tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post7303038668101561371..comments2024-03-03T21:51:46.662-05:00Comments on stylos: Follow Up: Talking Text on Talking Christianity PodcastJeffrey T. Riddlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16374856944409335186noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-58367632043075298652020-04-19T06:47:46.066-04:002020-04-19T06:47:46.066-04:00What did you quote, Jeff Riddle? Is it perhaps tha...What did you quote, Jeff Riddle? Is it perhaps that I think ”evangelical” text critics must use the same methods as any text critics (as if Gof did not exist)? With that said, your personal faith will clearly affect you in various ways, but, in my opinion the evangelical text critic has to work with the same principles and follow the same evidence.Tommy Wassermannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-62375153642206711222020-02-07T03:34:13.197-05:002020-02-07T03:34:13.197-05:00I listened to WM 140. The scale is certainly diffe...I listened to WM 140. The scale is certainly different. Compared to eclectic TC, I get your point as to kind. But compared to Byzantine priority, not so different but considering we are comparing manuscripts to printed editions, the TR has a stability advantage for sure. In the end though, the TR advocate still must engage in a TC enterprise when differences arise.<br /><br />Rosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10773180013072937148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-17350505858153088872020-02-05T09:29:45.656-05:002020-02-05T09:29:45.656-05:00James,
Thanks for your responses and explanations...James,<br /><br />Thanks for your responses and explanations. Here are some rejoinders:<br /><br />On point (1): To be clear, by Bible I do not mean a “perfect reconstruction” but a perfectly preserved canonical text of Scripture (including BTW both the OT and the NT) that is inspired (theopneustos) and self-authenticating (autopistos).<br /><br />You suggest that the lack of a clearly defined Bible is not an “angst-inducing crisis” but that there is a difference between having or not having “the original form of the text” and having or not having “the original message conveyed by the original text.” You then suggest that determination of the true reading can be suspended, if both readings “mean something that interlocks with the rest of the NT’s message.”<br /><br />With respect, I see a number of problems with this approach. One of the most important: Who gets to determine what “the original message” of the Bible is? On what basis is this judgement made? If there is no clear understanding of what the text actually is, how can there be a clear understanding of its message? It seems to me that this approach would lead to subjective Gnosticism (“I can determine the true text for you, because I know the Bible’s *real* message.”). The locus of authority is not in the text but in the interpreter of the text.<br /><br />It also seems oddly similar to the view of classical liberalism, which says the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible is not found in its actual words but in its overall concepts or “message.”<br /><br />On the contrary, if we believe in the plenary verbal inspiration of the Bible, then its necessary corollary is the plenary verbal preservation of the Bible.<br /><br />Your response also did not get at some of the other angles of my question: Has anyone else in the history of Christianity ever accepted your reconstructed text as authoritative? Is James Snapp the first and only person in the history of Christianity to affirm the reconstructed text which you affirm? Have any vernacular translations of your text been made in any vulgar languages and become widely used for study, commentary-writing, liturgical practice, etc.? If there has been no providential recognition or acceptance of your text among Christians, what claim can it make to being the true text?<br /><br />On point (2): Thanks for responding. I was not sure what your view was on this passage. I wrongly assumed you might reject it given the fact that it is not in the Majority tradition. It would have been an interesting point of discussion with PG, who, I assume, rejects it as spurious.<br /><br />JTR<br />Jeffrey T. Riddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16374856944409335186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-5530432930062225362020-02-04T10:07:52.344-05:002020-02-04T10:07:52.344-05:00Snapp’s view on WCF 1.8 is ironically historical. ...Snapp’s view on WCF 1.8 is ironically historical. Though not historical among the Reformers. It’s the position of one of their contemporaries John Goodwin. Both William Jenkyn & especially John Vicars took him to task. He was eventually labeled The Grand Hereticj of England due in part to his aberrant view of preservation. The same view Snapp has been pushing for some time in spite of the fact that it was never the position of the Reformers. John Gillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00532323950773362433noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-10584986907552163732020-02-01T12:40:51.569-05:002020-02-01T12:40:51.569-05:00Jeff Riddle,
Happy to respond:
(1) By "a ...Jeff Riddle, <br /><br />Happy to respond:<br /><br />(1) By "a Bible" if you mean, "a perfect reconstruction of the original text of the books of the New Testament," then yes, Christians are still waiting for such a thing. But this is not the angst-inducing crisis that some have pretended that it is. There's a difference between having/not having the original form of the text, and having/not having the original message conveyed by the original text, and there's a difference between having no idea what the original form at a specific point is, and suspending judgment between two contending readings which both mean something that interlocks with the rest of the New Testament's message.<br /><br />(2) I consider Acts 8:37 canonical, and preach it as Scripture. A detailed file (available at the NT Textual Criticism group) describes some evidence for and against this minority-reading, presents various early patristic testimonies about it, and offers a theory for its loss (similar to the way a passage in John 9:37-38 was lost in some early manuscripts).<br />James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-56768038222515683222020-02-01T10:02:42.741-05:002020-02-01T10:02:42.741-05:00Thanks for the comments Ross.
Follow ups:
On JS ...Thanks for the comments Ross.<br /><br />Follow ups:<br /><br />On JS and the Majority text: The TR does not follow the Majority Text in all places and it includes minority readings (like Acts 8:37 and 1 John 5:7-8) which JS would reject as spurious. In the end, the reconstructed Majority text of JS has never been widely printed, translated, or used. I might be wrong but JS seems to be the only person who holds the "equitable" eclecticism view.<br /><br />On Which TR? See my WM 140 podcast: "Responding to the Which TR? Objection. Different TR advocates provide different answers to this question (from "maximal" or "absolute" certainty).<br /><br />On PG and changes in the goals of postmodern text criticism: Yes, I think we could create two subcategries: liberals who have abandoned the search for the autograph altogether and evangelicals who want to try to hold on to it to some degree. But, one of the points I was making during the discussion was that it is not these evangelicals who are the "gatekeepers" of the scholarly text but the liberals (like DC Parker who will presumably apply his viewpoint in the ECM edition of John). Also, as my quote from T. Wasserman, was meant to show, it does not seem that the evangelicals are that committed to the old goal either.<br /><br />JTR<br /><br />Jeffrey T. Riddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16374856944409335186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-38453735004728066722020-02-01T09:12:45.324-05:002020-02-01T09:12:45.324-05:00(2) Despite PG's protestations to the contrary...(2) Despite PG's protestations to the contrary, contemporary reasoned eclecticism does not seek to recover the autograph of the apostles but only some approximation of the so-called initial text.<br /><br />You must allow for two subcategories here: Liberals who have abandoned the enterprise for the original versus Evangelicals who have not. I guess the Evangelicals are hoping more rope grows out of the end of their line!Rosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10773180013072937148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-52162113634589017162020-02-01T09:09:37.562-05:002020-02-01T09:09:37.562-05:00 Reconstructionist: Which TR?
Confessionalist: I ... Reconstructionist: Which TR?<br /><br />Confessionalist: I would look to the family of the printed editions of the Reformation era, which are generally uniform.<br /><br />What do you do when they are not uniform?Rosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10773180013072937148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-78549134827254222082020-02-01T09:06:52.350-05:002020-02-01T09:06:52.350-05:00I don't know if JS would answer the same way, ...I don't know if JS would answer the same way, but to your number one question, I would say that the reformers did produce a variant MT text and it is called the Textus Receptus.Rosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10773180013072937148noreply@blogger.com