The Continued Arbitrariness of RTC Advocates Against the Textus Receptus

In Restorationist Textual Criticism by Chris ThomasLeave a Comment

One of the most common arguments proffered against the group of printed collations called Textus Receptus is that the Greek manuscripts prove that the TR has errors.  In my previous post I mentioned a recent post by Dr. Elijah Hixson on the extant Greek mss on the Comma Johanneum and the response post by Dr. Jeffrey Riddle which demolished it so badly that poor Elijah took to the comment section in Jeff’s post to break the 9th commandment and accuse Jeff of lying to his audience.  When RTC advocates do that, they’re admitting defeat.  

In this post we’ll look at another unargued bias, which is a type of arbitrariness, in which all critics of the TR engage and can be succinctly expressed as follows:  the Textus Receptus is wrong at any-verse-X because the extant Greek manuscripts differ from the Textus Receptus at said verse.  Now it should already be obvious how bad of an argument this is.  As mentioned before, there is no way for an RTC advocate to objectively know that the content of the current extant manuscripts is representative of the content of all manuscripts ever produced or of the autographs without a TARDIS as they have all abandoned the biblical doctrine of Providential Preservation and have made their own reasoning more authoritative than Scripture.  It’s another unargued bias that is common in all of their literature.  The question that should immediately spring to mind is, “how do they know that the content of the current extant manuscripts is superior to the content of the manuscripts reflected in the Texti Recepti?”  Again, without the autographs they have no way to justify this bias.  Ironically, when one considers they remove the last 12 verses of Mark on the basis of Vaticanus & Sinaiticus, they will usually respond, “We have more manuscripts now!”  This is again begging the question.  They have failed to provide proof for their bias that the current content of the current extant Greek mss is superior to the content of the manuscripts collated to produce the Textus Receptus.  

But it’s not just an example of the logical fallacy of begging the question*; it’s also an example of the logical fallacy known as an appeal to ignorance**.  As always, RTC Advocates like to shop at the Dollar Fallacy Store.  Their appeal to ignorance can be expressed as follows:  “Although we have proven that the majority of current extant manuscripts do not contain the Comma Johanneum, we have not proven that it was missing from the majority of all Greek manuscripts ever produced, nor that it was missing from the autographs; therefore, the Comma Johanneum was missing from the majority of all Greek mss ever produced and from the autographs.”  When fully expressed, the argument is seen for the sham that it is.  

So perhaps you’re thinking, but aren’t Textus Receptus advocates doing the same thing when they assume that the printed manuscript collations are superior to the content of the current extant Greek mss?  No.  When it comes to the Confessional View of Scripture vs the RTC view of Scripture there are only three possibilities:

  1. Both positions are wrong
  2. The CVS position is wrong
  3. The RTC position is wrong

So how do we know which of the above three positions is correct?  The same way we as Christians evaluate all truth claims, by going to Scripture.  And the only position supported in Scripture, the exegetical arguments for which can be found in the writings of the Reformers, is the Confessional View of Scripture.  As I stated in my last post, the only way for RTC Advocates to escape arbitrariness and inconsistency is for them to:

  1. Provide an exegetical argument against the Confessional View of Scripture that refutes the historic, biblical, & Reformed arguments; and this must be done from the authentic Greek & Hebrew texts of the Reformers;
  2. Provide an exegetical from the authentic Greek & Hebrew texts for rejecting them as our epistemic authority;
  3. Providing an exegetical argument for their position. 

And all three of these points must be done without engaging in logical inconsistencies.  Without these three arguments, which must lack logical inconsistency, they have no argument against the Confessional View of Scripture, nor against any reading in the Textus Receptus that the current extant manuscripts disagree with.  In other words, what RTC advocates think of as arguments are technically nothing more than mere opinion and logical inconsistency.  They have proven themselves to a man to be pseudo-scholars promoting atheism over God’s word.  So the next time you run across an RTC Advocate making claims against the TR, offer them what King James I would have offered them, one turd.  Because that’s the worth of their argument

*begging the question fallacy

**appeal to ignorance fallacy

Leave a Comment