- Jun 26, 2004
- 17,362
- 3,629
- Country
- Canada
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Others
Might be my last post on the subject, not sure. I tend to post from my phone and these exchanges are getting LONG! lol
I logged into a desktop to respond.
It didn't seem like it.
Not completely true. The passage wasn’t viewed as a “forgery.” Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Beza and every OTHER Reformer, all Protestants during the 17th, 18th and almost all of the 19th century included 1 John 5.7 as scripture knowing that only Latin works from the 2nd century on had the passage. The witness of the church overcame doubt.
“The oldest known citation of the Comma is in a fourth-century Latin treatise entitled Liber apologeticus.” That means this verse was used to combat heretical teaching during the Trinitarian controversy and Metzger, an unbelieving critic, also cites the passage being found in other mss traditions. source
I was simply giving an example that not all “textual criticism” is equal.
“Containing the word” and “they are the word” would imply different meanings.
A faulty testimony creates reasonable doubt. That can’t be disputed. Modern textual criticism was created, defined and employed by unbelieving liberals in the 20th century. The method needs to be re-examined. As I mentioned above and quoted before all Protestants insisted on the Textus Receptus as the very word of God.
"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.
Brother, I agree. What is the basis for our faith? Let’s take a truly Reformed position on the textual issue and use presuppositionalism to hold fast to that which we have received and not assume every modern “evidence” is worthy of consideration. The church has confessed its faith. The canon is closed. We should not be reopening the canon to feed liberal unbelief. And let me add that I do not believe one is a liberal or unbeliever for using modern electric versions of scripture but I do believe these versions exist because of liberalism.
As I pointed out above those who believed in Christ, the witness of His church and the authority of scripture did not perform modern textual criticism. This was the invention of 19th century liberals. Erasmus new certain passages did not have support in the early Greek mss but still, as a matter of consistent faithful witness included them. Same with Luther, Calvin and Beza, etc.
Phantom mss sound a lot like make belief…at the very least it’s pure fideism. It’s like saying I know unicorns exist even if I’ve never seen them, can’t prove it at all, I just know they do. It’s the same with the phantom mss.
And the issue was settled.
Can’t speak to that point because I’m not as familiar with the history of the transmission of the OT.
A faithful mss exists, has been used, we witness it’s transmission in church history, recorded in the fathers, used by the church in the East for well over a 1000 years. When we consider the weight of this testimony I’m convinced.
Not everyone. In fact, once the canon was settle upon by the Reformers, it wasn’t touched.
"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.
Edward Hills demonstrates from history that what Metzger wrote above applies to the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th centuries of church history.
I do not find your position logical. You claim to believe in scripture and will quote passages against heretics when defending the faith, to brothers and sisters who need encouragement with a foundational idea that it may be “proven” at some latter point to not be God’s word at all. That is the position you are taking. If some mss is unearthed that is “older” and therefore “better” because it is believed to be “closer to the original” (this point cannot be proven, it must be assumed by the text critic and without merit or support) than what you quoted might not or is not now consider “scripture.” That is the undeniable conclusion you must reach. I side with the confessional church and say the canon is closed. You side with, what Wallace essentially calls unbelievers who perform textual criticism, on a text to suit you. What you are advocating for is pure individualism.
Gotta run.
Peace,
jm
I logged into a desktop to respond.
Well mine were.
It didn't seem like it.
Clearly not in the original autographs, even according to Erasmus who put together the TR, but ok. Where is there evidence? There are no manuscripts in the Greek with it aside from Greek ones from the 1500s which were made as forgeries.
Not completely true. The passage wasn’t viewed as a “forgery.” Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Beza and every OTHER Reformer, all Protestants during the 17th, 18th and almost all of the 19th century included 1 John 5.7 as scripture knowing that only Latin works from the 2nd century on had the passage. The witness of the church overcame doubt.
Further, it lacks reference throughout all the trinitarian controversies from the church fathers, which makes no sense if it actually existed in the autographs and any early manuscripts. That one verse alone would have settled the controversy. Interesting, being that the insertion of 1 John 5:7 ignores 400 years of manuscripts and early church history.
“The oldest known citation of the Comma is in a fourth-century Latin treatise entitled Liber apologeticus.” That means this verse was used to combat heretical teaching during the Trinitarian controversy and Metzger, an unbelieving critic, also cites the passage being found in other mss traditions. source
So, if textual criticism agrees with you it's ok now?
I was simply giving an example that not all “textual criticism” is equal.
The question is this: are each different manuscript the word of God or not? Answer this and you have answered the whole question.
“Containing the word” and “they are the word” would imply different meanings.
Sure I can, because it has never been demonstrated that any of the manuscripts have any divergences which would actually matter.
A faulty testimony creates reasonable doubt. That can’t be disputed. Modern textual criticism was created, defined and employed by unbelieving liberals in the 20th century. The method needs to be re-examined. As I mentioned above and quoted before all Protestants insisted on the Textus Receptus as the very word of God.
"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.
True. While the confessions are important, they are not the basis of our faith.
Brother, I agree. What is the basis for our faith? Let’s take a truly Reformed position on the textual issue and use presuppositionalism to hold fast to that which we have received and not assume every modern “evidence” is worthy of consideration. The church has confessed its faith. The canon is closed. We should not be reopening the canon to feed liberal unbelief. And let me add that I do not believe one is a liberal or unbeliever for using modern electric versions of scripture but I do believe these versions exist because of liberalism.
The TR was the result of 16th century biblical criticism though, that's the part of your position I don't get. They were looking in different manuscripts and picking and choosing what they thought was best. It is even in the forward of the KJV for example.
As I pointed out above those who believed in Christ, the witness of His church and the authority of scripture did not perform modern textual criticism. This was the invention of 19th century liberals. Erasmus new certain passages did not have support in the early Greek mss but still, as a matter of consistent faithful witness included them. Same with Luther, Calvin and Beza, etc.
Sound like make believe.
Phantom mss sound a lot like make belief…at the very least it’s pure fideism. It’s like saying I know unicorns exist even if I’ve never seen them, can’t prove it at all, I just know they do. It’s the same with the phantom mss.
The KJV was derived from a collection of manuscripts.
And the issue was settled.
A conscious decision was made to derive the OT from the Masoretic Text, even though it clearly diverged with OT renderings that God Himself inspired the NT writers to quote in the NT.
Can’t speak to that point because I’m not as familiar with the history of the transmission of the OT.
You cannot escape it. A perfect manuscript has not fallen into heaven in our hands and this was never the position of the Church.
A faithful mss exists, has been used, we witness it’s transmission in church history, recorded in the fathers, used by the church in the East for well over a 1000 years. When we consider the weight of this testimony I’m convinced.
Which Jerome did...which Erasmus did. Which the KJV did...which every group of translators has ever done.
Not everyone. In fact, once the canon was settle upon by the Reformers, it wasn’t touched.
"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.
Edward Hills demonstrates from history that what Metzger wrote above applies to the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th centuries of church history.
Honestly, I just don't find the position logical. No one has a perfect set of manuscripts and those great translations belonging to the Church employed textual criticism and discernment in the choice of manuscripts. It just cannot be avoided.
I do not find your position logical. You claim to believe in scripture and will quote passages against heretics when defending the faith, to brothers and sisters who need encouragement with a foundational idea that it may be “proven” at some latter point to not be God’s word at all. That is the position you are taking. If some mss is unearthed that is “older” and therefore “better” because it is believed to be “closer to the original” (this point cannot be proven, it must be assumed by the text critic and without merit or support) than what you quoted might not or is not now consider “scripture.” That is the undeniable conclusion you must reach. I side with the confessional church and say the canon is closed. You side with, what Wallace essentially calls unbelievers who perform textual criticism, on a text to suit you. What you are advocating for is pure individualism.
Gotta run.
Peace,
jm
Last edited:
Upvote
0