<body>
Hip and Thigh: Smiting Theological Philistines with a Great Slaughter. Judges 15:8

Wednesday, March 07, 2007

Textual Preservation and MVOs

I believe I have gotten myself into a spot of trouble. You see, last week I was wandering around on the Internet and happened to find myself on a blog called Jackhammer. The contributors to this blog have written a series of posts arguing for the preservation of the scriptures in the vein of KJV onlyism, though they deny being straight KJV onlyists.

Under the most recent post on this subject written by Kent Brandenburg called, Multiple Versions Only (MVO): No Scripture, So Invent a Fake History, I was compelled to leave a comment in response to some comments Kent left for another commenter.

It was like I had taken a broom handle and made a swipe at a wasp nest, because I received a stinging post from Kent himself. In fact, I was wounded by his opening paragraph where he told me, a Van Tillian presuppositionalist none the less, that my position on the Bible is not based on a scriptural doctrine of preservation, but on evidence. Whoa! Kent truly knows how to hurt a guy.

Now, I will say at the outset that I tend to like Kent. He has left a handful of comments under the various posts I wrote examining the arguments of King James onlyism. Though he may not claim to be a full fledged KJV only apologist, by all practical purposes he is; but I believe he is a level headed KJV onlyist. Kent attempts to deal with the textual issue itself and not a full on, fidelistic defense of the KJV text based upon crazy Gail Riplinger style conspiracy theories and historical revisionism.

I thought my interaction with his comments was worthy of bringing to the forefront of my blog so that a wider audience can benefit from the exchange.

I will highlight my original comments in GREEN, Kent's original comments in BLUE and my present comments in BLACK

(Fred) Was the Holy Spirit guiding the churches to accept with all agreement the Latin Vulgate for 1,000 years? Seeing that the use of the Latin Vulgate was uninterrupted for 1,000 years and served Bible believing Christians well, why would God need to direct the Christians to adopt a newer translation? Sounds rather subjective.

“The Italic or pre-Waldensian Church produced a version of the New Testament which was translated from the Received Text by the year A.D. 157.” Fredrick Henry Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 1874

“The Bible translation of the Italic Church came to be known as the Itala translation. The point of all this is that the Itala Bible was translated from the Received Text.” Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, 1859.

(Fred) A few comments are needed:

First, It would had been nice if Kent provided us a specific page number for these citations. I spent an hour or so on Saturday in the library combing through these two books looking in vain for these specific quotations. Regrettably, I couldn't find them.

Second, I find it a bit surprising that both Scrivener and Kenyon would confuse the Received Text with the Majority Text. The Received Text is the textual apparatus originally edited by Erasmus and utilized by the King James translators to translate the KJV, where as the Majority Text, or Byzantine text, is that group of manuscripts from where the Received Text was edited. There is a stark difference between the two. I am also surprised Kent equates them as being one and the same.

Third, to suggest that the Italic translation and the pre-Waldensian Church used the Received Text is absurd, seeing that the Received Text is a 16th century production. One can attempt to argue that the Italic, or Old Latin translation, is based upon similar readings found in the Received Text, but this is also not true. Even Kenyon and Scrivener admitted as much in the chapters outlining the development of the Old Latin. The Italic translation contains readings that are Western in origin, as opposed to Eastern, or from the Byzantine. Any similarity between them doesn't imply a similarity in family as it demonstrates a overall uniformity between all the biblical manuscripts and the subsequent translations which means these families didn't diverge from each other as much as KJV onlyists insist they do.

Under constant persecution, for one thousand years the Waldenses, Albigenses, and other groups of Christians rejected the Catholic Church and their Latin Vulgate, and copied the Received Text as used for the Itala Vulgate.

The “Waldensian,” or “Vaudois” Bibles stretch from about 157 to the 1400s A.D. The fact is, according to John Calvin’s successor Theodore Beza, that the Vaudois received the Scriptures from missionaries of Antioch of Syria in the 120s A.D. and finished translating it into their Latin language by 157 AD. This Bible was passed down from generation, until the Reformation of the 1500s, when the Protestants translated the Vaudois Bible into French, Italian, etc.

(Fred) A couple of thoughts:

First, it is also disingenuous to claim the Waldensian Bibles were translated from the Old Latin, just as it is to claim the Old Latin is based upon the Received Text. All historical evidence points to the fact that the Waldensian Christians utilized the Latin Vulgate. Doug Kutilek has an article outlining this error.

Secondly, independent fundamentalist Baptists will often appeal to groups like the Waldensian and the Albigensian Christians as their fundamentalist fore-fathers, as if these persecuted groups were proto-IFBs. But it is important to note that probably the only thing independent Baptists like Kent and his Jackhammer crew hold in common with these type of medieval groups is their rejection of the Roman Catholic Church as an authority. Other than that, they virtually have nothing in common theologically and doctrinally with these groups.

Peter Waldo, for example, who was the founder of the Waldensian movement, believed in a mystical view of spiritualism similar to that of Francis of Assisi. He saw poverty as a virtue that gained spiritual favor with God. The Albigensian movement was more of a pseudo-Christian cult that held to Gnostic-Arian views of the Christian faith.

These factors do not justify the persecution brought upon these groups by the Roman Catholic Church, but I would not appeal to them as the sole keepers of God's true, received Word during the period of Roman Catholic domination. In fact, of the two groups, only the Waldensians produced alternative translations of the Bible, specifically the NT, but again, it wasn't from the Old Latin as Kent asserts, but the Latin Vulgate.

There was the Syriac Peshitta, a translation into Syrian from the TR in AD150 by the Bible-believing churches around Antioch where believers were first called Christians. Peshitta is a Syrian word meaning “common,” a word parallel with the term “Received Text.”

(Fred) Again, the TR (Received Text) is a 16th century production, and it is anachronistic to claim it existed before Erasmus's work. I am guessing that Kent and his friends have redefined the idea of a "Received Text" to mean something along the lines of "that text received and read by all Bible-believing Christians," rather than the common use of, "that textual edition published by Erasmus."

It is also important to note that most of the Greek copies that have existed throughout history are no longer with us today. Several well known Christians mention Greek texts that contained 1 John 5:7 that existed in their days centuries ago. Among these are Theodore Beza, John Calvin and Stephanus. Beza remarks that the reading of 1 John 5:7 is found in many of their manuscripts; Calvin likewise says it is found in “the most approved copies”; and Stephanus, who in 1550 printed the Greek text that bears his name, mentioned that of the 16 copies he had 9 of them contained 1 John 5:7. John Gill, who also believed in the inspiration of this verse, likewise mentions in his commentary that nine of Stephanus’ sixteen manuscripts contained this verse.

(Fred) If it is true that 1 John 5:7-8 is a part of the original epistle John wrote, then why didn't God preserve what would sure to be without question one of the most single disputed passages in all of scripture among Christians? Additionally, we have here a passage that affirms the Trinity without a doubt, and none of the orthodox quoted it during the Arian controversy. As to the claim by Kent that these various men believed 1 John 5:7-8 was originally part of John's first epistle, but none of these important manuscripts are no longer with us today (because I reckon God didn't preserve them) much of the claim is speculative at best. "There could have been copies," or "It may had been in the originals but dropped out" doesn't cut it. I am sorry, but that is too important of a verse for it to accidentally "drop out." To speculate that certain copies contained it is purely hear-say and doesn't prove anything.

(Fred) The science of textual criticism was practiced in the day of Erasmus when he edited his first editions of what would become to be named the TR. Of course it was textual criticism in its infancy, because the original languages were just being re-discovered by Christians. It took a while for the discipline to develop, but it was with in the 50-75 years after the KJV was published, not 350 years later.

Philip Schaff, certainly no perfect preservationist wrote at least three times, once each during the history of the reformation: “The science of textual criticism was not yet born…” You won’t find the words “textual criticism” for centuries after the KJV.

(Fred) This is another example where it would be nice to have some citation for Schaff's comments. If we mean to say the "science of textual criticism as we know it today in its fullness was not yet born," then that is true. However, all of God's people who transmitted the biblical text through copies and translations practiced a form of textual criticism regardless of how infantile it might had been.

Erasmus was constantly checking his work against newer textual finds. Hence the reason why there were 4 to 5 editions of his text during his life time. The same with Tyndale and his translations, and even the King James translators. Moreover, by the end of the 17th century, Christian scholars were beginning to discover more and more ancient manuscripts to help sharpen our accuracy of the original text of the Bible. Johann Bengel, for example, was a German born Christian who spent a good deal of his life combing through many Greek manuscripts and identifying specific reading that showed a similarity among textual families. It is believed he was the first textual critic who identified the Alexandrian family. He was also the individual who wrote out basic principles of textual criticism that many Christians had been utilizing years before him and that are foundational to modern day textual criticism. So, for Kent to imply the "science of textual criticism" was not born until centuries later does not honestly recognize the historical facts.

Now, just a couple of final thoughts before I close this up.

First off, the Jackhammer guys identify those non-KJV only people, like myself, as Multiple Version Onlyists. A MVO. In other words, I am suppose to believe, according to my Jackhammer detractors, that God's Word is preserved in a multitude of versions, not just one. Hence, when pressed to identify God's preserved Word, I don't have a copy to point to.

However, that description doesn't accurately portray my true position on the matter.

Though I would believe God's Word is preserved in those translations as far as they accurately translate the original text, I would admit that not all translations are equal in accuracy of translation. In other words, not all modern translations are equally good. There are some better translated than others and those better ones are to be preferred over the lesser ones.

A better description of my position, and I think the biblical position, is original autographs only. Meaning, God's perfect, infallible and inerrant Word is to be found only in the original autographs.

Ahhh Haaa! screams my preservationist critic, we don't have any original autographs. They have all been destroyed and gone to the sea of time. "Where's your perfect, infallible and inerrant Word of God now?" I will be asked.

I believe, along with the biblical writers and including our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, that God has preserved those original autographs in the multitude of copies made from those original autographs.

Those copies of scripture are viewed with as equal authority as the originals, even with all their human mistakes and variant readings, and is the way God preserved His written revelation from true corruption and tampering. The thousands upon thousands of copies that spread out across the ancient world in Asia Minor, North Africa, and the Near East, protected God's revelation from being gathered up and either destroyed, lost, or messed up. Then, God raised up men over the years to collate and piece together what we know to be the Word of God in a textual apparatus used for translating. As more and more manuscripts have been found, textual critics have been able to sharpen our understanding of what the original said.

Secondly, as I noted at the first, Kent's comments suggest that if a person is a true presuppositionalist in his approach to the authority of God's Word, well then that person will recognize what the Bible says of itself regarding its own preservation. In fact, Kent even contributed to and edited a book on the subject called, Thou Shalt Keep Them, in which he, along with a handful of other men, argue this point.

One of Kent's Jackhammer cohorts, Dave Mallinak even wrote an article invoking Greg Bahnsen as his support that their view of preservation is the purely presuppositional approach. Any other viewpoint falls into the category of man determining truth autonomously, apart from the fear of God.

I would agree with him that the Bible affirms its own preservation. Even I take that as an authoritative presupposition. I just understand scripture's preservation taking place in a different manner than the one defended by the Jackhammer guys, and I do not believe my position is in any fashion my own autonomy seeking to displace God's authority.

Now, what would had been helpful for our discussion is not Dave quoting Greg Bahnsen's from his book on general apologetic methodology, but from his article in the book Inerrancy that was edited by Norman Geisler. Dr. Bahnsen contributed an excellent article to that massive book entitled The Inerrancy of the Autographa (pgs 151-193) that addresses the very subject of preservation under debate here from a Reformed presuppositional perspective, yet, his article concludes affirming my position on preservation, not the Jackhammer boys.

For example, after Bahnsen explains the importance of inscripturation, or the written form of God's revelation, he writes,
Yet this admirable feature of inscripturation itself generates a difficulty for the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy - a difficulty that we must now face. A written word may have great advantages over oral tradition but it is not immune from what Kuyper called "the vicissitudes of time." The spreading of God's Word by textual transmission and translation opens up the door to variance between the original form of the written word and secondary forms (copies and translations). This variance requires a refinement of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, for now we must ask what constitutes the proper object of this inerrancy that we attribute to Scripture. Does inerrancy (or infallibility, inspiration) pertain to the original writings (autographa), to copies of them (and perhaps translations), or to both? [Inerrancy, p. 155]
Dr. Bahnsen then goes on to document that the common conviction among Christians through the centuries has been that inerrancy of the Scripture pertains only to the text of the original autographa.

He then notes,
The time-honored and common-sense perspective among Christian believers who have considered the inescapable question raised by the inscripturation of God's word (viz., do inspiration, infallibility, and/or inerrancy pertain to the autographa, to copies of it, or to both?) has been that inerrancy is restricted to the originals, autographical text of Scripture. [ibid., pg 157]
Dr. Bahnsen then moves on to demonstrate from the text of scripture that the biblical attitude toward the autographa and the copies of those autographa is that "the copies were deemed adequate to perform the purposes for which God originally gave the Scripture" [ibid pg. 159].

After providing a couple of pages of documentation, Dr. Bahnsen comments,

These illustrations show that the message conveyed by the words of the autographa, and not the physical page on which we find printing, is the strict object of inspiration. Therefore, because that message was reliably reflected in the copies or translations available to the biblical writers, they could be used in an authoritative and practical manner ... the exhortation and challenges based on the copies of Scripture pertain to the conveyed message and tell us nothing about the extant texts per se. Much less do they demonstrate that the biblical authors made no distinction between the original text and its copies ... Because Jesus raised no doubts about the adequacy of the Scriptures as His contemporaries knew them, we can safely assume [or, presuppose - fred] that the first-century text of the OT was a wholly adequate representation of the divine word originally given. Jesus regarded the extant copies of His day as so approximate to the originals in their message that He appealed to those copies as authoritative. [ibid., pg. 161]
I do not wish to weary the reader, but if the person will take the time to read the entire article which is available on line, Dr. Bahnsen documents clearly that the true presuppositional approach is the one that recognizes what Jesus did, that is, the faithfully preserved copies and the translation of those copies, in spite of their transmissional flaws, variant readings, and copying mistakes, are as authoritative as the originals themselves, and are adequate in and of themselves to reflect to us God's divine revelation.

Labels:

11 Comments:

Blogger Pickle Boy said...

Fred, Great article. Our good friend Bob Hayton tipped me off to the Jackhammer series a few weeks back. I appreciate your summaries of Bahnsen's presuppositional approach to the autographa. If a KJVO advocate listened to ANY of Bahnsen's lectures on the subject, they'd be far more hesitant to use his name to endorse "presuppositional preservation."

I wrote a response to Dave Mallinak's article on presuppositions that you might find interesting.
http://www.jackhammr.org/2007/02/16/a-presuppositional-approach-to-preservation/

It's comment #3.

By the way, Steve = pickle boy

5:56 AM, March 07, 2007  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Steve = PB,
I read those comments earlier this week when I was scanning over their site and I appreciated them, though I didn't make the connection between your moniker and your name. Good thoughts and well appreciated.

I am mulling over in my head to post something about KJV onlyism and the neutrality issue when it comes to textual criticism. I believe they have mistaken notions about neutrality as it pertains to this discussion. I just need to think through how I will frame the post.

Fred

6:19 AM, March 07, 2007  
Blogger Fundamentally Reformed said...

Fred,

Sorry that I steered you their way! Although it is getting you to start writing on the subject again (as it did me).

I appreciate your response here. And I empathize with your frustration. I have been having Kent go back and forth with me all up and down Jackhammer and my own blog on this issue. (And we've clashed on other matters too.)

Thanks also for bringing up the Bahnsen article. I need to go refresh myself on that one, too.

Here is a little bit of facts I came up with on some of the issues you mention. I did try to respond to Kent's "fact"-filled response to you over at Jackhammer. Kent is done responding to me, I guess. So here is a little to add to what you said here.

On the Waldensian quotes (by supposedly Scrivener and Kenyon), I found a book "Forever Settled" by Jack Moorman which has the Scrivener quote. He also does not give page reference. I saw a reference in Scrivener's actual book to the date 157 as probable for when the Latin would have been first translated, but doesn't say Waldensian and all the stuff that quote says.

Re: the Albigenses, I did find that one late (12th Century) Old Latin manuscript we have came from "Languedoc, the country of the Albigenses". This is per this link (under point 9) at Bible-Researcher.com. However, the Old Latin is not an equivalent to the Byzantine text, by any stretch. In fact that manuscript found in Albigenses' country is predominantly a Vulgate mss with some Old Latin readings. Except for Mark and Luke where it is thoroughly Old latin. Also, it apparently is an entie NT mss. (See this link). So once again, the actual evidence we have can be dismissed. The evidence is that these groups were using Vulgate based translations for the most part.

Regarding the quote about 1 Jn. 5:7. One of the "well known Christians" he refers to is Turretin. Turretin wrongly cites Senensis to the effect that all the Greek copies have 1 Jn. 5:7. This link argues this is just an evidence of him being ignorant of the facts. So anyways on Jackhammer they brought up this quote by Turretin about 1 Jn. 5:7, and I responded with this link, but apparently it doesn't matter. They prefer to believe Turretin knew about lots of mss which now don't exist.

Well, that's all I'm gonna say. Except to say thanks for linking to my KJVO site, too.

Blessings in Christ to you.

Bob Hayton

12:44 AM, March 09, 2007  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Hey Bro,

Here is a little bit of facts I came up with on some of the issues you mention. I did try to respond to Kent's "fact"-filled response to you over at Jackhammer.

(Fred) Sorry to bail on you like that. I have been busy at work and I have been wanting to catch the shepherd's conference at Grace. I was sort of stirred up to write that article, and when I am stirred up, I tend to be more passioned and invigorated to write.

On the Waldensian quotes (by supposedly Scrivener and Kenyon), I found a book "Forever Settled" by Jack Moorman which has the Scrivener quote. He also does not give page reference. I saw a reference in Scrivener's actual book to the date 157 as probable for when the Latin would have been first translated, but doesn't say Waldensian and all the stuff that quote says.

(Fred) I figured that quote had to be from a KJV only publication, because I looked through both of those books last Saturday (even two separate editions of Scrivener's two volume work) and I couldn't find anything remotely suggesting what Kent via Moorman cited. In fact, both of the authors tended to refute their claim, like you point out the 157 date being connected to the Waldensian Christians.

Re: the Albigenses, I did find that one late (12th Century) Old Latin manuscript we have came from "Languedoc, the country of the Albigenses". This is per this link (under point 9) at Bible-Researcher.com. However, the Old Latin is not an equivalent to the Byzantine text, by any stretch. In fact that manuscript found in Albigenses' country is predominantly a Vulgate mss with some Old Latin readings. Except for Mark and Luke where it is thoroughly Old latin. Also, it apparently is an entie NT mss. (See this link). So once again, the actual evidence we have can be dismissed. The evidence is that these groups were using Vulgate based translations for the most part.

(Fred) Excellent research. I would imagine there will not be much of anything of the Albigensian connection seeing that Innocent the III moved fairly quickly to exterminate the group. I often wonder why IFBs appeal to the Albigensian group as their distant fore-fathers when this group held to such horribly unorthodox views of Christianity. Just because they had issues with the Catholic church and rejected the pope, doesn't mean they are one and the same with Bible believing protestants.

They prefer to believe Turretin knew about lots of mss which now don't exist.

(Fred) Which means God for some reason failed to preserve. Why is that? Especially as I noted, in light of such a clear trinitarian verse.

Well, that's all I'm gonna say. Except to say thanks for linking to my KJVO site, too.

(Fred) You're welcome friend. Let me know if I can help you write up definitions or something.

Fred

5:47 AM, March 09, 2007  
Blogger Fundamentally Reformed said...

Thanks, Fred. I'll let you know when I get around to that. I'm neck deep in a series on "The Bible and the KJVO Debate" right now! I think it will turn into a booklet or something, eventually.

I know what you mean about being fired up at times. :^)

Speaking of fired up, I almost commented on his latest post (from Monday) on his personal blog (not Jackhmamr). He uses MacArthur (your pastor), Piper (mine), and Kennedy as examples of people who say they think sanctification is important. But they don't live like it, (because they downplay denying the lusts of the flesh). Of course he's gonna see it that way. Since MacArthur and Piper don't equate beaty music or pants on women, etc. as fleshly, they are not really for sanctification.

How sad. But I digress...

Well, thanks again.

Blessings in Christ to you,

Bob

10:49 AM, March 09, 2007  
Blogger Kent Brandenburg said...

Fred, How would you answer Gill, when he says this, in his commentary in the 1 John 5:7 section: "And as to its being wanting in some Greek manuscripts, as the Alexandrian, and others, it need only be said, that it is to be found in many others; it is in an old British copy, and in the Complutensian edition, the compilers of which made use of various copies; and out of sixteen ancient copies of Robert Stephens's, nine of them had it: and as to its not being cited by some of the ancient fathers, this can be no sufficient proof of the spuriousness of it, since it might be in the original copy, though not in the copies used by them, through the carelessness or unfaithfulness of transcribers; or it might be in their copies, and yet not cited by them, they having Scriptures enough without it, to defend the doctrine of the Trinity, and the divinity of Christ: and yet, after all, certain it is, that it is cited by many of them; by Fulgentius (z), in the beginning of the "sixth" century, against the Arians, without any scruple or hesitation; and Jerom, as before observed, has it in his translation made in the latter end of the "fourth" century; and it is cited by Athanasius (a) about the year 350; and before him by Cyprian (b), in the middle, of the "third" century, about the year 250; and is referred to by Tertullian (c) about, the year 200; and which was within a "hundred" years, or little more, of the writing of the epistle; which may be enough to satisfy anyone of the genuineness of this passage; and besides, there never was any dispute about it till Erasmus left it out in the, first edition of his translation of the New Testament; and yet he himself, upon the credit of the old British copy before mentioned, put it into another edition of his translation."

I was especially interested in this part of the quote: "and out of sixteen ancient copies of Robert Stephens's, nine of them had it."

First, I'd like to hear your comments.

We don't have the original manuscripts. We don't have some of the first copies of the original manuscripts. We don't even have the actual copies from which the KJV translators worked. It doesn't seem like we necessarily have available any longer, all the physical materials that Gill had in his hands. So second, can we presuppositionalists, you and I, only go by the physical evidence that we can see today?

p.s. How much do you know Bob? Just from his blog? You guys talk like you are old friends.

11:41 PM, March 10, 2007  
Blogger Kent Brandenburg said...

While you're thinking of an answer for that, Fred, a few points I'll get to right now. First, don't get upset at me (get emotional), but there's something you need to know (I'm afraid you'll just get upset, and I would rather we not talk like that). You said this:

"Second, I find it a bit surprising that both Scrivener and Kenyon would confuse the Received Text with the Majority Text. The Received Text is the textual apparatus originally edited by Erasmus and utilized by the King James translators to translate the KJV, where as the Majority Text, or Byzantine text, is that group of manuscripts from where the Received Text was edited."

Fred, this shows ignorance on your part. Until the modern "majority text" came out in the early 1980s out of Dallas Seminary, the TR was also called the majority text. Most people called it the majority text. People didn't start exclusively calling it the TR until after that "majority text" came out. Nothing else but the TR was the majority text. By the way, I don't think their Farstad and Hodges produced a majority text since all of the Byz. manuscripts have been collated, but that's the explanation for something that you are obviously ridiculing Kenyon and Scrivener. I'm just being honest in saying that you came off very petty going after something about which you did not know.

I will come back to comment here some more.

10:45 PM, March 11, 2007  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Kent,

I'll tell what'll do. I am busy this week with other projects, but I plan to head down to the seminary this weds for AWANA. I will do some research on Gill and his citations and do an entire blog article on the subject. My first reaction, and I meant to comment upon this in this post, is that Gill is limited in the information he has on these readings and I am confident that if he knew now what we do about textual criticism, he may had written differently.

Moreover, he doesn't tell us if the copies Stephen's had were citations in the actual text or if they were marginal variant readings. That would be important to know. Others who have commented on these manuscripts, one of them being your favorite bible scholar, Daniel Wallace, states they are marginal readings only. He should know, seeing that he handles and has been photographing many of these ancient manuscripts under dispute. That is a significant point that devalues Gill's comments.

As to your insistence that the Received Text is what everyone called the Byzantine manuscripts, or whatever, I don't know what to say. I am genuinely sitting here with wide-eyed, jaw dropping incredulity. You genuinely believe this? Can you document any Christian, pre-KJV and post-KJV who uses this description? It would nice to see something specific I could tangibly research. Original sources would be really good, not citations filtered through a KJV only worldview. I truly want to see this.

Even when I was looking through Kenyon and Scrivener's books, those two guys differentiated between the TR as a translating apparatus, and what were Western and Eastern (Byzantine) manuscripts. They may not have used the MT as a designation, but they certainly recognized a distinction between the family of manuscripts from which the TR was derived and published.

I only know Bob from the Internet. I think our kindred spirit is a product of common experience we share from our fundamentalist past.

Fred

9:53 AM, March 12, 2007  
Blogger Kent Brandenburg said...

Fred,

I graduated from college in 1984. There are people alive who know that the TR was called the majority text in the 70s and before. They were often used interchangeably. I think it would be good for you to know.

For someone who claims to be a presuppositionalist (I'm not saying that you aren't), you don't seem to be applying your apologetic consistently here. And neither does Brahnsen. It's too bad. We have to pull out evidence, and then when we do, you still aren't very receptive. What can I pull out if you won't believe that Gill was at least equally scholarly than yourself? I just read Sturz' Byzantine Text Type and New Testament Textual Criticism and he shows how that the old Latin was revised by Jerome (like the Revised Version), and he thoroughly debunks Westcott and Hort, himself with no particular agenda. He gives a great answer to the patristic issue. In each case he uses the data. He also with great detail shows why there is a prejudice in the textual criticism community against the Byzantine. I see this prejudice all the time.

We are left with some ambiguity that depends on faith. We can't prove everything historically. The problem that arises, and I see it with you and others, is that you pick and choose your history. I've taught history for almost 20 years, and I understand how easy it is to be swayed by opinion that is called history. People mess up the interpretation of modern day events. You have to read several stories to get what you still aren't sure is the real scoop. A pre-suppositionalist fits his history into his Scriptural presuppositions.

As for Bob, people with his kind of theological position are a dime a dozen. They're all over the internet. My problem with Bob isn't his position. He wouldn't ever get this hearing if people knew him. I know him. Credibility once was tied to someone's life, their consistent day by day example. Not any more. I don't this is good.

4:20 PM, March 12, 2007  
Blogger Fundamentally Reformed said...

My problem with Bob isn't his position. He wouldn't ever get this hearing if people knew him. I know him. Credibility once was tied to someone's life, their consistent day by day example. Not any more. I don't this is good.

For the record: there are several people in my current church who would vouch for my credibility. I have already tried to clear up misunderstandings in emails directed to Pastor Brandenburg. He refuses to be corrected. He has a different memory of our time at his church than my wife or I do. He also has a different criterion for credibility, apparently.

If anyone wants to know the truth about this, I can expound at further length in private emails. I have made every effort to continue to treat Pastor Brandenburg with respect, and to believe he is sincerely mistaken and acting honorably. Pastor Brandenburg continues to disbelieve anything I expressly say and chooses to willfully misrepresent me in an attempt to discredit me.

Sorry to get into this on this thread, but I didn't bring it up.

Blessed because of Christ,

Bob Hayton

4:48 PM, March 19, 2007  
Blogger Kent Brandenburg said...

Do you want to get everything out in the open Bob? From Chesterton, Fresno, and El Sobrante? This is not a right wing conspiracy. "Be not many masters." Men who stand in to teach others, representing doctrine, don't get to do that if they don't have the life to back it up. "Lay hands on no man suddenly" applies to you.

8:20 AM, March 24, 2007  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home