WM 281: Athanasius & Textual Arguments from Silence

 

JTR

Podcast Interview (Part Two) with Dwayne Green: Textual Presuppositions; Debating James White; 1 John 5:7 & Erasmus

 

JTR

Incorporating the CJ (and other traditional texts) into the liturgy and visual art of the churches

Image: The meeting house of Five Solas OPC, Reedsburg, Wisconsin, with the CJ printed on either side of the pulpit.

It is certain that there are parts of the traditional text that are particularly vulnerable to the withering attacks of modern criticism. One of those parts is, without doubt, the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7-8), now routinely removed from many modern New Testaments (both Greek and versions). In some modern translations it is not even mentioned in the footnotes. See my recent presentation on the CJ.

Our defense of this and other disputed texts should not make us fainthearted, since we defend them as Gamaliel did the apostles, “for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought, but if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God” (Acts 5:38b-39).

I was recently discussing this circumstance with a couple of likeminded pastors and, aside from the obvious that we might do to defend these words, including using translations that incorporate them and preaching and teaching from them, other ideas were also mentioned, including incorporating them into the worship liturgy and even into the visual art of a church meeting house.

Here are two examples:

First, with respect, to singing, in Grantley McDonald’s Biblical Criticism in Early Modern Europe, he notes a Trinitarian hymn composed by the Puritan William Barton (c. 1598-1678) in response to Owen’s defense of the CJ (p. 133):

Three witnesses there are above,

     And all these three are one:

The father, Son and sacred dove,

     One deity alone.

The Living father sent the son,

     Who by the Father lives:

And unto them that ask of him

     The holy Ghost he gives.

Note: This is the text as printed by McDonald. I assume it is faithful to the original punctuation and capitalization. The footnote and bibliography notes this as hymn XC in Barton’s A Century of Select Hymns. Collected Out of Scripture (London, 1659). It is set to the common meter tune (same as "Amazing Grace", "O God Our Help in Ages Past" etc.) and could be easily incorporated into worship.

Second, with respect to visual art, the Five Solas OPC Church in Reedsburg, Wisconsin has recently added a tasteful gold-leaf lettering of the CJ in its meeting house (see above), on each side of the pulpit,  a helpful visual reminder of the doctrine of the Trinity (WCF 2:3) and that worship is directed to the Triune God alone (WCF 22:2).

There are, no doubt, similar and even more creative ways in which things like this might be done in use and defense of the sacred text.

JTR

New Resources: New Audio on CJ Roundtable and PA Debate & New Video Version of WM 54 on CJ

I have posted some new audio material to sermonaudio.com from the two presentations I did yesterday on the text of the NT: (1) The audio of the CB Roundtable # 2: The Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7-8); (2) The audio of my debate with Stephen Boyce on the PA (John 7:53-8:11):

I have also posted a video version of WM 54 The Comma Johanneum and the Papyri (from 7.13.16):

JTR

WM 151: Review: McDonald on Erasmus, the CJ, Foucault, and "Epistemes"

WM 151: Review: McDonald on Erasmus, the CJ, Foucault, and “Epistemes” has been posted. Listen here.

This episode is a reading of a draft of my review of:

Grantly McDonald, Biblical Criticism in Early Modern Europe: Erasmus, the Johannine Comma and Trinitarian Debate (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016): 384 pp.

Here is the closing analysis:

This work represents a significant contribution to the reception history of the Johannine Comma from Erasmus to the present. Any future study of this controversial New Testament passage will need to consult, benefit from, and make reference to this work.  This reviewer is especially appreciative of McDonald’s debunking of the Erasmian “myths” that have developed relating to his inclusion of the comma in the third edition of the Dutch scholar’s Greek New Testament, as well those relating to the history and influence of Codex Montfortianus.

One of the most intriguing ideas put forward by McDonald in this study is his analysis and application of Michael Foucault’s concept of the “episteme” to understand the division that has resulted over the acceptance of the comma. An “episteme” is defined as “an internally consistent mode of conceiving the world that determines which questions may conceivably be asked, and thus judged to be either true or false” (146). In what he calls “the premodern episteme” critical thought was “subordinated to a theological a priori” (146). This meant, for example, “it was almost inconceivable to doubt the inspiration of Scripture” (146). With the development of the historical-critical method, beginning with Richard Simon and Baruch Spinoza, critical questions were disconnected from theological ones. Though McDonald does not use this term, we might call it the “modern episteme.” Rather than one episteme neatly yielding sequentially to the next, as Foucault envisioned it, McDonald suggests that “the episteme that existed before Spinoza and Simon never ended. Rather their work fractured the hermeneutical consensus, leading to a situation in which two epistemes came to exist in parallel” (147). McDonald describes these two parallel epistemes as follows:

One maintains an essentially premodern attitude towards Scripture, submitting judgement in textual matters to the ultimate criterion of doctrine, while the other has accepted, internalized and built upon the insights of Spinoza and Simon, using the tools of philology, history and sociology to illuminate the beginnings of Christianity (147).

He concludes, “I suggest that many of the conflicts between academic liberal critics and conservative apologists arise out of a basic epistemological incompatibility” (147). It is this fundamental “epistemological incompatibility” that compels disagreement over the Johannine Comma as those who hold the “premodern episteme” continue to a affirm it, while those who hold the “modern episteme” continue to reject it.

According to McDonald then, the reception of the comma represents a proverbial “fork in the road.” As he puts it, “One path was followed by those who insisted on the providential preservation of Scripture. The other was taken by those who believe that Scripture, whatever its source, is subject to the same process of transmission as any other text” (12). The story that results is one of “constantly competing claims, in which outcomes are rarely clear and motives are often obscure” (12).

McDonald is hardly sympathetic to those who continue to uphold the comma against the modern scholarly “consensus”, held since the mid-twentieth century, that the “three heavenly witnesses” passage is a spurious and late “interpolation” (9).  He associates renewed debate over the comma to the “revival of the Christian right,” conspiracy theories, and internet discussions, where it has become a “hot-button issue” (9). McDonald suggests, “As a result of an informational cascade amongst non-scholarly believers, the divide between academic consensus and lay conviction is growing” (9). What McDonald does not explicitly seem to acknowledge is that he is hardly a neutral observer. He holds, in fact, to the “modern episteme,” which he so helpfully describes. Nevertheless, McDonald is to be thanked not only for his historical review of the various clashes over the comma, but also for his insights on the epistemological divide over this matter. To paraphrase the poet Robert Frost, when we come to the comma as a fork in the road, the path we take does indeed make all the difference.

Jeffrey T. Riddle, Pastor, Christ Reformed Baptist Church, Louisa, Virginia

Rejoinder to Hixson on the CJ: Part Three of Three

Note; This concludes a series of three rejoinders, based on three comments, posted by Dr. Elijah Hixson (EH) to my blog article on WM 149.

For Rejoinder, Part One of Three look here.

For Rejoinder, Part Two of Three look here.

Now on to Rejoinder, part three of three (EH's comments in blue and my responses in black):

Introduction: Before I begin to respond to EH’s second point below (continuing from his “three main headings of responses”), I need to try to make sense of what I think EH is trying to do here. In this second point EH seems to be giving advice to me and other TR advocates to explain to us the circumstances under which our defense of the TR would be acceptable to him. It gets a little convoluted, so I’ll try to break it down as best I can, bit by bit, as we proceed:

(3/3) 2. Specifically: “Because this likely does not fit with EH’s assumption that defense of the TR can only be perceived as a variety of KJV-O.” Well, that is not my assumption, but I would say that’s one way it could be defended.

JTR: Again, EH begins by quoting me. He then denies that he assumes that defense of the TR is necessarily KJVO (“Well, that is not my assumption…”). As previously noted, can I assume then that this means EH would disagree with those like Mark Ward who insist any defense of the TR must necessarily be considered a variety of KJVO? If so, great.

Next, EH apparently says, however, that holding to KJVO would, in fact, be one way that the TR could be reasonably defended: “…but I would say that’s one way it could be defended.” Really? For the record, I do not believe the TR can be defended from a true KJVO position, since it would contradict WCF/SD/2LBCF 1:8 in that it would deny that the Scriptures are only immediately inspired in the original Hebrew and Greek.

(1) If there was something ‘special’ about the Reformation, then the CJ becomes more defensible. However, too little continuity with what came before the Reformation is a move in the direction of KJVO, where something special happened at around the time of the Reformation. ‘Kept pure in all ages’ only works if it is consistent with ‘all ages’, so the bits before the Reformation are every bit as important to that claim as the bits after the Reformation. However, if you lay that aside and place special emphasis on the Reformation, you avoid that problem.

JTR: Now, under this second point on his “three main headings of response” (I said it would get convoluted!) EH begins to list four options/conditions under which, in his opinion, the TR (and thus the CJ) could be reasonably defended.

This first point is that the CJ could be hypothetically "more defensible” if it were proven that there was something “special” about the Reformation.

At this point I am beginning to wonder if I really need to argue with and prove to a fellow Protestant evangelical (of some stripe) that there was something providentially “special” about the Reformation.

EH next says that if one sees “too little continuity” between pre-Reformation and Reformation Christianity then the only way he can defend the TR is via some variety of KJVO. He then instructs us that the Westminster phrase “kept pure in all ages” “only works” if, indeed, it means “all ages” (every historical era?). If we hold to discontinuity with previous eras and that the Reformation era was truly "special", then our view is not tenable.

It’s really hard to know where to begin in responding to this. Here are a few tries:

First, as a confessional Protestant, I cannot lay aside my belief that the Reformation was a time of special providential importance.

Second, to insist on the special importance of the Reformation is not, in any way, to deny all continuity with previous Christian tradition. Take, for example, the Protestant orthodox articulation of the doctrine of God and of Christ in the WCF/SD/2LBCF. With respect to theology, it reflects the classical orthodox affirmation of the Trinity, the simplicity, and the immutability of God, etc. With respect to Christology, it reflects the classic creedal and Chalcedonian view of Christ as one person, with two natures, true God and true man. In other respects, however, there is, of course, discontinuity between the confession and some strands of pre-Reformation Christianity. The Reformation saw, for example, the retrieval of the apostolic doctrine of justification, that doctrine on which the church either stands or falls. It was a watershed, in particular, for the confessional definition of the doctrine of Scripture, including the canon of Scripture, even provoking Rome at Trent to articulate her own counter-Reformation doctrine of Scripture (wrongly affirming the books of the Apocrypha as part of the OT canon and making the Latin Vulgate, not the Hebrew and Greek originals, the standard for faith and practice).

I find the argument here to be particularly curious with respect to the CJ. Which shows greater continuity with the Christian tradition: the reception of the CJ or the rejection of it? I’ve already pointed out the star-studded list of Christian theologians in the pre-Reformation era who affirmed it (from Bernard of Clairvaux to Thomas Aquinas). And it was affirmed by the Protestant orthodox too. Clearly, it is those who reject the CJ who are denying proper continuity between the pre-Reformation and Reformation churches.

Third, “kept pure in all ages” does not mean that there was access to the true text ubiquitously or universally, but it does mean that the true text was always kept pure by God’s own “singular care and providence” in all ages, including during the momentous age of the printing press, the Reformation, the production of printed texts, and the multiplication of Protestant translations, when wide access and consensus was achieved. It certainly does not mean preserved in the mass of extant mss. until scholars in the nineteenth century could began to attempt to put the puzzle pieces together again. I don’t mean to sound like a broken record, but please read Muller and Milne to grasp what “kept pure in all ages” meant to the Protestant orthodox, rather than attempting to impose an alien definition on a confessional phrase.

Fourth, I’m really at a loss as to how one can suggest if we maintain there was discontinuity between the pre-Reformaton and Reformation eras, and we maintain that "something special" happened at the Reformation, then we “move in the direction of KJVO.” For one thing such a statement is simply a historical anachronism, given that the intellectual, theological, and spiritual basis for defense of the traditional text came long before the KJV was ever printed.

Conclusion: Option one rejected.

(2) Another way the CJ becomes defensible for TR advocates is if you admit that the TR has errors but as it is especially blessed by God through its use in the Reformation, it is a trustworthy text that could be treated as if it were infallible even if it is not in actuality. I’ve seen one of the more open TR advocates admit something like this before.

JTR: EH next “generously” provides a second way in which we might possibly make the TR position acceptable in his sight. According to EH, we could possibly do the following: first, admit the TR has errors; second, treat it as infallible “even if it is not in actuality.”

This calls to mind how a secular skeptic might possibly speak to a traditional Christian. He might say, You know I could accept your Christian view of the Bible if you would only do two things: first, admit that your Bible is not infallible; second, feel free to “pretend” as if it actually is, even though it isn’t. Would any Christian worth his salt accept such a deal? Hardly.

Here is why we cannot accept this option: We believe that the TR is the true text of the NT. Please see Richard Brash’s work on the Protestant orthodox affirmation of the “practical univocity” between the autographa and the apographa (represented in the printed editions of the TR). If we were to say that there were errors in the TR this would be tantamount to saying there are errors in the Bible. It would deny the authority, inspiration, and preservation of Scripture. We do not want merely to act “as if” we have the Word of God in our hands. We know we have the Word of God in our hands.

Conclusion: Option 2 rejected.

There are two other ways to defend the CJ though. (3) One is simply to admit that all of the Greek manuscript evidence is against the TR but buckle down on the fact that it’s not an evidence-based position. I think this is what you try to do, and most TR advocates back into this corner, but not before misusing evidence. That runs dangerously close to ‘divers weights and divers measures’ (Prov. 20:10). Remember, it was you who appealed to GA 177 as evidential support for the CJ, but now I am wrong for critiquing your use of evidence? The better way would be just to admit that in many cases the evidence is against the TR and not to try to misuse the evidence to support it when it doesn’t.

JTR: EH next provides us with a third option for making the TR position acceptable in his sight. Yet, he presents this third option, but then, just as quickly as he offers it, he rejects it himself. Did I say that this gets convoluted?

Let’s first look at EH’s third option, before he rejects it. He says one might “admit that all the Greek evidence is against the TR but buckle down on the fact that it is not an evidence-based position.” He says he thinks this is what I (JTR) try to do, and it results in “misusing evidence” (bringing up again my 2010 blog article on ms. 177 as exhibit “A” for my crime of misuse of evidence!).

Again, no sooner is this option offered, but it is rejected, as EH instructs: “The better way would be just to admit that in many cases the evidence is against the TR and not to try to misuse the evidence to support it when it doesn’t.”

How do we begin to respond to this? I think the main problem is that EH cannot seem to grasp that there might be another way to approach the text of Scripture, other than using the “reconstruction method.” The confessional TR position does not, in any way, shape, or form “admit that all the Greek evidence is against the TR.” In many cases, as with the traditional ending of Mark, the extant external ms. evidence clearly favors the TR. At the same time, the TR position also readily acknowledges that some TR readings do not have strong or available extant external support. The main point, however, is that we hold that the best text is not the hypothetical approximation offered in the modern critical text, based on its survey of the extant ms. evidence, but the providentially preserved text of the Protestant church.

I notice that EH does not point to any specific examples of “misuse” of evidence, other than my brief mention in a 2010 blog article of Dan Wallace’s discovery of the CJ in the margin of ms. 177 as another witness in support of the tenacity of the CJ in the Christian tradition. See part one of this rejoinder for a response to this charge.

Conclusion: Option 3 rejected.

(4) The final way to defend the CJ is to do actual work in evidence to show why my conclusions are wrong and yours are correct. This has never been done to my knowledge, which brings be to point 3:

JTR: The final option seems more like an ultimatum. We can defend the TR, if we do “actual work in evidence.” Presumably this means we begin to make use of reasoned eclectic modern text criticism. Interesting. Which method of reasoned eclecticism would EH suggest I use to do “actual work in evidence”? Should I make use of the CBGM? Or should I adopt the method used by those who made the THGNT? What about thoroughgoing eclecticism? Is that still an option?

With all due respect, I have taken a look at modern text criticism, and it looks like an Enlightenment influenced dead end to me. Haven’t the cutting-edge scholars in the field themselves suggested that the finding the “original text” is only an elusive chimera?

No thanks, I’ll stick with the confessional text position, even if this does not measure up as “actual work” in the eyes of reasoned eclectics.

Conclusion: Option 4 rejected.

3. On 429mg, you neglected to mention my observation (at least in the written form here; my apologies if you discuss it in the audio version) for why it was copied from Erasmus’ third edition when you simply dismissed my conclusion as circular reasoning. Perhaps this was a simple mistake on your part.

JTR: I think this would have been a point where EH would indeed have profited from listening to the audio, before assessing my critique. I plainly stated in the audio that, as tempting as it might be, I would not have time to cover in detail each of EH’s observations on these mss., but I would focus on what he said was his special interest: the supposed significance of the RC provenance for some of these mss. and how this contradicted defense of the TR.

I claimed that the CJ was copied from Erasmus’ third edition in 429mg because the annotator of 429 copied many notes and in some cases explicitly wrote Erasmus as a source. Instead of concealing that fact (for which I even put up a picture) and dismissing my conclusion as circular reasoning, the better way would be to work through 429 (or at least in a large enough section to be representative), look at the annotations that do explicitly list Erasmus as a source and compare those to the ones that do not list Erasmus as a source, paying attention to how closely they do/do not align with Erasmus’ text and making observations there. Simply dismissing an argument is not the same as working through the same data and giving a better argument.

JTR response: EH’s discussion of 429 in the original blog article was brief (210 words) and dependent, by his acknowledgement, on Wachtel. EH now takes exception to my even briefer critique of his analysis (79 words).

Despite the brevity of EH’s analysis, he offers some very definitive conclusions. The article begins, “GA 429 is itself 14^th century, but the marginal addition of the CJ happened after 1522. We know that because it was copied from Erasmus’ third edition.” It concludes, “429marg is not a witness to a pre-Erasmian CJ.” I am wondering how Bruce Metzger, the master of nuance, might have worded these things. My guess is he would have reached similar conclusions but seeded in some humble tentativeness. I could see him writing: “…but the marginal addition of the CJ most likely happened after 1522.” And, “429marg is very likely not a witness to a pre-Erasmian CJ.”

This relates to the primary thrust I was making in my very brief response, when I asked the following series of questions: “Would not even EH concede that this conclusion must remain speculative? Can the CJ addition to 429 be conclusively proven to have been copied from Erasmus’s third edition? What if the 429marg and the third edition of Erasmus were both dependent on a common source of unknown date?” After all, EH notes that this ms. includes some notes where explicit mention is made of Erasmus, but there is no note that explicitly says the marginal addition was taken from Erasmus, right? So, EH’s conclusion is possible, maybe even probable, but it cannot be definitively proven, right?

What seems to have hit a more tender spot, was my question, “Does this risk circular reasoning?” I also raised this question in relation to the analysis of ms. 918. Is it inappropriate to ask whether or not one might have an assumption or presupposition, like the possibility that the CJ was added to older manuscripts from printed editions of the TR, which might influence his conclusion and preclude the entertainment of other possibilities for explaining the phenomenon?

I do not believe I was “simply dismissing” EH’s argument, but I was asking reasonable questions about it.

This reaction called to mind a comment made by Robert W. Yarbrough in his book Clash of Visions, in which he notes how “the elitist guild consensus” can function “like the papal magisterium,” adding, “Against these truths no warranted objections are possible” (37).

Interestingly enough, EH also suggests that I should not have asked these questions until after “working through the data and giving a better argument.” But let’s face it, these were sections of blog articles for both of us (of 210 and 79 words respectively), and neither of us have done extensive study of this ms.

If the TR position is not evidence-based, then why dismiss my conclusions like this while ignoring my main observation and not giving an alternative assessment of the data?

JTR: Just because the TR position does not rely on reconstruction should not mean that we cannot make observations on the current external evidence or someone’s assessment of it, should it? After all, I was reviewing EH’s article on these mss. I was not making or defending an evidence-based argument in favor of the CJ. I hardly dismissed EH’s argument (a link was given for anyone to read his article for himself), but I did offer at least the possibility of an alternative explanation, based on the summary presented.

I’m sure you can see how many people might think evidence matters more to TR advocates than they claim once the evidence becomes inconvenient for their position.

JTR: Again, though the TR position does not depend on the “reconstruction” method, this does not mean we cannot make observations about extant evidence.

Since the TR position is a ‘grand unified theory’ under which every manuscript falls, you should excel at analysing the data.

JTR: Again, this “grand unified theory” idea is EH’s own idea, not one promoted by any TR advocate of whom I am aware.

The same could be said of the other manuscripts in which I suggested a printed text as a source. You did the same with 177—you left out the fact that the priest to whom I linked the CJ actually signed and dated the manuscript (at least in the written form). That’s a powerful observation that makes it much more difficult to dismiss my conclusions.

JTR: This is what I wrote in my review: “He [EH] traces the marginal insertion of the CJ to a ‘Roman Catholic priest in Munich.’” So, did I “leave out” this information? No, of course, I didn’t. What I did was question the significance or relevance of the fact that 177 had been owned by a RC priest, with respect to evaluating its acceptance by Protestants as a genuine part of Scripture.

Thank you again though for taking my post seriously enough to write a response.

-Elijah

JTR: You are most welcomed. Thank you for your responses. Of course, there were a number of other responses given in my review and questions raised that your comments did not address, including the following:

·       The TR defense of the CJ does not depend on extant external evidence. TR defenders held to the TR in 1971, 1975 when Metzger could list only 4 late Greek witnesses in its favor, and though we are now happy to have 10-11 such witnesses (depending on how you count 635 marg), we never believed that we were dependent on these witnesses to confirm our defense of the TR. So, the “new” mss. surveyed by EH are nice to know about, but TR advocates are convinced of the authenticity of the CJ with or without them.

·       There is very little early evidence for the Catholic epistles overall and for I John, in particular (just two papyri). Does this not speak to the limits of certainty with the reconstruction method?

·       TR advocates recognize that though the CJ may support the doctrine of the Trinity, and it is essential to the Scriptures as as a whole, there are other passages that also support the doctrine of the Trinity, and that the doctrine is not dependent on this text alone.

·       The CJ was known, accepted, and used by the doctors of the church long before the Reformation (again from Bernard of Clairvaux to Thomas Aquinas). Is it not the rejection of the CJ that risks discontinuity with pre-Reformation Christianity?

·       The attempt to show “RC provenance” for some extant mss. which include the CJ in some form (by EH’s own emphasis, a key interest of his study), does not, in fact, invalidate TR defense of the CJ, nor does it negate classical Protestant acceptance of it.

·       Other specific brief questions related to specific manuscripts were not addressed (e.g., regarding the orthodox provenance of 2318; regarding how to understand Coxe’s note on 221).

JTR

Rejoinder to Hixson on the CJ: Part Two of Three

Enjoyed a trip to DC last weekend (Friday-Saturday) to visit my daughters and take our Korean exchange student to see the highlights on the mall [we went to the Jefferson, Lincoln and Korean War memorials, saw the Capital building, visited the US Botanic Garden Conservatory, the Air and Space Museum, the National Art Gallery, the Museum of American History, went to the top of the Washington Monument, and the National Archive (where we saw the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights)]. Wow!

Now, back to my rejoinders to Dr. Elijah's Hixson's comments posted to my blog on WM 149.

For part one of my rejoinder look here.

Here is the continuation of the rejoinder (EH's comments in blue and my responses in black):

(2/~3) You write: “This ms. only has a short entry. EH concludes, ‘Still, the King James Version already existed by the time this manuscript rolled around.’ One wonders about the mention here of the KJV, in particular. The implication, of course, is that defense of the TR is simply a variety of KJV-Onlyism.” This was not at all my implication though. My implication is that the manuscript it so late that it doesn’t support the presence of the Comma in editions of the TR. 1611 is such a well-known date that it’s a good way to represent how late this manuscript is.

You write: “Because this likely does not fit with EH’s assumption that defense of the TR can only be perceived as a variety of KJV-O.” This is not my assumption at all. I would grant that it’s one possibility of four (explained at the end).

JTR: Interesting. So, does this mean that you recognize the Confessional Text preference for the TR as not being a variety of KJVO? So, this means that you also disagree with those like Mark Ward who have recently suggested that “Confessional Bibliology” is really just “upscale KJVO”?

Are you also saying that your specific mention here of ms. 2473’s suggested date of c. 1634 as being after the KJV (1611) is not related to any attempt to make a connection between the TR preference and KJVO? OK. Sounds good. If this is the case, might I offer a friendly suggestion: Given that many modern text advocates (like Mark Ward) do, in fact, argue that any defense of the TR is really just some variety of KJVO, you might want to be sensitive to making singular references to the KJV (and ignoring other Protestant translations based on the TR in English and other languages) if you write something again that specifically addresses the TR position.

A few more questions on ms. 2473 since your comments here were so brief: On what basis is ms. 2473 dated to c. 1634? Does this date come from Wachtel? On what basis did the person assigning this date make this assessment?

You write: “One wonders what EH means by “grand claims.”” I’m happy to elaborate. The TR position is essentially a “grand unified theory of textual criticism.” That is the only way it can be legitimate for TR advocates to claim that they can interpret the evidence correctly (or even that they can do it more correctly than someone like me). By ‘grand unified theory’, I mean that every single page of every single manuscript is an outworking of “kept pure in all ages” throughout history. This includes not only every page of Vaticanus and Bezae but also minuscules 177, 1739, 35, 1582, every Latin manuscript that supports “In Isaiah the Prophet” at Mark 1:2, and the 99 (or more?) Armenian manuscripts that lack Mark 16:9–20 and the ~1600 Greek manuscripts that do have it. Every single one of the Byzantine Greek minuscules that lacks the Comma and every single one of the ones that have it fall under the purview of ‘kept pure in all ages’ and as a result, a TR advocate should be able to make a better case for how to interpret the evidence than I have given.

JTR: I found this paragraph confusing. I had asked what you meant by your reference to the “grand claims” of TR advocates, since you cited no authors or works directly. I even suggested what I thought you might have meant by this: “Is it simply the claim that the TR has historically been and should continue to be looked to as the authoritative and authentic text of Protestant Scriptures?”

Your elaboration here, however, seems to be something completely different. You describe the TR position as a “grand unified theory of textual criticism” that must take into consideration “every single page of every single manuscript” in order to satisfy the “kept pure in all ages” view of preservation (presumably as articulated in WCF/SD/2LBCF 1:8).

Again, this seems to be a departure along a completely different track. When you made reference in your original article to “the grand claims” of TR advocates, I was assuming you were attempting to address “grand claims” actually made by those who hold to some form of TR advocacy, and especially to those of us who do so on a confessional basis, since this was stated as a special interest and focus in your article. The paragraph in your original article in which you mention these “grand claims” begins, in fact, as follows (bold added): “Maybe I have been reading too much from textus receptus advocates, but it struck me that some of the arguments I hear from them actually works against the textus receptus position once you take the time to step away from the grand claims and look at how the specifics about manuscripts fit with those grand claims.”

Your “grand unified theory” noted above, however, is not a “grand claim” made by any TR advocate I have read. It certainly does not reflect my view. Instead, you seem to have shifted the focus of the term “grand claims” from what TR advocates actually hold (as seemed to be the intent in your original article) to what you think they should hold (what you address in these comments). Do you see why I find this so confusing? I’m probably not the only one.

Again, this “grand unified theory” is not one held by any TR advocate of whom I am aware but seems to be your own theory (your own “grand claim”, as it were). Your view, if I understand you correctly, is that any legitimate view of the text of Scripture must take into consideration the legitimacy of every extant ms. (Greek and versional) to the NT (“every single page of every single manuscript”).

With all due respect, I must tell you that I completely disagree with your “grand unified theory of textual criticism.” I believe, for example, that the c. 900 Armenian mss. that omit the traditional ending of Mark (along with Sinaiticus and Vaticanus at this point) were in error, and their reading should be rejected.

Your “grand unified theory”, in fact, seems to describe the classic modern critical text view of reconstruction, but not the confessional view of preservation. This was not the view of providential preservation held by the men who framed the WCF/SD/2LBCF. I know your training is not in historical theology and, as I understand it, you are not yourself confessionally Reformed. If you have not yet done so, I’d encourage you to read vol. 2 of Richard Muller’s PRRD, as well as Garnet Howard Milne’s Kept Pure in All Ages to understand what the Protestant orthodox meant by “kept pure in all ages.” I think you would profit from it. If you think I have misread you here, please feel free to clarify things for me and point me in the direction of what I should read.

“I’m not sure about his drift in reference to lectionary markings in Codex Bezae. Is his point that it was used in some church tradition? But its obscure readings were, in fact, rejected as authentic, right?” In a sense, no they weren’t, not by the church that used it. And that church falls under the purview of ‘kept pure in all ages’, unless that phrase means little more than special pleading. Codex Bezae is the text received by that church.

JTR: With all due respect, I completely disagree with your premise here. Are you really saying that just because any church or churches made use of any reading in any manuscript in the entire history of Christendom, then that reading should be accepted as being as legitimate and authoritative as any other?

What you are proposing here, I am afraid, is a radical redefinition of “kept pure in all ages” which has nothing to do with how the framers of the Protestant confessions would have understood it (see suggested reading above). In fact, I hardly see how this view could even be comprehended as being broadly evangelical. It seems more in line with Bart Ehrman’s view that we should talk about “early Christianities” (plural) rather than “early Christianity” (singular), or Elaine Pagel’s view that the Gnostic writings should be acknowledged with equal legitimacy in the “Christian” tradition alongside those received by the “paleo-orthodox.”

In contrast, consider Eusebius’s account of Serapion of Antioch in EH 6:12. When he heard that those in Rhossos were making use of the apocryphal Gospel of Peter, he at first permitted it to be read by them, having never read it himself, assuming it was orthodox, and that it actually came from Peter. When he later examined the document, however, and found that it was pseudonymous and included heretical docetic teaching, he rejected it as non-Petrine and spurious, and warned against its acceptance. According to the view you have articulated above, however, the Gospel of Peter should, however, perhaps be received, since it was once used (received) by a church.

The Serapion anecdote demonstrates that not every text was received by the orthodox in the history of the church just because it was received and used by any particular church or churches. If this was true of the rejection of the Gospel of Peter, surely it is also true of discernment applied to the NT canon. This type of discernment, for example, led to the rejection of the following: the canonicity of the so-called “Shorter Ending of Mark”, the omission of the traditional ending of Mark, as in codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, the insertion of the spear piercing the side of Jesus before he died on the cross in codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, et al. at Matthew 27:49 [from John 19:34], the inclusion of Psalm 151 in the Psalter in codex Sinaiticus, the inclusion of the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas in the NT in codex Sinaiticus, the omission of 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude and Revelation in the early Syriac NT, etc.

In short, not every reading in Bezae or any other early ms. should be conferred legitimacy, just because it is extant and was used at some point by some church or churches. Not all evidence is to be treated equally. We cannot separate the matters of canon and text. We are not dependent on empirical reconstruction but on providential preservation of the self-authenticating Scripture.

“Does EH realize he writes this after an exercise in which he has literally been “scrambling” through the extant CJ evidence attempting to show the impact of RC provenance?” But this is not true. As I clarified earlier, I merely set out to see what the manuscripts themselves said. I had no idea what I would find. It sounds like you are projecting motives onto me that aren’t there.

JTR: Despite the protests here to the contrary, you clearly stated more than once in your original article that one of your purposes was to refute those who defended the CJ on the basis of their Protestant, confessional convictions. The particular attempt you made to show the RC provenance of some of these witnesses to the CJ and to argue that this was an example of inconsistency in the Protestant confessional defense of the CJ seems to be an especially obvious example of how your implicit bias shaped the article’s “findings.” On one hand, you protest here that you “merely set out to see what the manuscripts themselves said”, but, on the other hand, you plainly tell us in the original article that you did some special “scrambling” to look for RC provenance for these mss. Why did you especially look for RC provenance for these mss.? You wanted to buttress your preconceived argument against the Protestant defense of the CJ.

Do you really think that one can approach the study of the text of Scripture without any preconceived notions or presuppositions? If so, how very modern of you. But even in the modern period, didn’t the text critics always argue that the discipline was both an art and a science? IMHO, your article clearly reflects a good deal of art and not merely dispassionate, objective scientific description. I’m not necessarily downing you for this. I gladly admit that I have a bias toward the TR as I examine the empirical evidence. My question is simply, “Why not acknowledge that?”

In summary, three main headings of responses.

1. First, you make some incorrect assumptions. “… he assumes that TR advocates are engaged in the same sort of reconstruction methodology as modern/postmodern text critics.” “Because this likely does not fit with EH’s assumption that defense of the TR can only be perceived as a variety of KJV-O.” “EH wrongly implies that TR advocates affirm the CJ based on analysis of extant Greek mss evidence.” “Does EH realize he writes this after an exercise in which he has literally been “scrambling” through the extant CJ evidence attempting to show the impact of RC provenance?” Not only are you saying things about me and my assumptions that simply aren’t true, in some of these cases, your incorrect assumptions led you to incorrect conclusions (such as why I mentioned the KJV).

JTR: This paragraph protests that I misunderstood and misrepresented your position in my review. I’m not convinced of that. I guess we will have to leave it to the readers/listeners to draw their own conclusions.

To be continued...

JTR

Rejoinder to Hixson on the CJ: Part One of Three

After I posted WM 149, Dr. Elijah Hixson (EH) posted three rather long comments (totaling over 2,000 words) to my blog in response to my review of his article. I took some time today to read and begin to write a few responses to his comments. I thought it might be better to post my rejoinders as a series of three new blog articles, rather than adding to the pile of comments.

I’ll copy EH’s comments below (in blue), along with my responses:

(1/~4?) Jeff, thanks for this. Forgive me for responding to what you’ve written. I rarely have time to listen to things, and responding to audio/video is much more difficult than responding to a recording, so I have got to go by what you’ve written.

JTR: Thanks for responding to the written notes for this episode. There were a few things in the audio version that expanded and clarified a few points. Feel free to listen if time allows, but happy you took time to respond to the written article (I think this is what you meant to write above, rather than “responding to a recording”). Hope you don’t mind me offering this rejoinder and some clarifications to your comments.

Perhaps the best way to start is to say explicitly why I did the work for the post. I’ll come back to it at the end. I decided that, since the THGNT lists more than the usual few manuscripts at 1 John 5:7–8, the best way I could prepare myself to write about that variant when I got to it in the textual commentary would be to look at all the manuscripts myself. I had no intentions of blogging about it when I started, nor did I have any idea what I would find. At some point in the middle, I realised how valuable the info is, and in light of how difficult it would be to get all the appropriate permissions to use the images in a printed book, I thought a blog would be a good way to get the info out there.

JTR: Thanks for providing this background info on how you came to write the article. As I pointed out in the WM 149 audio, everyone should appreciate your labors (whatever his views) in collecting this material (and images) together as an online resource. Thanks for this.

I had read some TR advocates appealing to known provenance (I think blog post(s) by Taylor DeSoto most recently, but I’ve seen a similar line of argument used in KJV-only literature—I draw a distinction particularly because my criticism of appealing to provenance isn’t relevant to KJV-onlyism), and that argument has always been strange to me—because (as you mention) the default Christianity before the reformation was Catholic or Orthodox, “known provenance” often includes things like Mary-worship, 2nd commandment violations, etc. It’s fine to appeal to known provenance as long as we’re clear that these are not churches that Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians would ever approve of in any other sense, and all of them accepted a lot more into the canon (Psalm 151 for example) than we do now as well. It’s difficult for me to take the ‘unprovenanced/heretical church use’ objection seriously when the provenanced manuscripts were used by churches that most reformed Christians would probably consider heretical. There’s no point in whitewashing that.

JTR: This is where things get a little cloudier for me. As I’m sure you’ll understand, without specific references to which authors or articles you’re responding to, it’s hard to know exactly where this critique was aimed, or to access its validity. In short, as I’m sure you can understand, without specifics, it might even come across as a “straw man” argument.

Contrary to what you say here, it seems to me that confessional TR advocates, in particular, are well aware of the shortcomings within the Christian movement that necessitated the Reformation, while also affirming the providential preservation of the text, despite these ecclesiastical shortcomings, and the definitive affirmation of the text by the Protestant orthodox during the Reformation.

Given that the confessional TR position does not depend on a “reconstruction” method, but a “preservation” method, the fact that the pre-Reformation churches which produced and used the now extant mss. had errant beliefs or practices seems less relevant, while it would, on the other hand, necessarily be highly relevant to the “reconstruction” approach.

You make reference to the fact that prior to the Reformation, some Christians “accepted a lot more into the canon”, and you use the apocryphal Psalm 151 as an example of this. Would you not agree, however, that any acceptance of non-canonical, uninspired writings as part of Scripture at any point in Christian history would have been in error? Psalm 151 is an interesting example. As I understand it, Psalm 151 appears in Codex Sinaiticus and some other LXX mss., but it was never accepted by Jews as part of the Hebrew Bible (and no Hebrew version of Psalm 151 was known until an expanded version of it was uncovered in the DSS), nor was it ever confessionally affirmed as canonical by Christians. This example, it seems to me, actually supports quite nicely the Confessional Text emphasis on text as a canonical issue (ergo, the title of last fall’s “Text and Canon” conference). Those who accepted Psalm 151 as canonical were in error, as were those who accepted the so-called shorter ending of Mark, the freer logion in Mark, or the expanded “Western” readings in Acts, etc.. The Protestant Reformation offered a needed providential occasion for giving clear definition to the canon of Scripture (and the canonical text).

You write: “One of the main problems I see here is that EH seems to imply that the reason TR advocates embrace the CJ is because of this sort of external evidence. That is, he assumes that TR advocates are engaged in the same sort of reconstruction methodology as modern/postmodern text critics.” Though you may have inferred it, I assure you I did not imply that. I have not ever assumed that TR advocates are “engaged in the same sort of reconstruction methodology” as I am. I do see TR advocates embracing evidence when it is convenient for the TR position though, and my point here is that it is inconsistent to do so in every case. The bigger point is that the mis-handling of evidence where mis-handling can be clearly seen points to mis-handling of evidence when it cannot be as clearly seen. Your own words about GA 177 (source: http://www.jeffriddle.net/2010/08/daniel-wallace-on-comma-johanneum.html) are: “Wallace is no friend to the traditional text, and he dismisses the value of this new witness. Still it adds some weight to the argument for the authenticity of the comma.” Going from your own words, you were quick to affirm that 177 “adds some weight to the argument for the authenticity of the comma.” Except 177 is the one that was written with a verse number in a hand that signs and dates the manuscript to a (presumably) Catholic priest in 1785—well after the Reformation.

JTR: Sorry, but it still seems to me that your discussion of these mss. as empirical evidence and your conclusion that this serves as some sort of "defeater" to the TR position misses the point of confessional TR advocacy, which is not based on “reconstruction.” I think I made a point in the introduction to the WM 149 audio (but not in the notes) that has been often made in my podcasts, namely that TR advocates readily concede that some TR readings, especially like the CJ, are not well supported by extant external evidence and are more difficult to defend on empirical grounds (if you don’t have time to listen to the entire podcast you can listen to the first few minutes and will be able to hear this). This is hardly a "whitewashing" of the evidence.

Though it may seem to you that confessional TR advocates are only pointing to the empirical evidence “when it is convenient” I do not think this is, in fact, the case. Again, many times over we have acknowledged that some TR readings (like the CJ) are harder to defend than others. The argument for the CJ is not made on the basis of empirical evidence by confessional TR advocates.

You then move on to a “bigger point” about “mishandling of evidence.” Here you give as a lone example a blog post I wrote nearly ten years ago (August 26, 2010), in which I made the briefest of references to Dan Wallace’s discovery of the CJ in the margin of ms. 177. This discovery had been made a month earlier in July 2010, and the images of it had not yet posted online. Note that at the end of DW's post from July 2, 2010, he expressed a hope that one day the micro-film of mss. like 177 would be digitized and made available for others to see online.

I stand by my comments in the article. Dan Wallace is not a friend of the traditional text. He, like everyone else (from KJVO to modern text advocate), has implicit bias and operates under the influence of his own presuppositions. The only point I was making was that the discovery of this ms. provided, from my perspective, yet more evidence for the tenacity of the CJ in the Christian tradition. And this is true even if the marginal addition is late. In this sense it does indeed “add some weight” (however slight one might assess that weight to be) to the argument for the CJ. For these reasons, I hardly think one could call my very brief comments in that blog post a “mishandling of the evidence.”

Getting back to your 2020 article and away from my ten-year old blog post, you note that the CJ in 177 includes the verse notation, it was owned by a priest who signed the ms.in 1785, and this leads to your conclusion that the CJ addition was composed “well after the Reformation.”

Let me offer some responses:

First, on the verse notation: This well may show that the addition comes after the appearance of the CJ in printed editions of the Greek NT and the editorial addition of versification in the sixteenth century. Question: Is it also at least in the realm of the possible that the person who added the CJ had BOTH an ancient ms. or mss. AND a printed edition of the Greek NT which included the CJ? If this were the case, then it would be impossible to ascertain the date for the source of the CJ addition on the basis of the appearance of the verse notation.

Second, you note that this 11^th century ms. was signed by a RC priest in 1785 and you make a subjective conjecture that the same person who signed the ms. also added the CJ, though you acknowledge that the ink is different and “some of the letters are a little stylized.” You may be right about this conjecture, but I am sure you will also be willing to say that this speculation cannot be definitively proven. If the CJ was not added by the same person who signed his name, then the question of date is less certain. Whatever the marginal CJ's date in 177, the fact that this mss. was at one time owned and signed by a RC priest is irrelevant to establishing anything, pro or con, with regards to the authenticity of the CJ as part of the text of Christian Scripture.

Third, perhaps the CJ addition was made to 177 “well after the Reformation.” If it were, what exactly does this prove? The Protestant consensus on the authenticity of the CJ was settled by at least 1600. Calvin, for example, affirms it in his commentary on 1 John. It had, in fact, been known and accepted in the Christian tradition long before the Reformation. As I note in WM 149, various pre-Reformation theologians had assumed its authenticity in their theologizing, including Bernard of Clairvaux (c. 1090-1153), Peter Lombard (c. 1095-1160), Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179), Peter Abelard (1079-1142), and Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) (for a listing of these and other medieval theologians who made ready use of the CJ, see Grantley McDonald’s 2011 dissertation “Raising the Ghost of Arius”, pp. 57, 62.). The fact that the CJ was added to “correct” 177 only shows the tenacity of the CJ within the Christian tradition, whatever the date given to the marginal addition of the CJ in 177.

You say it’s not about evidence, but you were appealing to evidence to support it. Without checking to see what 177 was and by assuming that it would support the TR you appealed to the evidence of a priest in 1785 as if it supports the authenticity of the CJ. What I was implying was that TR advocates would do better to admit up front that the evidence is against the TR here.

JTR response: Again, my less than 500-word blog article from August 2010 only makes brief reference to 177, a ms. which had only been “discovered” one month earlier and was not yet available to view online. One can hardly fault me for failure to examine the ms. when its images were not yet available to examine at the time I wrote this popular-level blog article, which never claimed to be an exhaustive academic study of 177. If anything, my comments on 177 were measured. For these reasons, I hardly think it is reasonable or fair to use this as any kind of an example of a TR advocate’s “mishandling of evidence.”

If we want to see real “mishandling of evidence” let’s examine how many modern critical text advocates like James White have propagated the “rush to print” and “rash wager’ anecdotes about Erasmus’s 1516 Greek NT and the CJ’s inclusion into it. Smiles.

JTR