A helpful summation of yet another thought-provoking article on the problems with textual criticism of the Bible:
“…If we believe the Bible, we understand that God says the gates of Hell will not prevail against the churches of Jesus Christ, and that heaven and Earth will pass away, but His words will not, that the Bible will be preserved from that generation forever (from the time of its writing).
We understand that not one jot or tittle will pass from the Bible. We understand that God glorifies Scripture above His name. All this is contained in the Bible. It’s right there. If you’re saved, you understand all this. So this means the Bible promises that the bible will not be lost, and that the churches will use it.
The Textual Critic does not believe these things. He cannot, as the principles of textual criticism say something else. Men say the bible is lost; God says the Bible will not pass away, that it is preserved, inerrant, inspired.
God is right, men are wrong. To agree with Griesbach is to stand against God.
Not a good position.”
The shorter reading, if not wholly lacking the support of old and weighty witnesses, is to be preferred over the more verbose. For scribes were much more prone to add than to omit. They hardly ever leave out anything on purpose, but they added much. It is true indeed that some things fell out by accident; but likewise not a few things, allowed in by the scribes through errors of the eye, ear, memory, imagination, and judgment, have been added to the text. –Griesbach
Under stupid, see stupid. This is what’s known as a priorii argument. A priorii argument is when you make up your mind before examining the facts, and use the conclusion as the basis of the argument. It’s a logical fallacy.
Griesbach starts with the predetermined conclusion that the Bible was edited. And because it was edited, we must prefer the shorter reading. Why? The Bible was edited.
Well, you started too soon, by assuming the Bible was edited. First, you have to examine the ancient authorities and determine – is there a family of texts that agree? That family is then…
View original post 919 more words