your evidence based claim stronger without claiming to believe the confessional doctrine?

1. I do not think TR evidence is weak - see Mk 16 longer ending. But that is a loaded question because when someone says the TR evidence for Mark 16 is strong, yes Amen. But then when you go to Eph 3:9, you have to admit that the evidence is weaker based on what you just affirmed for Mark 16. The point is how would you define an evidence is weak or not weak? Majority? Age?
- Again, that is why my question in this thread so far is: Why talk about evidence when the theory ought to suffice? When you talk about evidence, you bring in questions that @Logan would ask (per above).

2. Would you give that the MT view holds onto providential preservation also? The difference is that they have a larger pool of Byzantine manuscripts to look at, while the TR tradition is 'closed' and has a smaller pool. What is the principle by which you tell a MT guy, "Sorry, your pool is too big, it has to be more restricted."

This post is an echo of the post right above mine, from @Logan .

Anyway, @Scottish Presbyterian , dont feel the need to reply, as you have stated you do not which to debate more.

 

[retroGRAD3]

TR advocates start with the TR, and insist everyone else does too. It's a more particular presupposition than found in Scripture or Confessions and as such it shouldn't be above critique or modification.

This is the question I have never seen answered by TR advocates.

Don’t we do this with other theological presuppositions, like 6-day creation/age of the earth/evolution, a global flood?

6 day creation is stated in the Bible explicitly, so are the other things you mentioned. We can trust it without question because God stated it. That said, there are certainly evidences for them. We exist, so God must have created. The flood also has various difference evidence as Answers In Genesis will point to. However, those are just in support of what the Bible says (we don't believe it because of the evidence, we believe it because God said it).

The Bible nowhere states that the TR is what God has preserved. That is the main point. If the Bible said, I will preserve my word in the Textus Receptus, I would not question it at all.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

The Bible nowhere states that the TR is what God has preserved.

But… the Bible teaches explicitly and by good and necessary consequence that God will, and therefore has, has preserved his word, I’m sure you agree. So what does that mean— does the jot and tittle that he promised to preserve yet remain to be settled? The jot and tittle either includes passages like the Joahhanine comma and other disputed passages in our Bibles, or not… Surely his church is the repository for the testimony and witness of the preservation of his word in the world.

 

[retroGRAD3]

But… the Bible teaches explicitly and by good and necessary consequence that God will, and therefore has, has preserved his word, I’m sure you agree. So what does that mean— does the jot and tittle that he promised to preserve yet remain to be settled? The jot and tittle either includes passages like the Joahhanine comma and other disputed passages in our Bibles, or not… Surely his church is the repository for the testimony and witness of the preservation of his word in the world.

I don't see anything in the Bible that leads me to believe it is the TR that accomplishes this preservation. I currently believe it is through the critical and majority texts that God is preserving his word (through secondary means and providence). Because us humans are imperfect and God uses us to accomplish this preservation, it makes sense there are things like copyist errors. The good news is because of all the manuscripts we can actually see HOW the Bible has been preserved, it is a wonderful thing. The TR, the CT, and the MT all share the same gospel and story of redemption.

One could argue that the comma has been added to scripture and that is also forbidden. I feel that sometimes the conversation is too much on what has been supposedly removed (which is very important), but there is never a concern that something may have been added.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

I don't see anything in the Bible that leads me to believe it is the TR that accomplishes this preservation. I currently believe it is through the critical and majority texts that God is preserving his word (through secondary means and providence). Because us humans are imperfect and God uses us to accomplish this preservation, it makes sense there are things like copyist errors. The good news is because of all the manuscripts we can actually see HOW the Bible has been preserved, it is a wonderful thing. The TR, the CT, and the MT all share the same gospel and story of redemption.

One could argue that the comma has been added to scripture and that is also forbidden. I feel that sometimes the conversation is too much on what has been supposedly removed (which is very important), but there is never a concern that something may have been added.

I can understand all that, but there being no necessity to have removed or changed the once-settled texts now in question, it seems best that these disputes would have remained disputes among textual critics, and not have resulted in new translations that leave out or change texts, when it's not settled fact that this was at all necessary. I believe it has subtly done much to undermine God's word. I mentioned the church being the repository for the truth of his word; I do believe that we should pay attention to the work of the church in reforming times; as we see in the OT how God brought recovery of his word and ways in those times, so God brought about much in the Reformation period, including the use of the manuscripts that were received by the church and resulted in our English and other translations.

 

[retroGRAD3]

I can understand all that, but there being no necessity to have removed or changed the once-settled texts now in question, it seems best that these disputes would have remained disputes among textual critics, and not have resulted in new translations that leave out or change texts, when it's not settled fact that this was at all necessary. I believe it has subtly done much to undermine God's word. I mentioned the church being the repository for the truth of his word; I do believe that we should pay attention to the work of the church in reforming times; as we see in the OT how God brought recovery of his word and ways in those times, so God brought about much in the Reformation period, including the use of the manuscripts that were received by the church and resulted in our English and other translations.

I am not for higher criticism. I do agree that is damaging. I don't believe though all text criticism is bad though. I believe many faithful Christians are involved with the "lower" criticism. They truly want to know "what Mark wrote". The Greensville discussion says this is impossible, but maybe it's not, and even if it is, I don't see why striving for it is necessarily a bad thing. It may be that striving is the thing God has used to keep his word pure in all ages. The point here being, not all text criticism is bad. Yes, there is bad text criticism though.

I don't see why the TR is the settled text. I agree the reformation was an extra ordinary period for Christianity, a wonderful time, the recovery of the full gospel that was hidden in darkness for many years. However, I don't see the TR specifically as being part of that event, especially since there is more than one TR.

I also would mentioned, I am not trying to be stubborn for the sake of being stubborn. I just signed up for the "Kept Pure in All Ages" conference, so I am willing to keep listening.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

They truly want to know "what Mark wrote".

And I guess this illustrates my point. Christians should never have had to be put in doubt over this. (An assertion on my part, I know.)

But I do know that you're seeking the Lord on this and what more can we all do? Very nice that you have the opportunity to go to the conference, I pray it's a great time for you.

 

[Logan]

But… the Bible teaches explicitly and by good and necessary consequence that God will, and therefore has, has preserved his word, I’m sure you agree. So what does that mean— does the jot and tittle that he promised to preserve yet remain to be settled? The jot and tittle either includes passages like the Joahhanine comma and other disputed passages in our Bibles, or not… Surely his church is the repository for the testimony and witness of the preservation of his word in the world.

So here's where I would disagree:

Yes, God has preserved his word. But I believe he has done so in all ages, not just with the TR or not refined it with the TR. So the question is, did the TR exist before the TR? Did people prior to the TR have the TR in every jot and tittle as you have defined it?

No. Mostly, but not entirely. Therefore I don't agree that the narrow definition (TR is the preserved word) is the correct one. I must embrace a broader definition of preservation that encompasses all ages---i.e., "by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages" (not just the post-TR age).

 

[retroGRAD3]

And I guess this illustrates my point. Christians should never have had to be put in doubt over this. (An assertion on my part, I know.)

I would mention when the lower critic says "what Mark wrote", this is a simplification of the argument. We all know what Mark wrote because God has promised this. The goal is to ensure it is kept pure and that nothing has been added or removed from it over the years. As I mentioned earlier, the TR, CT, and MT, all share the same gospel and story of redemption.

Also, @Logan summed up what I was trying to say as well.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Did people prior to the TR have the TR in every jot and tittle as you have defined it?

No. Mostly, but not entirely.

I'm not informed enough to be able to agree or disagree with this, but my main concern is that questions among scholars looking at the texts have led to unwarranted (in my view) new translations and public statements that undermine the texts we have.

We all know what Mark wrote because God has promised this. The goal is to ensure it is kept pure and that nothing has been added or removed from it over the years.

Isn't this contradictory? "We all know what Mark wrote..." yet we don't; because scholars must ensure that nothing has been added or removed from it over the years. So it seems to me we're still waiting to know what Mark wrote. And the discovery of further manuscripts might raise doubt about other passages that we're now "sure" of.

 

[retroGRAD3]

I'm not informed enough to be able to agree or disagree with this, but my main concern is that questions among scholars looking at the texts have led to unwarranted (in my view) new translations and public statements that undermine the texts we have.

Isn't this contradictory? "We all know what Mark wrote..." yet we don't; because scholars must ensure that nothing has been added or removed from it over the years. So it seems to me we're still waiting to know what Mark wrote. And the discovery of further manuscripts might raise doubt about other passages that we're now "sure" of.

It could be I suppose. However, I have seen nothing that the TR is the answer either other than the assertion that it is.

 

[Eyedoc84]

If that were the case, then yes. But here's what I see:

TR position: The CT is completely wrong about 1 Timothy 3:16. Yes they rely on only a handful of manuscripts but the TR follows the vast majority. Look at the evidence!

Also TR position: the CT is completely wrong about 1 John 5:7. Yes, they rely on the vast majority of manuscripts but the TR follows a handful (and throws in a sprinkling of Latin references). Look at the evidence!

Logan, that is not the TR position. One of the first questions the TR position asks is what has the church received as God’s word and made faithful use of throughout the millennia? Where do we see God’s special care and providence for his church vis a vis his word? In the case of Mark 16, since it has a clear majority report across time and space, it presents a low hurdle of supporting evidence. Again, not evidence that is stood upon, but used as corroborating for the presupposition. In the case of 1 John 5:7, there is more dispute. It is very weakly supported in the Greek, but there is a stronger history of support in the western churches via the Latin and some fairly early quotations and allusions. So the supporting evidential bar is higher and looks very different.

Evidence doesn’t exist in a vacuum, it is interpreted based on presuppositions. This is true for everything in life. And unless you want to pick a singular line of reasoning when sorting through the text, the charge of “inconsistency” can always be leveled. If you go with Majority always wins, then textual criticism is a simple game of counting noses. Until the next new archaeological dig tips the scale. If you go with earliest is best, now you’re stuck with hoping your dating methods are accurate, and again tomorrow’s finding changes the whole game.

Maurice Robinson (who I know you like, Logan, and I think he has done very admirable work), while not holding to a providential preservation presupposition, has done marvelous work in exposing the maxims of CT/Alexandrian priority. Likewise Burgon, who I think still has not been answered adequately on some texts despite the 100+ years of “advancements”. Pickering does hold to providential preservation, and while he comes to some odd conclusions, likewise does a superb job demonstrating the foolishness of certain CT ideas and forming a solid underlying theory of textual transmission.

Just one CT maxim for example: “The harder reading is to be preferred.” Really? First of all, this supposes that “orthodox” scribes are the ones who intentionally alter the text to clean it up, and the real text is a mess. Talk about an unbelieving approach! Maybe it’s a harder reading because the scribe had no idea what language he was even copying! Or maybe he was heretic and intentionally altered readings (Tertullian tells us this happened).

 

[Jeri Tanner]

It could be I suppose. However, I have seen nothing that the TR is the answer either other than the assertion that it is.

The assertion is that there is such a thing as a received text; beyond that, I do believe there's room for believing scholarship. But it should be an ecclesiastical undertaking, and unless it's performed in reformation times that God may be pleased to send us again, so that we know we have the Spirit of Christ undertaking such work, the church shouldn't be troubled and doubt brought upon her with these questions raised.

My own view is that the main critical work, which was a spiritual work, was indeed done as those winds of reformation began to blow, and translations using the texts in hand began to be published for the reformed church.

 

[retroGRAD3]

The assertion is that there is such a thing as a received text; beyond that, I do believe there's room for believing scholarship. But it should be an ecclesiastical undertaking, and unless it's performed in reformation times that God may be pleased to send us again, so that we know we have the Spirit of Christ undertaking such work, the church shouldn't be troubled and doubt brought upon her with these questions raised.

My own view is that the main critical work, which was a spiritual work, was indeed done as those winds of reformation began to blow, and translations using the texts in hand began to be published for the reformed church.

I know you believe this is a belief you draw from Scripture, but for my currently, I don't see it supported by Scripture (The TR specifically being the received text). I hold myself to Sola Scriptura (as I know you do) and so I believe all beliefs need to be tested by scripture and proved by it. I don't see any Chapter and Verse to support the TR as the received text. That is where I am currently at.

 

[Polanus1561]

What would help the articulation of the TR view is focusing on how it would answer the MT view. How does it go from “we agree with you on John 8 and Mark 16” to “But on Eph 3:9 and 1 John 5:7… we disagree”

By this route we can free the discussion from the CT view on internal evidence etc (which ought to be talked about but if we want to limit the discussion to a positive view of the TR view, it would be helpful to limit the discussion).

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

The "evidence" is always for the TR, no matter the evidence against it. If the evidence for 1 John 5:7 is good enough for the position, then one wonders what could possibly be not good enough! And if that's the case, then you're always falling back to your presupposition and the evidence really doesn't mean anything. It is disingenuous to say that the evidence "is in perfect accord" with the presupposition when you only entertain evidence that is, and dismiss evidence that is not (even overwhelming).

The presupposition (not the evidence) is always for the TR – as the only textual tradition that meets the criteria for true providential preservation. When the LORD says to the prophet in Jeremiah 26:2, to speak "all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word", and to Moses in Deut 4:2, "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you", do you imagine the LORD would do less than He required of His prophets in keeping the very minutiae of His words?

So when the LORD says by Isaiah, "As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever" (Isa 59:21), and by Jesus, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Matt 4:4), that does seem to show what standard God is establishing as regards the keeping of His word.

When the Spirit of Christ says by Peter, that God "According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness" (2 Pet 1:3), particularly "the exceeding great and precious promises" (2 Pet 1:4) of the Gospel, it falls to reason what we need to live by is His every word.

"Diminish not a one of them" is the command ringing clear from Moses on up through all the writings and prophets. The CT is disqualified from the get-go, with its replacing Asa with Asaph in Matt 1:7,8, and Amon with Amos in Matt 1:10 not only in the ESV, but in the Greek of the underlying CT. So scrap the CT as a runner in the preserved text race. I won't deal with the MT or Byz here, as that's not my burden at this point.

As I said, the presupposition is based on the word of God, and His word has spoken as regards the criteria required for any candidate for the honor of the title, Received Text.

Yes, there may be difficulties with the TR, but they are surmountable by faith, by trust. If you do not have this, I think you have a real problem.

Edward Hills, Princeton-educated text critic, said this,

Has the text of the New Testament, like those of other ancient books, been damaged during its voyage over the seas of time? Ought the same methods of textual criticism to be applied to it that are applied to the texts of other ancient books? These are questions which the following pages will endeavor to answer. An earnest effort will be made to convince the Christian reader that this is a matter to which he must attend. For in the realm of New Testament textual criticism as well as in other fields the presuppositions of modern thought are hostile to the historic Christian faith and will destroy it if their fatal operation is not checked. If faithful Christians, therefore, would defend their sacred religion against this danger, they must forsake the foundations of unbelieving thought and build upon their faith, a faith that rests entirely on the solid rock of holy Scripture. And when they do this in the sphere of New Testament textual criticism, they will find themselves led back step by step (perhaps, at first, against their wills) to the text of the Protestant Reformation, namely, that form of New Testament text which underlies the King James Version and the other early Protestant translations. (Hills, KJVD, p 1)​

The original mss title for Hills' The King James Version Defended, was Text and Time: A Reformed Approach to New Testament Textual Criticism, but the publishers wanted to change it!