Jots & Tittles 11: That Dan Wallace Quote and Another One

 

My notes:

Elijah Hixson recently posted a confusing article to the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog site criticizing those who hold to the Confessional Text (including at least three authors of the Why I Preach From the Received Text anthology) for the citation of a now “infamous” statement made by Dan Wallace in the foreword to the 2019 book Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism.

Let’s examine the entire paragraph from p. xii (bold added):

These two attitudes—radical skepticism and absolute certainty—must be avoided when we examine the New Testament text. We do not have now—in our critical Greek texts or any translations—exactly what the authors of the New Testament wrote. Even if we did, we would not know it. There are many, many places in which the text of the New Testament is uncertain. But we also do not need to be overly skeptical. Where we should land between these two extremes is what this book addresses.

Hixson claims that the citation of the middle three sentences from the paragraph above (in bold) has been improperly used, because it was not shared in its proper context.

We do not have now—in our critical Greek texts or any translations—exactly what the authors of the New Testament wrote. Even if we did, we would not know it. There are many, many places in which the text of the New Testament is uncertain.

Here are two responses to Hixson’s complaint:

First, the citation of the middle three sentences in the paragraph from p. xii does not in any way misrepresent Wallace’s view but simply illustrates and articulates it. These words are not Wallace’s summary of the views of some form of “radical skepticism” (as held by scholars like Bart Erhman or D. C. Parker) which he supposedly opposes. They represent his own view. If these words were his summary of a view he opposes it would indeed have been inappropriate to use this citation out of its wider context, but this is not the case. Our critique of Wallace is, in fact, that his view does not oppose radical skepticism but embraces and promotes it. The words taken from this paragraph very effectively illustrate this fact.

Second, I would say that reading the entire paragraph from which the citation is taken only makes Wallace’s quotation even more damaging to the cause of evangelical appropriation of modern textual criticism.

Wallace says that “absolute certainty” about the text of Scripture “must be avoided.” Yes, he does make the statement, “But we also do not need to be overly skeptical.” Our critique of Wallace, however, is that his view is not some kind of mediating position between “radical skepticism” and “absolute certainty,” but that his view embraces the same kind of textual agnosticism which is characteristic of 21^st century modern textual criticism. This what the citation taken from this paragraph is meant to illustrate.

With that said, let me move on to another quotation from Wallace in the same Foreword to Myths and Mistakes.

In a bid to avoid any controversy, I want to give this quotation in its proper full paragraph context.

So, here is the entire last paragraph of Wallace’s Foreword (pp. xix-xx):

As Michael Holmes has articulated and Zachary Cole attested, the New Testament manuscripts exhibit a text that is overall in excellent shape, but certainly not in impeccable shape; it manifests “microlevel fluidity and macrolevel stability [footnote 17].” What the authors of Myths and Mistakes insist on is that it is neither necessary nor even possible to demonstrate that we can recover the exact wording of the New Testament. But what we have is good enough.

Let me offer a few observations about this this quotation in its full paragraph context:

First, Wallace says he draws on an article from Michael W. Holmes (and attested by Zachary Cole’s article in Myths and Mistakes), that the currently extant manuscripts of the NT show that the text is “in excellent shape,” but not in “impeccable shape.”

Second, again using Holmes, he says the NT manifests “microlevel fluidity and macrolevel stability.” What does he mean by “macrolevel stability”? We assume he means that we have something called the NT, and it consists of some 27 books. This situation is stable. But, when we look more closely at the individual texts of those 27 books, we find “microlevel fluidity.” In other words, the texts of those books are not stable, and cannot be precisely defined. Thus, they are subject to change in various scholarly editions of the Greek NT, based on the varying opinions and conjectures of modern editors.

Third, Wallace asserts that it is not necessary to demonstrate that “we” (modern textual critics) can recover the exact wording of the NT. This means it is not necessary to recover the exact text of the NT.

Fourth, it is not possible to demonstrate that “we” (modern textual critics) can recover the exact wording of the NT. This means it is not possible using the modern empirical method of textual criticism to recover the original autogragh of the NT.

Fifth, since it is neither necessary nor even possible ever to reconstruct the original text of the NT, we should be content with what we have, which is “good enough.”

Conclusion:

This quotation from pp. xix-xx is consistent with the better-known quotation from p. xii.

Though Wallace can state that the NT is “overall in excellent shape,” he must add that it is not in “impeccable shape.” He does not define for us which parts are in “excellent shape” and which are not in “impeccable shape.” For Wallace and other modern textual critics, the modern Greek NT is at best a close approximation of the NT, but not a definitive reconstruction of its autograph which, according to Wallace, is neither “necessary nor even possible.” It promotes, in the end, a form of textual agnosticism (“microlevel fluidity” of the text).

This is precisely what conservative Reformed Protestants find to be alarming about the evangelical embrace of modern textual criticism, and why we are suggesting that this approach be abandoned in favor of retrieval of the traditional Protestant text of the Reformation.

The authors of the anthology did not abuse Wallace by quoting his own words in their respective articles. We have not misunderstood or misrepresented Wallace. The point is that we understand him and do not agree with him.

JTR

Book Review: Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism

 

Read the written book review here on academia.edu.

JTR

WM 233: Hixson & Solomon: "Every Bible was Someone's Bible"?

 

 

Notes:

Introduction:

I was struck by this brief quote in the 1/3/22 Dwayne Green podcast from Pastor Elijah Hixson (of Fireside Fellowship Church, Kingston, Tenn. and Tri-State-Bible College in South Point, Ohio [the school’s doctrinal statement says it is in “the Protestant Reformed and Dispensational tradition” and its distinctives include a robust affirmation of the pre-trib rapture]):

…when a Confessional Bibliologist reads about the promises of God, they believe that it applies to the Bible in their hands, and my response to that is, yeh, [but] it also has to apply to everybody else’s Bible in their hands too. Because theology, does it only matter in one place? Or is it what’s true yesterday, today, and forever? If the promises of God are true and perfect, they are true and perfect for everybody and not just one group of people.

This recalls a version of a statement I have heard and read from evangelicals who embrace the modern critical text methodology, which essentially states that since every extant ms. of the NT was somebody’s Bible, then every variant in that ms. must be given some authoritative weight and consideration (after all, it was somebody’s Bible).

Underlying this statement is the assumption that there is no standard text of the Bible, or, at least no standard text of the Bible that can ever be fully recovered.

So, every variant reading found in the NT must be accepted as authoritative for the community that once used it.

This approach exposes an insurmountable problem, however, for those who embrace the reconstruction, empirical method. It is the problem of provenance. We simply do not know where many of these manuscripts and fragments of manuscripts comes from or what the communities that used them believed. We have no way to determine whether they were orthodox or Ebionite, Marcionite, Arian, etc. Thus, it also encounters the problem of truth. If a text does not have the proper text of the Bible, then it was not a proper Bible, even if it was “somebody’s Bible.”

It also reflects the inroad of postmodernism.

This goes back to Bart Erhman and his influential 1995 essay, “The Text as Window: New Testament Manuscripts and the Social History of Early Christianity” in Bart D. Erhman and Michael W. Holmes, Eds., The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Questionis (Eerdmans, 1995): 361-377. Ehrman concludes that essay by saying, “Much more, however, is left to be done… as we move beyond a narrow concern for the autographs to an interest in the history of their transmission, a history that can serve as a window into the social world of early Christianity (375).

This inroad includes the perspective of D. C. Parker and his groundbreaking book The Living Text of the Gospels (Cambridge University Press, 997), in which he says there is no original, authoritative text, but the Gospels (and the NT in general) are a living text; that is to say, it consists of many texts, none of which are authoritative in comparison to any other. At one point he says that theological arguments based on the notion of a “single authoritative text” are “castles in the air” (76). He also scoffs at any idea of providential preservation as the result of “un-self-questioning conservativism” (129).

Review of Solomon’s article:

That brief statement by Hixson also brought to mind one of the articles that appear in the Myths and Mistakes book, co-edited by Hixson and Gurry.

Chapter 9 is “Myths About Transmission” (171-190) by S. Matthew Solomon [it looks like Solomon works for the corporate office of Kroger in Cincinnati, OH and also teaches at the online Luther Rice College and Seminary].

This chapter was based on Solomon’s 2014 PhD dissertation at NOBTS, “The Textual History of Philemon.”

Solomon’s chapter is about the transmission of this briefest of Paul’s letters (just 25 verses) and one of the shortest books in the Bible.

The article is based on Solomon’s painstaking attempt to collate every single extant manuscript of Philemon. He notes that this is a task that really could only have happened in the digital age.

There are several very interesting and revealing things about this article. Let me share just a few:

On the first page, MS says that one of the chief outcomes of the chapter is that it demonstrates that “more work is needed” and that the establishment of the text of the NT continues (171). Nearly 2,000 years have passed, and we still don’t have a text, even of Philemon.

He notes that of the c. 335 words in Philemon there are hundreds of places of variation in the text (see p. 172).

In the introduction, MS states, “We must remember that every single handwritten copy of the Bible was someone’s Bible—whether personal or church copies (more likely)” (172-173).

He also introduces here the idea that variants “can act as a commentary on the text of the NT” (173).

Moving on to discuss his collation he repeats again “much work remains to be done” (173).

MS notes that his collation made use of over 570 Greek mss. that include at least some part of Philemon.

Of these only 23 of the 570-plus were earlier than AD 900, and only nine were earlier than AD 700.

And of those nine, most were fragmentary, with only three providing the entire text of Philemon: 01, 02, and 06.

He notes that only 4% of extant mss. of Philemon are from before the year AD 900 and the number only climbs to 10% if one counts mss. dated to the 900s (178).

Aside: This demonstrates the futility of the whole modern reconstruction method. There is simply not enough early evidence to justify the entire enterprise.

He proceeds to note the different types of variants in Philemon, including addition and omissions, replacements, and transpositions.

MS warns that one should not downplay the number of variants. He observes, “In fact, almost every word in Philemon is included in a variation unit wherein at least one manuscript contains a textual variant” (183).

From here MS moves on to discuss his previously mentioned notion of the variants as a “textual commentary.”

Again he emphasizes, “Each of these manuscripts was someone’s Bible” (184).

He focuses on three variants in v. 6 which he calls “by far the most difficult”:

First, he discusses the question is whether it should read koinōnia or diakonia. Both TR and NA28 read koinōnia. A second question is whether the term “work [ergou]” should be added to make it “every good work.” Third, should it read “in you” (TR) or “in us” (MCT).

After the discussion of v. 6, he notes again how these variants might act as a commentary on the text and concludes that such variants “should not be jettisoned completely by scholars, pastors, and laypeople but should be seen as a part of the interpretive Technicolor tapestry of the church being woven for nearly two thousand years now” (188).

Aside: Reflect on that for a moment. Do we have an authoritative Bible that is complete? Or, do we have a mere tapestry albeit an interpretive Technicolor one) that is still being woven?

In the article’s conclusion MS does note that “It is safe to say that we have the entire initial text [Note: He does not say “autograph”]” of Philemon, except for v. 6 (“us” or “you”) and v. 11 (inclusion of a kai).

He adds:

“For these places, which reading is original really does not matter for interpretation. It does not matter because it did not matter for the early church. We cannot hold ancient manuscript culture to the same standard as our modern print culture” (189). He proceeds to insist that this does not mean we cannot have “confidence” in the text.

Aside: Did the text of the Word of God “not matter” to the early church?

In the final paragraph he reiterates: “The question of the text of the NT is not settled,” adding that the variants can be “windows into beliefs” (189).

Aside: This idea comes directly from Ehrman. Here is an oddity we have addressed before, modern evangelicals have created a cottage industry around supposedly defending the Scriptures against Ehrman, when, in fact, they have actually embraced wholeheartedly his approach to the text.

Final Thoughts:

Solomon’s chapter demonstrates the flaws of the reconstruction method. Even a short letter has hundreds of variants and few early witnesses. It cannot confidently produce a standard text. Even though, in the case of Philemon, the variants may appear minor, every part of Scripture has value and variants in other books will prove much more substantial to all.

Most importantly, we see that the “every Bible was somebody’s Bible” approach put forward by Hixson, et al. will never produce a standard, authoritative received text. Of course, we don’t need the text to be reconstructed,  if we already have it. We do have it in the TR.

Contrast the view of Gurry, Hixson, and Solomon with John Owen (1816-1883):

 “…yet, through the watchful care and providence of God, sometimes putting itself forth in miraculous instances, it [Scripture] hath been preserved unto this day, and shall be so to the consummation of all things. The event of that which was spoken by our Saviour, Matt. v. 18, doth invincibly prove the divine approbation of this book, as that doth its divine original, ‘Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law.’ God’s perpetual care over the Scripture for so many ages, that not a letter of it should be utterly lost, nothing that hath the least tendency toward its end should perish, is evidence of his regard unto it."

“For my part, I cannot but judge that he that seeth not an hand of divine Providence stretched out in the preservation of this book and all that is in it, its words and syllables, for thousands of years…. doth not believe there is any such thing as providence at all.”

-John Owen (The Reason of Faith, Works, 4, 24).

JTR

WM 230: PROBLEMS with modern text advocacy: Are Gurry and Hixson reconstructing the autograph?

 

Watch the clip under review here.

A few quotes:

D. C. Parker: "We can use philology to reconstruct an Initial Text. But we need not then believe that the Initial Text is an authorial text, or a definitive text, or the only form in which the works once circulated" Textual Scholarship and the Making of the New Testament, 29).

Tommy Wasserman and Peter J. Gurry: "Textual criticism is a discipline that tries to restore texts.... Where that is not possible, it aims to reach back as closely to the initial text as it can" (A New Approach to Textual Criticism: An Introduction to the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method, 1-2).

Daniel B. Wallace: "We do not have now--in our critical Greek texts or any translations--exactly what the authors of the New Testament wrote. Even if we did, we would not know it" (Foreword, Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism, xii).

Elijah Hixson and Peter J. Gurry: "Simply put, we believe the textual evidence we have is sufficient to reconstruct, in most cases, what the authors of the New Testament wrote. We cannot do this with equal certainty in every case...." (Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism, 20).

JTR

WM 220: Text Note: Luke 2:14: Hixson or Linus?

 

What is the issue?

The setting: The angel of the Lord appears to the shepherds and announces the birth of Christ (vv. 9-12). This angel is then joined by the heavenly host in praising God (v. 13). The question: What was the content of that praise (v. 14)?

In the AV:

Luke 2:14 Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

In some modern version, such as the ESV:

Luke 2:14 “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!”

This not just a difference in wording. It reflects a difference in text:

TR (Scrivener’s, 1894): δοξα εν υψιστοις θεω και επι γης ειρηνη εν ανθρωποις ευδοκια

W & H (1881): δοξα εν υψιστοις θεω και επι γης ειρηνη εν ανθρωποις ευδοκιας

It is a difference of one word, and one letter in that word. Is it the nominative ευδοκια, or the genitive ευδοκιας?

External evidence:

Taken from the NA 28:

The traditional reading is supported by the following: second corrector of Aleph, second corrector of B, K, L, P, Gamma, Delta, Theta, Xi, Psi, family 1, family 13, 565, 579, 700, 892, 1241, 1424, 2541, Lectionary 844, and the Majority Text. Among the versions it is the reading of the Syriac Harklean and the Coptic Boharic. Among the early church writers, it is found in Origin (in part), Eusebius, and Epiphaneus.

The modern reading is supported by the original hand of Aleph, A, the original hand of B, D, and W. Among the versions, the NA28 lists the Stuttgart Vulgate (2007) and the Sahidic (with some variations). Among the early church writers, it lists Cyril of Jerusalem.

Note: The NA 28 also lists a variant in the Old Latin, Clementine Vulgate, and Latin translation of Irenaeus that is closer to the modern text reading (hominibus bonae voluntatis).

Note: The modern text shows its typical favoring of the readings found in Aleph and B.

The supporting Greek evidence is particularly weak.

Pickering notes that the traditional text is supported by 99.4% of extant Greek mss., and the modern critical text only by 0.4%.

If this was the authentic reading, why was it almost completely ignored (not copied) in later generations?

Internal evidence:

See Metzger’s Commentary, which gives the modern text a {B} rating in his first edition, upgraded to an {A} rating in the second edition.

Meztzger says the noun in the genitive is the “more difficult reading,” adding, “The rise of the nominative reading can be explained either as an amelioration of the sense or as a paleographical oversight…”

If we assume the nominative is original, however, why could we not just as well see the genitive as an “amelioration of the sense”?

In support of the traditional reading is the fact that by placing “good will” in apposition to “peace” the emphasis might land more on the prepositional phrase “among men.” It is often noted that Luke, likely a Gentile, stresses Christ as the universal Savior of all kinds of men. The angel of the Lord, for example, brings “good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people” (v. 10).

Metzger also suggests that the genitive would bring stress on God’s peace “resting on those whom he had chosen according to his good pleasure” (citing a parallel in the DSS, as noted by the RC scholar J. A. Fitzmyer!).

The modern reading, however, is hardly a more “Calvinistic” one, since it could just as easily be interpreted as implying that the bestowal of God’s peace was conditioned upon the expression of good will by men.

Conclusion:

The external evidence overwhelming supports the traditional text. Reasonable internal arguments plausibly explain why a handful of mss. changed the noun from the nominative to the genitive. The traditional reading was the clear consensus of Christians throughout the ages and should not be abandoned.

A modern pastor tries to explain his preference for the modern text:

Elijah Hixson, Associate Pastor of Fireside Fellowship Church in Kingston, TN in a sermon titled “Glory to God in the Highest” on Luke 2:14 (from December 20, 2020) made an attempt to justify translations based on the modern text.

Though Hixson never clearly addressed the issues by providing specifics as to why the traditional text should be abandoned and the modern affirmed, he picks up on the fact that people will be bothered by the changes being made in modern translations and attempts preemptively to allay their fears.

In the end, Linus got it right:

The climax of the Charlie Brown Christmas Special (originally released in 1965) gets it right, by using the traditional translation based on the traditional text. And no one even needs Mark Ward to explain it to them using modern words!!!!

JTR

WM 217: Rejoinder to Hixson on the TR and "Getting the Data Right"

 

Notes for WM 217:

I’m just getting back in the groove after a recent trip to London where I was honored to speak in the “Day of Special Studies” for the School of Theology at the Metropolitan Tabernacle Church, where on Saturday, November 27, 2021 I gave three lectures on the theme “The War Against An Authentic Biblical Text,” which are now posted to my WM channel (find links here).

While still in England, I was made aware of a blog post that appeared on the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog on December 1, 2021, which offered a critique of a statement, taken out of context, from a recent podcast interview I had done with Dwayne Green.

In this episode I want to offer a rejoinder to this blog post and what I believe are its misrepresentations regarding my point on the unity of the readings found in the classic printed Protestant editions of the TR.

Background:

Here is a bit of the background: I did an interview via Zoom with Dwayne Green, a Pentecostal Pastor from Canada, back on November 11, 2021. I think we spoke for nearly two hours.

He then took the video material, edited it (according to the sometimes jumpy and humorous style he uses in his blogcast), and he released the interview in three segments over several days.

The third of those videos was posted on November 29, 2021 and was titled “Which TR does the Traditional Text Use?”

Just two days after the release of that third video (December 1, 2021), Elijah Hixson, associate pastor of the Fireside Fellowship Church in Kingston, TN, posted a “longish post” (as he put it) on the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog, responding to a statement, taken out of context, which I had made in that video with respect to the so-called “Which TR?” objection.

His post was titled, “On the Comma Johanneum, ‘Which TR?’ and working from inadequate data.”

Some general things I found interesting about Hixson’s post:

There were a couple of rather interesting things overall about Pastor Hixson’s post.

First, Pastor Hixson begins by telling his readers that he did this post “only because I care about data and getting it right.” He provides a link to the podcast interview, but he only cites one statement from me in the written article (and even that was not cited as a direct quotation), out of context, and, oddly enough, never bothers directly to mention my name or to offer any analysis for the background for the conversation.

This reminds me of the way a certain Popular Internet Apologist (PIA) used to respond to my material on his podcast. Yes, I get the irony of the fact that I did not mention the PIA’s name in the previous sentence.

Wouldn’t it make sense for someone who wants to “get the data right” to be clear about whose work he’s critiquing?

Pastor Hixson also makes an odd reference later to another anonymous “TR Advocate” whom he accuses of committing a supposed logical fallacy (the “True Scotsman”) argument. This may also be a reference to yours truly, but I’m not sure, because Pastor Hixson provides no name, reference, or context for this charge.

My sense is that by this comment Pastor Hixson may be attempting to respond preemptively to the objection he knows I will raise against his misrepresentation of my quoted statement. Namely, he knows that that my statement was with respect to all the classic, mature, Protestant printed editions, that they contain Matthew 6:13b, Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53—8:11, Acts 8:37, and 1 John 5:7b-8a—but more on this later.

Second, those in the TR community are well familiar with Pastor Hixson and his frequent offers of online “help,” because he only cares “about the data and getting it right.”  I remember a conversation I had with one TR advocate a few years ago who noted that Pastor Hixson seems to be a ubiquitous presence on all social media sites dedicated to textual criticism and he’s often quick to offer his brand  of neutral “corrections” to anyone promoting the traditional text. Yes, he is quite a disinterested and objective observer of these things.

Third, it is interesting that Pastor Hixson is apparently now listening to video and audio podcasts (given that he linked the video interview with Dwayne Green and made this “longish post” on my comments, taken out of context, from it). This is interesting, because in past online interactions with Pastor Hixson, when I suggested he listen to my WM podcast to understand statements I had made in context, he responded that he always preferred written content and never listened to podcasts or watched online videos, because he found these hard to engage his restless and active mind. I guess his opinion and practices on podcasts and videos has changed.

Now, let’s get down to the nitty gritty of his objections, and you can judge for yourself whether he “got the data right.”

What was my contested statement?

So, what was the one statement from the roughly two hours of conversation that I had with Dwayne Green to which Pastor Hixson takes exception in his article. It was this one, which I will try to cite verbatim from the recording:

“All of those printed editions of the TR included Mark 16:9-20; all of them included John 7:53—8:11; all of them included the doxology of the Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6:13b); all of them included the Ethiopian eunuch’s confession in Acts 8:37; all of them included the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7-8), so the differences between them are relatively minor….”

What was Hixson’s assessment?

Pastor Hixson declares, “that statement simply is not true.”

He then proceeded to cite several early printed editions of the Greek NT that do not include the doxology of Matthew 6:13b (the Complutensian Polyglot), the Ethiopian eunuch’s confession (the Complutensian Polyglot), or the CJ (Erasmus’ first two editions [1516, 1519], the Aldine [1518], Gerbellius’ edition [1521], Köpfel’s edition [1524], and Colinaeus’ edition [1534]).

He also makes a reference to the fact that the CJ did not appear in the first edition of Luther’s German NT, since he followed the second edition of Erasmus (1519), and to the fact that the CJ appears in “brackets in smaller type” in an English translation, the Matthew’s Bible (1537).

The flaw in Hixson’s critique:

The basic flaw in Pastor Hixson’s critique of my statement is his assumption of what I meant by “the printed editions of the TR.”

Granted, I should also have been clearer and will try to do so in the future to avoid any confusion.

By “printed editions of the TR” I was not referring to all early printed editions of the Greek NT, but specifically to the classic, mature, Protestant printed editions of the TR, which served as the basis for the Protestant vernacular translations of the Reformation and Post-Reformation (Protestant Orthodox) eras.

Another anonymous charge Pastor Hixson levels in his article is: “Instead of dealing with that question [the ‘Which TR’ objection], some TR defenders seem to brush it off as irrelevant.”

I’m not sure if he counts me among this anonymous group of “some TR defenders.”

I did post a blog article on the topic back in 2019 in response to a “Which TR?” critique offered by Dirk Jongkind, and I have continued to expand on and clarify that response in various contexts.

My friend Vince Krivda has also written an extended article on the topic, titled, “Which TR?! A Response to Mark Ward’s Critique of Confessional Bibliology.” I’m sure Pastor Hixson would want to “get the data right” by acknowledging these responses.

In my aforementioned blogpost, I have tried to offer a confessional response to the “Which TR?” objection and to clarify what I mean when I appeal to the printed editions of the TR. Here’s an excerpt from the post as it currently stands:

First, it is important to point out that there is no single “perfect” printed edition of the TR. This does not mean, however, that the various printed editions of the TR taken collectively fail to provide for us a reasonable and reliable witness to the received text.

At the Text and Canon Conference Jonathan Arnold made mention of the TBS’s helpful “Statement of Doctrine of Holy Scripture” which, for the NT, refers to the received text as “a group of printed texts” adding that “the scope of the Society’s Constitution does not extend to considering the minor variations between the printed editions of the Textus Receptus.”

Second, we should not let the fact that such minor variations exist among the various printed editions of the TR overshadow the fact that those editions are overwhelmingly uniform and, particularly so, with regard to those places where there are major differences with the modern critical text. All the classic Protestant printed editions of the TR, for example, include the doxology of the Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6:13b), the traditional ending of Mark, “the only begotten Son” at John 1:18, the PA, Acts 8:37, “God was manifest in the flesh” at 1 Timothy 3:16, the CJ, etc.

As for the remaining minor variations, each of these, should be evaluated on a case by case basis. If this is done, I believe that most of them will be easily resolved, while only a few will call for more careful deliberation.

I later added:

The editions which should be primarily consulted are the classic Protestant ones of Stephanus and Beza, based on Erasmus' foundational work. The Elzevir editions should also be consulted, but with the understanding that they appeared after most of the translations of the TR had first been made into the modern languages of Europe.

Given this context, it should be clear that when I made reference to “all the printed editions of the TR” including the various passages mentioned, I was not speaking about every early printed editions of the Greek NT, but the classic, mature, Protestant printed editions of the TR, as epitomized in those of Stephanus, Beza, and, later, the Elzevirs.

Let me briefly review the six early printed editions of the Greek NT, which Pastor Hixson cites:

First: The Complutensian Polyglot was a RC edition of the Greek NT, produced in Spain under the authority of Cardinal Ximenes. It is hardly surprising then that, following the Latin Vulgate, it did not include Matthew 6:13b.

Second: The Aldine edition was also produced in a RC context in Venice in 1518. Luther did not appear before the Diet of Worms until 1521. It is not a Protestant printed edition of the TR. In addition, its NT followed the first edition of Erasmus, so it is not an independent witness for the omission of the CJ.

Third: Pastor Hixson also cites the omission of the CJ from the first two editions of Erasmus (1516, 1519). Erasmus’ Greek NT was indeed foundational for the TR, but it was not a Protestant printed edition either. We should also note that the CJ was included in Erasmus’ third, fourth, and fifth editions (1522, 1527, 1536). The standard for Erasmus’s printed Greek NT should not be the first two which he later corrected, but the final, corrected, and complete editions, as affirmed by the Protestant orthodox.

Given his stated emphatic desire, to “get the data right,” surely Pastor Hixson would not suggest that I did not know that the Erasmus’ first and second printed editions of the Greek NT omitted the CJ. After all, I published a scholarly article in 2017 in the PRJ titled “Erasmus Anecdotes” which discussed extensively the “rash wager” legend related to the CJ’s inclusion in the third edition of his Greek NT.

Fourth: As I understand it, Gerbellius was a humanist and not a full-throated Protestant. My guess is that his edition (1521) was based on the earlier editions of Erasmus, so it is not an independent example of the omission of the CJ.

Fifth: Köpfel’s edition (1524) would have appeared in the early stages of the Reformation, so it was not a mature Protestant edition. I also assume that like the Gerbellius edition it was likely based on one or both of the first two editions of Erasmus.

I might add here that Pastor Hixson mentions Luther’s omission of the CJ in first edition of his German NT, but he concedes that it was later added to the German Bible, as indeed this reflected the Protestant consensus.

Sixth: The Colinaeus edition (1534) also could not possibly be classified as a mature Protestant edition of the TR. This is another case where I am sure that Pastor Hixon in his zeal to “get the data right” would not want to overlook the fact that I published a 2017 academic article, also in the PRJ, titled “John Calvin and Text Criticism” in which I noted Calvin’s distinct transition from using the Greek text of Colinaeus in his commentaries and the writings of his early ministry to making use of the printed TR of Stephanus in this mature ministry. In my article, I lean heavily on the research of renowned Calvin scholar T. H. L. Parker, who notes that Colinaeus’ NT was astonishingly “modern” (see p. 135 in my article) and suggests Calvin made the transition under the influence of Stephanus. Perhaps Pastor Hixson would accuse Parker of committing the “True Scotsman” fallacy by concluding that Colinaeus’ Greek NT was not a “true” Protestant TR!

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the fatal flaw in Pastor Hixson’s critique of my statement, taken out of context from a podcast conversation, was his failure to draw a distinction between the early printed editions of the Greek NT and the classic, mature Protestant editions of the TR. My statement referred to the latter and not the former.

Pastor Hixson gives great weight in his argument to a 1999 QR article by G. W. and D. E. Anderson, which also appears on the TBS website, and which offers a broad survey of the printed editions of the Greek NT and does indeed describe them in the broadest sense as “editions of the Textus Receptus.” Pastor Hixson does not, however, give proper attention to the focus given by the Andersons at the conclusion of this article to the later mature editions of the TR, produced by Stephanus and Beza, and especially to Scrivener’s edition (1894), still kept in print by the TBS, as a standard representation of the TR. Clearly, the authors of the article give greater weight to the later Protestant editions of the TR, as opposed to earlier printed editions of the Greek NT, which served as forerunners to it.

The Anderson article, in fact, makes the point that the term “Textus Receptus” was not coined until the second edition of the Elzevirs in 1633.

It would be a gross misrepresentation of the Anderson article to suggest that either the Andersons or the TBS would endorse as legitimate any printed edition of the Greek NT that omitted Matthew 6:13b, Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53—8:11, Acts 8:37, or 1 John 5:7-8.

In the end, it is interesting to consider that even without making a distinction between the earlier printed editions of the Greek NT and the later classic Protestant editions of the TR, Hixson could find so few differences among them. Even among the earliest printed editions of the Greek NT, he could cite none that excluded the traditional ending of Mark or the PA, only one that omitted the doxology of the Lord’s Prayer and the Ethiopian Eunuch’s confession (the Complutensian), and only a handful that omitted the most controversial CJ (and all those are most likely based on the first two editions of Erasmus, later corrected by Erasmus himself).

Pastor Hixson’s study, oddly enough, actually demonstrates how relatively uniform the printed editions of the Greek NT (whether early printed editions or the mature Protestant TR editions) were until the nineteenth century.

Pastor Hixson essentially concedes as much toward the end of his post when he states, “At the end of the day, one could argue that there was eventually a consensus and that these examples don’t actually matter.”

What he claims to take issue with is the assertion “that TRs all agree in these ‘major’ passages, and they only disagree in ‘minor’ places.”

He pronounces, “That claim is demonstrably untrue—there’s just no way around it.”

Again, the problem is with Pastor Hixson’s misrepresentation of what I meant by “printed editions of the TR.” I did not mean the Complutensian, the first two editions of Erasmus, and Colinaeus. I meant the mature Protestant editions of the TR produced by the Protestant orthodox, like Stephanus and Beza. In fact, they do share a consensus on the text. They do agree in the major passages, and generally only have minor differences. This claim is not untrue, and there is just no way around it.

Let me deal finally with what I found to perhaps the most interesting statement from Pastor Hixson at the end of the post. He states, “If somebody wants to use a particular edition because textual criticism is hard and they have a hard time evaluating modern text-critical claims but they trust they will be safe if they use an edition that God has used for a few hundred years, I have absolutely no problem with that.”

Pastor Hixson is essentially saying that if you hold to the TR (“a particular edition”), you do so for three reasons:

First, “because textual criticism is hard.” In other words, you hold to the TR, because you’re lazy.

Second, because “they have a hard time evaluating modern text-critical claims.” In other words, you hold to the TR because you’re dim-witted.

Third, because “they trust they will be safe if they use an edition that God has used for a few hundred years.” In other words, if you hold to the TR, it is because you are insecure. Notice also that the traditional text, according to Pastor Hixson, has only been used by God “for a few hundred years.” So, God apparently used another text (or texts) before the TR, he used the TR for a couple hundred years, and now he’s moved on to yet another text. If you think that God will preserve the Word and keep it pure in all ages, it’s because you suffer from emotional insecurity.

And the last part: If you are clinging to the wrong Bible, Pastor Hixon has “absolutely no problem with that.” His only concern is that you “get the data right.”

So, to sum up, if you hold to the TR, you’re lazy, dim-witted, and insecure. But if you don’t want to open your eyes, Pastor Hixson is fine with you living in the dark.

Thank goodness we have people like Pastor Hixon defending the modern text against those uncharitable and unenlightened “TR-Onlyists.”

I think everyone listening will join with me in thanking Pastor Hixson for condescending to share his insights with us, to help us “get the data right.”

JTR

WM 152: Hixson, Mark's Ending, Medieval Scribes, and Modern Bibles

I have posted WM 152: Hixson, Mark's Ending, Medieval Scribes, and Modern Bibles. Listen here.

In this episode I offer a review of an article by Elijah Hixson titled "Was Mark 16:9-20 originally part of Mark's Gospel?" which appeared on the Gospel Coalition blog on 2.13.20. Read the article here.

Here are a few resources I mentioned in my review:

On the ending of Mark:

Jeffrey T. Riddle, "The Ending of Mark as a Canonical Crisis", Puritan Reformed Journal (2018).

On the Syriac and Mark's ending:

WM 98: The Ending of Mark, the Syriac, and Metzger

On the "romance" of uncertainty:

WM 90: The Sin of Certainty by Peter Enns

Blessings, JTR

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