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

Re: Providential Purity

Expand Messages
  • forisraelssake
    ... Dan: I think what I am saying is that we know about the providential purity of the Scripture text (a priori) and so any corruption must necessarily be
    Message 1 of 32 , May 5, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      > What good is it simply to know that there is an
      > original out there somewhere?

      Dan:

      I think what I am saying is that we know about the providential purity
      of the Scripture text (a priori) and so any corruption must
      necessarily be insignificant by definition, or preservation isn't
      preservation.

      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 seems
      to me as if your position is the one that puts the Scripture outside
      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 certain
      I have!), considers all but the autographical readings impure and the
      entire manuscript tradition literally a big mass of inchoate corrupted
      uninspired variants. You suggest we can by "inner ostention", pick
      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 pure
      if the autograph reading must by definition be only a single variant
      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 or
      infidelity. Isn't that what WCF 1:8 is saying? The TRs of the
      Reformation are the RPNA's ecclessiastical text(s) because it was a
      homologated text of the Reformers and it is a known pure text. Other
      printed texts (or even manuscripts) are of indeteriminate purity and
      so can't be authoritative use until we have a Covenanted synod or
      assembly trained in all the requisite fields homologate that those are
      pure.

      [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 damnable
      heretics. One big reason to put a question mark on the Alexandrian
      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 relevence
      to us today. Of course the fact that the many variants for any given
      pericope originate from a single original entail that only one variant
      is autographical, and textual criticism works towards that. But the
      enterprise of suggesting most likely autographical readings (which is
      what textual criticism is) is not of any great importance because of
      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 in
      the framer's sense might believe that. Not sure if Warfield did.

      So that is kind of why I think textual criticism doesnt make the bible
      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
      RPNA
    • bob_suden
      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
      Message 32 of 32 , May 14, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        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,
        Bob Suden


        --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "forisraelssake"
        <c_tylor@y...> wrote:
        > > What good is it simply to know that there is an
        > > original out there somewhere?
        >
        > Dan:
        >
        > I think what I am saying is that we know about the providential
        purity
        > of the Scripture text (a priori) and so any corruption must
        > necessarily be insignificant by definition, or preservation isn't
        > preservation.
        >
        > 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
        seems
        > to me as if your position is the one that puts the Scripture outside
        > 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
        certain
        > I have!), considers all but the autographical readings impure and
        the
        > entire manuscript tradition literally a big mass of inchoate
        corrupted
        > uninspired variants. You suggest we can by "inner ostention", pick
        > 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
        pure
        > if the autograph reading must by definition be only a single variant
        > 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
        or
        > infidelity. Isn't that what WCF 1:8 is saying? The TRs of the
        > Reformation are the RPNA's ecclessiastical text(s) because it was a
        > homologated text of the Reformers and it is a known pure text.
        Other
        > printed texts (or even manuscripts) are of indeteriminate purity and
        > so can't be authoritative use until we have a Covenanted synod or
        > assembly trained in all the requisite fields homologate that those
        are
        > pure.
        >
        > [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
        damnable
        > heretics. One big reason to put a question mark on the Alexandrian
        > 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
        relevence
        > to us today. Of course the fact that the many variants for any
        given
        > pericope originate from a single original entail that only one
        variant
        > is autographical, and textual criticism works towards that. But the
        > enterprise of suggesting most likely autographical readings (which
        is
        > what textual criticism is) is not of any great importance because of
        > 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
        in
        > the framer's sense might believe that. Not sure if Warfield did.
        >
        > So that is kind of why I think textual criticism doesnt make the
        bible
        > 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
        > RPNA
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.