Re: Text types
- --- In email@example.com, "timmopussycat"
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Daniel"What you have to do is prove that it is unneccesary in light of the
> <ddrost@P...> wrote:
> > Tim,
> > In responce to your question regarding examples of doctrines
> > in the non textus receptus texts, I don't have any.
> Tim-Then may I suggest you find some. Otherwise this discussion is
> essentially unnecessary.
fact that some differences could be there even though we are not
aware of them.
> Tim- I did answer it. See the pp. on the cross references providedfamilies.
> by the Ante Nicene Fathers. In addition consider the following: Any
> heretofore unknown differences in doctrine turning up with any
> hypothetical new found mss. of a new type will, of necessity, fall
> into one of these categories:
> 1) omissions of material to all presently known text types.
> 2) additions to said common material.
> 3) contradictions of said common material.
> and can be rejected on the basis of one of these grounds as some
> phoney "gospels" "acts" and "epistles" already have been.
> Note well, however, that I would only use this doctinal control in
> this situation of examining any (hypothetical) newly appearing mss.
> that are doctrinally different from our present known mss.
> I do not apply this control to the mss we presently have. In ourRegardless, you've just admitted that you are using the doctrine
> present situation of known mss. differences, the situation is
> different and so is my procedure.
which we are supposed to learn from the Bible to judge them as phony.
This doesn't answer the question because all it does is lay out the
different types of differences and asserts that some texts fall under
that category. It doesn't prove that there is no difference in the
major texts any more than I could prove that there are no tables in a
building by showing you one room of it. This is imposible to prove
because it would require you to know every single doctrine in the
Bible which is impossible for mere men.
Here are the steps to proving that there are no differences between
1) Obtain a list of all the doctrines that the Bible contains (This,
of course, would require a pre-criticism Bible but that is a
different part of the debate.),
2) Go through them all one by one in each text.
Step one is imposible, step two (which you can't get to anyways)
would take an eternity (so even if you did get to this step you could
never prove it).
> Tim-You are misunderstanding my reasoning. I am not trying to saynecessarily
> that I have a doctrinal control of what is valid text among our
> present choices: I am trying to say that my control is the practice
> of starting from what is common betwen the text types. In this
> discussion, for simplicity's sake I limit my remarks to the A and
> the B types, but at a comprehensive level all types must
> be included. The authoritativeness of this common material is notat
> issue; that, by the Spirit, we know is from God. The issue of whichexisting
> of our prsent mss is correct is only raised for us when the
> texts differ. Now the Alexandrian text type is shorter thanin
> Byzantine. Since the A type mss. are shorter than B type, most, if
> not all, of the distinctions between the families are cases where A
> types omit data which B texts have. My point is that there is no
> truth of Christian faith found in B and not found in A (although
> perhaps not taught in the same places). This is why I ask for
> specific examples of where a doctrine found in B. cannot be found
> A.Interesting, but you constantly ask if there are any differences in
doctrine which indicates that you would reject a text that had
differences. Let me illustrate. Say I did, some how, find out that
the Alexandrian texts omited a whole doctrine. You would be in a
bind. Because the Latin Texts, the Majority Texts, the Textus
Receptus, Cecerian (and whatever other texts there are) wouldn't have
them. How would you know for certain which text is right? I guess you
could look at the dates of the various ones and the amount of the
various text types but would that make you know for sure? Not really.
Because that is the nature of science. This means that one doctrine
would be either missing from one text or added to the others and we
can't know for sure. And this still doesn't answer the objection that
the words are inspired, not just the ideas.
Even if all of the well proven manuscripts did have all of the
doctrines, they could only be proven over other ones by degrees and
you can't deny the possibility that the others *could* be right (even
if it is a .00000001 percent chance.
What it comes down to is that scripture offers one hundred percent
truth and science offers at best less than that. How can you be 100%
sure that Christ rose from the grave if you base that on a Bible that
is a result of studies that make you only at best LESS than 100
percent sure. You can't derive a sure doctrine from a premise that is
unsure. I know you would argue that you are not proving that the
Bible is right but just trying to refine certain differences (because
they all agree in most places) but the only reason why you know that
they agree in most places is because of science and you might be 99.9
percent certain but the other .1 percent should haunt you because the
only way to have full assurance of salvation is to have full
assurance that scripture is true. In other words, scientific
arguement cannot logically precede our belief in the Bible.
Here is another question: how does a layman know for sure that every
word he reads is true? He knows it before he takes apolagetics or
textual criticism courses. So, it must be the assurance of the Holy
Spirit and that is the only logical way I can see.
- 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 email@example.com, "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