MacArthur discussion concluded

Part 2: I don't really want to get into the specific arguments against the King James Only position, which is what Part 2 is about. But of course I do find occasional statements I'd like to answer, such as this one:

...the fact that TR manuscripts are older than originally thought does not make tham necessarily superior to other text types but would only allow for an even treatment. New papyrii discoveries from the second and third centuries A.D. do evidence that Byzantine text type variants were available, but do not support recognizing them as superior to coexisting manuscripts.

No, but it ought to go a long way toward squelching the claim that the Alexandrians were clearly earlier and therefore closer to the autographs.

The Alexandrian manuscripts are the oldest we presently possess. It is logical to expect that if there were other early families, they would have circulated to Egypt and thus would have been preserved there also.

Yes, as long as you are going to persist in the delusion that the Alexandrians are simply an honestly copied "family" of manuscripts and not the result of tampering, yes it is "logical" to suppose a simple traveling here and there of equal variants.

Obviously what has to be established is that the Alexandrians ARE corrupt, which is of course hinted at in the facts 1) that there are so few of them, 2) that such early copies have managed to survive in surprisingly good shape, and 3) that there are so many differences among them, but obviously that isn't enough to convince those who are most engaged in trying to answer the excesses of the KJVOs.

I'm going to have to spend more time in Burgon for this purpose. It's nice to get a clear sense of direction from time to time.

So on to Part 3:

It is true that the value of a manuscript is not determined by its age. A late manuscript could be a copy of a very ancient one, whereas an older manuscript might be a copy of one not much removed from it in time. All things being equal, however, the oldest manuscripts are closer in time to the autographs. The shorter time interval implies fewer copies and fewer chances for error. This is a principle of all literary textual criticism, not just textual criticism of the Greek New Testament.

This is just another reminder that the corruption of these texts is what needs to be argued. Again there are hints enough already that suspicions ought to be raised and such gullibility not so easily indulged, not to mention the existence of treatises that go into sufficient detail to demonstrate the point, BUT OK, at least, again, this narrows the job description.

Yes, "all things being equal" which means assuming honest treatment of the Alexandrians, they ARE closer to the autographs. BUT ALL THINGS ARE NOT EQUAL in this case. There is AMPLE proof that the Alexandrians are corrupt. It often seems to me that there must be a willful blindness to the evidence for this.

Also, the assertion that the oldest manuscripts survived only because they were faulty is disproved by the scribal corrections evident on these manuscripts. Logic demands that faulty manuscripts would have been destroyed or corrected rather than shelved for future use or discovery.

Not if they were intended to support heresy! Not if the scribal corrections represent layers of changes over time both for and against heretical interpolations. And HOW MANY are you talking about that were shelved for future use or discovery? TWO?

There is no factual substantiation to the claim that Aleph, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, or any other of the earliest Greek manuscripts in existence today were of gnostic origin and altered to conform to their heresies.

HAS ANYBODY READ BURGON????!!!

3. Mark 16:9-20 has evoked no end of critical discussion. Many believe that this questionable passage should be deleted since it is used to back up the claims of charismatics; others, Grace Church included, believe that it should be considered part of the authorative text and rightly interpreted.

Interesting. Neither argument has anything to do with the question of the TEXTUAL support for the passage, which is supposedly what this dissertation is all about. The Alexandrians eliminate it, the Byzantines include it. If you think the Alexandrians are the closest to the autographs, isn't it inconsistent to include a passage they don't include? On what basis do you decide it is "authoritative" then?

Then they go on to specific verses, arguing that although certain verses don't have some familiar KJV renderings, others in the same manuscript nevertheless do, which is a typical begging of the question of whether these renderings were added to or subtracted from the text, as if all anyone cares about is that the minimal doctrinal statement is present.

8. Perhaps the biggest error of fact is the claim that 1 John 5:7-8 is a part of the autographa and should be included in all versions of Scripture. To say that to delete the phrase in verse 7, “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are One” is to deny the tri unity of God is not true. The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except four, and these four contain the passage of what appears to be a translation from a late edition of the Latin Vulgate. These four manuscripts are dated very, very late.

OK, I've run across this argument many many times and have pretty much figured that if there isn't good manuscript support for it there is no reason to retain it. But I think now that a VERY GOOD REASON to retain it, or at least not be so eager to jettison it, is that the KJV translators considered it worthy to be included in their text. I have been coming to the conclusion that since all this is mostly a matter of scholarly judgment and the scholarly judgment of the Westcott and Hort contingent is hideously deplorable, GREAT weight should be put on the decisions made by the KJV translators in deciding the legitimacy of any given reading. If it ever comes to a serious respectful prudent attempt to update the King James, THEN questions can be raised about their choices. But in the context of the Westcott and Hort debacle I'm not in a mood to countenance throwing away anything in the KJV. It may be that the story that follows about how Erasmus came to include it is true, but I want a LEGITIMATE body of SPIRITUALLY QUALIFIED scholars to decide these things. Also, wouldn't the KJV translators have been aware of how Erasmus claim to include it? If not, fine, but again I'm not of a frame of mind to let anyone who defends the Westcott and Hort legacy decide these things. These things need to be decided by rightly authorized agencies, not willynilly in debate, by publishing companies, by self-appointed lone translators etc.

As can be seen from the discussion of these verses, it is unlikely that doctrines were manipulated by heretics since truths were not consistently deleted.

This is logical, yes, but there is other evidence that in fact such deletions were the work of tampering even though their inconsistency about it is curious.

Part 4: I do have to agree with many of the answers given here to the extreme KJVO's. That is what makes this discussion so frustrating. Theirs are not the only arguments against Westcott and Hort and the modern versions, yet they get all the attention and the whole issue becomes associated with their thinking.

Here's how the Grace Pulpit discussion ends:

The following quote from the helpful brochure published by Grace Theological Seminary and written by its president, Dr. Homer A. Kent, Jr., is a fitting capstone to this discussion of textual variants:

It needs to be remembered that the differences between the Alexandrian and Byzantine text types are not nearly as great as might be supposed.

But they are a lot greater than the defenders of the Alexandrians seem willing to admit, and the differences among the Alexandrians themselves are far greater than the differences among the Byzantines which flies in the face of the assumption that fewer changes ("faults," "errors") should exist in such early manuscripts as opposed to later ones.

The gospel is crystal clear in either version.

This is a red herring.

It is regrettable that an issue is being made over this matter in evangelical circles, especially when some extremists are making one’s attitude toward the King James Version an article of faith, and unwarrantedly raising suspicions against those who do not.

I have to agree with this.

The issue is forcing many Christians to make a choice where they lack the necessary knowledge and skill to do so.

Very true. However, it is really the fault of the Revision of 1881 and the proliferation of Bibles since then that so much is required of Christians, and this should have been recognized as a problem long long ago. The extreme KJVOs are not helping matters though.

How much better it would be to thank God that His Word has been preserved intact for centuries, and that the wealth of manuscripts assures us that none of the words have been lost.

Maybe not in the whole collection of manuscripts, but that can't be counted on in any given translation from what are most certainly deficient manuscripts.

In a few cases, we may not be certain which of several variants is the original, but our problem is an embarrassment of riches, not of loss.

Unwarranted optimism I'm afraid. When there is a wolf in sheep's clothing in the sheepfold it is sad that the shepherd is fooled by his disguise.