Yesterday, I recorded and posted Word Magazine 52 (listen
here). This is the fourth and final
episode in a series of reviews of RB apologist James White’s text presentation
on Apologia radio/tv (listen here).
In this episode I make reference to my text note
on John 5:3b-4 and to WM
# 39: Should John 5:3b-4 be in the
Bible?
I also refer to my online debate with apologist Jamin Hubner
and my response to his use of the “puzzle pieces” illustration for modern text
criticism (see
this post). JW uses the same
illustration and cites the source as Rob Bowman (as cited by Dan Wallace). I believe this illustration shows the problem
with the modern restorationist approach, rather than inspiring confidence in
it.
In this episode we do get to the heart of the matter. Is the modern critical approach to text and
preservation espoused by JW and others consistent with the perspective in
chapter one of the WCF or the 2LBCF 1689?
The modern view suggests the Word of God is preserved in the
mass of corrupted copies and that only in the modern age have scholars been
able to approximate the elusive original autographa.
The confessional view suggests that the divine originals of
the immediately inspired Word of God have been preserved in the apographa (copies) which accurately
reflects the autographa. It stresses preservation not restoration.
Here are excerpts from the quotes I shared on this point:
Richard A. Muller on the orthodox Protestant view of text and
preservation: “The case for the
Scripture as an infallible rule of faith and practice and the separate
arguments for a received text free from the major (i.e., non-scribal) errors rests
on an examination of the apographa
and does not seek infinite regress of the lost autographa as a prop for textual infallibility” (Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics,
Volume 2, p. 433).
John Owen on text and preservation: “… We add, that the whole Scripture, entire as given out by God, without any loss,
is preserved in the copies of the
originals yet remaining…. Indeed, in
them all, we say, is every letter and tittle of the word. These copies, we say, are the rule, standard,
and touchstone of all translations, ancient or modern, by which they are in all
things to be examined, tried, corrected, amended; and themselves only by
themselves” (Collected Works, Vol.
16, p. 357).
JTR
1 comment:
I really appreciate your work on this issue. I'm listening to this audio series now, which I found on Confessional Bibliology -- Pericope de Adulterae. I've recently rekindled my interest in the Bible, and I've been doing a lot of reading and studying lately. I read T. Letis' "Ecclesiastical Text" when it came out, and I learned NT Greek about the same time (20 years ago?) so I'm familiar with issues of textual criticism. I'm glad I found your articles and audios. Again, thank for the work you've done on this issue. I'll be waiting for more!
Post a Comment