James White and the Received Text (Truelove)

Source and discussion: https://puritanboard.com/threads/james-white-the-received-text.92697/

See also: http://www.jeffriddle.net/2017/05/word-magazine-75-james-white-versus.html?m=1

Advertisements

Artifacts Do Not Necessarily Prove Theology

I came across the following quote while preparing a different post [emphasis mine]:

Epiphanius Bishop of Salamine in Cyprus (A.D. 310 – 403):

“I entered (saith Epiphanius ) into a certain Church to pray: I found there a linen cloth hanging in the Church door, painted, and having in it the image of Christ, as it were, or of some other Saint, (I remember not well whose image it was) therefore when I did see the image of a man hanging in the Church of Christ, contrary to the authority of the Scriptures, I did tear it, and gave counsel to the keepers of the Church, that they should wind a poor man that was dead in the said cloth, and to bury him.” -Letter to John Patriarch of Jerusalem

Source: https://mintdill.wordpress.com/2016/02/29/patristic-scholarship-on-images-of-christ-and-the-second-commandment/

This got me thinking about the discipline of archaeology and the assumptions we can jump to about ancient cultures. If we were to find someone’s remains wrapped in a cloth containing images of God, it would be easy to jump to the conclusion that images of God must have been important and permitted in that society. Yet, the quote above proves that is not necessarily the case. This is something worth keeping in mind, especially as situations like this could also have bearing on the textual debate.

It’s Not An Argument Between Scholarship and Non-Scholarship

Theodore Letis, The Majority Text: Essays And Reviews In The Continuing Debate, from the essay, “In Reply to D.A. Carson’s ‘The King James Version Debate‘ ” :

La dispute“If D.A. Carson’s book illustrates nothing else it shows there are two schools of thought. Both schools interpret the data of NT textual criticism and modern translations differently, and both groups fill in the gaps in the data with assumptions which favor their given position. I hope some are beginning to see that this is not an argument between scholarship (the established school represented by Carson) and non-scholarship (the challenging school which has traditionally been treated as non-scholarly and completely uncritical). To the contrary, the best representatives of both schools display genuine scholarship. Why is it, then, that these two schools co-exist on this all-important issue of the very wording of the NT text? And is this a recent or a long-standing debate? It is these questions that we hope to broach—and answer—in this essay. . .”

Source: http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/86687-Text-Tradition-of-New-Testaments, Comment #14

Is Modern Textual Criticism Reliable?


HT: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/modern-textual-criticism-reliable-75469/