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