Back in November of 2019, Taylor DeSoto ("TD") posted a "Crash Course in the Textual Discussion," in which he made the following odd assertion related to Revelation 16:5: "Many advocates of the MCT are quick to point out that the TR does not have Greek manuscript support for Revelation 16:5, but the MCT also has readings that do not have Greek manuscript support, like 2 Peter 3:10, mentioned above. This does not mean that the verses cannot be supported, just that it is rather hypocritical that many MCT advocates demand extant manuscript support when there were manuscripts available at one time that may have had a reading."
This argument is poorly written and even more poorly thought through. First, hypocrisy by "advocates of the MCT" is not an argument for TD's position or against the alleged hypocrites' position. Hypocrisy is a moral failing.
Second, the fact that the NA28 has two readings without Greek manuscript support does not excuse "the TR" for having a reading without Greek manuscript support. If the criticism of the TR is legitimate, then it is also a legitimate criticism of the reading of the NA28 at 2 Peter 3:10. The fact that the main text of the NA28 can be improved does not imply that the TR cannot be improved.
Third, we could improve TD's argument to say that the critics of the TR are being inconsistent by adopting a reading without Greek manuscript evidence (at 2 Peter 3:10) while rejecting the TR reading at Revelation 16:5, which lacks Greek manuscript evidence. However, the critics of the TR could improve their criticism either by (1) acknowledging that the NA28 main text does need improvement (a position taken by some "MCT advocates" including all that hold that the doctrine of preservation entails God preserving the Scriptures in the original languages) or (2) by arguing a more nuanced point (which is what the remainder of the "MCT advocates" -- including the editors that adopted the reading -- would do).
Fourth, the claim that "there were manuscripts available at one time that may have had a reading" is simply an appeal to ignorance. What "may have" been is not evidence one way or another.
Fifth, a sharper version of the "manuscripts available" argument would be to argue that Beza's revision of the text he received was based on a manuscript. That said, there is a sound basis to think that no manuscripts had such a reading. More on this point in other posts.
Two days after the post above (going by the date stamps of the posts) TD posted "A Summary of the Confessional Text Position," and two days after that a commenter going by "RS" engaged Taylor DeSoto ("TD") in the comment box of TD's "Summary" post.
I assume that the original comments (having endured these past four years) are there to stay. Thus, the following is edited to remove formalities, to make the formatting more compact, to correct typographic errors, and to insert RS's comments directly into TD's post to avoid repetition (and maybe some more minor changes that I have now forgotten). Also, I'm breaking up the dialog at places where it is convenient for me to comment, even where that breaks up the original comment. So, if you need the original exchange, see the link.
RS (original comment): Is it safe to assume that the “Confessional” Text position has no Principles, Methodology or Praxis to help determine or guide it’s proponents in the sifting of Textual variants? What is your chosen base Text? Scrivener, Beza, Erasmus, Stephanus etc.? Or do you have the option to choose amongst their readings?
TD 0: It is not a reconstructive methodology, so there would be no reconstructive principles. The position is based on the concept that the Scriptures have not fallen away and do not need to be reconstructed. In terms of the text I use, I work from a Scrivener text and 1550 Stephanus.
First issue: unlike Beza, Stephanus, and Erasmus (as well as the translators and editors of the KJV), the mislabeled "Confessional Text" position is opposed to reconstruction of the text. Stephanus, in his 1550 edition, provided a textual critical apparatus referring to the Complutensian edition (itself a reconstruction) and multiple manuscripts. Erasmus aimed to reconstruct the Greek text, and relied on more than one manuscript for that reason. Beza likewise aimed to reconstruct the original Greek text and - like Erasmus - altered the Greek text that was given to him at numerous points, usually on the basis of the Greek manuscripts (although at times Beza referred to versions, especially the Latin and Syriac). While Beza seldom changed the main text on the basis of his own conjectural notions, he did frequently suggest such emendations in his annotations. In principle, therefore, the chief architects of the family of printed texts later referred to as the "textus receptus," including Beza whose 1598 edition text is what the King James translators nearly always used, held to and used "a reconstructive methodology" and "reconstructive principles."
I appreciate TD's forthrightness in acknowledging that the "Confessional Text" position lacks such methodology and such principles. The next logical step would be to openly acknowledge, therefore, that the "Confessional Text" position is not the position of the 16th and 17th century churches that approved of the work of Erasmus and Beza. In particular, the central element of a reconstruction methodology, namely collation, was heartily embraced by folks like Turretin (as I have discussed elsewhere).
As for TD's choice of texts to use, I have a few minor observations. The main reason to use Scrivener's TR is because one wants a Greek text to match the KJV. On the other hand, Scrivener's TR is a close approximation of Beza's 1598. So perhaps TD would like to Beza's 1598, but it's hard to get in a reliable digital form and/or to get in a quality printed/bound form. The bigger surprise from my standpoint is why TD would need to use two different (even if only a little) Greek texts, if his goal is not reconstruction of the original from those different texts.
My suspicion is that although TD presents his position as not having a reconstructive methodology or reconstructive principles, he uses those two Greek texts because they are the two 16th century printed editions that have the greatest following amongst the Protestant churches, in terms of serving as the basis for translation into the vulgar tongues of various nations. In the case of the King James translation, for example, the belief is that the King James translators referred to these two editions in their work.
RS 0x: What about the locations where various editions of the TR have no Greek manuscript evidence backing them,–do you believe that these areas don’t need reconstruction? More importantly, what is the formula used to choose between TR variations when they do exist?
TD 1.1: In the locations where there is not any extant manuscript support, we go with the reading that is historically received (used), ...
RS 1.1x: ***How is the “historically received” reading determined? What factors would lead you to choose one TR reading against another?*** For example: You mentioned Rev.16:5, what *factors* lead you accept the reading of Beza or Scrivener over against Erasmus or Stephanus? The fact that the reading {εσομενος} is *not* found in any single extant manuscript could not have made it attractive to you, so what did/does? Let’s stay on this. The TR is split, therefore a decision must be made; either by us, or for us. (1.) We can choose the reading ‘εσομενος’, which is the reading of Beza and contained within Scrivener by default. This reading is also followed by the A.V. 1611 {“shalt be”}. Or (2.), We can choose the reading ‘οσιος’ which is the reading of Erasmus and Stephanus. This reading {“holy”} is followed by 1534 Tyndale, 1537 Matthew’s, 1557 & 1599 Geneva Bible’s. What makes Beza and the A.V. 1611 correct, and Erasmus, Stephanus, Tyndale, Matthew’s, both Geneva Bible’s and every single trace of extant Greek manuscript evidence wrong? …And who made this decision?
RS is asking a valuable and probing question here. We will get to TD's final answer in a moment, but notice that the criterion of "historically received (used)" would have been (in the 16th and 17th centuries) a reason to overthrow the Greek readings in numerous places on the basis of the historical reception and usage of the Vulgate Latin edition. In fact, there may be places where this was actually done (such as at 1 John 5:7-8). In other words, there may be places where Erasmus and/or Beza (and others following them) actually overthrew the Greek readings in favor of Latin Vulgate readings, which had been widely accepted and used in the churches for over a millenium. Nevertheless, you will be hard pressed to find Erasmus or Beza (or those who followed them) accepting that this is the correct methodology. Indeed, folks on the Protestant side eagerly defended the Masoretic and Greek texts as being original against attacks that were premised on long reception of other readings by the churches. To suggest that the criterion of "historically received (used)" is something that would have been acceptable to the leading 16th and 17th century Reformers as a basis to step over all the Greek manuscripts is to engage in wishful thinking. That is not to say that they considered historical usage and reception irrelevant, just that it is not sufficient to overthrow the Greek manuscripts.
Moreover, had the 16th and 17th century Reformers considered the historical reception and usage of εσομενος vs. οσιος, the latter would undoubtedly have prevailed, as there was no record of any historical reception or usage of that substitution, either in the manuscripts or in the translations, commentaries, etc.
Additionally, the 16th and 17th century Reformers did not believe themselves locked into Tyndale's translation, or the Geneva Bible translation, despite the excellent reception that those enjoyed for a time. Indeed, they did not accord heavy weight to the reception and usage in Latin or English (for the New Testament) or the reception and usage in Latin, Greek, and English (for the Old Testament).
It must be acknowledged that Archbishop Bancroft urged the King James translators to revise the Bible "as little as the Truth of the original will permit," and forbade them to make improvements to transliterations. Nevertheless, the fact that the Bishop's Bible had been received by the church did not make it invulnerable to improvement from the Hebrew and Greek originals.
TD 1.2: ... and the testimony of those scholars who say they pulled the reading from a once existing manuscript (Beza in Rev. 16:5 for example)
RS 1.2x: **Does the testimony of Beza carry more weight than the whole Greek manuscript tradition? Or is it the combination of Beza and the A.V. 1611 that tips the scales?**
I must insert here that it seems nearly transparent that it is the usage by the King James translators/editors that tips the scales for folks like TD.
TD 2. Similar to the first question, the first assumption is that the decisions on variants were decided by the use of a particular reading over another in time. The Reformed and Post-Reformation Divines seem to be more or less unified on which readings were original. Not to say that they were in complete harmony, but I have yet to find an example where such discord results in the change of meaning in a passage as a whole. In short, I have yet to find a variant within the TR tradition that has troubled me, either evidentially or internally (including Eph 3:9). In terms of “Sifting through variants,” there are really not many to sift through within the TR tradition that are meaningful in any way. When variants are considered, we consider them the same way that the framers of the Confession say they did. John Owen and Turretin provide great examples of this type of reasoning.
Of course, neither John Owen (a non-conformist) nor Turretin (Swiss) were "framers of the Confession," although Owen was active in the revision of the Confession for the congregationalists, known as the Savoy Declaration.
While Owen was somewhat suspicious regarding the work of textual criticism, he did not oppose it in absolute terms:
Notice that while Owen does not like the idea of publishing exhaustive lists of textual variants, he is in favor of winnowing things down to the few places where there is some significant textual variant in the oldest and best manuscripts.
More importantly, Owen does not suggest that the way to identify the correct text is to look to what was done in 1611. While Owen is certainly skeptical of the value of an exhaustive study of the manuscripts, Owen does see value in identifying and addressing significant textual variants based on collation.
Likewise, Turretin explictly affirms the same:
(Second Topic, Question 5, Section 5)
TD 3.1: In terms of the reading I use, I refer to the text that was used in the translation I read, as most people do. This particular reading is important, because it does represent one of the few places where the reading is truly split in the TR tradition. I believe this to be a much more reasonable task then, let’s just say, the 19 indeterminate readings in 1 and 2 Peter alone in the ECM.
RS 3.1x: **Background: I’ve read the KJV for 35 years (since my youth) and although I have–and–occasionally use other English translations, the KJV is the Bible that I both read and teach out of. That said, the above argument amounts to; Jack has gotten into trouble for breaking one of his mother’s favorite dishes, and in trying to defend himself exclaims, “but Jill has broken 19 of your best sewing needles Mom!”.**
1) The issue that RS raises seems to be an issue that TD overlooks. If there is a principle that we cannot have any uncertainty, the fact that one position has more uncertainty than the other is a red herring.
2) I seem to recall from other places that the translation TD uses is the KJV. However, the KJV was not translated from a single text. That's the reason that Scrivener was called upon (two centuries later) to create a Greek text to align with the KJV.
3) While I agree that there are "few" places where the "the reading is truly split in the TR tradition," there are very few places where an exhaustive collation yields a meaningful split in the manuscript tradition.
TD 3.1: I personally receive Beza’s reading as that is the reading that was commented upon and used the most – and it is consistent with the theology and grammar of the passage (though I have seen people argue well for οσιος). Since both theological concepts are present in Revelation, this is truly a reading where doctrine is not changed from my perspective. Many people give lip service that doctrine is not changed no matter what the variant is, but that is not true.
RS 3.1x: **So your authority is Beza, the KJV and the majority of your favorite Biblical commentators:–And therefore the testimony and preservation of the *total* transmission history of the New Testament Text, i.e. All of “Catholic Antiquity” has to bow in submission to these 16th and 17th century witnesses. I take it that Dr. Hort’s often blind admiration of Cod. B, or Tischendorf’s equally unwarranted homage of Cod. א, doesn’t strike you as unreasonable and biased?**
While I agree that Beza's change to Revelation 16:5 does not, in itself, teach some heresy, I tend to think that is the case with nearly all the variant issues. TD clearly disagrees that this is more broadly the case, but we can reserve that issue for another time.
I suspect that RS's comment here was a bit too sharp for TD, but TD should try to develop a better answer.
More importantly, why should we try to divine which reading was original, based on which reading was (subsequent to 1582, apparently) commented on and used the most? That's quite obviously not the measure used by Owen and Turretin, whose names TD dropped. That's a measure that would have been useless to Beza himself, or at any rate would not have led him to make the change he did.
TD 3.2: That being said, the reading came from a Greek manuscript according to Beza, and the reading was preserved in a printed text.
RS 3.2x **The first part of your statement is up for debate. Even so, is it possible for me to state that I once saw something in an ancient manuscript and then emend the Text accordingly, even when said singular ms. is nowhere to be found? Or, does this only carry enough authority to overthrow all extant evidence if my name is Beza, or I lived in the 16th or 17th century? This question is posed to evoke thought, not hard feelings.**
Beza's statement has very limited evidentiary value. Even assuming he did have such a manuscript, which we have good reason to doubt, so what? We almost never adopt a singularly attested reading.
TD 3.3: The concept that a reading must be preserved in hand written ink rather than printed ink is strange, and I’ve never understood it. If the reading is original, it doesn’t matter if a pen or a press preserved it, the way I see it.
RS 3.3x **There’s too much to unpack here. Yet I will say this, you have opened the flood gates to the Redaction Critics and the practice of Conjectural Emendation for the sake of retaining a reading that has the support of *no* Greek manuscript!**
The question is whether the reading is original. Why should we accept it as original on the basis of its existence in a printed text? While I appreciate the fact that TD has never understood textual criticism, that's hardly an argument for his position. The point is not the a reading must be preserved with quill and ink, as opposed to chisel and stone, or modern laser printing (or whatever), but that a late 16th century printed text is in itself a very weak witness to the original from the standpoint of textual criticism. That's true for the Bible, and it's true for other books as well.
TD 3.4 There is no way to verify that the reading was or wasn’t in the originals, so while manuscript support may give us false assurance that we’ve arrived at the correct reading, simply counting noses doesn’t quite get us to the answer anyway. This is well understood in pretty much every methodology around, but is typically ignored here. So we either make a majority text appeal here, which doesn’t mean a whole lot as there aren’t really any mss of Revelation surviving, or we can make an appeal to the reading that has been used the most by the church with the reasonable assumption that the manuscript existed at some point. I side with the latter, though I know many people who go with the majority reading. In any case, I think we have to treat Revelation uniquely, as it is one of the least testified to books in the NT. There is no consistent methodology that can be applied in Revelation, and that’s just a fact.
RS 3.4x: ** That is in fact your opinion. The methodology of Burgon and others can hold up just fine in Revelation.**
This is where TD clearly departs from the view of Turretin and Owen. When he claims: "There is no way to verify that the reading was or wasn’t in the originals ..." he is just wrong. That the view of folks like Ehrman and Parker, perhaps, but it is not a view that accords with the doctrine of preservation.
Likewise, "there aren’t really any mss of Revelation surviving" is just nonsense. There are literally hundreds of manuscripts of Revelation surviving.
Similarly, regarding "we can make an appeal to the reading that has been used the most by the church," this isn't the argument of Owen or Turretin, and it has the barely concealed premise that "the church" came into existence some time after 1580 to be a useful argument for TD's position in this case.
To suggest that "There is no consistent methodology that can be applied in Revelation" is once again wrong.
TD 3.5: Despite common claims, each variant has to be handled uniquely, as they each have their own transmission history which is different than the transmission history of every other variant. If you look at the % agreement in the CNTTS database, the NA text basically follows mss 02 in 89% of the textually significant variants, and the closest agreement that mss has to any other mss in the CNTTS database is 77% and lower. That is to say that Revelation is a tricky book even in the critical text.
RS 3.5x: **Agreed!! Probably the trickiest.**
Oddly, what TD says here is at least mostly correct. However, TD's method of handling "each variant" does not seem to be unique. He seems to go with "what did the Reformed churches from 1611-1850 use?"
TD 3.6: Gill, in his commentary, handles εσομινος first, then οσιος separately. In any case, both readings exist within the TR tradition, so I handle this text by looking to the people that have handled it before me. Every pre-critical text commentary I have read handles the variant reading, and favors the Beza reading on the basis of internal theological grounds based on the context and the theology of the passage itself. So I adopt the reading on that basis as well, not on the basis of it simply being in the KJV or Scrivener text. That being said, I would not divide over this, and since I see it as being easily resolved on internal grounds,
RS 3.6x: **How can the insertion of a reading which has absolutely no external evidence behind it be “easily resolved” on any grounds?**
RS is right about this. To suggest that this is "easily resolved on internal grounds" is naive at best. In point of fact, the internal grounds argument is rather weak and - I think it is telling - TD appeals to the ease of resolution but does not offer a specific solution.
TD 3.7 One final note, and possibly worth considering, is that the latest survey of extant manuscripts conducted by Jacob W. Peterson estimates that there are well over 500 manuscripts that have not been examined or “discovered,” not to mention that manuscripts made after 1000AD are being ignored by the ECM. That is to say, that even with the extant data we have catalogued, it is possible that a manuscript we have has the reading but is simply not “discovered.”
RS 3.7x: **This is an argument from silence, which as it were, is based upon a guess. How many of these “estimated” manuscripts contain the 16th chapter of the book of Revelation? –And how many do you suppose read ‘εσομενος’?**
This half-baked argument ignores the work of Hoskier and others, who did not "ignore" post A.D. 1000 manuscripts, but faithfully catalogued their readings. While it is certainly possible that there could be some as-yet uncatalogued reading at Revelation 16:5, that's not a serious argument for the uncatalogued reading's originality.
TD 3.8: Such is the gamble when we base our readings on extant data – we can’t know for certain if the reading is the most reliable, because we don’t have all the data, and even the data we do “have” isn’t all cataloged. I see the merit, from a reconstructionist model, of adopting the οσιος reading, but I simply wouldn’t be able to do so with absolute confidence that the reading is authentic due to the slim mss attestation in the whole of Revelation. Due to this reality, I receive the reading that most commentators of the time considered more theologically and grammatically consistent with the passage and the book as a whole. This way, I am not reverting to “who made this decision” but rather appealing to the passage itself and the reading that fits most comfortably in the passage.
RS 3.8x: **Would it not be more of a gamble to base our readings on *no* extant data? So your position is that we should follow the least attested readings because we don’t know what every manuscript read throughout the history of the Text (again an argument from silence)?** **It may help to know that I am *not* an advocate for the Modern Academic Critical Text. Nor have I ever been.**
Of course, basing our readings on extant data is exactly the position that both Owen and Turretin supported.
Furthermore, why should "the time" be given the kind of privilege that TD accords it? Francis Turretin was born in 1623. John Owen was born in 1616. What's privileged time period? The mid- to late-17th century? Why should that have priority over earlier or later periods? But if it must be given such priority, why is priority only given to the conclusion regarding readings and not to the method of obtaining such conclusions? The answer seems obvious: a desire for certainty, even at the expense of sacrificing the foundation.
TD (Last word): Probably the most uncharitable way you could have interpreted my response. 1. The reading existed in a manuscript at one point 2. It fits the theology 3. It was used in translation and commentary for centuries uninterrupted ^^ That’s my reason. Please do not comment again.
As far as I know, the dialog ended there. For what it's worth, RS wasn't me, nor vice versa.
Even if the reading existed in a manuscript at one point (which TD cannot prove), it was not used "uninterrupted" for centuries. Multiple 17th century and 18th century printed Greek texts do not have it, and the reading was challenged during those centuries. Furthermore, if this methodology were consistently applied, we ought to lock in the Vulgate readings, as they were "used in translation and commentary" for even more centuries. That's not an argument that the Reformers accepted, in fact it's what they openly rejected.
