Re: [Covenanted Reformation] A catalogue of error and irrelevancies...
> This, the most important book ever written on the very subject ofthe 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,
>many of the familiar and historically significant passages of the New
> The textual problems we have examined affect the interpretation of
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 Christianstheologians 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).
>affected by text criticism in a very dim light indeed.
> This puts White's confident assertion that no doctrine is ever
>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
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
- --- In email@example.com, "forisraelssake"
>Tim-Chris, your above conclusion is not exactly what I am trying to
> 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,
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.
> Tim-Chris, your above conclusion is not exactly what I am trying tobecause
> say. I did not mention theologically motivated readings, not
> such have not occurred, but because they form a secondary dimensionto
> the problem, and not its primary one which is the differences intexts.
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
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. :)
Member: RPNA http://www.reformedpresbytery.org/
- 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 firstname.lastname@example.org, Theodore Letis
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
Tim-And you are in fact correct on this point. My apologies to the
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
- 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