Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [Covenanted Reformation] A catalogue of error and irrelevancies...

Expand Messages
  • forisraelssake
    ... the doctrinal influence of text critical practice--which White raises with such certainty--by the world s leading authority on the subject, comes to just
    Message 1 of 16 , May 3, 2005
      > This, the most important book ever written on the very subject of
      the doctrinal influence of text critical practice--which White raises
      with such certainty--by the world's leading authority on the subject,
      comes to just the opposite conclusion to which White himself arrives!
      Professor Ehrman would remind White that,
      >
      > The textual problems we have examined affect the interpretation of
      many of the familiar and historically significant passages of the New
      Testament: the birth naratives of Matthew and Luke, the prologue of
      the Fourth Gospel, the baptismal accounts of the Synoptics, the
      passion narratives, and other familiar passages in Acts, Paul,
      Hebrews, and the Catholic epistles. In some instances, the
      interpretations of these passages were understood by scribes who
      "read" their interpretations not only out of the text but actually
      into it, as they modified the words in accordance with what they were
      taken to mean…. Naturally, the same data relate to the basic doctrinal
      concerns of early Christians—theologians and, presumably, laypersons
      alike: Was Jesus the Messiah, predicted in the Old Testament? Was
      Joseph his father? Was Jesus born as a human? Was he tempted? Was he
      able to sin? Was he adopted to be the Son of God at his baptism? At
      his resurrection? Or was he himself God? Was Jesus one person
      > or two persons? Did he have a physical body after his resurrection?
      And many others. The ways scribes answered these questions affected
      the way they transcribed their texts. And the way they transcribed
      their texts has affected, to some degree, the way modern exegetes and
      theologians have answered these questions (pp. 276; 281-82, n. 11).
      >
      > This puts White's confident assertion that no doctrine is ever
      affected by text criticism in a very dim light indeed.
      >


      Dr Erhman is a liberal of liberal in this field. He is no Christian,
      rejects the Trinity and the definition of Chalcedon, and doubts or
      repudiates the historicity of the bible.

      He did write all these things, no doubt. And it may be convenient for
      traditional text defenders like Letis to simply carry over the logic
      of his 'orthodox corruption' theses into their own rear guard defenses
      of the bible qua textus receptus, but the larger context of Erhman's
      ideas has to be measured.

      Was Joseph his father? You have to understand the context of this: The
      Sinaitic Syriac ms alone indicates that Joseph was the father of Jesus
      ("Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the virgin, fathered Jesus who is
      called the Christ"). Although much discussed, this reading has not
      been found in any Greek witnesses. B. M. Metzger suggests that it was
      produced by a careless scribe who simply reproduced the set formula of
      the preceding lines in the genealogy (TCGNT 6).

      Hence Dr Letis is building his whole case about how "different
      manuscripts" corrupt or modify doctrines of the Protestant Churches by
      appealing to a bizarre reading found in a single manuscript of a
      foreign language version, a codex that incidentally still does include
      the rest of Matt 1 and Luke 2 (so the context of the corruption found
      in Syr(S) is greatly mitigated).

      In fact all the other examples Erhman lists are of much the same
      nature. It is quite right to make a case for the theologically
      motivated corruption of the scriptures (in both directions, orthodox
      and unorthdox although mainly orthodox) at the hands of scribes, but
      there is a big difference between than and saying something to the
      effect that Reformation & Protestant doctrines become assaulted or
      doubtsome once we go beyond the Scrivener Textus Receptus and consider
      other variants.


      As to my own opinion, I disagree with both Tim and Theodore on this.
      Tim up to now has de-emphasized theologically-motivated readings as
      being present and at least theoretically of being important in the
      real world in situations where the church needs one variant to preach
      and teach (and rebuke) from, while Letis on the other hand has
      emphasized them to such an absurd level that the presence of the
      obviously corrupt variant of Matt 1:16 in the Sinaitic Syriac
      manuscript calls into question the entire doctrine of the Virgin Birth
      in ALL the manuscripts and therefore apparently we have a duty to hold
      to the Textus Receptus forever and never revise it! Or something like
      that anyway.

      --Chris
      RPNA
    • timmopussycat
      ... Tim-Chris, your above conclusion is not exactly what I am trying to say. I did not mention theologically motivated readings, not because such have not
      Message 2 of 16 , May 3, 2005
        --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "forisraelssake"
        <c_tylor@y...> wrote:

        >
        > As to my own opinion, I disagree with both Tim and Theodore on this.
        > Tim up to now has de-emphasized theologically-motivated readings as
        > being present and at least theoretically of being important in the
        > real world in situations where the church needs one variant to preach
        > and teach (and rebuke) from,

        Tim-Chris, your above conclusion is not exactly what I am trying to
        say. I did not mention theologically motivated readings, not because
        such have not occurred, but because they form a secondary dimension to
        the problem, and not its primary one which is the differences in texts.
      • forisraelssake
        ... because ... to ... texts. Chris-True, I sometimes am careless in my words toward you in that you and I seem to hold similar positions in this whole
        Message 3 of 16 , May 3, 2005
          > Tim-Chris, your above conclusion is not exactly what I am trying to
          > say. I did not mention theologically motivated readings, not
          because
          > such have not occurred, but because they form a secondary dimension
          to
          > the problem, and not its primary one which is the differences in
          texts.

          Chris-True, I sometimes am careless in my words toward you in that you
          and I seem to hold similar positions in this whole business (if we
          find Kurt Aland type views more plausible than Maurice Robinson type
          views), and the only striking difference between us being mainly that
          I hold to a Presbyterian formalized super-structure of government and
          discipline imposed on this topic. I'll try to be more careful in
          future posts.

          I have to admit though, that while I find Aland type reconstructions
          of the original text more plausible, I still a great deal of healthy
          respect for Robinson's position, and frankly, I am skeptical of both
          positions even if one of them sounds like it probably has to be the
          right approach. Defaulting to the Scrivener Textus Receptus,
          fortunately is a pretty sane approach in the interim. That NT text was
          (in a strong legal and theological sense) 'good enough' for the
          Reformed Church of Scotland and the Westminster Assembly, which means
          it is good enough now, even while recognizing at a meta-textual level
          the obvious godliness of revising out scribal corruptions/variants. I
          simply am not learned enough to know which greater 'meta' position is
          right, so in the interim, it's the TR for me. :)

          Chris
          Montreal, QC
          Member: RPNA http://www.reformedpresbytery.org/
        • Theodore Letis
          My highest accolades for honesty and principled behavior on this point. Let us now build on the common pool of factual data that all share in common and
          Message 4 of 16 , May 4, 2005
            My highest accolades for honesty and principled behavior on this point. Let us now build on the common pool of factual data that all share in common and account for why two separate communities come to two separate conclusions about this data, i.e., the contemporary status quo of the discipline of N.T. text criticism (two schools, rigorous and reasoned eclecticism); and the Majority Text defenders. It is within the latter school that I place my own position, but prefer to call it the Ecclesiastical Text School since this actually accounts for why this text is in the majority, a point our Baptist Fundamentalist Brethren who prefer to merely call it the "majority text," would rather not draw attention to.
             
            Theodore P. Letis

            timmopussycat <timmopussycat@...> wrote:
            --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Theodore Letis
            <bucerian@y...> wrote:

            Instead, I provided irrefutable evidence that both Reformed Baptist
            Tim, and C. Taylor stated an error about a very common-place fact
            within the history of N.T. text criticism, namely, that Tischendorf
            DID NOT claim to have rescued the O.T. portion of Codex Aleph
            (Sinaiticus) from the fire. Instead, I documented that he most
            certainly DID save the O.T. portion of this manuscript--according to
            Tischendorf's testimony.

            Tim-And you are in fact correct on this point. My apologies to the
            list.

            __________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
            http://mail.yahoo.com

          • Theodore Letis
            So what, the vast majority of those who worked on the UBS4 and Nestle/Aland27 are as well--so what s your point!? You accept their textual decisions as founf
            Message 5 of 16 , May 4, 2005
              So what, the vast majority of those who worked on the UBS4 and Nestle/Aland27 are as well--so what's your point!? You accept their textual decisions as founf in the NIV/TNIV/ESV/NASB so why this big protest when Prof. tells the truth about doctrine being affected by textual choices? This is a mere red herring, meant to take attention away from a real authority in the field, when your amateur opinion has already proven to lead folks astray here on this list with careless error. How dare you challenge someone who earned his doctorate at the feet of perhaps the world's most well respected N.T. text criticism, Prof. Bruce Metzger. You certainly do not even have the basic facts in order on this subject, why should anyone on this list listen to you discounting the opinion of one who is a master of the subject such as Prof. Ehrman? Your opinion certainly carries no weight with me. The simple facts of the matter are that Warfieldians in this field of text criticism (those who claim the only final authority are the lost "inerrant autographs" which neither the UBS, nor N/A claim to have reconstructed, much less would they claim their texts are "inerrant"), are a slim minority who engage in special pleading when they claim no doctrine is at stake, when the real authorities in the field say exactly the opposite. What you are is a mere ill-informed propagandist for these Evangelicals and their publishing empire, hell-bent on pushing either the NIV or the TNIV or the ESV on what remains of confessional Christianity, but thank God most on this list know exactly what the "Knight of Malta" Roman Catholic Rupert Murdoch and his Zondervan Corporation are up to. Let us listen to text critics when they are real authorities in the field, rather than to propagandists for Murdoch, who hardly have their facts in order at any rate.
               
              Theodore P. Letis

              forisraelssake <c_tylor@...> wrote:


              Dr Erhman is a liberal

              __________________________________________________
              Do You Yahoo!?
              Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
              http://mail.yahoo.com

            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.