There is an interesting and regularly observable dichotomy found in the major tenets of modern evangelical textual criticism. On the one hand you have modern evangelical text-critics saying,

“…the copies of Homer, Plato, Aristotle, and others from the ancient world have produced adequate copies for us to know what they taught. And as shown below, we have more accurate copies of the original New Testament than they do of their original texts.”

Geisler and Roach, Defending Inerrancy, 80.

Geisler and Roach go on to write,

“Clearly the New Testament is the most well-attested book from all ancient history. If one denies the reliability of the New Testament based upon the number of manuscripts and the interval of time between its original composition and nearest copy, then they would have to thereby discredit the reliability of every work from ancient history.”

Geisler and Roach, Defending Inerrancy, 83.

Along these same lines Daniel Wallace writes,

“Although the vast majority of NT MSS are over a millennium removed from the autographs, there are significant numbers of documents in the first millennium. Naturally, the closer we get in time to the originals, the fewer the MSS. But the numbers are nevertheless impressive – especially when compared with other ancient literature.’

Daniel Wallace, Inerrancy and the Text, Sec. 2.

In sum, we have so many manuscripts. I mean, many times more than other works in antiquity. On the other hand you have textual scholars saying,

“It [the Byzantine Text-Type] is best represented today by Codex Alexandrinus (A 02, in the Gospels; not in Acts, the Epistles, or Revelation), the later uncial manuscripts, and the great mass of minuscule manuscripts. These minuscule manuscripts are cited together under the symbol Byz in the critical apparatus.”

Roger Omanson, A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament, 23. [Italics Mine]

Omanson goes on to comment,

“About eighty percent of the minuscule manuscripts and nearly all lectionary manuscripts contain the Byzantine text-type.”

Roger Omanson, A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament, 23.

Wasserman and Gurry follow suit in writing,

“Their [the Byzantine minuscules’] agreement is such that it is hard to deny that they should be grouped. In fact, the editors using the CBGM do group them together, subsuming them in the apparatus under the symbol Byz.”

Wasserman and Gurry, A New Approach to Textual Criticism: An Introduction to the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method, 9.

Given the above quotes we have these two things in play at the same time: 1.) We have more original manuscript copies than any other book from antiquity and 2.) The Byzantine manuscripts really count as one witness because “it is hard to deny that they should be grouped.” And what is the nature of this Byz? According to the experts is it a good source? Omanson calls Byz “corrupt” [24]. Wasserman and Gurry recognize that for nearly the whole existence of modern textual criticism Byz was “disparaged by a majority of New Testament textual critics” as being “the least valuable” [10]. So if we take the Byzantine text-form and subsume it under one symbol, as one witness, how many actual witnesses do we have to the NT according to the scholars?

To answer this question let’s begin by looking at a chart. This chart shows the number of manuscripts we have of other ancient writings.

Author	Work	Date Written	Earliest MSS	Time Gap	Number of MSS
Homer	Iliad	800 BC	c. 400 BC	400	1757
Herodotus	History	480-425 BC	10th C	1350	109
Sophocles	Plays	496-406 BC	3rd C BC	100-200	193
Plato	Tetralogies	400 BC	AD 895	1300	210
Caesar	Gallic Wars	100-44 BC	9th C	950	251
Livy	History of Rome	59 BC-AD 17	Early 5th C	400	150
Tacitus	Annals	AD 100	AD 850	750-950	33
Pliny, the Elder	Natural History	AD 49-79	5th C fragment: 1; Rem. 14-15th C	400	200
Thucydides	History	460-400 BC	3rd C BC	200	96
Demosthenes	Speeches	300 BC	Some fragments from 1 C BC	1100+	340
Greek NT		AD 50-100	AD 130	40	5795

We see that the total number of NT manuscripts is somewhere around 5,800 manuscripts and the closest competitor is Homer with 1,757 manuscripts. Indeed, this is quite a wide margin of witnesses. But before we draw our conclusion as Omanson, Wallace, Geisler, Roach and so many others have, let’s take a look what manuscripts make up that 5,800.

Currently, the total list of minuscules is ~3,000 which is approximately half of the total manuscript count. As we saw above, Omanson says that 80% of those minuscules are Byzantine and Byzantine manuscripts are seen as a single witness as attested to by Omanson, Wasserman, Gurry, and the ECM editors. 80% of 3,000 is 2,400. So according to the experts, 2,400 manuscripts = Byz or exactly one (1) witness. So,

5,800 – 2,399 = 3,401 witnesses.

But we are not done. The manuscript tradition is broken up into four separate kinds of witnesses: papyri, uncials/majuscules, minuscules, and lectionaries. How many of our remaining 3,401 witnesses do you think are lectionaries? We have ~2,400 lectionaries, and, again, as Omanson pointed out under his section dealing with the Byzantine text-type, “nearly all lectionary manuscripts contain the Byzantine text-type.” As such, all 2,400 are in reality Byz or exactly one (1) witness which has already been accounted for above. So,

3,401 – 2,400 = 1,001 witnesses.

What then is the tail of the tape? If the above observations are correct, Homer has 70% more witnesses to the Iliad and Odyssey than we do to the Greek NT. What is more, the vast majority of our “embarrassment of riches” seems to be one corrupt disparaged gem of least value which is called, Byz. We have more copies, sure, but we don’t have more witnesses. What is more, any first year Greek student knows that we don’t count manuscripts to determine a reading, we weigh them. Yet time and time again modern evangelical scholars talk about number, number, number, but those in the know care little for number in making their text-critical decisions. That said, let’s take it a step further.

Note in the quote third from the top that Wallace recognizes that “the vast majority of NT MSS are over a millennium removed from the autographs.” Then take a look at the chart. All but three of the works from antiquity have witnesses earlier than 1,000 years from their original.

The point being that if you make the Byzantine text-form a single witness, Byz, then we do not have an embracement of riches. And if it is an embarrassment of riches the vast majority of those riches are disparaged, said to be corrupt, and of little value. The fact is, that without Byz, we have about half as many witnesses as Homer’s works do. As to the date of the manuscripts, our best manuscripts are said to be Aleph and B which are fourth century manuscripts and Homer’s works have attestation in the fifth century. So even the age of the witnesses are neck-and-neck in this regard.

A few posts ago we had to parse out what modern evangelical text-critics meant by “earlier” or “later” and the equivocation found therein. Now come to find out on the point of copies vs. witnesses, we have a bunch of copies compared to other ancient texts but far less witnesses especially when compared to Homer’s work. We could take this argument further and point out that many of the papyri are mere scraps the size of credit cards having only a handful of words on them, but at this point I think the point is proven. There is an unacknowledged in the modern evangelical text-critical world and depending on whether scholars are talking with scholars or scholars are talking with God’s sheep will determine which side of the dichotomy the scholar chooses.

As we continue our survey of contemporary “meaningful textual variants” known and answered hundreds of years, we turn now to 1 John 4:3. Turretin observes that the text can be read, “Every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh” or as the Latin translates it, “every spirit that denies Jesus.” The editors of the CT observe at least two major variants in 1 John 4:3. The first revolves around whether “does not confess” or “denies” is original and the second is whether “is come in the flesh” is original or should be left out. Omanson observes of the first,

“The external support for the reading in the text [does not confess] is overwhelming. The variant λύει (looses) in some ancient versions and Church Fathers probably arose in the second century as a result of disputes in the church about the person of Jesus.”

Roger Omanson, A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament, 509.

Regarding whether or not “is come in the flesh” is original, Omanson writes,

“Good manuscripts of both the Alexandrian and Western text-types support the reading in the text [the Jesus]. The various longer readings, such as Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν (Jesus Christ) and τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα (Jesus in the flesh has come), are expansions made to agree with statements in the previous verse.”

Roger Omanson, A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament, 510.

As such it is the opinion of the editors of the CT that “confesses not” is original, but “is come in the flesh” is not original and therefore should be excluded from the text. Omanson admits that there are longer readings in the manuscript tradition regarding the latter variant but holds that shorter is better and therefore what he sees as an expansion is most likely not original. But as we have seen in prior examples, longer readings or what Omanson calls here, “expansions,” were not seen as marks against a reading being original at the time of the Post-Reformation dogmaticians.

Turretin observes of this textual variant,

“It is true that all the Greek copies differ from the Latin on 1 Jn. 4:3…Yet it does not follow that the sources are corrupt because the Greek reading is both more majestic and far stronger against the Nestorians and Eutychians.”

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 1 Second Topic, Q. 10, Sec. XXIV.

Not first that Turretin’s argument is theological in nature by invoking the criteria of majesty to make his point. It is common in Early and Post-Reformation protestant theology to claim “the majesty of the matter” as one of the internal evidences of the inspiration of the Scripture. Here Turretin uses “majesty” as a means to defend the longer reading [Jesus is come in the flesh].

Second, note that Turretin’s reason for defending the longer reading is polemical or apologetic, if you like. Turretin’s argument at this point is in part based on a theological defense of Christian orthodoxy against the Nestorians and the Eutychians. The former diminished the union of Christ’s two nature while the latter diminished the human nature of Christ in light of His divine nature. Turretin sees “is come in the flesh” as a theological polemic against those who would seek to diminish the hypostatic union or to diminish the humanity of the God-Man.

Third, note what Turretin calls the Greek apographa – the sources. By phrasing it this way Turretin is not making an appeal to the originals to make his case for inspired Scripture. He is appealing to the copies, indeed a canonical apographa, which he calls the sources. And based on those sources he goes on to make claims against Rome’s Vulgate and heresies like Nestorianism and Eutychianism. If Rome believed their Vulgate to be the word of God, and they did, it would not due for Turretin to say something like, “Well, the actual Bible is either in the text or apparatus or in manuscripts we haven’t found yet” or “I know you think your Bible is the word of God, but you should come to our side because our Bible is a sufficiently reliable form of God’s word.”

Back to the point, Turretin’s argument here for the longer reading of 1 John 4:3 does contain the use of evidence […all the Greek copies differ from the Latin], but the bulk and emphasis of his argument rests upon theological considerations. This is all we are calling for here at StandardSacredText.com. Make your arguments primarily from an exegetical and theological grounding and then support that exegetical and theological grounding with the available evidence.

Finally, as we have now seen for the third time, Pre-Critical textual criticism varies greatly from Post-Critical textual criticism or what we call modern evangelical textual criticism. It varies in method at two points at least: 1.) Theology is primary in the interpretation of competing variants and 2.) The shortest, hardest, and oldest reading is not a paradigm held by the Pre-Enlightenment scholarship. Pre-Enlightenment textual scholarship is theologically based, starts at a different place [i.e., with the Church’s Bible which was the TR at that time], and uses a different methodology, than Post-Enlightenment textual scholarship. It is no wonder then that modern textual scholars come out with different interpretations of the evidence and different products from their Reformation era forbearers.

It has often puzzled me why an appeal to reading as “earlier” somehow trumped most claims to different but “later” readings. Consider the following quote from Wasserman and Gurry’s book, A New Approach to Textual Criticism: An Introduction to the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method,

“Reading a, on the other hand, is not attested until the ninth century in majuscules such as 018, 020, and 025, all of which are Byzantine.”

Wasserman and Gurry, A New Approach, 72.

What does the phrase “is not attested until the ninth century” mean? Perhaps I am the odd one out on this one but such a phrase as unadorned as it is seems to indicate that reading “a“ does not appear on the historical scene until the ninth century. The fact is that the “not attested until” is conditioned by the current manuscript evidence. As such, “is not attested until the ninth century” should be followed by, “as far as we know” or “according to the limited number of manuscripts we currently have”. Reading “a” very well may have appeared before the ninth century, but we don’t have those manuscripts. I intend on discussing this point later on in this post.

“Is not attested until the ninth century” means considering the current manuscript evidence we do not have a manuscript which attests to reading “a” until the ninth century which is not the same as “Reading ‘a‘ did not appear in history until the ninth century.” The former definition is relative to other manuscripts we have at present and our understanding of them while the latter is ontological, temporally defined. The former is a matter of interpretation and the latter is a matter of whether or not reading “a” came into being at that time [i.e., the ninth century].

At the rise of the CBGM we are finding out that later manuscripts like Byzantine minuscules actually contain very early readings. In other words, many of our youngest manuscripts [ontological, temporally defined] contain many of our oldest readings [relative to other readings we have in hand]. If this seems odd to you, consider the following quote from Wasserman and Gurry:

“With the advent othe CBGM, however, the editors of the ECM (and NA28/UBS5) have reevaluated the external evidence and concluded that the Byzantine manuscripts may indeed preserve very early readings, even ones that have disappeared from other streams of the textual transmission.’

Wasserman and Gurry, A New Approach, 72.

The editors of the ECM (Major Critical Edition) have now come to the conclusion that our youngest manuscripts may preserve very early readings, even very early readings which have vanished from certain streams of textual transmission. Given this last observation, ninth century manuscripts can have readings which appear no where in that manuscripts transmission stream but are nevertheless very early readings. That is to say, it is eminently possible that there are readings in young manuscripts which have no transmission history but are still very old. And the reason we don’t know these manuscripts is because the manuscript sample [i.e., 5,600+]does not contain them.

As a result, the modern text critic is treating the measure of what is later and what is earlier based only on the manuscript evidence we currently have as if that is complete enough to account for the form of this or that manuscript. We know now that young manuscripts have very old readings in them yet we have no manuscript stream to show how the reading came from the old manuscript and was finally copied hundreds of years later in the young manuscript. The CBGM is teaching us that there are potentially huge gaps between manuscripts which we do not have, but historically existed. And seeing we do not know what those manuscripts recorded, we can only guess on their form.

As such, the text-critic has a huge question to answer from a purely historical perspective, that is, without employing his Christian precommitments. That question is, how do you know that the manuscript stream which intervenes between the very old manuscript that has the very old reading and the very young manuscript which still retains the very old reading is not meaningfully different and more consistent with the original? If some manuscript/reading in that missing transmission stream is indeed meaningfully different and more consistent with the original and we do not have that/those document(s)/reading(s) then we do not have the Bible in that reading. And if that reading is in the Gospels, then perhaps we are indeed misquoting Jesus.

But this idea of young manuscripts containing very old readings is not a passing observation. Consider these quotes from Wasserman and Gurry,

“In this, they [the ECM editors] concluded that the much later Byzantine manuscripts have preserved the earliest reading, an application of the principle that early readings can be preserved in late manuscripts.”

Wasserman and Gurry, A New Approach, 73.

“… late manuscripts may not preserve merely early readings; sometimes they may preserve the earliest readings.”

Wasserman and Gurry, A New Approach, 79-80.

“But the ECM now following the reading translated by the KJV and found in most later Greek witnesses, which says instead that ‘they gave their lots…and the lot fell on Matthias…Still this variation serves as a good illustration, not least because it is a case where the ECM editors once again show their willingness to follow Byzantine manuscripts against the earlier and most important witnesses such as 01 [Sinaitaicus], 02, 03 [Vaticanus], 04, and 05C1.”

Wasserman and Gurry, A New Approach, 81.

“As Wachtel puts it in his commentary, early texts ‘are not necessarily preserved in early manuscripts.'”

Wasserman and Gurry, A New Approach, 86.

The point is that there are many old readings in many new manuscripts regardless if there is an extant manuscript stream or not. The manuscript is late in history but its content/readings are early relative to the manuscript/readings we currently possess, and that without a known transmission stream.

In sum, we here at StandardSacredText.com can account for the preservation of old readings in new manuscripts from a theological perspective. We don’t need the evidence of a manuscript stream to support our conclusions. The modern evangelical text critic on the other hand must admit that there are an unknown host of manuscripts between the old manuscript with the old reading and the new manuscript with the old reading. We know those manuscripts existed as part of the transmission stream. How many? We don’t know. Whether they still exist and can be found? We don’t know. What they said? We don’t know. Whether they have readings that are original which we do not have? Again, we don’t know. How many unknown manuscripts containing how many unknown original readings in lost transmission stream X are we missing? The text-critic does not know nor can they know until they find said manuscripts and readings.

The text-critic does not know.

Whether you run in popular evangelical circles or not your most likely have heard of Andy Stanley, son of Charles Stanley. Andy Stanley has over the years made some notable and provocative statements about the Bible. On June 13, 2014 Stanley tweeted,

“Why we must teach the next generation the FOUNDATION of our faith is an EVENT not a BOOK:”

He followed this tweet up with an article from Buzzfeed written by a person who was steeped in Christianity when he was young but has since then abandoned the faith.

Then of course there is the famous, “We must unhitch the Old Testament from our faith” statement on April 30, 2018.

Last Sunday, March 6, 2022, Andy Stanley continued this particular theme when he preached or gave a religious talk [I think “preached” is a bit generous, but he certainly did proclaim the following],

“The Christian faith doesn’t rise and fall on the accuracy of 66 ancient documents. It rises and falls on the identity of a single individual: Jesus of Nazareth.”

The bulk of Stanley’s talk revolves around an evidential approach to the reliability of the Gospel account. If the Gospel accounts are historically reliable then the existence, coming, and actions of Christ are also reliable. That is reasonable to a point, and a fine one in a very narrow sense but the cost of making this statement was too high.

First, let us make some observations about Stanley’s point and then make some broader observations regarding the Scriptures in general. Note that Stanley employs the Bible without employing what the Bible is. The Bible is the inspired infallible revealed word of Almighty God, but Stanley would have us treat the Bible like a mere historical witness to potentially miraculous things. That said, he can’t get away from the Bible in his attempt to make a case for the divinity of Jesus form the Gospels. So to simultaneously say that our Christian faith doesn’t rise and fall on the accuracy of 66 ancient documents only to turn around and make a plea for the accuracy of ancient documents seems a bit silly, counter intuitive, and self-defeating. But hey, he’s got a big church and a bunch of Twitter followers so…checkmate. On this point Stanley sidelines reason for the moment in order to make his point.

Note that by considering the Bible a mere historical witness the concept that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God translates into faith comes by hearing and hearing by reliable historical witnesses. In short, Stanley is preaching is a church on a Sunday and he still will not put forth his Christian precommitments as primary and necessary to the preaching of the Christian Gospel. If you don’t need to think and speak in Christian terms to preaching the Christian Gospel then maybe it is not necessary that you be a Christian at all [See the President of Harvard Chaplains, an atheist, as an example]. The striking thing is that Stanley is on home turf playing for the home crowd but he is theologically hedging as if he is in enemy territory and in danger of being ratted out as a spy only to finally be hanged. On this point Stanley sidelines his Christian precommitments for the moment in order to make his point.

Later, in this same talk, Stanley shows us a chalkboard diagram which starts with an event [the resurrection] that leads to a movement [Christianity] and that movement is recorded [in the Gospels] and then 300 years later we get the Bible. Therefore, the account is not a Bible story, he says, but Bible is a result of the Jesus event. Stanley is probably unaware of the fact that this kind of talk, juxtaposing event, revelation, and history is just a watered down version of Barthian Crisis Theology.

Karl Barth argued in the name of a kind of Neo-Orthodoxy that Scripture was mere historical record, then at some point in time you may read that record and God in the person of Christ, who is absolutely free, will decide to encounter you [event] through the record and in that moment the record becomes the inspired word of God to you. After your crisis encounter with Christ, if you go to share your experience with your wife or friend, then your experience is now record and not inspired word of God. One more thing. Just so we are clear, most of the Bible was already written [i.e., the Old Testament] hundreds of years before “The Event”. So of course you would say such things like the account of Jesus is not a Bible story because you have already unhitched the OT from your faith. On this point Stanley is about as much a Crisis Theologian as you can get in order to make his point.

It seems to me that Stanley really didn’t think his way through this very much. There is no doubt that a true Christian understands that Christ is the ontological foundation of Christianity. Indeed, Christ is the center of the center. We can get no more foundational than Christ the Chief Cornerstone. That said, there is no way we can come to know Christ and to know Him by faith except through the word of God, through Scripture. In this sense, the Scriptures are the epistemological foundation and these two foundations, ontological and epistemological, are not mutually exclusive. They can occupy the same intellectual ground without conflict. As such, both Word of God [Christ] and the word of God [Scripture] can serve as foundations. The being and office of Christ is dependent upon Him but our knowledge of Christ’s being and office is dependent upon Scripture. Indeed, our knowledge of Christ is dependent upon the reliability and accuracy of 66 ancient documents. On this point what Stanley doesn’t know has come back to hurt him so that he could make his point.

I can’t help but make the correlation between Stanley’s failure in this instance to be overtly Christian in a Christian church among Christians and that of Christian professors’ failure to be overtly Christian in Christian institutions among Christian students when dealing with textual criticism. Both Stanley and the college professor are at home playing for the home team. Both are unashamedly stingy with their Christian precommitments when engaging in their respective enterprises. Both are overtly evidential in their methodology. Both aim to treat the Bible as a mere historical witness. Both have little problem speaking of ancient peoples as scientifically illiterate and superstitious because they didn’t understand modern science the deliverances of which have given us abortion on demand, sex transition therapy, 5600+ manuscripts, the fact/value divide, an “embracement of riches,” and more efficient and impersonal ways of killing people which includes the most efficient and impersonal of them all – nuclear weapons. Both Stanley and the CT/MVO advocate are on the popular end of the socio-cultural scale spectrum in ecclesiastical circles, and both seem to make strident efforts to impress their god-hating interlocutors with their balance, neutrality, and even-handed approach to the Gospels and what they teach.

Lastly, can we really blame Andy Stanley for speaking as he does? In preparing for this post I read several posts and blogs about how Stanley needs to step down or how bad his words look for Christianity and for the Gospel in particular. Why? All he is doing is preaching in a fashion consistent with text-critical methodology. What? You didn’t think modern text-critical methodology wouldn’t make it into the pulpits of the West when its marks are all over the Bible resting on that pulpit?

Stanley and the CT/MVO advocate assume a neutral position, remove the miraculous from the equation [at least initially], make a series of historically based arguments, then based on this seemingly neutral grounding compel others to come to your side which you call orthodox Christianity. Then when they do come to your side you backtrack for years trying to explain to God’s people that what really matters is that the Bible is inspired and infallible. But because you started the discussion from “neutral ground” you need to make up reasons why errors or additions or omissions don’t really affect the doctrine that you say really matters. Then people like Bart Ehrman call your bluff and leave the faith. In short, Andy Stanley’s treatment of the Bible is perfectly in line with the current evangelical way of treating manuscripts, from which we get the Bible. So give the man some space. He is an honest product of the CT/MVO process and methodology. Or in other words,

“Hear me and rejoice. You have had the privilege of being saved by the great Text-Critical Enterprise. You may think this is suffering, no. It is salvation. The universal scale tips toward balance because of your sacrifice. Smile. For even in death, you have become children of Reasoned Eclecticism.

Ebony Maw (Probably), Infinity (Textual) Wars, 2018.

As it was in the time of Turretin so it is in our time that we discuss whether the ending or doxology of the Lord’s prayer is original. Pointing out again, these debates are not new. It is not like the originality of the Lord’s prayer was something modern scholars fortuitously stumbled upon in their work. Rather such questions and argumentation were leveled by the Roman Catholic Church centuries before in an attempt to besmirch the certainty and authority of the Greek and Hebrew apographa thus making room for the certainty and authority of the Latin Vulgate. The questions are the same, but the source of the questions has changed. Where before it was Roman Catholics pressing these questions against Protestants now it is Protestants pressing these questions against Protestants.

Looking now to Turretin, he writes of the ending of the Lord’s Prayer or what he calls the doxology,

“Although the doxology (doxologia) which appears at the end of the Lord’s Prayer (Mat. 6:13), is not found in Lk. 11, nor in the various copies, it does not follow that the passage is corrupt.”

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Second Topic, Question 10, Sec. XXII.

Note that Turretin affirms the existence of the doxology in Matthew and then in acknowledging that truth goes on to defend why Luke does not have it. I admit that the major thrust of today’s debate over the end of the Lord’s Prayer revolves around whether it belongs in Matthew. Still, as we work through Turretin’s argument we will see how he would have us deal with Matthew’s account.

Omanson says of the Matthew’s account,

“Early and important manuscripts of the Alexandrian, Western, and other types of text, as well as commentaries on the Lord’s Prayer by early Church Fathers, end the Lord’s Prayer with word πονηροῦ in v. 13. Copyists added several different endings in order to adapt the Prayer for use in worship in the early church.”

Roger Omanson, A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament, 8.

We will get to Omanson’s claim in a minute, but back to Turretin’s treatment of the Lord’s Prayer in Luke, Turretin makes two arguments for the different endings of the Lord’s prayer – the one in Matthew and the one in Luke. The first argument takes the form of

“…because our Lord may have twice proposed the same form of prayer: first in the private instruction of his disciples without it and then to a promiscuous crowd where he added it.”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Question 10, Sec. XXII.

Turretin’s second argument take the form of the following,

“Nor is it unusual for one evangelist to omit what another has mentioned, since they did not think it necessary to record absolutely everything; as for instance Mt. 6:33 has ‘seek the kingdom of God and his righteousness,’ but Lk 12:31 simply ‘seek the kingdom of God.’

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Question 10, Sec. XXII.

Now you might not think these arguments to be sufficient to your liking. Ok, so be it. The point is that Turretin was aware of the objection to the doxology of the Lord’s Prayer. Furthermore, Turretin makes a cogent and reasonable accounting for the difference and for the doxology in general. In short, you may not like his reasons, but his reasons are sufficiently reasonable and account for the phenomena of Scripture. But what about the doxology as it appears in Matthew? What does Turretin have to say about that in light of its absence from Luke? In concluding his remarks on this passage in Luke when compared to Matthew, Turretin writes,

“We must not therefore erase, but supply from Matthew what Luke has omitted, since both were inspired (theopneustos), especially as the full form exists in all the Greek copies of Matthew, according to Erasmus and Beza.”

Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Question 10, Sec. XXII.

This is a beautiful example of the kind of text-critical methodology we advocate for here at StandardSacredText.com. Turretin objects to the claim that we should remove the doxology from Matthew because it is not in Luke for two reason: First, Turretin clearly shows his Christian precommitments in his decision about the doxology by admitting and proclaiming that both Matthew and Luke were inspired. Second, after grounding himself in a theological assertion he then goes on to employ evidence that according to Erasmus and Beza all the Greek copies have the doxology in Matthew. Note here that Turretin does not weigh manuscripts but rather counts them when using the term “all”.

In this brief example we see that the debates over such readings like the doxology of the Lord’s Prayer are old and have been answered for hundreds of years. We also see Turretin’s commitment to a clear confession of his Christian theological precommitments in making a judgment about a reading. We then see that within the matrix of theological precommitments, Turretin employs evidence as support and not as primary to buttress his case. And finally, we observe that in this case, pre-critical “textual criticism” thought that the number of manuscripts bore considerable weight in the decision-making process.

To my CT/MVO brothers, it is probably best to stop with the charade that Pre-Critical and Post-Critical textual criticism are cut from the same cloth and further it is best that we agree that so many of these objections were answered 100 years before the United States of America became a nation. That said, it very well may be our responsibility to answer these questions again for a new generation of Scripture skeptics. Still, it wouldn’t be so bad if the Scripture skeptics were enemies of the Gospel, but instead the skeptics are our brothers in Christ.