Subject: Re: Canons of Criticism (part2)

From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 17:51:02 -0700

(Response to Maurice Robinson - Part 2 of 2)

> I still consider the Book of Mormon comparison as apt, since
> within its pages certain KJV passages can be verbally confirmed in many
> places, which demonstrates that the now-lost Golden Plates similarly had
> access to some of those very same "thousands" of MSS which had
> perished.... (And I am being facetious).

Do you still consider it apt?

>
> > Although
> > the Byz txt is not in complete harmony with the TR, it is close. That
> > cannot be said of the book of Mormon's relation to the "plates".
>
> How can you say yea or nay in their absence?  It is a faith assumption,
> plain and simple. Ask any Mormon.

OK. It *is* a faith assumption (although I may call it something else),
but it is *only* a "faith assumption" in those places in the TR which do
*not* have manuscript attestation. And that's very few. There is not
much "absence" with regard to the TR. There is *total* absence with
regard to the book of Mormon.

>
> > Also, I
> > do not claim that an angel or a heavenly vision showed me the "original
> > readings".
>
> You claim instead of an angel that God Himself directly molded the text
> into the TR form under Erasmus and later printed TR successors through his
> "divine providential preservation" mechanism.  Since God thus altered the
> text in over 1800 places from the reigning Byzantine majority by this
> hypothesis, the parallel to the angel and the book of Mormon is still apt.

Isn't it even more *logical* to assume that God worked forth His will
through *men* over a long period of time through many persons? The TR
text has been transmitted by several sensible men, who in turn have
gathered readings from ancient (and less ancient) sources. This is far
from true with regard to the book of Mormon.

As I said earlier, I do not consider providential preservation to be
necessarily *miraculous* or *perfect*. It was not "mechanism".

Dr. Hills stated that
        "....providential preservation did not cease with the invention
of printing. Hence the formation of the Textus Receptus was God-guided"
(KJV Defended, p.113). Later in his book, Dr. Hills comments on the
readings which Erasmus introduced from other sources than the Byz txt,
especially from the Latin:
        "Are the readings which Erasmus thus introduced into the Textus
Receptus necessarily erroneous? By no means ought we to infer this. For
it is inconceivable that the divine providence which had preserved the
New Testament text during the long ages of the manuscript period should
blunder when at last this text was committed to the printing press.
According to the analogy of faith, then, we conclude that the Textus
Receptus was a further step in God's providential preservation of the
New Testament text and that these few Latin Vulgate readings which were
incorporated into the Textus Receptus were genuine readings which had
been preserved in the usage of the Latin-speaking Church. Erasmus, we may
well believe, was guided providentially by the common faith to include
these readings in his printed Greek New Testament text. In the Textus
Receptus God corrected the few mistakes of any consequence which yet
remained in the Traditional New Testament text of the majority of the
Greek manuscripts" (ibid. p.200).
This is Hills' view. I have adopted his view, so consequently it's my
view, too! :-)

(Had Dr. Hills also a "Mormon view" on the text?)
:-)

Hills even goes so far as to say that
        "Since the formation of the Textus Receptus was God-guided, the
translation of it was God-guided also" (ibid.)

>
> > There are even ancient sources for nearly *every word* in the TR! There
> > are MSS, Fathers, Versions, Lectionaries, etc. Is anything similar the
> > case with the book of Mormon?
>
> There doesn't have to be, since it is a faith assumption.

Don't forget that MSS, Fathers, Versions, Lectionaries, etc. *are*
evidence! It's not *only* "faith assumption". Even the TR editions are
"evidence" in my line of thinking! But in the final analysis, it *must*
be accepted by faith. Even the Byzantine priority position must be
accepted by "faith". For you have not seen any of the originals. True,
there *is* evidence in the MS sources, but it is not absolute proof
that these copies are representative of the original text, much less
that *God* inspired the text. It must be received by faith.

> But don't
> forget all those KJV passages within the Book of Mormon.  As for the
> "ancient sources", it seems that the same could be said of the Byzantine
> Textform far more than the TR, but also for the Alexandrian and Western
> texttypes also.  So this proves nothing, except what Bentley said about
> "pick and choose as you will" among the variant readings, choosing even
> the worst by design if you prefer, yet the main thrust and message of the
> NT will remain intact, and no major doctrinal shift will occur.

The acceptance of the TR is not a "pick and choose as you will"
operation. TR is, in my view, a providential preserved text. That's not
*your* view, so naturally you do not find the argumentation behind it
convincing!

>
> If the TR advocates would simply claim that the TR was a "reasonably
> adequate" text reflective of Reformation-era scholarship and practice,
> which still could be used today with profit -- I think none of us would
> have a major objection.  The problem comes in claiming what amounts to an
> unwarranted assertion that the TR (especially the Scrivener edition) "is"
> the autograph text, and that all other texts are not what God has
> "providentially preserved".

I admit that both the Byz txt and the TR have been providential
preserved, and to a lesser degree the Latin Vulgate, as Dr. Hills did.
But I reject (as Hills did) that *all* MSS are the fulfilment of
providential preservation. But since most MSS have a Byzantine text, I
would say that *almost* all MSS are providential preserved!!
But for *our own* time, I believe (again, as Hills did) that the TR,
in particular Scrivener's reconstruction, is the providential preserved
text and that the Scrivener edition is the *best* form of the TR!! God
has *preserved* a historical continued form of the text up to today, for
our use. (Oh yes, I know you disagree *strongly*, but that's my view!)

> But for whatever reason (and I suspect the
> modern KJV-only movement is the primary cause), the TR-as-autograph issue
> has come to the fore among a small faction, and a warped view of textual
> transmission and criticism is somehow co-opted into the support of their
> theory.  Why must this take place?  Why is it not sufficient merely to
> claim "reasonable adequacy" and merely "prefer" to use the TR or KJV
> without making those two items into the one and only touchstone?  That is
> the part that is beyond me.

The reason for this is simple (I speak only for myself): I believe that
the TR (the KJV TR) is the providentially preserved text for our use
today. You may call it a "faith assumption", but that's not the whole
picture. It is partly faith, but it's also *evidence*, namely the Byz
MSS, Fathers quotations, Versions, Lectionaries, and the TR editions!

>
> > And, BTW, the "plates" were *translated*, not *copied*!
>
> So was the Latin Vulgate, yet it also provides a "reasonably adequate"
> reflection of the autographs.

But not relative to my point. The fully God-preseved text is in Greek.

>
> > > This is NOT textual criticism; it's not "heresy"; it's absurdity, plain
> > > and simple.
> >
> > Please feel free to maintain that opinion.
>
> Thank you.

I feel fine!

Thanks...

(end)

-- 
- Mr. Helge Evensen