Pablem? Hardly. The waters have been thoroughly muddied by crazy KJVonlyists and the use of secular naturalism to determine the Bible canon. I would recommend logging into the Puritan Board if you have any doubt as to the scholarly weight of the TR or BT position. PB has more Doctors of Theology and Elders as well as a confessional standard that prevents nonsense from being posted.
"The fundamental Text of late extant Greek MSS generally is beyond all question identical with the dominant Antiochian or Graeco-Syrian Text of the second half of the 4th century." (Hort, The Factor of Geneology, pg 92).
Before 1900 Protestants insisted in the use of the TR:
"In a period when the Textus Receptus held sway and when only occasionally an independent spirit ventured to question its authority....the Greek text incorporated in the editions of Stephanus, Beza and Elzevirs had published succeeded in establishing itself as 'the only true text' of the New Testament, and was slavishly reprinted in hundreds of subsequent editions. It lies at the basis of the King James Version and of all principle Protestant translations in the languages of Europe prior to 1881." The Text of the New Testament Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 3rd edition, Bruce M. Metzger, pg. 95-118.
What Metzger calls "slavish" was the actual outworking of a presupposition held by Protestants, the Reformed in particular.
I posted this in the Baptist forum:
This is really an issue of presuppositions guiding our view of what scripture is. The Reformers were not influenced as we are by the radical individualism found during and after the Enlightenment which impacts our theology.
Douglas Wilson writes, "This witness is not offered by the Church as “something to think about” or as a mere “suggestion.” The testimony of the Church on this point is submissive to Scripture, but authoritative for the saints. For example, if an elder in a Christian church took it upon himself to add a book to the canon of Scripture, or sought to take away a book, the duty of his church would be to try him for heresy and remove him immediately. This disciplinary action is authoritative, taken in defense of an authoritative canonical settlement. This does not mean the Church is defending the Word of God; the Church is defending her witness to the Word. As the necessity of discipline makes plain, this witness is dogmatic and authoritative. It is not open for discussion. God does not intend for us to debate the canon of Scripture afresh every generation. We have already given our testimony; our duty now is to remain faithful to it."
Wilson is expressing the same opinion of the Reformers who accepted the churches defined canon. Those who prefer a critical text/eclectic text method are using secular rationalism in defining the New Testament text, and they have to admit that scripture is selected by the text critic. You want to wrest the biblical text from the liberals by assuming liberal presuppositions to do so. In the office of a scholar many manuscripts are studied. The assumption is often stated that "only the originals are inspired." (Of course you cannot prove even the originals are inspired because you do not have them. You accept it on faith.) The scholar must conduct examinations of the many manuscripts to determine which verse is more likely to be inspired and therefore authentic. But what kind of method does he use? What is his rule to determine what is, might be or is not scripture? The Bible critic or critics, whatever the case may be, must choose and whatever kind of rule chosen becomes their guiding principle. It is not driven by the logic of faith the Reformers used but a secular naturalistic presupposition. This presupposition looks to man for answers and denies the God who acts in history and intervenes in our daily lives. It ultimately denies the God breathed nature of the Bible.
This rational approach falls prey to the fallacy of induction. The scholar begins with the manuscript evidence he has in his hands, the assumption that only the originals are inspired and attempts to form an opinion on the validity of the readings by the manuscript evidence available to him. If the scholar makes an assessment of 9 manuscripts he might observe that 1 John 5:7 is not among them and may doubt the reading as valid. This is called a hasty generalization. Was the scholar ever able to assess all the manuscripts that ever existed? Was he able to consider the phantom original, the one and only inspired copy of 1 John? No. If more manuscripts become unearthed they may prove to be older then the first 9 he examined and contain the doubted passage. The scholar is never able to quote from scripture as authoritative since he is not able to know for certain which verses are valid and which ones are not. All authority in matters of faith and practice are found in the scholar himself and in his ability to discern the New Testament canon anew for every generation. Who are these scholars you would have to determine our canon? Do they believe the Bible is the word of God? In an articule on the TBS site the following was quoted: "Bart Ehrman states, “there is always a degree of doubt, an element of subjectivity.” Kurt Aland declares that the latest Text of the United Bible Societies is “not a static entity” and “every change in it is open to challenge.” G. Zuntz admits that “the optimism of the earlier editors has given way to that scepticism which inclines towards regarding ‘the original text’ as an unattainable mirage." [end quote]
I do not believe the Reformers stuck their heads in the sand when it came to the biblical text but approached it with faith. Francis Turretin wrote a great summation of the doctrine, consider Whitaker as well. Dr. Daniel Wallace is a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary and is considered an expert in ancient biblical Greek and New Testament criticism. He's one of us, the good guys and believes the Bible is authoritative. In a blog post about the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature he wrote,
"As remarkable as it may sound, most biblical scholars are not Christians. I don’t know the exact numbers, but my guess is that between 60% and 80% of the members of SBL do not believe that Jesus’ death paid for our sins, or that he was bodily raised from the dead."
Who are these experts who will give us a testimony worthy of receiving?
I understand what you are getting at. We differ greatly on the issue of scripture and I'm probably not doing a good job of explaining the position held by the Reformers, framers of the confessions, etc. The Puritan Board has some really excellent posts that deal with the supposed difficultly of holding to the confessional position.
Yours in the Lord,
jm
PS: This is the last post I'll make on the subject. If anyone wants to contact me personally send me a PM. Thanks.
