4 Principles for handling DIFFERENCES in TR editions.

[@davidguerrero25]

Thank you for the videos they are helpful. Dr. Riddle recommended a process for evaluating the differences in the "mature printed editions" of the TR. So, for the differences in the "mature printed editions" of the TR are there any readings that Dr. Riddle prefers that are different from Scrivener's TR? Did the "Reformation Church" consider the "mature printed editions" of the TR superior to the earlier editions of the TR and on what basis? Did Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza get it 100% right collectively and therefore there is no need for evaluating their decisions in light of other evidence? I appreciate the desire to have certainty but it seems like the KJV translators did not have 100% certainty about the text of the TRs, if I understand some of the marginal notes in the 1611 KJV correctly. God's Word will stand the test of time that I am certain of! Finally, checkout Timothy Berg's interesting article, Revelation 1:8 - An Example of How a Printing Error Became a “Received Text”.

[@CalebRichardson]

Regarding the last question: Insisting on a standard of jot and tittle certainty for thee but not for me has the effect of casting doubt on God's Word. I stand with the KJV translators in saying that even the most average translation produced by protestants (and even some non-protestants) is fit to be called the Word of God.

[@rodneyjackson6181]

The 1611 KJV had alternative readings in the marginal notes. The translators did not know which reading belonged in the text or the margins in some cases. I have seen that some readings in the text were moved to the margins and the marginal reading was moved into the text after further review.

[@josephpellegrino2441]

It seems that the only greek new testament or TR edition that it kept pure in all ages as Dr. Riddle always says, is whatever reflects the KJV. Why not just state many in this camp are KJV onlyists.

[@danieltruesdale6963]

I appreciate your videos Dwayne. I always look forward to when a new one drops. Love these discussions!

[@Dwayne_Green]

Thanks for the encouragement Daniel!

[@charlesdoyle2161]

So, the "mature printed editions" of the TR culminated the "process" of the textual criticism of that day..... Sounds a little different than "just go to Scrivener's TR," which is essentially the KJV. Nonetheless, I would think that, after hearing him and other Confessional/Traditional Text advocates speak on their position, they view the KJV Bible creators/translators as a part of that "process" for the "Bible." That's when I begin to return to the bigger questions over textual criticism and preservation, themselves. Should the "process" of a received text and "Bible" be considered over and completed with the KJV? Were the discoveries of other/more Scripture texts representative of God's continuing providential preservation or an unfortunate "temptation" to restart the process of textual criticism and change the Bible? In the end, it seems to come down to the disagreements on what God's preservation really means. Is the Critical Text the result of God's sovereignty over a "process" of preservation; or has God allowed man to "hijack" His preserved Word and we now have what seems like and endless divide over what Bible is the preserved one and if the Bible is really supposed to be (and able to be) settled, final, and complete? BTW, Dewayne, thanks for sharing your personal thoughts near the end- significant vulnerability in this KZbin/digital world. So, I encourage everyone watching you and your channel to give you the space you deserve, refrain from any impulses to "push you into the ditch," and keep walking with you on this journey. Love these videos, Sir!

[@Dwayne_Green]

Thanks Charles! That's just it... In my opinion, the strongest argument for the TR position is that God used it in the protestant reformation to renew the church to the superiority of the Word and salvation by Grace. Aside from this, the scriptures don't say anything specifically on 'which text' is the 'jot & tittle' perfect. I'm starting to look at some of the passages Dr. Riddle mentioned in the first video. I want to see if they texts mentioned REALLY are promising jot & tittle perfection throughout the ages.

[@charlesdoyle2161]

@@Dwayne_Green Good idea, and could inspire more great content. I've continued to go over preservation verses and their interpretations in various articles (some are very biased and not so helpful) and commentaries. I've been surprised how some commentaries may not even address the doctrine of preservation in some of these scripture verses- as if it wasn't even a question for them at the time, or they don't even "see" anything about preservation in the verse, or (heaven forbid) they didn't want to touch the issue. I'll be eager to see/hear what you find.

[@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175]

in practice, can just call this belief scrivener TR only belief which is based on the TRs and latin vulgate behind the kjv.

[@robertshirley624]

I am not a Critical text advocate. I am a mixture of TR and Byzantine text positions. But I have one question. Since Dr. Riddle stated (at the 3:30 mark) that the Elzevir editions should only be ‘consulted’ (and not as authoritative as Stephanus and Beza), does this mean that Scivener’s edition should also only be ‘consulted’? What does he do when Scrivener’s edition is different from both Stephanus and Beza? Does he still side with Srivener and the KJV? And when the KJV chose Stephanus over Beza (or Beza over Stephanus), does he always side with the KJV’s decision?

[@yahrescues8993]

Scrivener is basically the textual Choices of the KJV translators. So it isn’t necessarily 1881. It is the Greek text which is kept in print today and this could be claimed to be due to Gods providence.

[@danm8336]

Are there some people who hold to the TR but don’t view it as “jot and tittle perfect”. For example I thought of an example maybe where someone favors the TR more than Byzantine because they think 1 John 5:7 and acts 8:37 plus other verses that aren’t in the Byzantine belong. If you know some people who hold to the TR but acknowledge it might not be jot or tittle perfect I would be glad to know to hear them. Overall, I think the Byzantine and TR have a lot in common and I think both camps can agree with each other a lot. Also do you personally think “jot and tittle” perfect only apply to the originals? I get confused about that. Thank you brother, God Bless!

[@Dwayne_Green]

I don't think so about the TR. I'm still thinking through the issue, but 'jot & tittle', isn't necessarily referring to the words specifically of the Bible, its a reference to the law being fulfilled in it's entire detail, including the smallest points of the law (see the context of Matt 5:18). With that being said, I think there are words that are synonymous, grammatical constructions that mean the same thing, and word order issues that don't amount to any change of detail. Bryan Ross has written a book called "The Myth of Verbatim Identicality" in which he sets out a set of principles to determine if a change impacts meaning or not. Of course, he is a King James Bible Defender and has developed that thinking in defence of the KJV, but I can see this work applying to the Byzantine text form in a similar way.

[@nerdyyouthpastor8368]

Thank you for this video, Dwayne. You're a great interviewer and It's great to hear Dr. Riddle clarify his position. However, I continue to find his position to be entirely inconsistent. You cannot say that jot and tittle preservation is necessary in order to have an epistemic foundation for the faith and then dismiss spelling and word order differences amongst TR editions because they do not affect the meaning. I agree that the vast majority of the variants in the TR, like the vast majority of variants in the manuscript tradition as a whole, are essentially meaningless, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. If Dr. Riddle's position is that we should use the text God used to bring the Protestant Reformation, I respect that. The Bible doesn't tell us how to resolve textual variants. But what I am hearing is him saying that God promised "jot and tittle" preservation and then glossing over the fact that his his view does not provide this level of certainty. I'm certain he has the best of intentions, but he really needs to either say, "I believe we can have near 100% certainty about the text of Scripture, far more than the critical text position provides" or show us exactly where to find the right jots and tittles. I understand his limiting his choice of TRs to the "mature Protestant editions," but he should not use that definition to impugn Dr. Ward, whose count was based on the standard scholarly definition of the Textus Receptus. I affirm that God has preserved His word in all ages. God's word is found in the manuscript tradition. I also believe that God has called scholars to put His word in the hands of the populace. Very few Christians can read Hebrew and Greek and far fewer still have a deep familiarity with the manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments. We must rely on scholars to transcribe and translate them for us. We cannot escape trusting scholars, we can only choose which ones to trust. I choose to trust the best Bible-believing Evangelical scholars (e.g. Dirk Jongkind, Peter Gurry, Dan Wallace, and Elijah Hixson) of our day in matters of textual criticism because I've read many volumes with many different perspectives on textual criticism, carefully and prayerfully considered the issues, and come to the conclusion that what they are doing is good and God-honoring and that they stand on the shoulders of the scholars of the reformation.

[@Dwayne_Green]

Thanks Will, well said.

[@G.D.9]

Hey Dwayne, I'd like to ask why you haven't done a video with Dr. Pickering? I watch alot of the content he does with brazilian channels, but I've found almost nothing in english except his own content on his channel, since it seems you worked/work with him in his text, it got me wondering...

[@Dwayne_Green]

I've tried twice so far and we've been plagued with technical difficulties... May see if he's up to it in the near future :)

[@InfinitelyManic]

"Principles for handling DIFFERENCES in TR editions." -- If I understood correctly, we (English readers) should ultimately ignore them since Dr. Riddle indicated that we should ask about which Bible (i.e., which translation). Unfortunately, ultimately, there is no real principle for handing differences between Stephanus & Beza; e.g., Rev 16:5.

[@brettmahlen722]

Thanks for doing these videos, Dwayne.

[@alex-qe8qn]

We are told in the Talmud that there were three copies of Torah/Tanak kept in the Temple, and that one could verify or correct one’s own copy by reference to the text in any two or all three of the Temple copies. This seemed to satisfy the Jews of all ranks. Paul recognised (at 2 Timothy 03:15) that Timothy had known the “holy writings” or “the holy writings” (there is a variant reading) since he had been a babe; and. assuming that Paul meant at least Torah/Tanak ( if not actually some New Testament writings), I am guessing that Timothy himself and/or his grandmother and/or his mother had never seen even the Temple copies - let alone the original scrolls! History and the New Testament show that Old Greek translations were used by Christians, even where these might not agree with the Hebrew. In all this, where is there a letter-perfect original or copy of the Scriptures? What we have is a very substantial purity of preserved text, and nothing to mislead us. We have, and this by way of (special) providence but not by miracle), very adequate writings which preserve God’s word. Do the Scriptures refer to themselves as God’s word? Is not God’s word a wider concept than God’s writings? I have no doubt whatsoever that God’s word to me is very largely communicated to me through God’s writings, and that I can check from His writings whether a word is from Him; but I do not equate or confuse the two logical categories. And…what does “God’s word is kept pure in all ages” mean, if it refers to writings of which we can be sure that we have substantially correct, but not infallibly correct, transmission? I hate ambiguity or unclarity of words in discussions!

[@helgeevensen856]

oops... i may have a small disagreement here (if i heard things correctly), but only a "technical" one .... Re. the term "Textus Receptus" drawn from the 1633 Elzevir text: i do not think it is "anachronistic" to *call* or "name" it the received text/TR before 1633, even long before 1633 (in the 1500s)... the TR was not a "title" or name per se anyway, it was simply stated that "this is the text now received"..... that statement in the preface of the 1633 text, was simply stating the situation as it had come to be at the time, as it was already there, the text was regarded as "the text received"... the text was already "received", this form was "now received"... it did not suddenly become "received" in 1633 (and certainly Dr Riddle agrees with this)... so it should not be regarded as "anachronistic" to call this text-form "the TR" long before Elzevir's second edition... i do not think Elzevir "coined" the term, he only stated a fact in the preface, a form of text that had now become "tradition" and "common"... it was the "traditional" text among printed editions,... and btw, if it was regarded as "received" in 1633, it must have been received from somewhere in the past... it was already received.... the Preface did not "coin" the term, it was only stated.... (this may be nitpicking but i thought it worth mentioning....) :)

[@Dwayne_Green]

Nitpicky perhaps, but an interesting thought nonetheless! Thanks for sharing.

[@michaelsinger2921]

Dr. Riddle is a learned and articulate defender of what he calls the Ecclesiastical Text. But the "Which TR?" question clearly makes him uncomfortable for many of the reasons discussed in the other comments so far. At least in this video, we have a somewhat better answer in terms of which TRs he prefers. Interestingly, his answer to the question of how he works through differences in the various printed editions of the GNT shows that he uses a from of eclecticism (reasoned? equitable?) to resolve those differences. Not unlike modern critical scholars, though using different rules, to be sure!

[@WTR91]

Most of this issue is a problem of epistemology. Would love to see pastor Riddle flesh out the confessional epistemology more and comment on the recovery and retrieval of confessionally Reformed theology in regards to classic theism, philosophy as it relates to theology, the Quadriga, political theory, classical epistemology, etc if he is aware of it at all. I ignorantly scoffed at Dr Riddle’s beliefs on this subject years ago. I recant it all as getting away from mere rationalism or empiricism in historical study as well as theological study, etc corrects many epistemological problems present in the BT & critical philosophical traditions. Thank you both for talking on these subjects!

[@ussconductor5433]

@Wesley Robinson: I’m intrigued by your second paragraph. Would you be willing to flesh that out more?

[@WTR91]

@@ussconductor5433 which part of the second paragraph are you curious about particularly? If it takes me awhile to respond, I hope you’ll pardon me; I am typically doing chores or taking care of the little one. Also this subject is dense and I am long-winded.

[@ussconductor5433]

@@WTR91 starting with “I recant” and ending with “Philosophical traditions” get as long winded as you like, I’m curious to hear where you’re coming from 🙂

[@WTR91]

@@ussconductor5433 my friend I had typed up what was practically an essay fleshing that out and then my phone died and we had to put the baby to bed. Apologies. I will have to try and get back at you another time, or perhaps I will have time to write soon and will direct you there.

[@ussconductor5433]

@@WTR91 no worries!