Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Bruce Metzger
- being a former member of the RPCNA, i'm a little familiar with the book, especially since the RPCNA seminary uses it in their textual criticism classes and just about every true blue RPCNA pastor will quote from it. Metzger does'nt believe the Bible is the "word" of God, just the "ideas" of God.He claims God has not preserved his word throughout the ages.Even though Christ himself makes promises about every JOT and TITTLE, or Paul bases a whole sermon on one letter of the word SEED or SEEDS. According to Metzger, man has blundered the scriptures beyond recognition, but thanx to papast monks in Egypt...they just happened to have stumbled on a set of manuscripts that are in fine condition.They found them tucked away in their monastery.Never mind the fact that there loaded with gnostic heresies and omitted verses, but there in perfect condition,Westcott and Hort, and Tischendorf have confirmed there authenticity, who by the way based on their own testimonies werent even Christia
n...just really smart scienctist. Some of the verses Metzger claims were just "added in at a later time" are key verses testifying of the Diety of the Lord Jesus Christ and also coincidentily the same verses the Westminster divines use as references in the Confession...I would use extreme caution if you insist on actually reading his material...
Bryan DelVecchio, comm member
Grace Presb. Church, Morris County, NJ USA
----- Original Message -----
From: Benjamin Hart <benhartmail@...>
Date: Friday, April 8, 2005 8:29 pm
Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Bruce Metzger
> I just ordered Metzger's "The Canon of the New Testament: Its
> Origin, Development, and Significance". Has anyone read it?
> Anyone care to comment on Metzger as a scholar?
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
- Sorry Chris,
Didn't see this before my last.
Finally an acknowledgment of PP according to the WCF contra the
previous discussion on nothing would be lost regardless of which
text/manuscript family used etc.etc.
cordially in Christ,
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "forisraelssake"
> > What good is it simply to know that there is anpurity
> > original out there somewhere?
> I think what I am saying is that we know about the providential
> of the Scripture text (a priori) and so any corruption mustseems
> necessarily be insignificant by definition, or preservation isn't
> The autograph is not some hypothetical entity existing at the end of
> research, it is present with us in the apogpraphs (copies) by virtue
> of providential preservation (WCF 1:8). This isnt Kantianism, where
> the ding-an-sich is unknowable and always beyond perception. The
> apographs are of course pure themselves.
> I just thought this up and the logic of it might be wrong but it
> to me as if your position is the one that puts the Scripture outsidecertain
> somewhere. True, you believe we can by a leap of pure faith all
> together 'reach' out and grab the original variant. You therefore
> think any sincere Christian can know the words of the original.
> But your position, if I followed you correctly (which I am not
> I have!), considers all but the autographical readings impure andthe
> entire manuscript tradition literally a big mass of inchoatecorrupted
> uninspired variants. You suggest we can by "inner ostention", pickpure
> out individually (or corporately in some capacity) the autographical
> reading through sincere faith (and perhaps, some scholarship).
> However it seems to me that is inadequate, since it more or less
> treats the manuscript tradition as wildly infused with corruptions.
> How can God by a singular providence kept the autograph readings
> if the autograph reading must by definition be only a single variantor
> among the several that usually exist for each sentence?
> (Forgive me if I reduced a strawman to absurdity, Daniel!)
> The proper confessional way to view it seems to me to say the
> manuscripts in church use have been kept pure from heresy or schism
> infidelity. Isn't that what WCF 1:8 is saying? The TRs of theOther
> Reformation are the RPNA's ecclessiastical text(s) because it was a
> homologated text of the Reformers and it is a known pure text.
> printed texts (or even manuscripts) are of indeteriminate purity andare
> so can't be authoritative use until we have a Covenanted synod or
> assembly trained in all the requisite fields homologate that those
> [For instance, what if someone wanted to teach doctrine today based
> off a manuscript of Marcion?! Or another gnostic hacked up text?
> Providential purity protected only the visible church's
> ecclessiastical preaching texts and not mutilated versions of
> heretics. One big reason to put a question mark on the Alexandrianrelevence
> and Western (and now Caesarian) text types is John Burgon's
> scholarship to prove these were isolated, heretical texts that never
> had widespread ecclessiastical use. Was he right?]
> The apograph variants are all literally insignificant on this way of
> viewing things, and the lost autographs are not of any great
> to us today. Of course the fact that the many variants for anygiven
> pericope originate from a single original entail that only onevariant
> is autographical, and textual criticism works towards that. But theis
> enterprise of suggesting most likely autographical readings (which
> what textual criticism is) is not of any great importance because ofin
> the known factor of providential purity of the manuscript tradition.
> That's why it is not right to think of the implications of accepting
> textual criticism as implying some sort of
> Letis-style-interpretion-of-Warfield, the eternal and unreachable
> search for the autographs, and replacing the apographs with some
> scholarly probabilistic autograph reconstruction. Who knows, maybe a
> lot of people who deny the enduring providential purity of the text
> the framer's sense might believe that. Not sure if Warfield did.bible
> So that is kind of why I think textual criticism doesnt make the
> the preserve of the "specialist" and the scholar and destroy
> infallibility. I think if anything your view (or the one I am
> ascribing to you in this post for the sake of argument) of treating
> any non-autographical variant as a life-or-death end of inerrancy
> (saved only by our inner ostending--a Wittgenstein word--the one and
> only pure variant) is the death of infallibilty.
> What do you think?
> Sincerely in Christ,
> Chris T.
> Montreal, QC