Outstanding. Consistent and sound. This is what is missing in so much of the Reformed conversations on this topic. There’s a reason the Westminster Assembly included preservation in the first chapter. It’s essential.
I believe that this is a very well explanation of this issue of modern day textual criticism. What has happened today with christians is that this position that critical text advocates have caused believers to have an another mediator between them and God and it's not Christ. It is the Scholar(s) and scribe(s). This is basically what the Catholics did in the dark ages with their priests. Cognitive dissonance is the biggest problem with those who advocate for that position.
What’s interesting if you examine the origins of textual criticism it stems from German rationalism, the same source that gives us critical theory, critical race theory, socialism, Marxism and the whole trust the science narrative is the same appeal to authority that we are experiencing with the current technocratic oligarchy that explains why we all need experimental gene therapy. I would like to be more direct but this will get flushed down the memory hole.
There's an argument to be made that the origins of the German school of textual criticism are actually within Romanian Catholicism, and especially within the Jesuit Faction. In "A Disputation On Holy Scripture", William Whitaker (16th century English divine) defends the preservation of the Hebrew OT & Greek NT against Robert Bellarmine (Jesuit Roman Catholic). Whitaker's work gives us the historical context - the Bellarmine & the Jesuits in the 16th century were attempting to use textual criticism to show that the Hebrew OT & Greek NT had been corrupted in transmission, and hence another authority was required to be over the scriptures, since the scriptures themselves having been corrupted could not be the ultimate authority. The Papists naturally asserted that authority should be the Roman Catholic Magisterium, and that their Latin Vulgate should be the authentic standard. The Modern Critics largely agree with the Papists of the 16th century; both camps agree the Hebrew OT & Greek NT have been corrupted, they simply disagree on who should be the ultimate authority over the text. Instead of the Magisterium, the Modern Critics would raise themselves up as the new authority over the corrupted scriptures, who will tell you what is and isn't scripture. In reality without a preserved text the scriptures cannot be the ultimate authority, because there must be a higher authority over them to undo the corruption. Without preservation there is no sola scriptura.
23:10 "We need to Stop thinking that being nice and respectful has anything to do with truth." Yep, the 11th commandment, Thou shalt be nice." has ruled in the churches long enough. Problem is, we have a protected pulpit and you're not allowed to ask questions during or after the sermon, in public. But if women were to keep silent in the churches, it seems that men were allowed to ask questions. And we see that with Jesus and with Paul disputing in the synagogues. It would certainly make Pastors and elders more studied if they knew they were to be queried in every sermon and it would teach the congregation how to do apologetics.
Yes critical text bake the theology of textual criticism into to it in my view. Not the Christian theology. I remember reading Brent Nonbri a paleographer say that the early papyri don't remember which one off the top of my head was date to early and should be pushed up about to the same date as the Vaticanus. Then I stumbled on forum of critical text proponents saying he didn't know talking about and appealed to other paleographers they thought disagreed with him, but then one of those paleographers they appealed had an article on that evangelical textual criticism blogs saying he agreed with Brent Nonbri the early date of that papyri was untenable, and another one of those paleographers they appeal too chimed in and also agreed the date was untenable. I thought that was hilarious. This really did happen. I'm not making this up I swear. The funny thing is Nonbri admitted paleographers also have their own agendas and bias's and our often pressured into ascribing satisfactory date. So if your a Christian paleographer and you believes the Codex Vaticanus for example is the oldest and best your bias is going to be baked into to it, but even if your not you could be pressured by those that hold the view that certain manuscript is oldest and best to giving them a date they like.
I have a sincere question and doubt, even though I myself am convinced by your channel and blog of the TR position. Namely this: it is often said that the received text is what was passed from generation to generation since the time of apostles and has been used in the church always. However, in some centuries the only church in the west was Roman Catholic church (and btw, before 11th century it was quite different from today's RCC). And they used Latin Vulgate which differs from Received text. Is your position that the Received text was used in the East and we should go with the East's tradition, or that it went "underground" for few centuries? (But how to determine that?)
Hi Michael! Interestingly enough, it is the Critical Text position that argues that the text was "missing" for the first couple hundred years because they only allow surviving manuscripts into the evidence record. What I argue for is that the Byzantine text was available from the beginning. The first argument is based on a theological premise that God preserved His Word, and the second is that there are many Byzantine readings in our earliest evidence record. Because we do not have surviving evidence in the 21st century, does not mean that these copies of Scripture did not exist. We can see the Byzantine text all throughout our earliest records and in the writings of the church fathers as well. Dean Burgon has great resources on the Byzantine text in the early church if you are interested in his work. So in short, my position is not that the text was preserved in the eastern tradition, but rather that much of our surviving evidence was.
good teaching bless u quick question is the new king James ok or should we just stick with the king James even when understanding is a little hard thank u brother
well said... the TR can be the autographic text, they cannot prove otherwise... a thing that is considered *superstition* by mainstream "modern scholarship" .... yet, by empirical evidence (or lack thereof) this is perfectly possible.... :-)))
yes, boldness is needed, "bibliological boldness"... let's claim the TR as the autographic NT... to claim that is not near as "bold" as certain claims of many modern text critics re. what is or what is *not* the autographic text of the NT .... :o
Good point Helge. If not a jot or tittle will pass away till heaven and earth pass away, then it logically follows that we have the originals in perfectly copied form. No mistakes. That men will relentlessly attack this statement by Christ is no surprise.
Hey! Would you ever be willing to have a video call or phone call with me about textus receptus stuff?! I’m learning and I’m just really confused but i think my conviction is TR.
Thanks for this video. I agree that Christians must defend the authority of the Bible. Please realize that this is a light vs. darkness issue, a Christ vs. Satan issue, not a conservative vs. liberal or liberal vs. conservative issue. There are Bible believers throughout the political spectrum who agree that the Bible handed down through millennia is the infallible word of God, protected from error by divine grace, that it has always been under attack from Satan, and that Satan inspires many of the "higher critics" who pretend to be Christian theologians. As the Bible says in Ephesians 6:12 (KJV), "We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."
Outstanding. Consistent and sound. This is what is missing in so much of the Reformed conversations on this topic. There’s a reason the Westminster Assembly included preservation in the first chapter. It’s essential.
I wish I could give this one two “thumbs up”!
I believe that this is a very well explanation of this issue of modern day textual criticism. What has happened today with christians is that this position that critical text advocates have caused believers to have an another mediator between them and God and it's not Christ. It is the Scholar(s) and scribe(s). This is basically what the Catholics did in the dark ages with their priests.
Cognitive dissonance is the biggest problem with those who advocate for that position.
Thanks for another thought-provoking video!
What’s interesting if you examine the origins of textual criticism it stems from German rationalism, the same source that gives us critical theory, critical race theory, socialism, Marxism and the whole trust the science narrative is the same appeal to authority that we are experiencing with the current technocratic oligarchy that explains why we all need experimental gene therapy. I would like to be more direct but this will get flushed down the memory hole.
There's an argument to be made that the origins of the German school of textual criticism are actually within Romanian Catholicism, and especially within the Jesuit Faction.
In "A Disputation On Holy Scripture", William Whitaker (16th century English divine) defends the preservation of the Hebrew OT & Greek NT against Robert Bellarmine (Jesuit Roman Catholic).
Whitaker's work gives us the historical context - the Bellarmine & the Jesuits in the 16th century were attempting to use textual criticism to show that the Hebrew OT & Greek NT had been corrupted in transmission, and hence another authority was required to be over the scriptures, since the scriptures themselves having been corrupted could not be the ultimate authority.
The Papists naturally asserted that authority should be the Roman Catholic Magisterium, and that their Latin Vulgate should be the authentic standard.
The Modern Critics largely agree with the Papists of the 16th century; both camps agree the Hebrew OT & Greek NT have been corrupted, they simply disagree on who should be the ultimate authority over the text.
Instead of the Magisterium, the Modern Critics would raise themselves up as the new authority over the corrupted scriptures, who will tell you what is and isn't scripture.
In reality without a preserved text the scriptures cannot be the ultimate authority, because there must be a higher authority over them to undo the corruption. Without preservation there is no sola scriptura.
@@qetoinfinity2086 Well said!
What about the MEV translation that uses the Majority/Received text? Well?
23:10 "We need to Stop thinking that being nice and respectful has anything to do with truth."
Yep, the 11th commandment, Thou shalt be nice." has ruled in the churches long enough. Problem is, we have a protected pulpit and you're not allowed to ask questions during or after the sermon, in public. But if women were to keep silent in the churches, it seems that men were allowed to ask questions. And we see that with Jesus and with Paul disputing in the synagogues. It would certainly make Pastors and elders more studied if they knew they were to be queried in every sermon and it would teach the congregation how to do apologetics.
We are dealing with a Post Modern narrative, not empirical historic facts.
Yes critical text bake the theology of textual criticism into to it in my view. Not the Christian theology. I remember reading Brent Nonbri a paleographer say that the early papyri don't remember which one off the top of my head was date to early and should be pushed up about to the same date as the Vaticanus. Then I stumbled on forum of critical text proponents saying he didn't know talking about and appealed to other paleographers they thought disagreed with him, but then one of those paleographers they appealed had an article on that evangelical textual criticism blogs saying he agreed with Brent Nonbri the early date of that papyri was untenable, and another one of those paleographers they appeal too chimed in and also agreed the date was untenable. I thought that was hilarious. This really did happen. I'm not making this up I swear.
The funny thing is Nonbri admitted paleographers also have their own agendas and bias's and our often pressured into ascribing satisfactory date. So if your a Christian paleographer and you believes the Codex Vaticanus for example is the oldest and best your bias is going to be baked into to it, but even if your not you could be pressured by those that hold the view that certain manuscript is oldest and best to giving them a date they like.
very insightful, as usual.... :)
I have a sincere question and doubt, even though I myself am convinced by your channel and blog of the TR position. Namely this: it is often said that the received text is what was passed from generation to generation since the time of apostles and has been used in the church always. However, in some centuries the only church in the west was Roman Catholic church (and btw, before 11th century it was quite different from today's RCC). And they used Latin Vulgate which differs from Received text. Is your position that the Received text was used in the East and we should go with the East's tradition, or that it went "underground" for few centuries? (But how to determine that?)
Hi Michael! Interestingly enough, it is the Critical Text position that argues that the text was "missing" for the first couple hundred years because they only allow surviving manuscripts into the evidence record. What I argue for is that the Byzantine text was available from the beginning. The first argument is based on a theological premise that God preserved His Word, and the second is that there are many Byzantine readings in our earliest evidence record. Because we do not have surviving evidence in the 21st century, does not mean that these copies of Scripture did not exist. We can see the Byzantine text all throughout our earliest records and in the writings of the church fathers as well. Dean Burgon has great resources on the Byzantine text in the early church if you are interested in his work. So in short, my position is not that the text was preserved in the eastern tradition, but rather that much of our surviving evidence was.
good teaching bless u quick question is the new king James ok or should we just stick with the king James even when understanding is a little hard thank u brother
well said... the TR can be the autographic text, they cannot prove otherwise... a thing that is considered *superstition* by mainstream "modern scholarship" .... yet, by empirical evidence (or lack thereof) this is perfectly possible.... :-)))
yes, boldness is needed, "bibliological boldness"... let's claim the TR as the autographic NT... to claim that is not near as "bold" as certain claims of many modern text critics re. what is or what is *not* the autographic text of the NT .... :o
Good point Helge. If not a jot or tittle will pass away till heaven and earth pass away, then it logically follows that we have the originals in perfectly copied form. No mistakes. That men will relentlessly attack this statement by Christ is no surprise.
Hey! Would you ever be willing to have a video call or phone call with me about textus receptus stuff?! I’m learning and I’m just really confused but i think my conviction is TR.
Sure - you can reach out to me at taylordesoto@protonmail.com
Thanks for this video. I agree that Christians must defend the authority of the Bible. Please realize that this is a light vs. darkness issue, a Christ vs. Satan issue, not a conservative vs. liberal or liberal vs. conservative issue. There are Bible believers throughout the political spectrum who agree that the Bible handed down through millennia is the infallible word of God, protected from error by divine grace, that it has always been under attack from Satan, and that Satan inspires many of the "higher critics" who pretend to be Christian theologians. As the Bible says in Ephesians 6:12 (KJV), "We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."