History of Textual Criticism

[Jack Koons]

An Introduction to the History of Textual Criticism

by

Jack Koons


Part One

The simplest way to present this work is to do some “reverse engineering”. I will make an attempt to work back through history and follow the path that takes us to the 'beginning' of 'Textual Criticism' as we know it today.

Let us begin.

The first thing I did was to go on line and went to the Encyclopedia Britannica. I then typed “Biblical Criticism”. I was taken to the following site:

biblical criticism -- Encyclopedia Britannica

The following excerpt was taken from the above site:

“The major types of biblical criticism are: (1) textual criticism, which is concerned with establishing the original or most authoritative text, (2) philological criticism, which is the study of the biblical languages for an accurate knowledge of vocabulary, grammar, and style of the period, (3) literary criticism, which focuses on the various literary genres embedded in the text in order to uncover evidence concerning date of composition, authorship, and original function of the various types of writing that constitute the Bible, (4) tradition criticism, which attempts to trace the development of the oral traditions that preceded written texts, and (5) form criticism, which classifies the written material according to the preliterary forms, such as parable or hymn.”

Notice, the first type of biblical criticism is “textual criticism”. I then clicked on the link for 'textual criticism' (written in blue), and was taken to the following site:

textual criticism -- Encyclopedia Britannica

The following excerpt comes from the above site:

“Textual criticism, properly speaking, is an ancillary academic discipline designed to lay the foundations for the so-called higher criticism, which deals with questions of authenticity and attribution, of interpretation, and of literary and historical evaluation. This distinction between the lower and the higher branches of criticism was first made explicitly by the German biblical scholar J.G. Eichhorn; the first use of the term “textual criticism” in English dates from the middle of the 19th century. In practice the operations of textual and “higher” criticism cannot be rigidly differentiated: at the very outset of his work a critic, faced with variant forms of a text, inevitably employs stylistic and other criteria belonging to the “higher” branch. The methods of textual criticism, insofar as they are not codified common sense, are the methods of historical inquiry. Texts have been transmitted in an almost limitless variety of ways, and the criteria employed by the textual critic—technical, philological, literary, or aesthetic—are valid only if applied in awareness of the particular set of historical circumstances governing each case.”

Please notice that in this entire paragraph, there is but one link, (Written in blue), the name J.G. Eichhorn. I then clicked on his name, and was taken to the following link:

Johann Gottfried Eichhorn (German biblical scholar) -- Encyclopedia Britannica

The following excerpt comes from the above site:

“Johann Gottfried Eichhorn, (born Oct. 16, 1752, Dörrenzimmern, Württemberg—died June 27, 1827, Göttingen, Hannover), German biblical scholar and orientalist who taught at Jena and Göttingen, one of the first commentators to make a scientific comparison between the biblical books and other Semitic writings. A pioneer in distinguishing the various documentary and cultural sources of the Old Testament law, traditionally considered a Mosaic composition, he also questioned the Pauline authorship of the New Testament letters to Timothy and Titus, challenged the genuineness of the Second Letter of Peter, and suggested that the four Gospels derived from a single Aramaic text. His chief works included Historisch-Kritische Einleitung ins Alte Testament (3 vol., 1780–83; “Historical and Critical Introduction to the Old Testament”), and a corresponding work for the New Testament (5 vol., 1804–12). Although only partially accurate, they stimulated research and criticism in biblical literature.”

Please observe, Johann Eichhorm “questioned the Pauline authorship of the New Testament letters to Timothy and Titus, challenged the genuineness of the Second Letter of Peter, and suggested that the four Gospels derived from a single Aramaic text”. So, in a time when the Bible was considered to be the Divinely inspired Word of God, Johann Eichhorn did not agree. We now have men, who do not believe in the Divine inspiration of the Word of God, making judgments as to the authenticity of the Word of God. These men, will now begin to make rules, (composed in their own minds) as to the manner in which God should, and would have them, through their own intellect, determine what is, and isn't what He said. The problem of course with this scenario, is the fact that these men, have the belief that the Bible is authored by men, not God.

I want you to take notice to the time that Johann Gottfried Eichhorn lived. (1752-1827) My next step was to look up a name that I had seen many times in my studies of the past (my purpose is to work in reverse order to find the beginning of textual criticism); the name of Johann Salomo Semler. This led me to the following site:

Johann Salomo Semler (German theologian) -- Encyclopedia Britannica

The following excerpts were taken from the above site:

“Johann Salomo Semler, (born Dec. 18, 1725, Saalfeld, duchy of Saxe-Saalfeld [Germany]—died March 14, 1791, Halle, Brandenburg), German Lutheran theologian who was a major figure in the development of biblical textual criticism during his tenure (1753–91) as professor of theology at the University of Halle.
Semler was a disciple of the rationalist Siegmund Jakob Baumgarten, whom he succeeded on his death in 1757 as head of the theological faculty. Seeking to study biblical texts scientifically, Semler evolved an undogmatic and strictly historical interpretation of Scripture that provoked strong opposition. He was the first to deny, and to offer substantial evidence supporting his denial, that the entirety of the text of Old and New Testaments was divinely inspired and fully correct. He challenged the divine authority of the biblical canon, which he reexamined in order to determine the sequence of composition of biblical books, their nature, and their manner of transmission. From this work he drew a crucial distinction between an earlier, Jewish form of Christianity and a later, broader form.”

There are three things shown here that are noteworthy: 1) Semler was professor of theology starting in 1753 (this is only one year after Johann Gottfried Eichhorn was born); showing that Semler was at least one gerneration before Eichhorn; 2) Semler was a disciple of the rationalist Siegmund Jakob Baumgarten (this gives indication that it may to well to examine of Siegmund Jakob Baumgarten as well); and 3) “He was the first to deny, and to offer substantial evidence supporting his denial, that the entirety of the Old and New Testaments was divinely inspired and fully correct. He challenged the divine authority of the biblical canon, which he reexamined in order to determine the sequence of composition of biblical books, their nature, and their manner of transmission”.

Please notice, Semler was a theologian, who denied the Divine inspiration of the Scriptures. The question of the hour at this juncture is simply this: On or by what authority does he deny “divine inspiration” and thereby challenge “divine authority of biblical books, their nature, and their manner of transmission”? Did Semler actually believe that his 'intellect' and or learning allowed him that authority? I guess he did, (along with a lot of other scholars that have followed in his footsteps).

Jack

 

[cubanito]

Mr (Dr?) Koonz, while I await your next installment, I am markedly underwhelmed by this typical straw man argument.

Liberals ignore Bible inerrantists, and what else would one expect of any major Encyclopedia but a half truth?

While previously superficially aware of Eichorn, because of you I was made aware of Semier and I do thank you for that. However, I could not care less what ANYBODY who does not hold to Biblical Inerrancy has to say regarding textual criticism.

Please do not fight the straw man. Deal with the people like you and I who hold to an inerrant view of Scripture and who insist that the Textus Receptus is not the final word in NT scholarship. Here are a few links:

http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/17d.pdf

Wallace: Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism

The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism - D. A. Carson - Google Books

Each of the above are scholarly men from different but totally Biblical inerrant institutions who do NOT view the Received Text as the final authority. It is articles and men like those you should address, not Semier who counts for NOTHING to me.

JR

 

[Jack Koons]

Mr (Dr?) Koonz, while I await your next installment, I am markedly underwhelmed by this typical straw man argument.

I would like to address this statement carefully, but honestly. I by no means come into ANY arena with a “typical straw man” argument. I enter EVERY arena with the knowledge that I must be prepared for ANY opponent. If an opponent knows something I don't, (and that has happened), I admit my short coming, and live to fight another day. Over the years I have learned to listen very carefully to what people say. (As well as what they do not say.) In an arena such as this, I know that it is very possible that I will cross paths with learned men. When one enters such an arena, there is no way of knowing what facts may, or may not be presented. What I do know is what I have studied, and what I do know, is that unlike many others who enter into these kinds of discussions, I have learned to check on information I find, before assuming it is correct.

Liberals ignore Bible inerrantists, and what else would one expect of any major Encyclopedia but a half truth?

The real truth here is that you are actually correct. I would agree with you in most instances. Here however, they are actually correct. The amazing thing is that the “white coats” actually have the religious world so convinced that these 'scholars' are correct about the Bible needing to be examined under the same scrutiny as 'classical literature', (that literature which is authored by man), that this information can be presented as the modern scholar wishes, with very little negative response.

While previously superficially aware of Eichorn, because of you I was made aware of Semier and I do thank you for that. However, I could not care less what ANYBODY who does not hold to Biblical Inerrancy has to say regarding textual criticism.

Actually, this statement is how most people feel. That is why this arena, and this particular thread, is so important. I recently was speaking about this issue with a relative of mine. As I was speaking to her, I came to realize that even though I was speaking about this issue at what I thought was a pretty basic level; what I was presenting her was way over her head, (the fact that she said to me, “Uncle Jack, what you're talking about is way over my head”, was a really good clue). The fact is, after thinking about it for a minute, I came to the understanding that the average layperson doesn't spend a lot of time researching how we got our Bible. With that being said, when the average layperson IS made aware of how we got our Bible, and the differences of them, they appreciate the truth, with an entirely different level of reverence.

Please do not fight the straw man. Deal with the people like you and I who hold to an inerrant view of Scripture and who insist that the Textus Receptus is not the final word in NT scholarship.

I really hate to make the statement I am about to make, simply because I know how true it is.

Very few “Christian Colleges” actually believe in 'Biblical Inerrancy' anymore. What most “Christian Institutions” now call 'Biblical Inerrancy', is Biblical Inerrancy “in the originals”. This is the very issue that needs to be, and is addressed in this thread; the shifting of belief by the 'scholars' from belief in “inerrancy, and preservation of God's words”; to belief in “inerrancy in the originals”, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Let me make this a bit clearer, just in case you did not get what I just said. Up to, and including the publication of the King James Bible, scholars believed 1) The words of the Bible were given to man by inspiration of God, and therefore inerrant. 2) God preserved his words throughout the centuries, therefore, the very Bible we hold in our hands is the inspired, inerrant, preserved, words of God. Today, scholars believe the only time there was inerrancy in the Bible was “IN THE ORIGINALS”. Something happened between then, and now. That is what we must address. Most of the scholarly “white coats” are too far gone to reach. But every once in a while, one can be reached. I hope to meet that man here, in this arena! Let me give you an example of such a man.

Frank Logsdon was such a man. Here is the statement that I initially heard.

"Dr. Frank Logsdon was the co-founder of the New American Standard Bible (NASB). He has since renounced any connection to it.
[Quoting Dr. Logsdon]
"I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard Version. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord... We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface... I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; its wrong, terribly wrong... The deletions are absolutely frightening... there are so many... Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?
Upon investigation, I wrote my dear friend, Mr. Lockman, (editors note: Mr. Lockman was the benefactor through which the NASB was published) explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV (editors note: This is the same as the NASB).
You can say that the Authorized Version (KJV) is absolutely correct. How correct? 100% correct..."
[Dr. Frank Logsdon]

Now after initially hearing this, I (as I usually do) tried to find out if it was true. Then I came upon this an article at this site:

Dr. Frank Logsdon and the NASB... according to KJVO's - BaptistBoard.com

The following is an excerpt taken from the above site:

“---> These were the words, supposedly made by Frank Logsdon himself, in David Sorensen's tract, and it is obviously condemning-- if it were true! KJV-onlyist lies and deceit through and through had fabricated this statement up and now it has been passed along as being a true statement by Frank Logsdon by KJV-onlyists. Here is the statement from the Lockman Foundation, which is the translation committee that produced the NASB:


The Board of Directors of The Lockman Foundation launched the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE translation work in the late 1950's following the completion of the AMPLIFIED NEW TESTAMENT. Dr. S. Franklin Logsdon was acquainted with Dewey Lockman, president of The LockmanFoundation, prior to Mr. Lockman's death in 1974. Mr. Logsdon was never a member of the Board of Directors, nor was he an employee of The Lockman Foundation. Mr. Logsdon had no authority to hire employees or translators for the Foundation, to set policy, to vote, to hold office, to incur expenses, etc. He cannot be considered "co-founder" of the NASB, nor part of The Lockman Foundation, nor part of the NASB translationteam, nor did he write the forward of the NASB. According to our records, he was present at board meetings on two occasions -- once to hear a travel report; and once to deliver an "inspirational thought."

Mr. Logsdon last wrote to Mr. Lockman in fall of 1973 that he was moving to Florida. Mr. Lockman replied that he was surprised and saddened by his decision to leave the area. Mr. Lockman passed away in January of 1974, and no further correspondence was exchanged between Frank Logsdon and The Lockman Foundation. He resided in Florida until his passing some years ago.

The grass withers, the flower fades; but the word of our God stands forever. Isaiah 40:8 (NASB)

The Lockman Foundation”

Now I must admit, under normal circumstances, this would be case closed, right? Well, not exactly.

You see, I came across a man who claimed that he actually had personally heard from the mouth of Dr. Logsdon the actual testimony given above. (That Dr. Logsdon actually did say, what was in the letter concerning the NASB.) So, I looked a bit more. The following is a link to where one can listen to Dr. Frank Logsdon speaking at a church on this very issue. (Dr. Logsdon spent his final years as an advocate of the King James Bible. Furthermore, information is given concerning witnesses of this event.)

Frank Logsdon From the NASV to KJV - YouTube

From the NASV to the KJV by Frank Logsdon

One last word concerning Dr. Frank Logsdon, Dr. Logsdon openly preached, and gave his testimony for 10 years after denouncing the NASB. It was not until AFTER his death in 1987 that his testimony was called a myth.

Here are a few links:

http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/17d.pdf

Wallace: Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism

The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism - D. A. Carson - Google Books

Each of the above are scholarly men from different but totally Biblical inerrant institutions who do NOT view the Received Text as the final authority. It is articles and men like those you should address, not Semier who counts for NOTHING to me.

JR

JR,

As always, I take your words kindly. I fully intend to visit the above sites, the truth is however, I have already read much of what these very men have written. I hope that the readers here find this thread informative.

Jack

 

[Giver]

An Introduction to the History of Textual Criticism

by

Jack Koons


Part One

The simplest way to present this work is to do some “reverse engineering”. I will make an attempt to work back through history and follow the path that takes us to the 'beginning' of 'Textual Criticism' as we know it today.

Let us begin.

The first thing I did was to go on line and went to the Encyclopedia Britannica. I then typed “Biblical Criticism”. I was taken to the following site:

biblical criticism -- Encyclopedia Britannica

The following excerpt was taken from the above site:

“The major types of biblical criticism are: (1) textual criticism, which is concerned with establishing the original or most authoritative text, (2) philological criticism, which is the study of the biblical languages for an accurate knowledge of vocabulary, grammar, and style of the period, (3) literary criticism, which focuses on the various literary genres embedded in the text in order to uncover evidence concerning date of composition, authorship, and original function of the various types of writing that constitute the Bible, (4) tradition criticism, which attempts to trace the development of the oral traditions that preceded written texts, and (5) form criticism, which classifies the written material according to the preliterary forms, such as parable or hymn.”

Notice, the first type of biblical criticism is “textual criticism”. I then clicked on the link for 'textual criticism' (written in blue), and was taken to the following site:

textual criticism -- Encyclopedia Britannica

The following excerpt comes from the above site:

“Textual criticism, properly speaking, is an ancillary academic discipline designed to lay the foundations for the so-called higher criticism, which deals with questions of authenticity and attribution, of interpretation, and of literary and historical evaluation. This distinction between the lower and the higher branches of criticism was first made explicitly by the German biblical scholar J.G. Eichhorn; the first use of the term “textual criticism” in English dates from the middle of the 19th century. In practice the operations of textual and “higher” criticism cannot be rigidly differentiated: at the very outset of his work a critic, faced with variant forms of a text, inevitably employs stylistic and other criteria belonging to the “higher” branch. The methods of textual criticism, insofar as they are not codified common sense, are the methods of historical inquiry. Texts have been transmitted in an almost limitless variety of ways, and the criteria employed by the textual critic—technical, philological, literary, or aesthetic—are valid only if applied in awareness of the particular set of historical circumstances governing each case.”

Please notice that in this entire paragraph, there is but one link, (Written in blue), the name J.G. Eichhorn. I then clicked on his name, and was taken to the following link:

Johann Gottfried Eichhorn (German biblical scholar) -- Encyclopedia Britannica

The following excerpt comes from the above site:

“Johann Gottfried Eichhorn, (born Oct. 16, 1752, Dörrenzimmern, Württemberg—died June 27, 1827, Göttingen, Hannover), German biblical scholar and orientalist who taught at Jena and Göttingen, one of the first commentators to make a scientific comparison between the biblical books and other Semitic writings. A pioneer in distinguishing the various documentary and cultural sources of the Old Testament law, traditionally considered a Mosaic composition, he also questioned the Pauline authorship of the New Testament letters to Timothy and Titus, challenged the genuineness of the Second Letter of Peter, and suggested that the four Gospels derived from a single Aramaic text. His chief works included Historisch-Kritische Einleitung ins Alte Testament (3 vol., 1780–83; “Historical and Critical Introduction to the Old Testament”), and a corresponding work for the New Testament (5 vol., 1804–12). Although only partially accurate, they stimulated research and criticism in biblical literature.”

Please observe, Johann Eichhorm “questioned the Pauline authorship of the New Testament letters to Timothy and Titus, challenged the genuineness of the Second Letter of Peter, and suggested that the four Gospels derived from a single Aramaic text”. So, in a time when the Bible was considered to be the Divinely inspired Word of God, Johann Eichhorn did not agree. We now have men, who do not believe in the Divine inspiration of the Word of God, making judgments as to the authenticity of the Word of God. These men, will now begin to make rules, (composed in their own minds) as to the manner in which God should, and would have them, through their own intellect, determine what is, and isn't what He said. The problem of course with this scenario, is the fact that these men, have the belief that the Bible is authored by men, not God.

I want you to take notice to the time that Johann Gottfried Eichhorn lived. (1752-1827) My next step was to look up a name that I had seen many times in my studies of the past (my purpose is to work in reverse order to find the beginning of textual criticism); the name of Johann Salomo Semler. This led me to the following site:

Johann Salomo Semler (German theologian) -- Encyclopedia Britannica

The following excerpts were taken from the above site:

“Johann Salomo Semler, (born Dec. 18, 1725, Saalfeld, duchy of Saxe-Saalfeld [Germany]—died March 14, 1791, Halle, Brandenburg), German Lutheran theologian who was a major figure in the development of biblical textual criticism during his tenure (1753–91) as professor of theology at the University of Halle.
Semler was a disciple of the rationalist Siegmund Jakob Baumgarten, whom he succeeded on his death in 1757 as head of the theological faculty. Seeking to study biblical texts scientifically, Semler evolved an undogmatic and strictly historical interpretation of Scripture that provoked strong opposition. He was the first to deny, and to offer substantial evidence supporting his denial, that the entirety of the text of Old and New Testaments was divinely inspired and fully correct. He challenged the divine authority of the biblical canon, which he reexamined in order to determine the sequence of composition of biblical books, their nature, and their manner of transmission. From this work he drew a crucial distinction between an earlier, Jewish form of Christianity and a later, broader form.”

There are three things shown here that are noteworthy: 1) Semler was professor of theology starting in 1753 (this is only one year after Johann Gottfried Eichhorn was born); showing that Semler was at least one gerneration before Eichhorn; 2) Semler was a disciple of the rationalist Siegmund Jakob Baumgarten (this gives indication that it may to well to examine of Siegmund Jakob Baumgarten as well); and 3) “He was the first to deny, and to offer substantial evidence supporting his denial, that the entirety of the Old and New Testaments was divinely inspired and fully correct. He challenged the divine authority of the biblical canon, which he reexamined in order to determine the sequence of composition of biblical books, their nature, and their manner of transmission”.

Please notice, Semler was a theologian, who denied the Divine inspiration of the Scriptures. The question of the hour at this juncture is simply this: On or by what authority does he deny “divine inspiration” and thereby challenge “divine authority of biblical books, their nature, and their manner of transmission”? Did Semler actually believe that his 'intellect' and or learning allowed him that authority? I guess he did, (along with a lot of other scholars that have followed in his footsteps).

Jack

Jack, we were given the Holy Spirit by Jesus to teach us. The written Word of God is God’s Word, but the Holy Spirit only can give one the understanding of the written Word.

The spoken Word/Holy Spirit/Jesus is a much more accurate way to communicate.

The bible is useful, but studding the bible will never bring one to know God.

(1 John 2:27) “But you have not lost the anointing that he gave you, and you do not need anyone to teach you, the anointing he gave teaches you everything; you are anointed with truth, not a lie, and as it has taught you, so you must stay in him.”

(1 Corinthians 2:10-16) “These are the very things that God has revealed to us through the Spirit, for the Spirit reaches the depts. Of everything, even the depths of God. After all, the depths of a man can only be known by his own spirit, not by any other man, and in the same way the depths of God can only be known by the Spirit of God. Now instead of the spirit of the world, we have received the Spirit that comes from God, to teach us to understand the gifts that he has given us. Therefore we teach, not in the way in which philosophy is taught, but in the way that the Spirit teaches us: we teach spiritual things spiritually. A spiritual man, on the other hand, is able tojudge the value of everything and his own value in not to be judged by other men. As scripture says;’ who can know the mind of the Lord, so who can teach him?’ But we are those who have the mind of Christ.”

All a Christian needs to do for confirmation if the bible is truly God’s written Word, is ask God.

 

[Jack Koons]

JR,

A quick word about a “straw man” argument.

Please evaluate the following words carefully, and receive them with the respect in which they are given:

In the thread “Evolution”, you gave some direct points of evidence which you asked to be answered. This was NOT a “straw man” argument; it WAS an argument based upon studies which you have done, which brought you to a particular conclusion. You are fully aware that in the field of 'evolution' there is the real possibility that any number of “white coats” could bring you an argument in this Forum. According to what you have studied, you have been brought to a conclusion (to which I agree), that others may not agree, and thereby present 'eloquent' arguments which impress those who are less learned in this field.

The point I wish to make however, is that, while these 'arguments' may be given using either 'authority', or 'evidence', one never can afford to assume that one representing the opposing view is not equipped to give a valiant defense of their beliefs. Hence, neither your argument, (as stated above), or my argument in the current thread, is meant by any means to be a “straw man” argument.

Jack

 

[Jack Koons]

one more try

 

[Jack Koons]

Part Two

Continuing with our study:

I Googled the name Siegmund Jakob Baumgarten, which took me to the following link:

Siegmund Jakob Baumgarten - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following excerpts were taken from the above site:

“Siegmund Jakob Baumgarten (14 March 1706, Wolmirstedt – 4 July 1757, Halle) was a German Protestant theologian. He was a brother to philosopher Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten (1714-1762).
He studied theology at the University of Halle, and in 1728 the 22-year old Baumgarten, a Hallensian Pietist and bibliophile, was appointed as minister of the "Marktkirche Unser Lieben Frauen" (Market Church of Our Dear Lady). In 1730 he became an associate professor at Halle, where in 1734 he was appointed a full professor of theology. In 1748 he was named as university rector. At the end of his life he translated encyclopedic articles and biographies from English into German.[1]
Baumgarten was a follower of the philosophical teachings of Christian Wolff (1679-1754), and is regarded as a transitional theologian from the Pietism of Philipp Jakob Spener (1635-1705) and August Hermann Francke (1663-1727) to that of modern rationalism. He was a prodigious writer and published works on exegesis, hermeneutics, dogmatics and history. He was author of the first sixteen volumes of the Allgemeine Welthistorie (General World History), which after his death, was continued by his assistant Johann Salomo Semler (1725-1791).”


Here things have a tendency to get rather interesting. If you haven't taken notice, there is a consistent use of the title “German Rationalism”. This title is going to be joined by another title, “German Philosophy”. Notice the above sentence, “Baumgarten was a follower of the philosophical teachings of Christian Wolff (1679-1754), and is regarded as a transitional theologian from the Pietism of Philipp Jakob Spener (1635-1705) and August Hermann Francke (1663-1727) to that of modern rationalism.”


It is now time to follow the next name, Christian Wolff.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Wolff_(philosopher)


The following excerpt was taken from the above site:


“Christian Wolff (less correctly Wolf; also known as Wolfius; ennobled as: Christian Freiherr von Wolff; 24 January 1679 – 9 April 1754) was a German philosopher.
He was the most eminent German philosopher between Leibniz and Kant. His main achievement was a complete oeuvreon almost every scholarly subject of his time, displayed and unfolded according to his demonstrative-deductive, mathematical method, which perhaps represents the peak of Enlightenment rationality in Germany.”


Notice, “He was the most eminent German philosopher between Leibniz and Kant”. What is the common thread among these men? For one, they were all “German Philosophers”. Let's see what that heading uncovers:


German philosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The following excerpts were taken from the above site:


“German philosophy, here taken to mean either (1) philosophy in the German language or (2) philosophy by Germans, has been extremely diverse, and central to both the analytic and continental traditions in philosophy for centuries, from Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz through Immanuel Kant, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Arthur Schopenhauer, Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, Martin Heidegger and Ludwig Wittgenstein to contemporary philosophers. Søren Kierkegaard (a Danish philosopher) is frequently included in surveys of German (or Germanic) philosophy due to his extensive engagement with German thinkers.[1][2][3][4]”


I want you to notice the names above. Two of the above names were mentioned on the site pertaining to Christian Wolff (above); those names were: 1) Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, and 2) Immanuel Kant. Later on this same page, these two men are briefly discussed.
“Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716) was both a philosopher and a mathematician who wrote primarily in Latin and French. Leibniz, along with René Descartes and Baruch Spinoza, was one of the three great 17th century advocates of rationalism. The work of Leibniz also anticipated modern logic and analytic philosophy, but his philosophy also looks back to the scholastic tradition, in which conclusions are produced by applying reason to first principles or a priori definitions rather than to empirical evidence.
Leibniz is noted for his optimism - his Théodicée[5] tries to justify the apparent imperfections of the world by claiming that it is optimal among all possible worlds. It must be the best possible and most balanced world, because it was created by an all powerful and all knowing God, who would not choose to create an imperfect world if a better world could be known to him or possible to exist. In effect, apparent flaws that can be identified in this world must exist in every possible world, because otherwise God would have chosen to create the world that excluded those flaws.”


We see above the words, “The work of Leibniz also anticipated modern logic and analytic philosophy, but his philosophy also looks back to the scholastic tradition, in which conclusions are produced by applying reason to first principles or a priori definitions rather than to empirical evidence”. Today, we here much about “empirical evidence”, (that evidence which is obtained through observation or experience), Leibniz, refused to observe the fact that all of the scripture of his day, was that which all the churches of Europe, and all of Asia Minor had been using from the time of Christ until his day. The only exception of course, was the Church of Rome.


I want you to take notice to the philosophy of Leibniz. Notice in the second paragraph it states, “It must be the best possible and most balanced world, because it was created by an all powerful and all knowing God, who would not choose to create an imperfect world if a better world could be known to him or possible to exist. In effect, apparent flaws that can be identified in this world must exist in every possible world, because otherwise God would have chosen to create the world that excluded those flaws.”
Does this mean that Leibniz does not believe in “Heaven” as described in the Bible? A place that has no sorrow, pain, suffering, or sin. This is the “rationalism” that both Leibniz and other German Philoshers/ Rationalists believed.


On the same site we read:


“In 1781, Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) published his Critique of Pure Reason, in which he attempted to determine what we can and cannot know through the use of reason independent of all experience. Briefly, he came to the conclusion that we could come to know an external world through experience, but that what we could know about it was limited by the limited terms in which the mind can think: if we can only comprehend things in terms of cause and effect, then we can only know causes and effects. It follows from this that we can know the form of all possible experience independent of all experience, but nothing else, but we can never know the world from the “standpoint of nowhere” and therefore we can never know the world in its entirety, neither via reason nor experience.
Since the publication of his Critique, Immanuel Kant has been considered one of the greatest influences in all of western philosophy. In the late 18th and early 19th century, one direct line of influence from Kant is German Idealism.”


I would like you to notice the last paragraph, “Since the publication of his Critique, Immanuel Kant has been considered one of the greatest influences in all of western philosophy. In the late 18th and early 19th century, one direct line of influence from Kant is German Idealism.”


Please remember, what we have seen in the previous articles is that the root, or beginning of textual criticism is in German rationalism, German philosophy, and here we see that one of the “greatest influences in all of western philosophy” is a man named Immanuel Kant who had a “direct line of influence” called “German Idealism”. (Which just happens to be covered on the same site.)


“The German Idealists believed there were problems with Kant’s system and sought to place it on firmer grounds. They were also greatly concerned with the problem of freewill as understood through Kantianism: practical reason presupposes a freewill, and yet according to theoretical reason, everything is predetermined in a complete system of causality. Therefore either everything in possible experience isn’t predetermined, which contradicts the universality of pure reason, or the freewill is outside the system of causality and can have no effect on it, rendering the will useless.
The three most prominent German Idealists were Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762–1814), Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling(1775–1854) and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831). On some interpretations, Hegel did away with Kantianism altogether to achieve absolute knowledge, while others read him as working within the confines of Kantianism. His method of dialectics has become a commonplace means of reasoning in continental philosophy.”


Again, please notice the names in the second paragraph: “...Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762–1814), Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling(1775–1854) and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831).”


The last name above was that of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. He is spoken of still further.


“Among those influenced by Hegel was a group of young radicals called the Young Hegelians, who were unpopular because of their radical views on religion and society. They included Ludwig Feuerbach (1804–1872), Bruno Bauer (1809–1882) and Max Stirner (1806–1856) among their ranks.
Karl Marx (1818–1883) often attended their meetings. He developed an interest in Hegelianism, French socialism and British economic theory. He transformed the three into an essential work of economics called Das Kapital, which consisted of a critical economic examination of capitalism. Marxism has had a massive effect on the world as a whole.”


I find it interesting that Karl Marx is listed among “German Idealist”. By the time of the late 1800's, the seed that had been planted back in the late 1700's by Semler in 1753–91 while teaching as a professor that the entirety of the Old and New Testaments were not divinely inspired and fully correct, and challenged the divine authority of the biblical canon, their nature, and their manner of transmission; had developed into textual criticism on one branch, and Marxism on another branch.


Jack

 

[cubanito]

Jack, as Billy Sunday used to say, "If you turn Hell upside down it would say 'Made in Germany.'"

I quibble not with your exposition so far of those men who walked away from the Bible to their own imaginations. I just don't care.

I will try to keep from criticizing your exposition further until you have finished it. I will wait until you stop beating the straw man of liberalism and deal with men who hold a high view of the original autographs.

As to evolution. The arguments I presented are simple and stated in a couple of sentences each. That a gas in a vacuum expands forever, that such a gas expands faster the hotter it gets and faster still if adding centrifugal force is a very, very basic scientific fact. It seems to me straightfoward to realize from there that the formation of stars is IMPOSSIBLE given how extremely weak gravity is in comparison to any gas' proclivity towards expansion. That if you say "species do not interbreed in the wild" and then "dogs and wolves are different species" followed by complaints by enviornmentalists that wolve DNA is being "contaminated" because of all the feral dogs that are interbreeding with wolves in the wild also seems like a simple argument. I could go on, like where is the lunar dust, but the point is these are arguments that as a child I could easily see for myself.

Your attempts to argue your position that the Byzantine text is unworthy are so far, well, byzantine.

Koonzy baby, I am given to long posts myself. However, I find your posts too much to follow. Not the ones here, but those other ones when you start up with manuscript numbers. Sometimes, like your answer about who was the mother of whomever, your answers are cogent (she had two names), agree or not at least I understand your point (and frankly seems an acceptable answer). On the other side, who did kill Goliath?

Koonzy baby, when I was a professor I was able to condense some rather complicated subjects into comprehensible packets for my medical students. Many other professors, I could not understand what they were trying to say, let alone the students. I think you need to take out some prayer beads, center yourself by reciting your favorite mantra (mine is Ossssteeeem---Ooooppprahhhh---Hinnn) or whatever and present your case in a manner conducive to a layman's capacity. I can not drop my medical practice and go chasing down manuscript numbers. Nor do I care one whit what German "Higher" criticism insanity has to offer. And now you're into conspiracy theories aout dead Lockmans and Logstons, as if that matters. Sticks (Log...) and stons may break my bones but words will confuse me.

Koonzy baby, you are losing the peanut gallery here.

JR, just another pea-brain nut

 

[standingtall]

Koonzy baby, you are losing the peanut gallery here.

You can't lose what you never had.

Koons is a legend in his own mind.

 

[Jack Koons]

A man who I have looked up to for many years once told me that I sometimes say more than needs to be said. (No JR, it wasn't you; you simply brought his words to remembrance.) So, with that said, allow me to make a few short comments.

Jack, as Billy Sunday used to say, "If you turn Hell upside down it would say 'Made in Germany.'"

I quibble not with your exposition so far of those men who walked away from the Bible to their own imaginations. I just don't care.

I will try to keep from criticizing your exposition further until you have finished it. I will wait until you stop beating the straw man of liberalism and deal with men who hold a high view of the original autographs.

Well JR, you, and nearly every other person in this Forum, holds "a high view of the original autographs".

As you stated in Post #66 of the thread, "Which New Testament Text has been kept pure?"

As to my "attacking the Bible" or the Perfection of Christ, I deny both. I fully subscribe to the "Chicago Statement of the Fundamentals" The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and there copy errors are clearly allowed for.

Please note: The reason for my displaying this 'post', is to point out the fact that this 'Statement' does affirm 'inspiration' in only the 'originals', (to which I also affirm); however, under the heading of "Transmission and Translation", we read:

"E. Transmission and Translation
 Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired and to maintain the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission. The verdict of this science, however, is that the Hebrew and Greek text appears to be amazingly well preserved, so that we are amply justified in affirming, with the Westminster Confession, a singular providence of God in this matter and in declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free.
 Similarly, no translation is or can be perfect, and all translations are an additional step away from the autograph. Yet the verdict of linguistic science is that English-speaking Christians, at least, are exceedingly well served in these days with a host of excellent translations and have no cause for hesitating to conclude that the true Word of God is within their reach."

This is where we disagree. This Statement affirms that "only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired and to maintain the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission.", and that, "Similarly, no translation is or can be perfect, and all translations are an additional step away from the autograph." To which, I deny.

As to evolution. The arguments I presented are simple and stated in a couple of sentences each. That a gas in a vacuum expands forever, that such a gas expands faster the hotter it gets and faster still if adding centrifugal force is a very, very basic scientific fact. It seems to me straightfoward to realize from there that the formation of stars is IMPOSSIBLE given how extremely weak gravity is in comparison to any gas' proclivity towards expansion. That if you say "species do not interbreed in the wild" and then "dogs and wolves are different species" followed by complaints by enviornmentalists that wolve DNA is being "contaminated" because of all the feral dogs that are interbreeding with wolves in the wild also seems like a simple argument. I could go on, like where is the lunar dust, but the point is these are arguments that as a child I could easily see for myself.

I personally do not think this issue is that difficult, my only explanation is that there is as much "herd mentality" relating to this subject, as there is with evolution.

Your attempts to argue your position that the Byzantine text is unworthy are so far, well, byzantine.

As the other side of the argument is, well, Alexandrian!

Koonzy baby, I am given to long posts myself. However, I find your posts too much to follow. Not the ones here, but those other ones when you start up with manuscript numbers. Sometimes, like your answer about who was the mother of whomever, your answers are cogent (she had two names), agree or not at least I understand your point (and frankly seems an acceptable answer). On the other side, who did kill Goliath?

Koonzy baby, when I was a professor I was able to condense some rather complicated subjects into comprehensible packets for my medical students. Many other professors, I could not understand what they were trying to say, let alone the students. I think you need to take out some prayer beads, center yourself by reciting your favorite mantra (mine is Ossssteeeem---Ooooppprahhhh---Hinnn) or whatever and present your case in a manner conducive to a layman's capacity. I can not drop my medical practice and go chasing down manuscript numbers. Nor do I care one whit what German "Higher" criticism insanity has to offer. And now you're into conspiracy theories aout dead Lockmans and Logstons, as if that matters. Sticks (Log...) and stons may break my bones but words will confuse me.

No conspiracy, just an extreme dose of intellectual 'herd mentally'.

]Koonzy baby, you are losing the peanut gallery here.

JR, just another pea-brain nut

There may be a small "peanut gallery"; but on the other hand, it is my belief that there are some people in this Forum that are sincerely looking for answers that, are not being answered by the "white coats" of Textual Criticism.


Jack

 

[Jack Koons]

This was posted by me yesterday:

Please note: The reason for my displaying this 'post', is to point out the fact that this 'Statement' does affirm 'inspiration' in only the 'originals', (to which I also affirm); however, under the heading of "Transmission and Translation", we read:

When I say, "I also affirm"; I am stating that I affirm that inspiration of "the words of God" took place when the "originals" were written. I deny "double" inspiration. But let me be clear; the emphasis of θεόπνευστος (inspiration), is to show the Divine authorship of the scriptures (the written words of God). It is not about the men, ink, or parchment (skin, or anything else) upon which the words were written; rather, it (the emphasis) is on the words themselves coming from Divine Authority.

Jack

 

[Jack Koons]

Part Three
Please allow me to begin to tie this together.


Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716) German philosopher
Wolff (1679-1754) was the most eminent German philosopher between Leibniz and Kant.
Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) German philosopher
Baumgarten (1706-1757)was a follower of the philosophical teachings of Christian Wolff
Semler (1725-1791) was a disciple of the rationalist Siegmund Jakob Baumgarten


Through the years there was a building belief among much of the intellectual philosophers that the Word of God was not the “Divine Word of God”. This belief was first made public by Johann Salomo Semler. Again I remind the reader, ““Johann Salomo Semler, (born Dec. 18, 1725, Saalfeld, duchy of Saxe-Saalfeld [Germany]—died March 14, 1791, Halle, Brandenburg), German Lutheran theologian who was a major figure in the development of biblical textual criticism during his tenure (1753–91) as professor of theology at the University of Halle.”
By the end of the 1700's and into the 1800's the work of Textual Criticism was gaining a much better footing with the works of Johann Gottfried Eichhorn. The key thing to remember here is that one of the men that brought Textual Criticism through its infancy, (Johann Salomo Semler) denied not only the “inspiration of the Scriptures”, but also the “authority” of the scriptures.


Be it known however, that not all of scholars had fallen into this intellectual rationalism.


Previous to this the general belief of Bible believers was seen as follows:


The following is from the “THE BAPTIST CONFESSION OF FAITH”, With Scripture Proofs,
Adopted by the Ministers and Messengers of the general assembly which met in London in 1689.

1689 LBC: Chapter 1 "Of the Holy Scriptures"

The following excerpt was taken from the above site:

“8._____The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope.
( Romans 3:2; Isaiah 8:20; Acts 15:15; John 5:39; 1 Corinthians 14:6, 9, 11, 12, 24, 28; Colossians 3:16 )”


The Ministers and Messengers of the general assembly (of the Baptist in London), were not the only men who were not affected by the beliefs of Semler and his associates.
The men of the Westminster Confession of 1646 had written the same type of Confession 43 years earlier.

Historic Church Documents at Reformed.org


From the time of Semler forward, textual criticism became the tool of the intellectuals to edit the Bible with an authority greater than ever before.


Textual Critics however realized something very important; even the average layman knows and believes that God is the real Author of the bible. To say that God did not give His word 'perfectly' would be futile. A solution to the problem did however come to mind. Rather than say that the Word was not given by inspiration, simply say that it was only inspired in the originals.


The root belief of textual criticism is found in Semler's philosophy. It is expressed in the following:


Biblical Scholarship


The following excerpts were taken from the above site:


“Biblical Scholarship, professional study of the Bible, in which all relevant intellectual disciplines are brought to bear on the task of interpretation. Biblical scholarship can be distinguished from other approaches to the Bible, such as the devotional one or that of pure literary appreciation, by the fact that it attempts a critical assessment of the Jewish and Christian scriptures in the light of all contemporary resources of knowledge.
Unlike the literature of various other religions, the Bible has always been subject to some measure of scholarly criticism and correction. This criticism undoubtedly developed because Jews and Christians conceive of religion as historical, as the product of definite historical events. Even though the great majority of the Old and New Testament writings are, in fact, anonymous, they have always been ascribed to particular human authors. It has therefore been considered legitimate for other human beings to evaluate them. They have never been regarded simply as a literature transmitted directly from heaven or as so remote from the contemporary human condition as to render them immune to critical study. This is in distinct contrast, for example, to the Islamic and Hindu scriptures (see Koran; Veda). Despite its long standing, however, the notion of critical biblical study has changed radically over the years.”


On the same site however, the following is stated:


“Textual Criticism
Determining what was originally written, whatever its meaning or relevance may be, is the concern of the so-called lower criticism. The textual critic has two means of establishing a text: external and internal criteria. The external criteria comprise the physical properties of the manuscripts themselves—their material, age, and the style of the script—and the history of the manuscripts. (No autograph text of any biblical author has been found and it is unlikely that any will be.) The extant manuscripts of the Old Testament date only from Christian times, hundreds of years after the time of its original composition. Nevertheless, the evidence of the ancient versions (the Greek Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate) and the pre-Masoretic fragments (see Masora) that have survived suggests that the standard Hebrew text still extant has been preserved with extraordinary fidelity. The New Testament, on the other hand, is the best-attested text that survives from the Greco-Roman world. Complete and nearly complete New Testament manuscripts date from the 4th century, and numerous existing fragments were probably copied within a century of the original composition of the text. Although literally thousands of variant readings are found among these manuscripts, 90 percent of them involve only incidental matters (such as the substitution of one synonym for another) and present problems that can be solved with relative ease by the textual critic.”


Notice these sentences from the first paragraph above: “Even though the great majority of the Old and New Testament writings are, in fact, anonymous, they have always been ascribed to particular human authors. It has therefore been considered legitimate for other human beings to evaluate them. They have never been regarded simply as a literature transmitted directly from heaven or as so remote from the contemporary human condition as to render them immune to critical study.” I was under the impression that the Scriptures were inspired (God-breathed from heaven). THIS IS THE BASIS (REASON) FOR THE LEGITAMACY OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM. BECAUSE “Because “They [the scriptures] have never been regarded simply as a literature transmitted directly from heaven ...”


Followed by this statement under the heading of “Textual Criticism”.
“Determining what was originally written, whatever its meaning or relevance may be, is the concern of the so-called lower criticism. The textual critic has two means of establishing a text: external and internal criteria. The external criteria comprise the physical properties of the manuscripts themselves—their material, age, and the style of the script—and the history of the manuscripts. (No autograph text of any biblical author has been found and it is unlikely that any will be.)”


Forgive me, I'm a little confused. I was completely unaware, (after reading the Bible), that the Bible had ANY human authors.


Jack

 

[Jack Koons]

Part Four

The shift from the Word of God (as what you held in your hand) being inspired, shifted to, the Word of God that was 'given from God to the writers of the scriptures'; 'in the originals'. Therefore, (say the scholars), the Word of God was inspired “in the originals”; however, when men began to copy the scriptures errors began to creep in. This of course was mainly accidental, but it still happened, and therefore needs to be corrected by scholarship (textual critics).
Again, I find it necessary to insert a thought to give clarity to this situation. In the thread, “Which New Testament Text has been kept pure?”, I gave an illustration to Cubanito in order to show that variants do not absolutely mean that there is no pure text. He then answered that illustration with a point that was somewhat valid, (but not completely). He said,

1- It is not that your neighbor put one, or hundreds, of altered copies in with the original. It is that the original is gone, totally gone except for MAYBE some teeny tiny fragment of the Gospel of John, maybe. While your analogy is clear, it is faulty (I am thankful that I can at least follow your explanation this time). What we have in our "mailbox" is many, many hundreds of pieces of copies, which vary in agreement from 100% in places to less so in others. That in my brain means we are in category C, relative truth.

While the “original” may be gone, the 'words' of the original remain. Consider the following:
Reliability of the New Testament Text
The following excerpt comes from the above site:
“We could go on listing how the early church fathers quoted from the NT works, but for the sake of brevity, consider the question asked of Sir David Dalrymple, which was: "Suppose that every copy of the New Testament had been lost or destroyed by the end of the third century. --Could the New Testament be collected together again from the writings of the Fathers of the second and third centuries?" --After a thorough investigation, here's what Dalrymple concluded: "That question roused my curiosity, and as I possessed all the existing works of the Fathers of the second and third centuries, I commenced to search, and up to this time I have found the entire New Testament, except eleven verses" (ref. "Our Bible: How We Got It, Charles Leach, Chicago:Moody, '98, p.35-36).”


While Cubanito is correct in that the “original is gone”, the 'words' that were written in the 'originals' remain. The majority of manuscripts , which are copies of the 'originals', do contain the 'original words' that were written by the Apostles, while the fewer amount of manuscripts are in deed “altered copies” as stated above by Cubanitio. Keep in mind that the first word of the above question posed to Dalrymple was, “Suppose”; meaning, this is not the case. We do have both the works of the early church fathers, and MSS of the New Testament. Fragmented they may be, but we have them nonetheless.
Again, in 1646, and in 1689 men from both the Reformed Church, and the Baptist Church believed the Bible they held in their hand was the inspired Word of God (meaning the words of God had been preserved by God from the time they were originally written, until the day they wrote the Confession). Furthermore, they believed that God had guided (not re-inspired) the men with special wisdom from above to translate these same words, from the original languages, to English.


What I am trying to bring to light in this short work, is simply this: textual criticism was started by the philosophy that the Christian Scripture's were neither Divinely given, nor Divinely Authoritative. When this was not a successful approach to undermine the Bible, the approach of needing to determine what was 'written in the originals', by scholarly men called 'textual critics' was employed. This has proven to be very successful. Some call this a 'conspiracy theory', some do not; it matters not, what matters is that the events of the history of textual criticism are very plain. Philosophers (that did NOT believe in the Divine inspiration or authority of the Scriptures) began to make themselves judges over the 'words of God'.


The result therefore, is that there are two distinct, and opposing views of thought, and teaching: 1) As seen in the ““THE BAPTIST CONFESSION OF FAITH”, With Scripture Proofs,
Adopted by the Ministers and Messengers of the general assembly which met in London in 1689.” showing that the belief was, “8._____The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them. ...”, and 2) As seen in the “1878 Niagara Bible Conference Creed”

1878 NBCC | Linger Longer


The following excerpt was taken from the above site:


“1. The verbal, plenary inspiration of the Scriptures in the original manuscripts.”


The above is the first of the 14 point “Creed”.


Notice the difference between the two: the first, states that the scriptures (Old and New Testaments) “...being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them. ...”; and the the second, simply states, “The verbal, plenary inspiration of the Scriptures in the original manuscripts.”


The 1689 Baptist Confession states A) The scriptures were immediately inspired by God, and then B) by God's singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, (all ages includes the present day which would mean the the keeping thereof in in the 'present perfect tense'), and C) are (present tense) therefore authentic, (just as they were authentic 'in the originals'), and D) so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them. ...”; while the 1878 Niagara Bible Conference Creed states, The verbal, plenary inspiration of the Scriptures in the original manuscripts.


I have been (and still am) in a discussion with certain people who deny the inerrancy of scripture (what we hold in our hands), based upon the 1878 Niagara Bible Conference Creed. These people believe the teaching of 'inerrancy' of the Bible we hold in our hands, is a doctrine that only began in the mid 1900's, when the King James controversy supposedly began.


In post #44 of the thread “Does 1 John 5:7 belong in the Bible?”, I was presented with the following link to prove that 1) 1 John 5:7 does not belong in the Bible; and 2) The KJV only issue, is a relatively new issue:


King James Onlyism Heresy (Part 1): Origins - A Seventh-day Adventist Invention - YouTube


19 minutes and 15 seconds Gary Hudson, a former Ruckmanite states that the KJV controversy started in the 1970's over a debate as to which Greek Text to use for a New Testament translation. At the 20 minute mark, he states that it then turned from a TR argument, to a KJV argument by 1979.


Please consider the following:
Textual Criticism: Fact and Fiction (1/4)
The following excerpts were taken from the above site:
“My education started along similar lines, attending Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Minneapolis, Minnesota, a school originally founded by the late great W. B. Riley (as Northwestern Baptist Seminary), and continued by a former Northern Baptist pastor, Dr. Richard V. Clearwaters, who was one of the first to come out of the old convention and establish an independent church. W. B. Riley stated in his book "The Menace of Modernism" (New York: Christian Alliance, 1917), the Modernist believes the Bible's "inspiration exists only in its ability to inspire...its interpretation is a matter of mental conscience." Dr. Riley goes on to say there were a group of men whom he describes as the "old conception," who believed the Authorized Version or King James Bible (hereafter AV) was inerrant. He states on page 11, "On this point we are inclined to think that, even unto comparatively recent years, such a theory has been entertained." He then ascribes this belief to ignorance, and says, "I think it would be accepted without fear of successful controversy that such fogies in Biblical knowledge are few, and their funerals are nigh at hand." Actually there are quite a few of us, and I for one am feeling just fine, thank you.”
Dr. Cassidy states further,
“So then, it seems clear to me that Dr. Riley believed there were still a few of the "old conception" men in his day that still believed in an inerrant AV, that they were mostly old men, and were soon to pass away. If these men were old men when Riley wrote his book, they must have dated to at least the latter part of the 19th century. Over one hundred years ago, a group of "old conception" men existed who still believed in the inerrancy of the AV. This appears to indicate the "King James Only" position is not of recent origin.
“Thus we can see, in Riley's day, a group of men still existed who believed, "(1) the Bible was finished in heaven and handed down, (2) the King James Version was absolutely inerrant, and (3) its literal acceptance was alone correct." (Page nine of Riley's book as quoted by Dr. George W. Dollar in his book "History of Fundamentalism in America", Page 114) We can easily see that W. B. Riley (1861 - 1947), understood this group of men to believe exactly as the "King James Only" crowd does today, and believed it long before any of the contemporary antagonists were born! The challenge of one scoffer to "Name one person who believed in the inspiration or inerrancy of the King James Version prior to 1950 and I'll send you $1000", has just been answered (please send the money to me at the address in the front of this book!).”


Clearly, by looking at the Westminster Confession of 1646, and the 1689 Baptist Confession, and the words of Riley, (from 1917) it is clear that this teaching of providential preservation is not a new doctrine. It also shows us that while many had surrendered to the teachings of Textual Critics, others did not.


Jack

 

[cubanito]

Straw men continue being beaten.

The men who put together the "Chicago statement on the fundamentals" are completely opposed to liberals. Those that worked for Lockman to give us the NASB were not a one in agreement with the German "rationalists" you appropiately excoriate.

The reason for textual criticism of THESE men is NOT the undermining of the Bible, but a sincere attempt to reconstruct from the copies of the copies the original words.

The work of these men, even the work of Erasmus whose work these men took into account, did yield a trustworthy Bible. Ivory soap sells itself as "99.9% pure, so pure it floats" and that is an apt descrition of the Bible as we have it.

Jesus Christ predicted we would lose the exact wording of the OT, as I have shown on a previous post. The fact He did so in a manner which has been so misinterpreted that for thousands of years most every scholar and layman thinks He said the opposite of what He said does not surprise me. I am so massively arrogant that I do not care what anybody says the Bible says and read it for myself. Read it again in the purest translation ever, Phillips:


Matthew 5:17-20 (PHILLIPS) | Whole Chapter


Christ’s authority surpasses that of the Law

17-20 “You must not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to complete them. Indeed, I assure you that, while Heaven and earth last, the Law will not lose a single dot or comma until its purpose is complete. This means that whoever now relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men to do the same will himself be called least in Heaven. But whoever teaches and practises them will be called great in the kingdom of Heaven. For I tell you that your goodness must be a far better thing then the goodness of the scribes and Pharisees before you can set foot in the kingdom of Heaven at all!

OK fine, so maybe Phillips is not exactly a translation, but the same is in the KJV, NASB ect. It is all the same: once the entirety of the Beatitudes was accomplished, and all sin atoned for, then the original broken contract with Adam was fulfilled and THEN, by implication, the exact wording of the OT would degrade. Also note that J of C spoke of the OT, there is no promise of perfection for the NT.

On the other hand, I do agree with the confessions you cite if you mean by "pure" that no matter of doctrine would be affected. The doubtfull areas of the Biblical manuscript are astonishingly few once a proper and careful work is done, according to the scholars I do trust, and NONE affect any doctrine. So yes, God's Word has been kept pure, even if a word here or there is in doubt, because Christian doctrine should never hang on a single verse (interpret Scripture by Scripture, a text without a context is a pretex and so many other cliches).

Look Jack, your argument here is not with those who are trying to debunk the Bible or escape it's authority. Sure, we do have a difference and I can see where one COULD claim innerancy for the autographs and then deny the inerrancy of the Bible as we have it; but that really is not what is being done by those who deny that Erasmus had the final say on the exact text (and of course, which edition of Erasmus, and which edition of the KJV are salient questions for someone who persists in demanding each letter be exact).

And I still want to know who killed Goliath.

JR

 

[Jack Koons]

JR, Part 1 of Who killed Goliath?

The following was post #75 in the thread, "Which New Testament Text has been kept pure?":

I was asked, Who killed Goliath? The following link was provided:

See 2 Samuel 21:19 - Just Who Killed Goliath?


In my normal fashion I will address the material one excerpt at a time. The following excerpts were taken from the above site:

"2 Samuel 21:19

Just Who Killed Goliath?

Everyone knows David killed Goliath, right? Then what's going on with this verse in some translations?:
2 Samuel 21:19 (NIV) "In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod."
2 Samuel 21:19 (NASB) "There was war with the Philistines again at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam."
But here's how it appears in the KJV:
2 Samuel 21:19 (KJV) "And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.""
Following the above excerpts the site goes on to say that this verses "sister verse" is found in 1 Chronicles 20:5 where "all versions say, "the brother of Goliath"."

But isn't a piece of the puzzle missing here? Why is there no mention of the 'detail by detail' account of this event given in 1 Samuel 17?

Jack

(More to come)

The following was post #76, from the same thread:

I apologize for the delay in responding in detail to the question of "Just Who Killed Goliath"? I assure you an answer will come shortly. Up until very recently about 99% of what I do here (including this post), has been done from my iPhone while away from home. Howeve, since I have less 'free-time' away from home to spend on this site, I am now writing from both my iPhone, and my computer at home which simply means that I now have 'partial files' at both locations. Hopefully I will be able to "get things together" and post my writings in a timely manner.

I am curious however to the motive behind the scholars who intentionly try to cast doubt on the Word of God, when the truth of scripture is so clear?

Jack

(I'm not referring to JR, I'm referring to the 'scholars' who insist on deliberately do their best to discredit the truth of God's Word.)

Post #77:

2 Samuel 21:19 - Just Who Killed Goliath?

As usual, the following excerpts come from the above site:

"1. Since the Hebrew is therefore lying as well, why was it used for generating the KJV?"

First of all, I for one am not saying the Hebrew is lying. As I will show in a later post, there is no problem with the Hebrew; the problem is with the translation of the Hebrew.

"2. Since the Hebrew appears this way, there must not have been any inerrant Scripture until the KJV came out in 1611. What then of inspired inerrant Scripture prior to the KJV?"

I think we just addressed this issue with answer 1.


"3. Why are "corrections" to the KJV labeled as heresy while "corrections" to the Hebrew scripture that's been around much longer accepted as inspired scripture? Couldn't God get it right the first time?"


1) Anyone that knows anything about translating from one language to another knows that words are added to the 'target' language for clarity and flow. These are not "corrections" as stated here; and if they are, before this is finished, this will get very interesting.

2) Again, the only people talking about "correcting" the Hebrew are 'textual critic scholars' and their followers.


"1. Why are versions like the NIV and NASB, which accurately follow the Hebrew God inspired, criticized so strongly when in fact it's the KJV that has deviated from the Hebrew?"

This point, will be discussed to show that all may not be as is told by the author of this question.

"2. If the Hebrew is the way God intended it to be, how can the KJV be "inerrant and infallible" when versions like the NIV and NASB, have translated more accurately on even a single phrase? (ie. How can the KJV be "inerrant and infallible" when it deviates from the "inerrant and infallible" manuscripts it was translated from?)"


The entire premise of the above question is based on the premise of "if". An insinuation is then made the KJV cannot by "inerrant and infallible" because it "deviates" from the manuscripts it was translated from.

This entire argument is lost if it can be shown that there is no "proof" that the KJV translators "deviated" from the 'original'.

Jack

 

[cubanito]

Somewhat tangential, I've been thinking of why I am willing to deny macroevolution, even as an agnostic at a time when I knew no one else who did; and yet I am willing to accept the majority opinions on textual criticism.

1- My earliest objections to macroevolution required very little knowledge, time and critical thinking. The observation that gases expand in a vacuum, faster if hotter and even faster if spinning is observable to everybody. The equations that codify this are among the earliest equations of science, and taught very early in school. It takes very little thought to go from there to realizing that the formation of stars by known natural processes is IMPOSSIBLE. I do not have the faith to believe that "some day science will explain it" when this is a settled question long ago. On the other hand, textual criticism requires a lot of data, time and critical thinking. I am not willing to invest the time.

2- There are many men who believe the Bible is true in all matters, scientific, historically and morally who have spent much time in this rather small area of knowledge. On the other hand, in most of the other sciences there are relatively few such men. Most Christians that are scientists have compromised the simple reading of Scripture to their understanding of the natural word.

3- I have never insisted on 100% answers. There are some facts which I freely admit seem to have a much better explanation in the macroevolutionary models than in creationism. There are some problems with creationism, but they are few and relative. The problems with macroevolution are pernicious. There is not, nor can I see any possible way of ever being answers to many of them. When I look at a Bible which is 96 to 99% an accurate rendition of the original manuscripts (depending on how one counts), it does not bother me one bit. No other ancient book comes anywhere near that accuracy, and those who claim it for such as the Koran are hypocritical liars because the evidence is clearly otherwise.

Anyway, back to the discussion.

JR

 

[Jack Koons]

The rest of the information on who killed Goliath, is located on Page 9 of the same thread, Posts: 81, 82, 86, and 87.

Jack

 

[cubanito]

I am now in my least favorite category for this discussion:

1- When I'm right, and know it, that makes me happy. Irrespective of the other person recognizing my brilliance, as long as I can laud myself, whom beeter?

2- When I am proven wrong to my satisfaction I get even happier. Now my brilliance is even more dazzling as I add to my enormous storehouse of knowledge.

3- When it seems I am wrong, have no further worthwhile arguments, yet have a hunch that I am not wrong. This I do not usually like because it involves work on my part. I am as lazy as I am brilliant and so now I am annoyed.

Koonzy baby, I have no idea when I might resume the discussion, but you have defeated all my arguments at this time. How or if I will carve out time to learn something that I am so totally unfamiliar with is unknown to me.

It has definitely been interesting and worthwhile, but I have to get back to deciding who lives and who dies.

JR, for sure a legend only in his own mind

BTW, I enjoy "auto-sarcasm" where I make fun of myself, especially since there is unfortunately more than a grain of truth in my high opinion of myself

 

[Jack Koons]

I am now in my least favorite category for this discussion:

1- When I'm right, and know it, that makes me happy. Irrespective of the other person recognizing my brilliance, as long as I can laud myself, whom beeter?

2- When I am proven wrong to my satisfaction I get even happier. Now my brilliance is even more dazzling as I add to my enormous storehouse of knowledge.

3- When it seems I am wrong, have no further worthwhile arguments, yet have a hunch that I am not wrong. This I do not usually like because it involves work on my part. I am as lazy as I am brilliant and so now I am annoyed.

Koonzy baby, I have no idea when I might resume the discussion, but you have defeated all my arguments at this time. How or if I will carve out time to learn something that I am so totally unfamiliar with is unknown to me.

It has definitely been interesting and worthwhile, but I have to get back to deciding who lives and who dies.

JR, for sure a legend only in his own mind

BTW, I enjoy "auto-sarcasm" where I make fun of myself, especially since there is unfortunately more than a grain of truth in my high opinion of myself

JR,

I am so glad, that if I could not do anything but annoy you; the time and energy spent, has not been in vain! As I enter into the actual 'purpose' for textual criticism, and the methodology, I want every reader to take the time to consider what is presented. At times it will be mind boggling, and at times it will be so simple. The fun part of coarse for me, is that I have the opportunity to expose the 'double tongued' scholars. So, by all means, enjoy!

Jack

 

[Jack Koons]

Part 5

Why then do we have this debate?

The simple answer is, German rationalism led to textual criticism. Textual critics do not believe in 'Providential Preservation. They insist (according to them) that because God nowhere 'promised' to preserve His Word perfectly, He did not do it. That job was left to man. That is why we have textual critics, to put the Word of God back together the way it was 'in the originals'.

Let me make this clear.

1. God gave His Word perfectly to man. (Inspiration)
2. God then leaves His Word to the care of men to preserve. (Which men fail to do, because we are sinners, and prone to error)
3. God then appoints more men (sinners who are prone to error) to find the errors that the other men made, (without giving them a true copy of the originals to judge what is in error), to then produce a Bible that is almost without error (because we can never be sure we have all the errors out [because we don't have a perfect template to go by]).

That is what the scholarly textual critics want us to believe.

On the one hand, they want us to believe that the 'gap' between the 'originals', and the 'copies' we have today is so small that there was little, to no time for corruption of the 'text' to take place:
Reliability of the New Testament Text
The following excerpts were taken from the above site:

“The Reliability of the New Testament Text ...Is It Corrupt?”
“Considering the overall picture, then, there are about 5,300 Greek copies of various portions of the New Testament -----a considerable number of them dating from around 150 AD. In addition, there are 10,000 Latin Vulgate (from around 400 AD) and at least 9,300 other early versions. Adding them all together, and we have more than 24,000 copies of various portions of the New Tesatment (that we know of) today ----and many copies were made (some fairly complete) at a time when the original NT manuscripts were most probably still in existence.
Therefore, the original NT manuscripts may well have been the direct source of a few of the Greek copies which we have today!
For some of our copies, there is probably no time-gap at all!”

Later, on the same page, we read the following:

“The "Codex Vaticanus" is considered to be the oldest and best Greek manuscript now in existence, which apparently comes from the year 325 AD. "Codex Sinaiticus" comes from about 350 AD, but it contains all of the New Testament. (These two manuscripts come from the "Alexandrian" text-type, which is the oldest and most consistent.) When these two old manuscripts agree word-for-word (especially when they're also verified by several other of the oldest and best papyrus copies), there is virtually no doubt that the correct wording of the original text has been reached.”
Just a little farther down the page we read:
“Textual Criticism of ancient copies is employed fairly much the same way, with the result that the Greek text of the NT which we have today is most assuredly almost an exact copy of the original NT manuscripts. Norman Geisler and William Nix remark that "Only 40 lines (or 400 words) of the New Testament are in doubt." (General Introduction to the Bible, Geisler & Nix, Chicago: Moody, 1968, p.367).”
Immediately following the above statement, we see the following in a 'box':
“(Therefore, NOTE: Of those "40 lines" which are even a little bit in question, 75% of those questionable lines come to about 300 words found in the last 12 verses of the Gospel of Mark 16. --So, if we leave Mark 16:9-20 out of our Bible-reading, very little is left in question at all. The remainder is about 99.8% accurate... and we know exactly which 100 words are in any question.”

Now then, as anyone can see, Pastor R. Totten wants you to believe the Bible is reliable; and the evidence he uses to convince his readers is 1) The Gap between the originals and the copies is little to zero; 2) The Codex Vaticanus, and the Codex Sinaiticus are the two oldest and most reliable Greek MSS; therefore, if any NT passage is found to be the same, (word-for-word), in these two, (along with select other MSS), `; 3) It is through the 'science' of Textual Criticism that an “almost exact copy of the original NT manuscripts” is produced; 4) Textual Critics “ know exactly which 100 words are in any question”.

It is at this point that I must ask two very simple, but very important questions. 1) Since the scholars of Textual Critics have given us the correct text of the NT within 100 words, why are there over 100 modern versions of the NT, each of which having different wording?; and 2) Since the scholars of Textual Critics have given us the correct text of the NT within 100 words, why do they not put all their intellect together, and solve the mystery of the last 100 words, which would give us all an absolutely correct Bible?

Anyway, on with our subject.

So on the one hand, because so little time lapsed between the originals and the first copies, there was little space for corruption. However, on the other hand, textual critics have the need to publish why we need their services.

The Apparatus of a Critical Text

The following excerpt comes from the above site:

“All told, there are about 200,000 various readings to be found in all these manuscripts, versions, patristic citations and other witnesses to the text of the New Testament. But the following paragraphs explain that this large number is not at all indicative of significant corruption of the text:
"Not," as Dr. Warfield says, "that there are 200,000 places in the New Testament where various readings occur, but that there are nearly 200,000 readings all told, and in many cases the documents so differ among themselves that many various readings are counted on a single word, for each document is compared in turn with one standard and the number of its divergences ascertained, then these sums are themselves added together and the result given as the number of actually observed variations." * Dr. Ezra Abbott was accustomed to remark that "about nineteen-twentieths of the variations have so little support that, although there are various readings, no one would think of them as rival readings, and nineteen-twentieths of the remainder are of so little importance that their adoption or rejection would cause no appreciable difference in the sense of the passages in which they occur." Dr. Hort's view was that "upon about one word in eight, various readings exist supported by sufficient evidence to bid us pause and look at it; about one word in sixty has various readings upon it supported by such evidence as to render our decision nice and difficult, but that so many variations are trivial that only about one word in every thousand has upon it substantial variation supported by such evidence as to call out the efforts of the critic in deciding between the readings." The oft-repeated dictum of Bentley is still valid that "the real text of the sacred writings is competently exact, nor is one article of faith or moral precept either perverted or lost, choose as awkwardly as you will, choose the worst by design, out of the whole lump of readings."
—Charles Fremont Sitterly, "Text and Manuscripts of the New Testament," in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Chicago: Howard-Severance Co., 1915).”

So on one hand, “there is virtually no doubt that the correct wording of the original text has been reached”; and on the other hand, the textual critics sift through “ about 200,000 various readings” on a regular basis, in order to give us a continual flow of 'versions'. If the textual critics have already found the correct wording of the original text, why are they trying to get it?

Jack