Gail Riplinger is in this title because you need to read this
Look at the comment thread under this post. The commenter named Thomas is exceptional - I mean, truly exceptional by any standard - in articulating the real issues regarding the traditional text vs. the so-called Critical Text. He nails the liberal academics (including the ones who have no self-awareness of their liberal views regarding Scripture). He also nails Reformed and self-identified Calvinist Christians (of the Village of Morality kind, which unfortunately is by far the most numerous kind) in showing them how they've adopted the Romanist position on Scripture and are using the same tactics against Christians that Romanists used during the Reformation. Because Thomas' comments may be deleted over at the above-linked blog (the blog owner actually rebuked him for writing comments that were 'too long', this is all he could come up with to chill him, the blog owner being a Critical Text dupe), I will put the entire thread in a comment below to save it for future reference.
1 Comments:
37 Responses to “New Testament Textual Criticism: Answer Key to Quiz”
1.
C Michael Patton on 30 Oct 2007 at 1:34 am #
Awesome post Dan. Everyone need to read this!
2.
Thomas on 30 Oct 2007 at 3:54 am #
You said:
“The “providential view” is a name I made up, but I’m sure that someone holds to something like this! Many King James only advocates, for example, would argue that God must have preserved scripture a certain way, and the KJV is how he did it.”
What you claim to have “made up” is actually what the Magisterial Reformers held to and is the Confessional position of the Westminster Confession of Faith, 1:8
While they didn’t hold to unlearned anabaptist thought about inspiration of translation, which should be self evident, they did hold that the commonly Received Text of Scripture was the original text Providentially Preserved (1, Aland quote).
Thus, during the English civil wars the printing of Bibles in England had ceased, some copies printed in Holland and imported were examined by the Assembly of Divines in 1643 and found to contain printing errors they considered to be “corrupt and dangerous to religion.” (see Scrivener, Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), p 25) They then petitioned Parliament to outlaw any importation that was not approved by said Divines which was enacted, but it didn’t do much good as many were subsequently imported from Holland with false claims as to the origin of press .
In that sense one could say the Westminster Divines were “King James Onlyists” as they were opposing the Tridentine attacks upon Sola Scriptura through the introduction of variant readings and Rome’s assertion therein that Papal Infallibility was the only reliable guide to Truth. This claim, of course, has simply been restated today in terms that enlightenment textual philosophers are now the infallible guide.
(1) “…it is undisputed that from the 16th century to the 18th century orthodoxy’s doctrine of verbal inspiration assumed… [the] Textus Receptus. It was the only Greek text they knew, and they regarded it as the ‘original’ text.” (Kurt Aland, “The Text of the Church” Trinity journal 8 (1987), p. 131.
While it is not true that it was the only Greek “text” they knew (2), in case someone reads that to mean “manuscript text”, it is true they regarded it as the original and reliable text of Scripture itself.
That is why it is called the “Received Text” as it is held by orthodox Protestantism to be the original autographa Providentially Preserved and “received” by Christendom through the ages. They had a much higher view of Scripture and approached the issue from an entirely different orientation, never entering their mind to attempt to compare apographs with hypothetical “inerrant autographs” which they didn’t nor could possess. Thus, the doctrine of Inspriration, Inerrancy and Infallibility was not approached from the enlightment philosophy that posits an extrabiblical standard upon textual reliability.
Furthermore, it is incorrect to allude, the way you do that the Received Text “finds its roots in Erasmus’s Novum Instrumentum Omne.” The word “roots” indicates, at least in my interpretation, that you are saying that Erasmus created a “received text,” when it is merely the transmission of a manuscript text already commonly received into printed form.
Sincerely,
Thomas
(2) Paul Bombasius, on June 18, 1521, the secretary of the Lorenzo
Pucci at Rome, sent a letter to Erasmus containing a copy of portions of Codex Vaticanus. Jospeh Dixon (1853) says that Erasmus rejected it presuming Vaticanus to be corrupt and altered to match the Latin.
3.
bethyada on 30 Oct 2007 at 4:34 am #
7 out of 10. 4, 6, 8 incorrect (though didn’t read the word complete in question 6–always read the exam question thoroughly before answering!).
Disclaimer: Never studied theology at university level but have read several articles in the Prof’s soapbox series some years back.
4.
Peter Head on 30 Oct 2007 at 6:29 am #
Over on ETC I scored 0/10.
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2007/10/dan-wallaces-tc-quiz-for-students.html
5.
stevemoore on 30 Oct 2007 at 6:30 am #
Thanks, - learned a lot already and looking forward to hearing more about this.
-steve
6.
connie @ Practicing Theology on 30 Oct 2007 at 9:12 am #
I must give credit to my husband for any answers I got correct, as he has been my greatest teacher over the years–my wrong answers are purely MY fault!!!! BTW, he studied under YOU, Grassmick, etc. at DTS. Hope you’ll keep this sort of thing coming, it is very helpful!
7.
Nick N. on 30 Oct 2007 at 9:16 am #
I got 5 out of 10 :-|
8.
Bill on 30 Oct 2007 at 9:16 am #
Great test Dan. I at least did not score a zero.
Seriously, great information and in a form that is intriguing.
9.
centuri0n (F. Turk) on 30 Oct 2007 at 9:24 am #
5 out of 10, but #1 is a trick question. I protest — how do I complain to the dean? :-(
:-)
10.
Scott on 30 Oct 2007 at 10:48 am #
I got a 50%, but learned some things! Thanks!
11.
lbovee on 30 Oct 2007 at 12:03 pm #
6 out of 10.
Dan’s job is safe. :)
12.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 30 Oct 2007 at 12:22 pm #
Utterly brilliant post Professor Wallace. Immense gratitude for leading and sharing this series on textual criticism.
P.S. Another note of gratitude to Thomas for writing the following:
“They had a much higher view of Scripture and approached the issue from an entirely different orientation, never entering their mind to attempt to compare apographs with hypothetical “inerrant autographs” which they didn’t nor could possess. Thus, the doctrine of Inspriration, Inerrancy and Infallibility was not approached from the enlightment philosophy that posits an extrabiblical standard upon textual reliability.”
If I may ask, if they did not approach this from an Enlightenment philosophy with its attendant extrabiblical standards, then whence or how did they approach the doctrine of Inspiration, Inerrancy, and Infallibility?
13.
Luke Hatfield on 30 Oct 2007 at 3:37 pm #
Thomas,
Where did the Magisterial Reformers get the idea “that the commonly Received Text of Scripture was the original text Providentially Preserved”? This is certainly not a Biblical idea, so aren’t they also imposing an extrabiblical standard by which to determine the inspired text? It seems to me that they more or less picked one specific text and decided to go with that one. The original manuscript view agreees that there was one inspired text (the original manuscript), but it is now lost, hence the task of textural criticism, that is, to as nearly as possible determine what that original manuscript was.
This understanding of inspiration comes from the Bible itself. 2 Peter 1:21 says, “Men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” Based on this passage, I believe inspiration was a one-time event for each book/portion of the Bible. The Holy Spirit carried that author along to write down that particular letter, psalm, etc. at that particular time. So the original manuscripts as they were penned when “men were carried along by the Holy Spirit” - those are the writings I hold as inspired and therefore infallible, inerrant, and completely authoritative, and I believe that is why textual criticism is so important and why I appreciate the work of scholars like Dan Wallace and others who are helping recover as nearly as possible what those original manuscripts said.
14.
Dan Wallace on 30 Oct 2007 at 9:00 pm #
Glad you folks had fun with this. Peter, since you got a zero out of ten, I should probably throw out the entire quiz as invalid. I don’t know too many folks who can compete with your text-critical expertise. But since I’m the professor in this ‘course,’ I’ll keep it and give you a second chance to redeem yourself.
Frank, no dean to protest to. Trick questions have never been off-limits to professors. Live with it.
Thomas, I have to protest a couple of your critiques. I said that I made up the NAME of ‘providential view,’ not the idea. I know that the idea is implicit in the Westminister Confession, the first confession ever to suggest a doctrine of preservation, by the way (then followed by the Helvetic Confession). And you are quite right that the Westminster divines were especially thinking of the textus receptus when they articulated this doctrine. Second, I stand by my statement that the TR finds its roots in Erasmus’ Novum Instrumentum, your interpretation of what ‘roots’ means notwithstanding. Since I was describing what the Elzevirs did, rather than what Erasmus did, I think that ‘roots’ is wholly appropriate as a description of how to connect the TR to Erasmus.
Good discussions, folks. More to come.
15.
Thomas on 30 Oct 2007 at 9:15 pm #
Dear Truth Unites and Divides,
You asked:
“If I may ask, if they did not approach this from an Enlightenment philosophy with its attendant extrabiblical standards, then whence or how did they approach the doctrine of Inspiration, Inerrancy, and Infallibility?”
Francis Turretin, a Geneva Reformer and author of the Helvetic Consensus, explains the matter plainly. For more see that Consensus:
“By the original texts, we do not mean the autographs written by the hand of Moses,
of the prophets and the apostles, which certainly do not now exist. We mean their
apographs which are so called because they set forth to us the word of God in the
very words of those who wrote under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”
Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1992 1:106.
For a much more expansive answer I would refer you to Richard Muller’s, “Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics.” Here is a pertinent quote:
“By “original” and “authentic” text, the Protestant orthodox do not mean the autographa which no one can possess but the apographa in the original tongue which are the source of all versions. The Jews throughout history and the church in the time of Christ regarded the Hebrew of the Old Testament as authentic and for nearly six centuries after Christ, the Greek of the New Testament was viewed as authentic without dispute. It is important to note that the Reformed orthodox insistence on the identification of the Hebrew and Greek texts as alone authentic does not demand direct reference to autographa in those languages: the “original and authentic text” of Scripture means, beyond the autograph copies, the legitimate tradition of Hebrew and Greek apographa. The case for Scripture as an infallible rule of faith and practice and the separate arguments for a received text free from major (non-scribal) error rests on an examination of the apographa and does not seek the infinite regress of the lost autographa as a prop for textual infallibility…. [In related footnote 165 Muller observes: “A rather sharp contrast must be drawn, therefore, between the Protestant orthodox arguments concerning the autographa and the views of Archibald Alexander Hodge and Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield.”] p. 433
The principle held today in modern criticism of this “infinite regress” to “inerrant autographa” is the textual heterdoxy of BB Warfield when he departed from the Westminster Confession and then redefined it in terms of his departure standing upon the enlightenment presupposition of Wescott and Hort. His departure from Protestant orthodoxy created a need to establish and maintain a scientific definition of Biblical inerrancy under attack by naturalistic scientific theory, walla, “inerrant autographa.” It is a new and novel idea in terms of historic Reformed Orthodoxy, none of the Magisterial Reformers held to the concept, on the contrary, that was Rome’s claim.
To the Reformers the Bible was infallible because it was the very word of the Living God. They simply identified the legitimate tradition of the preservation of the text and received it.
So, they approached it in the way they approached Nicene and Chalcedonian orthodoxy, thus they did not create a second classification of Scripture based upon hypothetical and hellenic presuppositions (”inerrant autographs”) in which God by His “singular care and providence” becomes required to abide by. Once you take the Bible in your hands and pit the autographa against the apographa, you are attempting to hold it in dialetical tension in the hellenic Form/Matter dialetic; you then become a wordless “Christian Mime.” Which is why the Gospel only speaks today in terms of “relevancy,” instead of an authoritative word from the Most High God.
Thus, they didn’t philosophize about the text, they received the Scriptures that was common to Greek and Protestant Church through the ages. The modern heterdoxy of “inerrant autographs” would have been seen by the Reformers as a concession to Rome, and the modern fundamentalist “KVJ Only” baptist clearly senses this. He simply doesn’t have the ability to deal with the problem of Biblical Authority with the philosophical tools at hand to him, this is because he is standing upon Reformed Orthodoxy in receipt of the Authorized Version but theologically denies the doctrines of that Orthodoxy. Hence, he necessarily creates the “inspiration” of the translation to maintain his theological independence. If you look at Riplinger, for example, whom James White disparages; she receives the Bible of Chalcedonian Orthodoxy (e.g., Calvinism) and sets out on anti-Calvinistic tirade because the Reformed caved to naturalistic scientific criticism ala BB Warfield and published that Romish NIV. James White, then, in his championing of Warfeldian heterdoxy simply confirms, in their eyes, every word she wrote.
We need to consider that the fundamentalist Baptist dogmatic stand upon the Authorized Version is the greatest opportunity for an evangelistic explosion of Reformational Orthodoxy since the Reformation itself. We should be embracing this, not disparaging it.
The Reformers did not try to stand upon a presupposition of neutral objectivity, they were biased against Rome and championed that bias. It is a matter of presuppositions by and through which one interprets the data, EF Hills explains this very well in his work, King James Version Defended.
The same problem exists, for example, in the way the evolutionist pretends to be capable of standing upon neutral ground to interpret the creation, instead of being analogical and thinking God’s thoughts after Him, in his definition he becomes a maker of facts, and stumbles. Likewise, the principles of eclectic criticism is the academic equivalent of the Scopes Monkey Trial in its quest for the inerrant autographa, which is why the Authorized Version is scorned and disparaged.
16.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 31 Oct 2007 at 9:00 am #
Dear Thomas,
Much, much thanks for the in-depth reply! You have given me much to ponder upon. There’s quite a bit to unpack.
Pax.
17.
James Snapp, Jr. on 31 Oct 2007 at 2:34 pm #
Thomas,
I hesitate to chime in, because the issues you bring up merit more space than this venue is likely to allow. Nevertheless:
The Westminister Confession says that the Hebrew and Greek texts have been providentially kept pure. That is an affirmation of the didactic reliability of the extant text(s) used by the church; it is an endorsement of the Textus Receptus’ teachings, but that is not an endorsement of the Textus Receptus itself.
T: “That is why it is called the “Received Text” as it is held by orthodox Protestantism to be the original autographa Providentially Preserved and “received” by Christendom through the ages.”
You’re implicitly saying that Protestants who do not uphold the TR are not orthodox. This is, of course, not granted. I see no reason why acceptance of the TR as the original text should be a litmus test for orthodoxy.
T: . . . “never entering their mind to attempt to compare apographs with hypothetical “inerrant autographs” which they didn’t nor could possess.”
Modern-day text-critics don’t do that much either, except when offering conjectural emendations. The contents of some copies are compared with the contents of other copies. To paraphrase something Jerome said in his preface to the Vulgate Gospels, if people are going to insist on adopting the text of the copies, they should say which copies they mean, and why, because copies disagree.
T: “It is incorrect to allude, the way you do that the Received Text “finds its roots in Erasmus’s Novum Instrumentum Omne.”
No it isn’t; historically the two are connected like a great-grandfather and great-grandson. Your statement would have more merit if you were referring to the Byzantine Text.
Turretin’s and Muller’s comments seem illogical to me; they define the “original text” as the text of the copies. Again we must ask, which copies, and why? Plus, if you look closely at Muller’s comment, he may only be arguing that the extant Hebrew and Greek are authoritative to the degree that they match the meaning of the autographs, and that non-Hebrew, non-Greek MSS (such as the Vulgate) have only a secondary and derivative level of authority.
Muller stated, “The case for Scripture as an infallible rule of faith and practice and the separate arguments for a received text free from major (non-scribal) error rests on an examination of the apographa.” So far, so good; that’s what text-critics do: they examine the contents of the copies. But then he states that the scholar using a proper approach “does not seek the infinite regress of the lost autographa as a prop for textual infallibility.” What does that mean? If he’s not saying that all the disagreements in the MSS should all be considered original, then maybe he is just saying that text-critics should always adopt extant readings, and refrain from conjectural emendations.
T: Warfield’s “departure from Protestant orthodoxy created a need to establish and maintain a scientific definition of Biblical inerrancy under attack by naturalistic scientific theory, walla, “inerrant autographa.”
Warfield was on the scene when a need arose to compose a theologically tenable approach to the many disagreements in the MSS. But anyone, completely independent of Warfield, can walk through the observations about textual variants and see that they do not all mean the same thing, and that in those cases a need exists to scientifically discover which of the contending variants is identical to the meaning of the autograph. The alternative is to posit a text.
T: “To the Reformers the Bible was infallible because it was the very word of the Living God. They simply identified the legitimate tradition of the preservation of the text and received it.”
But you’re missing an important detail: to the early Reformers, the “legitimate tradition” was the entire MSS-copying enterprise undertaken by all Christian copyists. They did not explicitly and consciously reject readings (readings, that is, which are not obvious scribal errors) in the non-Byzantine MSS which have come to light since that time. (Codex D is an exception to this.) About the most that can be said is that the Reformers would probably favor, on dogmatic grounds, readings which conveyed the same meaning as the TR, and would probably reject readings which conveyed meanings substantially different from the TR.
T: “Once you take the Bible in your hands and pit the autographa against the apographa, you are attempting to hold it in dialetical tension in the hellenic Form/Matter dialectic.”
Except when conjectural emendation is involved, this Autograph-vs-Apographa picture does not describe NT textual criticism. It’s a matter of copies-vs-copies, not autograph-vs-copies.
T: “They received the Scriptures that was common to Greek and Protestant Church through the ages.”
No they didn’t. First, “Protestant Church” and “through the ages” just don’t go together like that, unless you want to redefine “throughout the ages” to refer to about a century. Second, the Textus Receptus is not identical to the Byzantine Text perpetuated by Greek Orthodox copyists; there are very many differences! Third, that claim is shown to be untrue when one considers the early centuries of Christendom; no patristic writer can be shown to have utilized the Textus Receptus. Fourth, the various Reformation-era texts (Erasmus’ several editions, Stephanus’ several editions, etc.) disagree among themselves; they cannot all be, at those points of disagreement, the one text that was common among all Greek and Protestant churches throughout the ages. And, besides, just because one form of text was promoted much more than others by copyists in the Greek Orthodox Church, that does not make its contents original.
T: “We need to consider that the fundamentalist Baptist dogmatic stand upon the Authorized Version is the greatest opportunity for an evangelistic explosion of Reformational Orthodoxy since the Reformation itself.”
No it isn’t. A stand upon the Authorized Version might conceivably result in the view, extrapolated from the Westminister Confession, that God has providentially directed the text’s transmission-continuum, with the result that divine authority is invested in the extant text handed down through the church, to the church, whether its contents are identical to the autographs or not. But that’s a finely nuanced approach, and I see few if any KJV-advocates willing to go there. (Plus, as you indicated, many Fundamentalist Baptists have strong aversions to various aspects of Reformed theology, so a revival of Reformed teachings coming from that direction seems unlikely.)
(Sorry about the length of this post.)
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
18.
Thomas on 31 Oct 2007 at 2:52 pm #
Dear Luke,
You asked,
“Where did the Magisterial Reformers get the idea “that the commonly Received Text of Scripture was the original text Providentially Preserved”?”
That is the essence of the Reformation and its doctrine of Sola Scriptura in its return to “ancient catholic orthodoxy.” Steinmetz explains what this term means:
“[T]he attempt of the Protestant reformers to recapture ancient doctrine and discipline is labelled innovation by a Church which has lost contact with its own past and which identifies modern belief and practice with the faith and discipline of the early Church….In point of fact, the Protestant reformers are attempting to keep faith with the ancient teaching of the Apostles as understood by the fathers against the later unwarranted innovations and novelties introduced by the medieval Catholic Church.” Steinmetz, Luther in Context, 1986 p 92
continuing,
“This is certainly not a Biblical idea, so aren’t they also imposing an extrabiblical standard by which to determine the inspired text?”
It most certainly is a Biblical idea because returning to the original language texts as against Popery was a rejection of it’s extrabiblical innovations upon the doctrines of the Faith once delivered to the Saints and the text itself.
continuing,
“It seems to me that they more or less picked one specific text and decided to go with that one.”
The issue is one of Authority, does it rest in men or does it rest in the Word of God itself? Does the visible Church create Authority or does it simply recognize Authority?
They rejected the former and accepted the latter. Hence, they recognized the Received Text as the Authoritative text of ecclesiastical tradition and received it upon the same terms they received the early ecumenical creeds.
Hence, there is continuity between the teaching of the Creeds and the Scripture and discontinuity in the Romish practice and textual variants that support it. Modern textual criticism says these variants are the “oldest and best manuscripts.” They marked those textual variants out as corrupted. Burgon, who actually spent about six years personally collating manuscripts explains his rejection of Wescott and Hort’s New Greek Text:
“The task of laboriously collating the five “old uncials” throughout the Gospels, occupied me for five-and-a-half years, and taxed me severely. But I was rewarded. I rose from the investigation profoundly convinced that, however, important they may be as instruments of Criticism, codices Aleph A B C D are among the most corrupt documents extant. It was a conviction derived from exact Knowledge and based on solid grounds of Reason. You, my lord Bishop, who have never gone deeply into the subject, repose simply on Prejudice. Never having at any time collated codices Aleph A B C D for yourself, you are unable to gainsay a single statement of mine by a counter-appeal to facts. Your textual learning proves to have been all obtained at second-hand, taken on trust. And so, instead of marshalling against me a corresponding array of ANCIENT AUTHORITIES, you invariably attempt to put me down by an appeal to Modern Opinion.” Burgon, Revision Revised, p 376
Burgon, even though a High Church Anglican, was standing upon textual Protestant Orthodoxy. Wescott and Hort following Greisbach had rejected this and formulated a new theory, which if held to will destroy Protestantism. That is why everyone that faithfully holds to modern textual criticism eventually rejects the doctrines of Protestant Orthodoxy and is invariably led back to Rome or a High Church position, or some in between (e.g., Federal Vision Theology of Reformed Presbyterians)
Finally,
“The original manuscript view agrees that there was one inspired text (the original manuscript), but it is now lost, hence the task of textural criticism, that is, to as nearly as possible determine what that original manuscript was.”
I agree that this the modern view and it was the view of Rome, it is not the view of Reformational Orthodoxy, they denied it was lost, but preserved in the apographs inerrant and infallible, just with the warts of uninspired human agencies upon its transmission.
The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Mainz stated the issue very well, when he first saw a Bible:
“Of a truth I do not know what book this is, but I perceive everything in it is against us.” Bennet’s Memorial of the Reformation, p. 20; Edin., 1748
The modern view of textual criticism is a continuation of medieval
scholasticism. Scholasticism reintroduced Aristotle’s humanism into Western
history, the result was the decline of orthodox Christianity and it’s Trinitarian
answer to the problem of the “One and the Many”, or the problem of Authority.
The implications of scholasticism are by their very nature subordinationist. Revelation
was slighted and nature was, after Greek philosophical presuppositions, asserted as
the primary and basically self sufficient order. The same principle is held to by secular humanists when they interpret “natural law,” which means something completely different to Christians.
When Scripture is suboridnated the determination of history and Sovereignty as a religious concept passes from eternity into time, from the supernatural to the natural. Subsequently, a subordinationist Christology was developed and this became the imperial Christology of the Roman Catholic Church.
Modern textual criticism invariably leads one back to an Imperial Christology as well and displaces Chalcedonian Orthodoxy in the process.
Cordially,
Thomas
19.
Scott on 31 Oct 2007 at 6:08 pm #
Thomas,
I would like to read more along the lines you are spelling out. You mentioned a couple of references ie EF Hills and Mueller, anything else I can check in to.
Oh and thanks for the detailed response. And the distinction between what you are setting forth and KJV-Onlyism.
sda
20.
Thomas on 01 Nov 2007 at 6:47 pm #
Dear Mr. Wallace,
You stated:
“Thomas, I have to protest a couple of your critiques. I said that I made up the NAME of ‘providential view,’ not the idea.”
I’m sorry if I misunderstood you, I see a category “(e) Providential view” was created as a “theory of textual criticism”. Thus, when you said you made up the name, I directly associated the name to the category.
The principle of providential preservation is inherit in Scripture itself, though, it is self attesting and God claims to be it’s author and to preserve it.
“I know that the idea is implicit in the Westminister Confession, the first confession ever to suggest a doctrine of preservation, by the way (then followed by the Helvetic Confession). And you are quite right that the Westminster divines were especially thinking of the textus receptus when they articulated this doctrine.”
The Helvetic Confession preceeds the Westminster, not the other way around. maybe you mean the Helvetic Consensus Formula? Thank you for clarifying your statement on the term “roots”.
“Since I was describing what the Elzevirs did, rather than what Erasmus did, I think that ‘roots’ is wholly appropriate as a description of how to connect the TR to Erasmus.”
Finally, would you mind clarifying what you mean particularly, so I’m not reading into your statement my own meaning?
Thanking you in advance for your time and consideration.
Cordially,
Thomas
21.
Thomas on 01 Nov 2007 at 8:04 pm #
Dear James,
J: The Westminister Confession says that the Hebrew and Greek texts have been providentially kept pure. That is an affirmation of the didactic reliability of the extant text(s) used by the church; it is an endorsement of the Textus Receptus’ teachings, but that is not an endorsement of the Textus Receptus itself.
No sir, that is not what the Reformers believed, again I would point you to Aland:
“…it is undisputed that from the 16th century to the 18th century orthodoxy’s doctrine of verbal inspiration assumed… [the] Textus Receptus. It was the only Greek text they knew, and they regarded it as the ‘original’ text.” (Kurt Aland, “The Text of the Church” Trinity journal 8 (1987), p. 131.
The Helvetic Consensus Formula of 1675 explains clearly the meaning of Reformed Orthodoxy in terms of the texts mentioned in the Westminster Confession:
“The Hebrew original of the Old Testament, which we have received and to this day do retain as handed down by the Jewish Church,…not only in its matter, but in its words, inspired of God, thus forming, together with the original of the New Testament, the sole and complete rule of faith and life: and to its STANDARD, as to a Lydian stone, all extant versions, Oriental and Occidental, ought to be applied, and wherever they differ, be conformed.” HCF, Chapter 2, edited for clarity
To them it was the ‘Inerrant Original Autographs.” Jack Rogers did a good job in explaining what this meant to Reformers in comparison to modern principles:
“The text of Scripture is the Word of God, and God’s Word is not to be sought independently of the text of Scripture. Inspiration does not usually imply any particular theory about how the Scripture came to be the Word of God. Nor does inspiration eliminate the human contribution which the human authors made to the written Scripture. And most certainly, for the Westminster divines, inspiration can not be used as an excuse for trying to find God’s Word separate from the written text of Scripture.” Rogers, Scripture in the Westminster Confession, p 301-2
It’s just that people have been beat up so long with this “inerrant autographa” mythology that is about 100 years old, they have no knowledge of how the Reformers looked at and understood Scripture and how they dealt with it. Thus, they wrest the doctrine of Inspiration and Preservation in our Confessional Standard completely out of its context which is to ascribe independent and novel meaning to it that has no connection to its historical place and meaning.
J: You’re implicitly saying that Protestants who do not uphold the TR are not orthodox. This is, of course, not granted. I see no reason why acceptance of the TR as the original text should be a litmus test for orthodoxy.
Yes sir, that is a departure from historic Protestant Orthodoxy. In terms of its Bibliology it is heterdox.
As to the litmus test, Sola Scriptura is the quintessential litmus test upon which everything else rests. They regarded the Received Text as the tangible representation of Sola Scriptura.
J: Modern-day text-critics don’t do that much either, except when offering conjectural emendations.
No sir, the orientation to the issue is completely different and results in diametrically opposite conclusions. The integrity of the witnesses is destroyed. For example, if we look at Greenleafs “The Testimony of the Evangelists” 1846 edition based upon the Authorized Version, you’ve got THE American authority on legal evidence demonstrating the legal validity of the Scriptural record of the Gospel witnesses. But in the 1875 reprint with Tischendorf’s appendix, based upon Sinaiticus, his work is completely and totally destroyed. It’s reduced to mere heresay.
J: Turretin’s and Muller’s comments seem illogical to me; they define the “original text” as the text of the copies. Again we must ask, which copies, and why?
First, I’m not going to argue my point on Erasmus even though I disagree, which was your first paragraph not quoted. Mr. Wallace clarified his meaning and carrying that out further will probably be more edifying in another thread where I’m sure we will have the opportunity at some future point.
Which copies? The one’s that produced the Received Text. Why?
“Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.” John 5:39
In order so that,
“These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.” 1 John 5:13
Compare that in the hypothetical text Bibles, the object of that faith necessary for eternal life, given as the reason they are written unto us, is MISSING. They read:
“These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, in order that you may know that you have eternal life.” NASB
The Reformers approached the Bible in the exact opposite to modern criticisms principle that the more orthodox a reading is the more suspect of being false it is.
J: Warfield was on the scene when a need arose to compose a theologically tenable approach to the many disagreements in the MSS. But anyone, completely independent of Warfield, can walk through the observations about textual variants and see that they do not all mean the same thing, and that in those cases a need exists to scientifically discover which of the contending variants is identical to the meaning of the autograph. The alternative is to posit a text.
No, Warfield went to Leipzig and studied there for a year and thereby departed from the historic Protestant position knowingly, without a need, because he abandoned Providential Preservation and posited “Inerrant Autographa” Restoration consistent with that dogma.
None of the Reformers and none of the old Princetonians ever posited a radical discontinuity between autographa and apoghra, as had Warfield…”because none of them had fully accepted the German (e.g. higher critical) consensus on the variants, as had Warfield.” Letis, EF Hills Contribution to the Ecclesiastical Text, 1989 p 86
J: But you’re missing an important detail: to the early Reformers, the “legitimate tradition” was the entire MSS-copying enterprise undertaken by all Christian copyists. They did not explicitly and consciously reject readings (readings, that is, which are not obvious scribal errors) in the non-Byzantine MSS which have come to light since that time. (Codex D is an exception to this.) About the most that can be said is that the Reformers would probably favor, on dogmatic grounds, readings which conveyed the same meaning as the TR, and would probably reject readings which conveyed meanings substantially different from the TR.
No sir, again refer back to Aland, above. They regarded the Received Text as the original text, ipsissima Verba, and their critical work is the method in which they identified it. But it is completely different to what you posit, this is pre-enlightenment, they never thought in enlightment categories, never applied Aristolean “logic” and never pitted “copies vs copies” (e.g., apographa) against a hypothetical inerrant autographa, a mysterious Q document, or any of these things in the form/matter dialetic to the manuscripts of Holy Scripture.
J: No they didn’t. First, “Protestant Church” and “through the ages” just don’t go together like that, unless you want to redefine “throughout the ages” to refer to about a century. Second, the Textus Receptus is not identical to the Byzantine Text perpetuated by Greek Orthodox copyists; there are very many differences! Third, that claim is shown to be untrue when one considers the early centuries of Christendom; no patristic writer can be shown to have utilized the Textus Receptus. Fourth, the various Reformation-era texts (Erasmus’ several editions, Stephanus’ several editions, etc.) disagree among themselves; they cannot all be, at those points of disagreement, the one text that was common among all Greek and Protestant churches throughout the ages. And, besides, just because one form of text was promoted much more than others by copyists in the Greek Orthodox Church, that does not make its contents original.
First, you interpreting “Protestant” incorrectly, it means “witness to” not “protest against.” All the true “confessing” Churches through history (is that a better word) have utilized and maintained this text type, although not exactly identical, but also that doesn’t mean to the Reformers what it means to Modern Criticism.
To them, there was no lost inerrant original autograph, there was the preserved word of God which merely needed to be collated and conformed, not corrected and restored.
Second, you are positing a presupposition of textual perfection that they never operated within. This is an innovation being thrust back into history, it’s very much like the way the Supreme Court reads “Separation of Church and State” into the First Amendement by incorporating it into the Fourteenth Amendment. Modern “textual criticism” is the “14th Amendment” of Sola Scriptura and it results in the exact same thing, the destruction of the Biblical Authority over man.
The Reformers were dealing with the issue of Authority, not seeking an “inerrant autographa.”
“If they [Reformers] disowned the creed and threw off the yoke of
Rome, it was that they might plant a purer faith and restore the
government of a higher Law. They replaced the authority of Papal
Infallibility with the authority of the Word of God. The long and dismal
obscuration of centuries they dispelled, that the twin stars of liberty and
knowledge might shine forth, and that, conscience being unbound, the
intellect might awake from its deep somnolency, and human society,
renewing its youth, might, after its halt of a thousand years, resume its
march towards its high goal. ” Wylie, History of Protestatism
The Tridentine attacks against the Reformation were against Sola Scriptura with variant readings claiming a lost original whereby only Papal Infallibility and tradition of the Church was Authoritative. This claim of modern criticism is old Tridentine stuff, nothing new, the Received Text came into existence as a defense against it, hence obviously, when it ascended again in 1881 it was counter-reformational. Burgon knew it as did others and shivers went down their spines, but it was the dawn of science and everyone was enamored with Darwin and seeking daily for some new thing. So, it shouldn’t surprise us that Warfield got caught up into this, it was an age of non-reason that mounted such an incredible attack upon Christianity that not much of its Reformational roots are really left today at all.
Letis explains Protestant Scholasticism in a diagram, which I can’t reproduce here, but I’ll do so textually:
1 Reformers, Sola Scriptura —- Offensive
2 Roman Catholicism, forced to define itself, Trent —- Defensive
3 above, Variant Readings, Authority in Church —- Offensive
4 Reformers, forced to define itself, Providential Preservation —- Defensive (Helvetic Consensus Formula)
The Received Text as a locus of the Authority of Reformed Orthodoxy is derived from this. It’s not in the whole body of manuscripts left to be redefined, that work is done, and the Holy Spirit has born witness of it….”by their fruits ye shall know them.”
“The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God, (who is truth itself), the author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.” WCF, 1:4
Rushdoony has some excellent comments on this:
“The denial of the Received Text enables the scholar to play god over God. The determination of the correct word is now a scholar’s province and task. The Holy Spirit is no longer the giver and preserver of the Biblical text: it is the scholar, the textual scholar. Perhaps when the Council of Jerusalem declared, “It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us” (Acts 15:28) they should have added “subject to the correction of textual scholars.” The Westminster Confession summed up the Reformation faith, especially that of the Calvinists. For them, the authority of the Church depends on the Bible, not vice versa. Rome, on the other hand, adapted the view that the authority of the Bible rests upon the Church.
The modern view is a development of the position of the Council of Trent, but with an ironic twist. The center of authority is shifted now from the leaders of the church (Catholic or Protestant) to the scholars of the church. Well before the 19th century was over, Catholic scholars were questioning the right of Rome to deny them the freedom to pursue their studies to whatever conclusion they deemed necessary.” Rushdoony, The Problem of the Received Text, p 8
So, it was Simon who began the Roman Catholic Tridentine attack upon the Received Text in terms of textual criticism in 1689, prior they had not critical apparatus to compete against the Reformers and could only assert “variants”. It’s been counter-reformational since that time.
Hence, Rushdoony concludes:
“The historic belief of Christians has been that the God who gave the Word preserved the Word. This is the doctrine of the preservation of the Word of God. The Word gives the direct and authentic Word of God. Now preservation has a new meaning. The Biblical scholars hold that their’s is a word of restoration, so that preservation requires their restorative word. The triune God is replaced by scholarly men.
Thus, the denial of the Received Text’s validity is no small matter. It rests on a religious revolution with far-reaching implications. This means that the many men of Reformed or Arminian theologies, who profess the orthodox doctrines of their communions, hold to a position which undermines their faith. It should not surprise us that seminaries and Biblical scholars have for generations led their churches into various forms of humanism. By playing god over God, they begin with the essence of original sin and humanism, man as his own god, determining the validity of everything.” Ibid. p 9
I’ve run out of time to address your other points.
Cordially,
Thomas
22.
Thomas on 01 Nov 2007 at 8:19 pm #
Dear Scott,
In my understanding the issue of modern textual criticism has to be put into its proper context to understand both its origin, method and effect in terms of the Reformational Orthodoxy that delivered unto us the Received Text, and the Authorized Version as the established Bible, as well as our Reformed Confessional standards. That is to say, we must seek to understand the rationale employed by the Reformation era editors in producing the Received Text and the Westminster Confession’s theological tenet of Providential Preservation of which it is the tangible reality.
You can simply can’t evaluate Renaissance scholarship by post-Enlightment standards and make the conclusion that they were all wrong, or doofus’s, or not as smart as we are &c. They approached the issue from a completely different orientation.
As Rushdoony states, “The issue of the Received Text is thus no small matter, nor one of academic concern only. The faith is at stake.” The Problems of the Received Text, 1989
First, one needs to understand the Reformed Dogmatics in which this textual tradition arose, so the reference to Muller is a good one as well as “The Inspiration of Scripture: A Study of the Theology of the Seventeenth Century”, by Robert D Preus, Ph.D.
Then, I would suggest, these two works to understand the principles of Griesbach and its affect upon the theology and the discipline:
An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate or Received Text of the New Testament, Frederick Nolan, 1830
“The Canon of Scripture being received as the unerring rule of faith, and the ultimate test of controversy; the foundation of all Religion must necessarily collapse with the destruction of its
integrity. As this object would be effectually obtained, should the critical system, on which Dr.
Griesbach proposed to amend the Received Text, be incautiously admitted; it required no exertion of sagacity, or stretch of foresight to observe, that while his critical labors continued silently to gain
ground; the landmarks fixed by the Established Church, as a barrier to innovation and error, could
not preserve their original position.” Ibid.
The Rise of Biblical Criticism in America, 1800-1820: The New England Scholars, Jerry Wayne Browne, 1969
“Joseph S. Buckminster persuaded the officials of Harvard College to publish an American edition of Griesbach’s Greek New Testament, because he viewed text criticism as a most powerful weapon to be used against the supporters of verbal inspiration.” Ibid.
Also, you’ll need a good history of the Reformation, and Bennet’s “Memorial of the Reformation” is an absolutely pleasurable read, then everything by Edward Freer Hills and Theodore Letis, especially:
“The Ecclesiastical Text,” Theodore P. Letis
“The Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text and the Claims of the Anabaptists,” Theodore P. Letis
and finally, John Owen, “Of the Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text of the Scriptures”
Cordially,
Thomas
23.
Scott A on 02 Nov 2007 at 9:03 am #
Thomas,
Thank you for the reply, for the resources, and for your extended time in supplying such illuminating comments.
Providentially, I have been in discussion with my son, who is in India and a dear friend concerning Sola Scriptura vs. Solo Scriptura. The whole matter of identifying a distinction between these two positions has only recently come to my attention beginning with 2007. As I consider this, I had been surmising that “Reasoned Eclecticism” indeed falls out of step with SOLA Scriptura and is much more in line with SOLO Scriptura. Your comments are reinforcing this conclusion - though I personally have much more studying to do in this regard. I look forward to pursuing the resources you listed.
sda
24.
James Snapp, Jr. on 02 Nov 2007 at 12:45 pm #
Dear Thomas,
I, too, am short of time today, so this reply is cursory.
– The term “pure” in the West.Conf. simply means pure, not necessarily “identical to the original text in all respects.” Aland’s statement does not make the word more specific than it is.
– The Helvetic Consensus Formula of 1675 does indeed embrace “the Hebrew original of the Old Testament, which we have received” as a standard text, rendering text-critical research basically superfluous for those who confess the Helvetic Consensus Formula of 1675. But that does not make the Formula correct, and it does not make the received Hebrew text original.
– If it is against Reformation creeds to assert that the Textus Receptus is not the original text (which I do not grant), then the sooner such creeds are abandoned or adjusted to fit the facts which God has made available, the better.
– T: “They regarded the Received Text as the tangible representation of Sola Scriptura.” Let’s say that that was the case, for the moment. Still, (a) this is not stated in the West.Conf., and (b) the existence of such a belief does not make it correct, any more than the existence of the Reformers’ beliefs about astronomy.
– T: “Which copies? The one’s that produced the Received Text. Why? “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.” John 5:39 In order so that, “These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.” 1 John 5:13 . . .”
But copies that were not used to produce the TR also testify of Christ. So, again, why exclude them? Plus, you seem to be saying that the more clearly a text speaks about Christ, the more original its contents must be. That seems illogical.
– T: “Again refer back to Aland, above. They regarded the Received Text as the original text, ipsissima Verba . . .” As you say, refer back to Aland, and notice the statement that the Reformers accepted the TR by default, because it was the only Greek NT text known to them.
– T: “All the true “confessing” Churches through history (is that a better word) have utilized and maintained this text type” — No they haven’t; the Byzantine Text, as a unit, has not been shown to have been utilized and maintained in the second and third centuries. Plus, you have to choose which text you’re going to be endorsing here: the Byzantine Text, or the Textus Receptus. There are many differences between them.
– T: “To them, there was no lost inerrant original autograph, there was the preserved word of God which merely needed to be collated and conformed, not corrected and restored.” That’s another way to describe the positing of a text. But simply assuming that the TR is original does not make it original. Plus, I can’t see how to make sense of the claim that “To them, there was no lost inerrant original autograph,” since clearly the autographs are lost.
– “The historic belief of Christians has been that the God who gave the Word preserved the Word. . . . Now preservation has a new meaning. . . . The triune God is replaced by scholarly men.” You’re creating a dichotomy where none need exist. When God has preserved His written Word, He did so through His people. It’s not an either/or scenario.
– T: “Many men of Reformed or Arminian theologies, who profess the orthodox doctrines of their communions, hold to a position which undermines their faith.” If they are confessing that they regard the Textus Receptus as the original text, then that is so. But in such cases, the false assumptions on which such a confession is based should be abandoned. The alternatives are to either consider the TR divinely transmitted (i.e., to accept the idea that God oversaw not only the NT authors, but also copyists who added to and deleted from the original text and thus produced the TR), or to acknowledge that the divine authority of any particular reading depends on its presence in the autographs.
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
25.
Wesley on 02 Nov 2007 at 1:27 pm #
Hello Thomas,
I’m curious: was the idea of the TR as the preserved text par of the entire reformation, or only the Reformed element via Calvin and then the puritans? I ask becasue I cannot find a similar doctrine in the Lutheran confessions, and then Anglican 39 articles as also silent on this point.
So although it may be required for Orthodoxy for Geneva and Westminster, it doesn’t seem to have been (at least a big enough issue for Lutherans, and I think the 39 Articles would undermine the idea) for Canterbury or Witenburg.
Also, the TR position seems circular. It seems one would have to follow Calvin’s doctrine of the “internal witness of the Spirit” in relation to the Canon. I think I would need to see evidence of an exact line of manuscripts going all the way back to the 1st century. Otherwise I still have to ask the question: What made them say that the manuscripts that became part of the TR was correct, as opposed to other manuscripts? How are we sure Erasmus got it right when he sat down and tried to put the different Greek texts together? He also had to make critical decisions over what to include in his publication of the TR.
Also, even in a TR preservation paradigm, isn’t the point the same as the critical text that the originals are what matter? John sat down and wrote his Gospel, a TR-preservation would say that the TR preserves what John wrote exactly, whereas the critical position would say we have to look at the variants to discover the original. But either way, both positions are an attempt to get back to the original autographs, the only different being whither one believes those autographs have been preserved perfectly in some manuscript tradition, and therefore see that tradition as authoritative. I see a false dichotomy in this issue between the TR-pres and modern-crit
26.
Kent on 02 Nov 2007 at 7:44 pm #
Thomas,
Where did you get or are you getting your training? I take the same position as you do on the preservation of Scripture and I know many who do. The way you explain it is about how I would, and I too believe it is the historic position, the Warfield position revisionist history of the WC. How could I contact you? You can write me at betbapt@flash.net, if you wish not for that to be public.
Kent
27.
Dan Wallace on 03 Nov 2007 at 11:28 pm #
Sheesh, I go away for a couple of days and this blog takes on a life of its own! Or, rather, one of you uses it as a bully pulpit for your own views. I have three notes for all: First, comments on blogs need to be restricted in space and contents. This is site is not meant for anyone to use for his own agenda. Keep it short or start your own blog. I don’t mean to be rude, but I do want all to respect the purpose of RMM blogs. By writing nearly 9000 words (the 26 comments collectively), there’s a lot to chew on here. The problem is that much of it is quite ancillary to what the discussion was in the first place. Second, the argument about the doctrine of preservation that Thomas brought up has been dealt with elsewhere; see my “Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism,” posted at bible.org (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1221). This was originally in Homer Kent’s Festschrift, then published in Grace Theological Journal. Bible.org has posted it with permission. Third, we will not take time to discuss this issue for another reason: this blog series is about textual criticism, not theological dogma. The irony here is that those who cling to certain Protestant confessions as the final word on the Word end up holding to a Catholic method to defend Protestant doctrine! I wholeheartedly agree with James on this point: Warfield recognized what needed to be said in his time, and he said it. Those who simply wish to fall back to 16th and 17th century articulations of the faith don’t recognize that doing so is elevating tradition above scripture. You can charge others with being nuda scriptura or solo scriptura, but in the process you need to recognize that you have denied the methodological battle cry of the Reformation, “Ad fontes!” (back to the sources!).
Let’s please keep the discussion on topic, folks. There’s much in the realm of textual criticism that many of you want to learn about. Some, no doubt, will feel as if they need to parade their knowledge. That’s fine. Just keep the comments short and on topic. Thanks.
28.
Thomas on 05 Nov 2007 at 1:40 am #
Gentlemen,
It was my intention to demonstrate what the Reformers believed in regard to the spurios claim that the “Providential…theory of textual criticism” was something that was made up. While this may have been merely a “name” of a category that was made up, I believe anyone is going to associate that the same way I did and it was coupled to a charge broad-brushing anyone that held to such a thing stood in the camp of the fundamentalists.
I believe I have provided an adequate amount of evidence that demonstrates there was and is a completely different orientation to the issue that is silently glossed over in the modern critical claim. The Church, at best, is left with the impression that the Reformers just didn’t have the evidence to make a correct determination, or at worst, were nincompoops and must be dismissed out of hand.
What troubles me most about that is that these were men that were hunted down and many died horrible deaths in order to secure for their posterity the words of God. Modern criticism works without risk or threat casting aspersions upon great men of the faith.
I believe that Christians, who receive the Bible as the very word of God, have a right to know the truth of history and not merely the opinions of modern textual critics that advance their cause without hardly ever a mention of the varying views of history which was responsible for the English Protestant Reformation, upon which all of the American settlement rests.
Every man is born into history on grounds inheriting the past, he has a right to the truth of that history. While Mr. Wallace may wish to charge me with some agenda, that simply isn’t the case. I simply offered a post demonstrating their was another view in history, and then simply answered some questions of others that seemed to me, at least, to be ignorant of this (even if they disagreed with its conclusions) or interested in it.
There is one correction I need to make, in my haste of response - which I too admit was too lengthy for blog comments, and for that I apologize - I stated they held to it as the inerrant original. I should have said “infallible original” As they did hold the inerrancy and infalibility as two separate things and did not seek an inerrancy. Their orientation was completely different - they simply worked to identify what they believed was the preserved word of God.
Finally, then, Mr. Wallace claims that the Protestant claim of “Ad fontes” was sought independent of ancient catholic orthodoxy, that is simply false. “Ad fontes” was coupled to a return to the Faith of the early Church as contained within the Creeds. There is no irony here, nor a Catholic method - it is fundamentally dishonest to equate ancient catholic orthodoxy to medieval scholasticism’s shift in the locus of Authority to the visible Church.
I’m happy to respond to James or Welsey, or answer any other questions privately if anyone wishes. You may write me at rt.25.blocked@spamgourmet.com This is a disposable email address to protect my inbox from spam.
In Christ’s Bonds,
Thomas
29.
CB on 08 Nov 2007 at 2:14 am #
Hmm, the Syrian church might argue that Vaticanus NT is complete ending at Hebrews, since their canon excludes the other books. Ok, it’s missing part of Hebrews, but some might argue Sinaiticus is missing the end of Mark. Complete is a bit vague.
So there were no textual variants prior to Erasmus? @#$#@% Erasmus.
30.
Dan Wallace on 08 Nov 2007 at 1:32 pm #
Thomas said, “Finally, then, Mr. Wallace claims that the Protestant claim of “Ad fontes” was sought independent of ancient catholic orthodoxy, that is simply false. “Ad fontes” was coupled to a return to the Faith of the early Church as contained within the Creeds. There is no irony here, nor a Catholic method - it is fundamentally dishonest to equate ancient catholic orthodoxy to medieval scholasticism’s shift in the locus of Authority to the visible Church.”
Isn’t that a bit of sleight of hand? I wasn’t speaking specifically of ancient catholic orthodoxy, but of the traditionalism that Roman Catholicism became. Further, although the methodological battle cry of the Reformation as ‘ad fontes’ surely was not as interested in the early Creeds (though it was interested in them) as it was in getting back to what the Bible taught. Sola fidei cannot be found in the Creeds. And to imply that I was “fundamentally dishonest” in my assessment is inappropriate language. Please keep the conversation civil. I know you are diligent to respect the faith of the Reformers, something I have very strong leanings toward myself. But what is more important than their faith is whether it is right and true. Hence, I wrote my article, “Inspiration, Inerrancy and New Testament Textual Criticism.” It gives biblical and empirical arguments against the Reformation doctrine of providential preservation. My point there was to note that although we may wish to believe that God has preserved Scripture (and this is something that I can wholeheartedly embrace for the New Testament, but far less dogmatically for the OT), such a belief cannot be elevated to a doctrinal belief because (1) it effectively turns one into a Marcionite because the OT is not as preserved as the NT, and (2) the biblical basis for the doctrine is wanting.
31.
Kent on 08 Nov 2007 at 2:41 pm #
Creeds aren’t the Bible, but to the reformers they represented historic, biblical doctrine. We can go directly to Scripture (or can we if it hasn’t been preserved?) for our doctrine, but it can’t be a novel interpretation if we believe the Holy Spirit guides the saints. The reformers and others thought that there was a biblical basis for the doctrine of providential preservation, so they placed it in their creeds. I read it in their sermons and other writings as well. Are we saying that there has been a total apostasy on the correct doctrine about preservation of Scripture? That yourself Dr. Wallace and textual critics have revived a true, ancient teaching on the preservation of Scripture? This view of textual-criticism-equals-providential-preservation is the novel interpretation, unless I’m missing something. You know also, I’m sure, that modern eclectics often claim that belief in preservation began with the 20th century KJVO movement.
Regarding civility, I thought the implication that someone was using this as a bully pulpit was uncivil, but I guess that shows the subjectivity of niceness. You seem to be essentially saying, Dr. Wallace, that if we don’t lower our evaluation of NT preservation to match our OT preservation, we are Marcionites? Therefore, we are Marcionites if we believe in the historic doctrine of providential preservation? That makes the Westminster divines Marcionites. Is that civil?
32.
Dan Wallace on 08 Nov 2007 at 11:27 pm #
Kent, all I am saying is that even the Reformers knew that their doctrines had to be based on scripture. And I challenged the view that their doctrine of preservation was based on scripture. My essay on that subject has been around for a quarter of a century now. Rather than use theological arguments, I would ask you to use scripture to back up your assessment. And if God has not preserved the OT like he has preserved the NT, to argue for a doctrine of preservation that will not work for the OT, how would you describe that? Does it not imbibe in a form of Marcionism, though certainly unconsciously?
Methodologically, I would have to say that precisely because I stand with the Reformers in regarding scripture as our final authority, I use that authority to show that the Westminster Confession was incorrect in its view of preservation. I can put this very plainly: I do not think there is one verse in scripture that can be used to argue that God has preserved every word of the Bible.
33.
Kent on 09 Nov 2007 at 2:45 am #
Dr. Wallace,
Thanks for the interaction. This is your blog and I am respectful of your work with Greek grammar and syntax. Your work has helped many. You have voiced the desire to keep exegesis and theology out of this thread. I also want to respect that. Without those terms and on neutral turf, I would explain how and why you are wrong with your Marcion comparison. In my opinion, it smacks of a theological mud sling that adds little.
I asked about total apostacy of the doctrine of preservation, because it was established historically in the writings and creeds of genuine believers from at least the seventeenth century that had been embedded in their hearts and souls from a tradition of saints centuries preceding them. I was hopeful that you would give me at least a smidgen of the historic evidence of your non-preservation view. A lot of false doctrine and “corrections” to orthodoxy can be traced from the 19th century. Some of it we call “cultic.” Usually as a part of our exercise in discernment, we call on the proponents to show us some historic evidence for their doctrine.
I hear you loud and clear. You say Scripture does not teach preservation. Hear me loud and clear: I believe you are teaching a brand new doctrine of non-preservation to fit your view of history, human reasoning, and science. I would be happy to have you show how wrong this is with historic material.
I believe that I can easily show from Scripture the doctrine of the preservation of every Word of God. Most professing saints believe God has preserved His Word and they have come to that view by reading and studying His Word in the context of a church outside of the influence of textual critics. I would much rather step behind Scripture with exegesis to argue the doctrine of preservation. As strong as the history of the doctrine of preservation, I believe Scripture itself about its own preservation is even stronger.
34.
Dan Wallace on 09 Nov 2007 at 8:51 am #
Kent, I think you’re still missing the point. First, I argued in my article that history was on my side, not on the side of a doctrine of preservation. Second, I demonstrated that this doctrine was not only recent but also not biblically sound. Third, I showed that the doctrine of preservation did not work with the Old Testament and thus to hold to it unwittingly made one a Marcionite, bibliologically speaking. I stand by my arguments, and want to ask you one question: have you read my article? If so, you need to interact with it rather than make accusations that have been answered there.
35.
Kent on 09 Nov 2007 at 11:41 am #
Thanks again and thanks for interacting. Yes, I read the article several times, but years ago. I promise you a reread. I went to download the pdf into a theological article file and found it already there, probably from my read before. An answer would be lengthy, I would think, but I will provide bullet points. Thank you.
36.
Dan Wallace on 09 Nov 2007 at 6:48 pm #
Very good, Kent! I look forward to the exchange.
Post a Comment
<< Home