HomeОбразованиеRelated VideosMore From: Robert Paul Wieland

Modern Textual Criticism: Review and Principles of RTC

56 ratings | 3398 views
A two part video. The first part is a review of the points made in the previous videos showing that Modern Textual Criticism is arbitrary, and is inconsistent with Reformed Theology. Part Two is a setting forth of the general principles of Reformed Textual Criticism (RTC).
Html code for embedding videos on your blog
Text Comments (47)
Michael Kramer (9 days ago)
I just wanted to say thanks for keeping these videos available. They have been extremely helpful to me. Once I saw the falsehood of modern textual criticism, and came to a conviction about the preservation of scripture, It brought great peace of mind. No longer seeking to determine, but simply receiving the TR! The Holy Spirit working with the Word of God, combined with the evidence are overwhelmingly point to the TR! Thanks and God Bless!!
Wendy Gagne (2 months ago)
Which video should I watch first?
colin walker (4 months ago)
I find it most disconcerting when White refers his “Muslim friends” Jesus tells us to separate ourselves from unbelievers. And do not cast our pearls before swine. Islam is the most blasphemous ideology of all.
colin walker (4 months ago)
David W Daniels on chicktracts annihilates Siniaticus
just to make sure we're clear on this, steven andersnake is NOT a King James Bible believer. he has a devilsh spirit. he teaches replacement theology, he wants to kill sodomites and adulterers, he believes that the church has replaced Israel and that God is done with Israel (and he hates the Jews). he yells and curses at his congregation, he even kicked somone out because they asked him a question that he had about scripture that apposed his satanic view (the trinity). STEVEN ANDERSNAKE IS NOT, NOT, NOT A KING JAMES BIBLE BELIEVER!!! whoso readeth let him understand
Christian Parks (1 year ago)
would there be any books that you would recommend for studying textual criticism? I have "Unholy hands on the Bible" Thanks
John Saur (1 year ago)
Best video I have seen on Textual criticism, you take a complex subject and make it understandable
James Tomas (1 year ago)
Robert Paul Weiland. So you beleive that The Spirit of God in combination with the Word of God is truth. I agree with that also. You also beleive that God has preserved his Word just as he promised, down from the Autographs, down further thru the copies, to the copies, and further down from each generation to other copies. My question to you is: Does God's preservation of his Word stop there? Don't you think God can continue ""HIS PRESERVATION OF HIS WORD"" past the manuscripts? If God kept a stream of manuscripts INSPIRED, then he will continue to preserve his Word from the translation of these ancient manuscripts, doesn't this sound like his character? Another words the infallibility of God's preserved ancient manuscripts will have to have been passed down to the translations of these ancient manuscripts. God doesn't stop just at the point of the Hebrew, and the Greek. He knows he confused the one language at the tower of babel, so God will provide truth TO ALL THESE LANGUAGES,whether it be Spanish, Croatian, Russian, German, Italian , French , Swahili. In our case it is the KJV. It is the bible for the English speaking world. God bless you, I have downloaded a lot of your videos, and I have learned a lot of truth from you.I am glad God raised up someone as yourself to defend truth.
danullb (7 months ago)
VoteForTRUMP hey... I really really appreciate your words. I’m facing a some opposition from people I know at church and even friends about my stance on the Authorized Version. Your words are faith building. Incidentally, I wrote AV1611 just because I don’t like theKJV nomenclature. My main bible is actually a 1769 - tho I do have a 1611 I enjoy reading from time to time. I’m on my phone right now but will type a fuller response to the points you made when I’m back at my computer. Thanks again and God bless.
danullb (7 months ago)
VoteForTRUMP I’ll give you another example (one of MANY): Mark 7:6-7 (KJV) 6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. 7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Isaiah 29:13 (Kjv) 13 Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men: This same passage from the Septuagint 29:13 And the Lord has said, This people draw nigh to me with their mouth, and they honour me with their lips, but their heart is far from me: but in vain do they worship me, teaching the commandments and doctrines of men.
danullb (7 months ago)
VoteForTRUMP hi. Hey thanks for the clarification. And thanks for not blasting me (all too common on YouTube) for my misunderstanding Robert’s view. It you don’t mind, I have a question for you. Let me preface by saying that I walked away from the faith for a number of years due to the NT manuscript issues. I had always been an AV1611 guy as shortly after my conversion, God providentially landed one in my lap - I had been reading the NASV. But later, to learn of the even _slight_ variants amongst the Majority manuscripts or variations between Erasmus, Beza and Stephanus SHOOK my faith to the core. That may seem strange to some but I read the Bible A LOT and while some people may not be trouble with variants, I have no time to trust in a God who can’t _perfectly_ transmit his word fe generation to generation. Fast forward to today, I’ve been studying a ton about God’s inspiration, preservation and translation of the scriptures and feel a little more settled in my faith. Ok; here’s my question though: *Why did we switch to the Masoretic text (away from the Septuagint) in the 16th century? My problem with the OT Masoretic text (which the KJV is based on) is that the genealogies from Noah to Abraham disagree with the Septuagint; the Syriac, the early church patristics and the Samaritan. Also, the NT writers quote from the LXX or some (non-extant) Hebrew that matches it. The Dead Sea scrolls differ from the Masoretic text and more closely align with the LXX. Basically, I’d long wrestled with the New Testament but now it’s the Old giving me issues.* Here’s some videos on the subject: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ottD9bt8t44 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KUmtLHg3JMs By the way; typing all this on an old 4” iPhone so sorry if it doesn’t read well and/or for typos. Please check out those videos and give me your thoughts. EDIT: there are many other differences between the Masoretic and the LXX - and these MT omissions, suspiciously, seem to center around omissions of certainMessianic prophecies ie Isaiah 61 “give sight to the blind.” It’s clear, what the NT authors quote and the Masoretic don’t comport. It’s deeply troubling.
danullb (8 months ago)
VoteForTRUMP have you actually watched Robert’s videos? He states emphatically that the Received text is God’s purely preserved words, going so far as to vigorously defend the Johannian Comma (amen!); an unpopular position amongst even the more conservative of the Byzantine crowd. I find him to be a rare and precious gem amongst today’s scholars (so-called) of textual criticism. Mr. Weiland adamantly maintains that the very text from which the Authorized Version is translated is God’s perfectly preserved, inerrant Word. He rejects that fallacious teaching of Warfield which would relegate inerrancy only to the original autographs. I’ve seen all his videos and can provide you a direct link with time stamp to places he states his CLEAR position on this matter. TL;DR Robert Weiland is absolutely, positively *not* a “soft Alexandrian” by any stretch. Good day EDIT: since posting this comment, just heard him say something about TR being the closest we have to the original autographs. This statement seems inconsistent with what he said about perfect preservation in a number of his other videos. Hmm. Just wanted to concede that point as I think there’s enough misinformation on this subject. In any case, the general drift I get from Mr Weiland is that he indeed trusts that God’s word has been inerrantly preserved; hence, he’s not some soft Alexandrian. Cheers
Dan Wood (2 years ago)
Absolutely magnificent! Many thanks.
OLAGA - Danny Stowers (2 years ago)
D.A.R.E. is what KJVO people do. The KJVO view has been shut down every time it comes up against even moderate resistance. Too, for you to equate White's view with Westcott & Hort shows you don't know what you're talking about. Modern scholars do not slavishly follow Wescott & Hort. All you do is roll out the same half truths and ignorant error. "Modern critics aren't neutral ..." no one is. KJVO are the far extreme from neutral. They determine what they believe from the works and teaching of KJVO authors, pastors and preachers, and then everything is viewed in the light of their entrenched view. They simply cannot see the facts that are there because they are practically brain-washed.
Nathan Evans (1 month ago)
Bringing up radical KJV onlies is like when atheistic evolutionists bring up flat earthers. The late Brother Wieland here presented very rational arguments showing how Evangelical textual critics are behind the times of even their own theory. James White regularly goes from arguing "earlier is better" in one sense, to "we don't believe earlier is better" when confronted with the obvious problem that even a direct copy of the autograph could contain an error. Indeed, I'm sure many a scribe made a copy of the original and then realized he had made a major mistake and trashed it immediately. The fact is that "reasoned eclecticism" is based upon a lot of false presumptions that even though even the textual critics themselves know are total garbage, they use them in constructing their critical text anyway. If these principles are false, the whole theory behind the modern critical text is simply wrong: 1. Older is better. Long since abandoned, except when convenient to fool the ignorant, which I find a reprehensible thing to do. 2. Families of texts: There are supposed families, but it is difficult which family these manuscripts belong, making it almost useless in every case but the Byzantine text family. 3. Shorter is better: I mean, why? Common sense itself dictates that when copying, you're more likely to miss something than add something. When you add something, it tends to be obvious. This is related to the conflation error. 4. The entire theory behind the Byzantine family being useless is that there was a recension to create it, but James White himself confutes this possibility when he says it would have been impossible to centralize the transmission in such a manner. Why are we still basically using the Westcott-Hort family of critical texts and their presuppositions when the idea there was a Byzantine recension is historically untenable? 5. The evidence from Church History is almost entirely ignored by modern textual scholars. Even if we reject the Comma Johanneum, James White claims that it was "unknown" before the 5th Century and that's just clearly bunk. I'm not here to debate the Comma, but what I do like is honest presentation of the evidence and it's nowhere near as indefensible as White claims.
Avelina Palmer (4 months ago)
"Brain washed"? as in "the soul cleansing blood of the Lamb"?
Theodore Dusablon (1 year ago)
the real fool is to think that White isn't a Lower Criticism Addict....smiling...:-)
Don Barron (2 years ago)
Interesting video. Can you give me your synopsis of the issues surrounding Rev. 22:19 "tree" vs. "book"?
Billy Shortridge (2 years ago)
what do you think about the modern English version? how does it compare to the kjv?
Clinton Post (3 years ago)
obviously, if they are trying hard to prove their text is best, they are liars and makes their text a lie. no Grace can save them at that point.
Joseph Neigh (3 years ago)
Is it okay if I read a NKJV or should I just stick with my KJV? I love it but find it difficult at times and find the NKJV brings it closer to home for my puny brain. I stopped reading White's KJVO Controversy book after chapter 4 because it caused me to doubt the inerrancy of my KJV bible.
Joseph Neigh (3 years ago)
+Robert Paul Wieland Thank you! I have found that sticking it out with the KJB has proven beneficial since I first picked it up. I started out with the ESV and read it for three years and loved it but I can't commit to it as a study bible knowing modern translations are heavily based on a translation philosophy of "yea, hath God said?" The men I fellowship with at my congregation agree KJV is the best to study from but they're not firm KJVO and our pastor teaches out of the NKJV (I go to a Calvary Chapel).  I don't know why this is such an issue for me but maybe I'm stressing too much about it. Thanks for your encouragement :)
Robert Paul Wieland (3 years ago)
+Joseph Neigh You need to use a translation that you can trust. The NKJV is good, but the KJV is the best translation in the English language. Yes, the wording can be hard at times, but such will also make you think more about what is being said in that particular passage - I think that is a good thing. Praying and asking God to help you as you read is also a very good thing to do. In the end, though, Mr. Neigh, this is a decision you have to make for yourself. I would encourage you to "stick it out" with the KJV, but, if, in the end, you find it too hard to understand, then switching to the NKJV may be helpful to you in the long run. Blessings, Rob.
Earl Smith (3 years ago)
Thank you, sir, for all of your research, study and prayerful presentations. I too believe that the "science" of modern textual criticism is fallacious. As Robert Dabney put it, it is minted from the wells of infidel rationalism. There is one point in your presentation I would like to discuss, and it is your concession that P75 and B are the only manuscripts that show “genealogy.” I would submit to you that, while they have an 82% affinity, according to Wilbur Pickering and others, they are hardly in a direct line of transmission. That is, even James White, in his debate with Bart Ehrman some years ago, kept saying that “P75 was not used to copy B,” that they were not in a direct line of transmission. And even though they enjoy 82% affinity, the makeup of the other 18% leaves lots of questions as to whether they can even be said to be in the same family. (What percentage threshold can be proven to constitute a “family”, anyway, or a direct descendant?) Now, my point is this: modern textual criticism relies heavily on so-called “scribal tendencies” to theorize the supposed superiority of the Alexandrian manuscripts and the alleged late, imitative and interpolative nature of the Byzantine text. And since the Byzantine text is fuller, this is presumed to be the result of conflation and insertion of non-original pericope, such as that of the adulteress. This presumption rests on the notion of genealogy among the manuscripts, something never demonstrated by Hort. But I believe that genealogy must be taken in the sense of “direct lineal ancestor.” If not taken this way, then that 82% affinity between P75 and B pales in comparison to the greater similarity between the Byzantine texts, and the TR to Byzantine in particular. However, consider this fact as elucidated by various scholars, among them Kirsopp Lake, who concluded, after having collated scores of Byzantine manuscripts in and around Mt. Athos: the manuscripts all had no demonstrable parentage, but were all “orphans” as it were. In fact, across the wide spectrum of manuscript transmission history, there are only a couple of instances where the parent exemplar of a copy is known, and those already late in the transmission history, even after the advent of the printing press. What does all of this mean? It means that we cannot seriously discuss “scribal tendencies,” better expressed as “scribal habits” without having both the exemplars scribes used AND the copies they made directly from them in order to see their proclivities in action. Therefore, we cannot know for sure what even one scribe was wont to do because we do not have the base text he was working on, let alone the product of that work. This then deals the death blow to two of the major modern text-critical canons: (1) The shorter reading is best/original, and (2) The harder reading is best/original. And the modern text critics’ use of the Alexandrian texts as base texts is just so much conjecture. Add to all of this the mixed textual nature of the papyri in general, and we can see clearly that there is no established genealogy at all, nor are text-types really defensible.
j parks (3 years ago)
1:20:00 You are quite mistaken about the history of Old Testament manuscripts. The Masoretic text is from 1000AD. It does NOT go back to the Aaronic priesthood. And also, Daniel, Ezra have Aramaic in them so it's not just Hebrew, btw. Much more complicated issue than you simplify it to.
Robert Paul Wieland (3 years ago)
I do not think you understand what I have written. I am sorry I was not more perspicuous. Blessings, Rob.
j parks (3 years ago)
I've pointed out your error.  Gave you the exact spot.  You refuse to admit it.  You are just as bad as James White.  Delete me.  It doesn't change the fact that God still knows of your error and now that you know about it too, it is sin not to confess.
Robert Paul Wieland (3 years ago)
I appreciate your help, but I do not believe you are right.  Again, these videos are intended to discuss the Greek New Testament, and not the Old Testament.  Please stop, or I will be forced to delete all of your posts.  Thanks in advance, Rob.
j parks (3 years ago)
I gave the exact time stamp.  Seriously.  I am correcting your error.  You of all people should appreciate that.
Robert Paul Wieland (3 years ago)
I believe I do not mention the Masoretic texts.  It looks to me like you are fishing for a platform.  Please stop.  Thanks, Rob.
j parks (3 years ago)
I've listened to both sides. I studied both views and found neither to have the right answer. I humbly submit that the Aramaic Peshitto is the closest there is to the originals. I know that the Hebrew Roots "cult" has co-opted this view and people throw out the baby with the bathwater. But this was actually a serious scholarly view from the time of the discovery of manuscripts in the 19th century - until Wescott & Hort all but destroyed this view. This scholarly work has been out of print and very hard to find until recently when Google scanned most of these books. Don't believe the nutty Hebrew roots. Check out the work of the Methodists, Baptists and Puritans who held these views. Don't believe the current crop of Greek scholars who won't even entertain the idea because their reputations would be mud if they admitted the truth.
kingair001 (2 years ago)
the official language of Rome was Latin...what a silly error
j parks (3 years ago)
Exactly my point.  The scholarship is more ancient and more conservative than Lamsa.  Lamsa did not do any favors for the view at all.
Robert Paul Wieland (3 years ago)
+j parks The idea that Aramaic is what the Apostles originally used in the Autographs is a concept that is still championed today by George Lamsa - some of his books are still in print. I believe this concept is flawed for a number of reasons: 1. The universal language of the Roman empire was Greek. Koine (or Common) Greek was what the everyday people used to talk and transact business. Greek, then, would have been the natural language to spread the Gospel of the New Testament "into all the world," at that time. 2. We have no examples of the Early Church Fathers using Aramaic quotations of the New Testament in their writings - they either used Greek or Latin. Also, they never refer to the Aramaic translations as authoritative. Though I have much respect for Lamsa and those who believe as he does, I do not think they are entirely accurate for the above two reasons. Thanks for the input. Blessings in Jesus Christ, Rob.
L P Cruz (4 years ago)
Mr. Wieland did Dr. White finally debate you on this? Thanks for this post - much appreciated.
Robert Paul Wieland (3 years ago)
+Vic Ribeiro I have not contacted Dr. White about a debate, but I would be interested in debating him - not on the Dividing Line - but in a formal, regulated, debate of which I do not have the resources to organize. Blessings, Rob.
Vic Ribeiro (3 years ago)
+Robert Paul Wieland, have you ever contacted Dr White about a debate? I'm sure he would be up for one. Would you?
j parks (3 years ago)
+L P Cruz Dr. White is too in love with his own mind to lower himself like that.
L P Cruz (4 years ago)
I believe you, your documentation and arguments are very compelling. Personally Westcott & Hort principles are not even scientific, there is no science in its axioms. Personally I think they are fallacious. Keep up the good work.
Robert Paul Wieland (4 years ago)
+L P Cruz Thank you, Mr. Cruz. But, no, I do not believe that Dr. White will ever debate me on this matter.
Steven Hayes (4 years ago)
Can't wait for the next video.
Steven Hayes (4 years ago)
Outstanding video!  Thank you for calling attention to the fact that the presuppositions of modern textual criticism are incompatible with Biblical theology (as well as early Reformed confessions).  The so-called science of Modern Textual Criticism is nothing more than naturalism applied to the transmission of the text of Scripture.  Naturalistic textual criticism rejects:  1) God's promise to supernaturally preserve His Word (Psalm 12:6-7), and 2) the Apostle Paul's warning that the deliberate corruption of the Word of God for theological reasons began as early as the first century (2 Corinthians 2:17).
Will Kinney (4 years ago)
Hi brother Robert. Thank you for this information. I do have a question or two for you though.  Has all this research and learning of yours led you to the place where you believe God has worked in history to give us a complete, inspired and inerrant Bible in any language (including "the" Hebrew and "the" Greek")? Do you personally believe that any Bible in any language IS the complete and inerrant words of God?  If Yes, can you show us a copy of it?  Or give us a link to where we can see it?  Or can you tell us exactly what it is called so we too can go out and get one for ourselves? If you do not believe that any bible in any language is or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God, are you honest enough to admit it? If you do not believe in an inerrant Bible, then can you at least tell us what is your best guess for a ballpark approximation? Looking forward to your answers.  Hopefully you won't just dodge these questions like James White does.  Thank you.
Robert Paul Wieland (4 years ago)
The Greek and Hebrew copies of the Bible contain the inspired Autographs - not simply inerrant - but inspired.  The Stephens 1550 Greek New Testament contain the inspired Autographs.  However, I am willing to consider minor changes to this text based on the Reformed Principles of Textual Criticism outlined in the 2nd part of this video.  A translation from this Greek text can be considered "inspired" only if it accurately represents the 1550 text in the receptor language.  When the KJV accurately represents this text in the English language, then it can be considered "inspired."  This, however, goes for the NIV, ESV, NASB, and NKJV as well.  It is my belief that the KJV is the most accurate English translation available today, but it is not perfect.  The other translations listed here are not as accurate, but in those instances wherein they are accurate, then, in those instances, they can be considered "inspired" as well.
Robert Paul Wieland (4 years ago)
Minor Errata: The citation of the KJOC under "the harder reading" refers to Dr. White's presentation on John 1:18.  Since there is a paucity of textual data which underlies "unique God" I assumed he was arguing the "harder reading" argument.  Interestingly enough Dr. White uses his interpretation of John 1:18 in his debate with Greg Stafford (a JW).  Stafford was not impressed with the presentation - which one can understand - as "unique God" implies that there are other "Gods."  Just as Abraham's "unique son" (Isaak) implies there are other sons (Ishmael) Hebrews 11:17.

Would you like to comment?

Join YouTube for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.