Broad Oak Piety: Why the Woman Taken in Adultery is Scripture

 

I enjoyed having this conversation with Ryan and Joey on the Broad Oak Piety podcast this week.

JTR

Jots & Tittles, Episode 1: Does 2 Kings 22-23 justify modern textual reconstruction?

 

I have started a new short form podcast titled Jots & Tittles. Here is the first episode.

JTR

WM 235: Preaching the Traditional Ending of Mark

 

JTR

WM 234: James White's Long Answer to a Short Question on Preservation

 

I recorded this WM on Saturday (4.16.22) and just got around to posting it today.

You can listen to the full video being partially reviewed in this WM here.

I made reference to Maurice A. Robinson's refutation of "the shortest reading is best" argument employed by JW in his essay, "The Case for Byzantine Priority."

JTR

John A. Broadus's Commentary on Matthew, the Doxology of the Lord's Prayer, and a Providential Irony

Note: Article adopted from tweets this week (@Riddle1689).

I got this copy of John Broadus's Commentary on Matthew (1886) in the mail this week. I’m preaching through Matthew on Sunday mornings and found this for only $10 on amazon.

The Broadus commentary on Matthew is a whopper. After 51 pp. of front matter, including a 43-page general series intro by A. Hovey and an author's preface, the commentary and indices extend to 610 pp.

Sad to see inroads of modern textual criticism in Broadus's Matthew Commentary (1886). Hovey's intro zealously extols Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. The Preface notes it follows "the Common English Version... but with constant comparison of the recent Anglo-American revision" (xlix).

One way that Broadus’s Matthew Commentary (1886) shows the inroads of modern textual criticism comes in its complete rejection of the authenticity of the doxology of the Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6:13b).

Broadus writes: “The doxology to this prayer in Comm. Ver. Is beyond all question spurious and rightly omitted by Rev. Ver. We may give up the pleasing and familiar words with regret, but surely it is more important to know what the Bible really contains and really means, than to cling to something not really in the Bible, merely because it gratifies our taste, or even because it has for us some precious associations” (139).

This confident statement contra the doxology’s authenticity is, however, open to challenge (see WM 123).

Within the pages of the commentary, I discovered a colorized devotional card with the Lord’s Prayer, which includes the doxology. I found this a providential irony. Through scholars for over 150 years now have tried to convince us that the doxology is spurious, the Lord’s people keep clinging to it. Is this only to gratify their tastes, or due to “some precious associations”? Or, does it display this tenacity, because it is the inspired Word of God?

JTR

WM 231: Gurry: Should Mark 16:9-20 be treated as Apocrypha?

 

Watch the original video under review here.

JTR

Text Note: Luke 4:18: "to heal the brokenhearted"

 

Image: North Garden, Virginia. March 19, 2022.

From my twitter (@Riddle1689) (3/17/22):

Devotional reading today in Luke 4 on Christ's Nazareth sermon. Sad to see that the modern text omits the phrase "to heal the brokenhearted [ιασασθαι τους συντετριμμενους την καρδιαν]" (v. 18).

The phrase is there in the source of the quotation at Isaiah 61:1, but modern scholars would see its omission as the supposedly "more difficult" reading.

The phrase appears in the early uncial Codex Alexandrinus, and it is the consensus reading of the Majority Text. It's also there in early versions like the Syriac Peshitta.

It's there in all the old Protestant translations (cf. in English: Tyndale, Geneva, KJV) based on the Received Text.

The phrase is missing, however, in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Wescott and Hort, therefore, omitted it from their Greek NT (1881).

It was then omitted from the English Revised Version (1881) and from the other modern translations that flowed from that stream (ASV, RSV, ESV).

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 225: Wasserman on the PA: Not Scripture but should be read in the church?

 

Resources:

Read the original article by Wasserman here.

Read my review of Knust & Wasserman's To Cast the First Stone here.

Watch my lecture defending the authenticity of the PA here.

JTR

WM 224: Peter Van Kleeck, Sr. on Providential Preservation

 

See also WM 213.

JTR

WM 221: J. K. Elliott, Radical Eclecticism, and Academic Respectability

 

This episode was prompted by seeing a promotional flyer for an upcoming CSNTM conference in Dallas  in which various top scholars in the field of textual criticism will be presenting papers.

One of the breakout speakers (topic unlisted) is J. K. Elliott, emeritus professor at the University of Leeds, UK.

This brought to my mind Elliot’s chapter contribution to the 2008 book Perspectives on the Ending of Mark, especially his closing comments aimed it seems, in particular, at evangelicals or traditional Christians involved in academic textual criticism.

Elliott represents an approach known as thoroughgoing or radical eclecticism.

See the description in D. A. Black, NT Textual Criticism (1994): 37.

There are actually some parallels between this view and the Confessional Text position in that (1) it is skeptical of reconstruction based on the external evidence: (2) it affirms the NT text on an alternative basis (internal evidence; thoroughgoing eclecticism) [cf. the TR, which is also skeptical of empirical reconstruction of the extant external evidence and affirms the text based on “providential preservation”].

So, let’s turn and read the conclusion to Elliott’s article: “The Last Twelve Verses Original or Not? in Perspectives on the Ending of Mark (80-102).

He rejects the Traditional Ending of Mark (TE) on internal grounds, concluding that its “content and theology” are “uncharacteristic of Mark elsewhere” (87). Adding that the TE demonstrates a “significant difference in the language and style” (87). He later adds, “It is an inferior piece of writing, plodding and grey, compared with Mark’s racy, simple, and colloquial writing elsewhere” (91).

Nevertheless, the sees the TE, through secondary, as early and even suggests it might have been composed as a conclusion to the fourfold Gospel collection in the Western order (Matt-Luke-John-Mark) (see 92-93).

See, in particular, his conclusion (99-102).

To summarize:

1.    He misunderstands the meaning of the terms “inerrancy” and “infallibility” as relating to meticulous transmission of the text without scribal errors. Who holds this position? He attacks a straw man.

2.    He rejects the Reformed doctrine of providential preservation. If the original is there, it is there by “sheer chance” (100).

3.    He affirms the Ausgangstext calling it “as close as scholarship enables one to get to the possible original” (99).

4.    He rejects any notion that canon and the original text are interrelated categories. For Elliott the canonical text is not the original text. This means there can be authentic Jesus material not in the canon, and there can be inauthentic Jesus material within the canon.

Overall reflection:

Elliott’s conclusion reflects the confused state of contemporary textual criticism. Those evangelicals who choose to engage in this discipline seem to me to reflect essentially the same worldview and reach the same uncertain conclusions as Elliott (even though they may reject his radical eclecticism).

Anyone considering the academic study of religion should read Iain Murray’s book Evangelicalism Divided (Banner of Truth, 2000) and especially chapter 7, “’Intellectual Respectability’ and the Scripture.” At one point he writes:

“I turn now to the consequence which always follows a lowered view of Scripture. It is that biblical truth becomes a matter of possibilities and probabilities rather than of certainties” (197-198).

Correction note: FYI. In the podcast I assumed the CSNTM conference was formally associated with Dallas Seminary. Looking at the conference info I realize it may not be. 

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 219: Changing Goals of Modern Text Criticism Revisited

 

First WM of 2022. Recorded this on 1/11/22 but had some editing to do and just posted today.

JTR

Book Review: Jeffrey D. Johnson, Behind the Bible: A Primer on Textual Criticism

 

You can read the written version of the review here.

JTR

WM 218: Doxology or Devil? A Case for the Longer Ending of the Lord's Prayer

Thanks to Brett Mahlen and Christian McShaffrey for joining me on this episode to discuss their recent article, "Doxology or Devil? A Case for the Longer Ending of the Lord's Prayer," Puritan Reformed Journal, Vol. 13, No. 2 (2021): 21-31. You can find a link to the article here.

JTR

2022 Kept Pure in All Ages Conference: July 22-23

 

I'm looking forward to the next Kept Pure in All Ages Conference in Reedsburg, Wisconsin, scheduled for Friday-Saturday, July 22-23, 2022.

JTR

Day of Special Studies at Metropolitan Tabernacle: The War Against An Authentic Biblical Text

 

I have posted the three lectures I did at Metropolitan Tabernacle, London last Saturday (11.27.21) to the Word Magazine channel.

You can also view the lectures on the Met Tab's School of Theology 2021 web site here.

JTR

Podcast Interview (Part Three) with Dwayne Green: Which TR Does the Traditional Text Use? Can CT Advocates and TR Advocates Work Together?

 

 

 

JTR

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

 

JTR

Podcast Interview (Part One) with Dwayne Green: Are You A TR Onlyist?

Here is the first part from an interview I did with Dwayne Green on his podcast related to text and translation of Scripture.

JTR