Author: The Young, Textless, and Reformed

A Response to Brother Mark Ward

The Young, Textless, and Reformed10 Comments

Introduction

First I want to acknowledge and commend the irenic spirit of Dr. Mark Ward as he presented a refutation of the position which he calls “Confessional Bibliology” in his lecture posted on September 27, 2019. For those that are readers of my blog, I have referred to this position as “The Confessional Text Position”, and I believe that Confessional Bibliology is an appropriate and charitable label, over and above “Textual Traditionalism” or “KJV Onlyism”.[EDIT: Ward has decided to call this position “KJV Only” anyway. We can’t all be winners.] It is important to remember that this is an intrafaith dialogue. I hope that my handling of his lecture will rise to the same level of integrity as brother Ward. Dr. Ward’s presentation is thorough, scholarly, and is befitting of a Christian, unlike many similar presentations. This is evident in that he freely discusses Pastor Jeff Riddle and Pastor Truelove without character defamation, misrepresentation, or name calling. I do acknowledge that some have treated Dr. Ward uncharitably in various groups, and I want to point out that I have had nothing but positive interactions with him (though brief). It is clear that he is a dear brother in the Lord, despite our disagreement in this one area. 

That being said, I do see some potential problems with his presentation that I would like to address. My goal is to emphasize, like Dr. Ward seems to do, that this conversation primarily finds its application pastorally, and not text-critically. This is not about being right and defeating each other, it is about giving confidence to Christians that they have God’s Word. As a pastor, my pure intention is to provide a position that can accomplish that goal. All of the text-critical work in the world is without use if our hearts are not in the first place focused on instilling men and women with confidence in their Bible, reassuring them that every word they read is “Thus saith the Lord”. The main focus of my critique is that the presentation proceeds backwards. It begins at a surface level and then stays there, brushing over the fundamental issue which divides the two camps so definitively.

Do the Minor differences between the CT and TR Give Cause for Abandoning the TR?  

In Dr. Ward’s presentation, there was a major effort to highlight the differences within the printed editions of the Received Text, rather than discussing the major differences between the Received Text and Critical Text. These major differences result in the form of the two texts being entirely different. I will argue that downplaying the difference within the Received Text and the Critical Text does not frame the discussion in its proper place, and that makes it difficult to interact with the nuances of the presentation in a meaningful way. That is because the problem is not initially about the minor differences within printed texts, it is about the fact that these two texts represent entirely different Bibles and two different methodologies.

Dr. Ward’s approach neglects to highlight the implications to the doctrine of preservation by focusing on the “jot and tittle” component of the Confessional Text position, which certainly deserves to be fleshed out further down the line. He rightfully comments that the missing sections at the end of Mark and in John 8 are a “serious threat” to the critical text. This seems like an appropriate problem to tackle prior to getting into the minutiae, which Dr. Ward carefully does in his presentation. Given that we both believe God has preserved His Word, it seems imperative to answer how one can uphold a meaningful doctrine of preservation while affirming two text platforms which disagree in major ways. If both sides can cross the bridge and agree that this poses difficulties to even the most loose definitions of preservation, there may be a great opportunity for a fruitful discussion about minor variations at some point from a believing perspective. 

Which is to say, that it is problematic to Dr. Ward’s critique to insist that God preserved two forms of the Bible. I argue frequently that the only reason there is so much tension in this discussion is the fact that modern critical text advocates continue to present the smattering of Alexandrian manuscripts as “earliest and best”, despite no evidence for such a claim other than they are the oldest surviving manuscripts. Even modern textual scholarship has demonstrated that original readings can indeed present themselves in later manuscripts.

If the handful of these idiosyncratic texts are viewed as tertiary within the manuscript tradition (or not properly seated within the tradition at all), this conversation becomes much more simple. The rise of modern textual scholarship has introduced this problem to the church by allowing for manuscript types which have been rejected historically to be valued so highly. It is important to acknowledge that the Received Text did not introduce this problem, modern scholarship did when they declared that the Reformation era text needed to be thrown out. A consistent application of Dr. Ward’s presentation should conclude in the Received Text and the KJV being dismissed wholesale, as it represents an entirely different text form. 

Since Dr. Ward did not suggest that, it is important to understand that textual decision making is done from a completely different perspective between the Confessional Bibliology group and modern textual scholarship. It is easily demonstrated that the base manuscripts from which the modern eclectic text and the Received Text are built on represent a different form altogether. So the difference is not in the amount of data necessarily, but in the methodology itself which accepts this data into the manuscript tradition. Much time is spent discussing whether or not the Post-Reformation Divines would have accepted this new data, and here is where Dr. Ward and I disagree fundamentally. I do not believe that the Post-Reformation Divines would have adopted the modern critical perspective, even if presented with the new data.

Francis Turretin comments on what Dr. Ward presents as a chief problem for the Confessional Text position – the problem of variants as it pertains to “every jot and tittle”. 

“A corruption differs from a variant reading. We acknowledge that many variant readings occur both in the Old and New Testaments arising from a comparison of different manuscripts, but we deny corruption (at least corruption that is universal)” (Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol.I, 111). 

So it is not chiefly a problem with variants, but the actual text form and the modern perspective that certain passages have been totally corrupted. Turretin continues. 

“There is no truth in the assertion that the Hebrew edition of the Old Testament and the Greek edition of the New Testament are said to be mutilated; nor can the arguments used by our opponents prove it. Not the history of adulteress (Jn. 8:1-11), for although it is lacking in the Syriac version, it is found in all the Greek manuscripts. Not 1 Jn. 5:7, for although some formerly called it into question and heretics now do, yet all the Greek copies have it, as Sixtus Senensis acknowledges: “they have been the words of never-doubted truth, and contained in all the Greek copies from the very times of the apostles” (Bibliotheca sancta [1575], 2:298). Not Mk. 16 which may have been wanting in several copies in the time of Jerome (as he asserts); but now it occurs in all, even in the Syriac version, and is clearly necessary to complete the history of the resurrection of Christ” (Ibid. 115). 

Turretin explicitly mentions “several copies in the time of Jerome”, which happens to be the time that Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are said to have been produced. Whether he is explicitly referring to these two manuscripts or not, the unavoidable reality is that these two copies represent the form of text he is talking about – namely those missing those three variants. The minor variants discussed in Dr. Ward’s presentation are not that of a mutilating nature, but the two variants he lists as problematic certainly are.  So to accept manuscripts and readings from manuscripts bearing this form is to depart methodologically in a major way. The conversation of which jots and tittles may be profitable if this can be admitted, as the amount of jots and tittles to be discussed would shrink massively. 

Does Confessional Bibliology Reject Decision Making? 

In short, no. Those who advocate for this position do not balk at the “Which TR?” question, because it fundamentally misses the point of the argument itself. I will acknowledge, however, the validity of the question from his perspective. While Dr. Ward provides a thorough presentation of the 11 types of variations between the printed editions of the Received Text, the conclusions of his argument do not demonstrate that the effort of modern textual scholarship is in the same category as Reformation era textual scholarship.

He is absolutely correct in saying that variations exist between printed editions of the TR, and points out that there are just as many editions of the Nestle-Aland text (with many more to come!). The most important point to interact with however, is his critique that the KJV is not its own form of the TR. Dr. Ward wrongly assumes that ultimately, when the conversation is stripped down to its bare components, the Confessional Bibliology argument is the same as the KJV Only argument (Excluding Ruckman). I will note that I do not consider this to be any sort of serious error, just a matter of nuance that I believe was overlooked. Confessional Bibliology advocates read other translations than the KJV, so it is a bit of a misrepresentation to call them KVJO. It would be the same as calling somebody who prefers the ESV and reads the ESV an ESV Onlyist, despite viewing the NASB as a fine translation of the critical text.

While there are some within the Confessional Bibliology group that believe that some form of textual criticism is still necessary, most, as Dr. Ward points out, agree that the Scrivener edition of the Received Text, which represents the textual decisions of the KJV translators, is “the” Received Text. This is due to the nature of the argument from God’s providence, as well as exposure of the text to the people of God as it happened in history. This argument does not seem as far-fetched given that it is not hedged within the context of modern critical scholarship, though I am fully aware of the critiques of this position. It’s not as though the KJV translators were moved along by the Holy Spirit, or reinspired, but that their textual decisions represented a century’s work of scholarship, dialogue, and corporate reception of certain texts within the Received Text corpus. This is made plain and evident in the vast number of commentaries and theological works which use the Received Text of the Reformation.

In short, the Scrivener text is not the best representation of the Received Text by virtue of the King James Translation team, but rather by virtue of the reception of those readings by the people of God. Were it the case that those readings were rejected, like readings Erasmus examined from the Vatican codex, we might be right in following the argumentation of Dr. Ward. The fact stands, that not only did Erasmus reject those readings, but all of the Reformed textual scholars and theologians who came after him did so as well, even commenting on manuscripts missing the ending of Mark. Jan Krans notes the fundamental difference between modern textual scholarship and the method of Beza in his work, Beyond What is Written.

“In Beza’s view of the text, the Holy Spirit speaks through the biblical authors. He even regards the same Spirit’s speaking through the mouth of the prophets and the evangelist as a guarantee of the agreement between both…If the Spirit speaks in and through the Bible, the translator and critic works within the Church. Beza clearly places all his text critical and translational work in an ecclesiastical setting. When he proposes the conjecture ”  (‘wild pears’) for (‘locusts’) in Matt 3:4, he invokes “the kind permission of the Church” (328,329).

The point is this – it is not that the Confessional Bibliology group rejects textual decision making, they reject textual decision making in the context of modern textual scholarship. Within the Confessional Bibliology camp, there are vibrant and healthy discussions on this matter which has resulted in the mass adoption of the Scrivener text. The problem occurs when this is conflated with Reconstructionist Textual Scholarship, which, when applied to a text, results in its complete deconstruction and devaluation. The conversation simply cannot happen in a healthy way in a context that takes 15 miles when given an inch.

This is chiefly exemplified in the fact that a decision made on a variant that does not affect meaning is compared to removing 11 verses from Scripture. Categorically, those are not the same thing. I appreciate Dr. Ward’s care in presenting the minor variations, but those are not the problem at a fundamental level (Unless one chooses to make it a problem unnecessarily). That is also assuming that a decision cannot be made, or has not been made on the handful of significant variations that exist within the editions of the Received Text. Had the KJV translators made a printed edition of the textual decisions they chose, this conversation likely would not be happening. The claim that the text as it is represented by the 1881 Scrivener text is an “English Greek New Testament” would not be taken seriously. This was the conclusion of Dr. Hills as well, that the textual decisions of the KJV can be rightfully considered its own “TR”, which Dr. Ward acknowledges, but seems to disagree with. 

Conclusion

I appreciate that Dr. Ward has seated the conversation within the context of the believing church. This is a huge upgrade from the vast majority of the discussion which exists in the world of secular scholarship. The goal of this article is not to slam Dr. Ward or say that I have refuted him necessarily, but rather to point out that there is a major stumbling block standing in the way of bridge-crossing. I will argue that a simple critique of Dr. Ward’s argument is that it fails to recognize the two distinct text forms held by each respective position. If we were dealing with one text form, with minor variations, we might be able to readily understand Turretin and Owen’s commentary on the text better, and Dr. Ward’s presentation might be more applicable to those who subscribe to Confessional Bibliology. But since during that era, the church rejected manuscripts like Vaticanus, and in the modern era the Bibles are all built on top of Vaticanus, the effort of bridge-crossing may be more tedious. Until the people of God seriously consider the direction of modern textual scholarship and its wholesale abandonment of the Original Text for the Initial Text, it may be difficult to find the kind of agreement Dr. Ward desires in his presentation.

At the end of this analysis, I hope that all can see that while there is a fundamental disagreement that may stand in the way of bridge-crossing, it is not so great that we cannot treat each other with brotherly kindness and respect which is fitting for those who claim Christ. The fact stands that not all Bibles are created equal, and despite modern Bibles generically looking like Bibles made from the Received Text, they depart in major places which do indeed effect doctrine, like John 1:18 and Mark 16:9-20. It would also be a different conversation if both forms of the text were stable, but the modern text is not. The direction of the modern text-critical effort is only speeding up in the direction of uncertainty as the ECM is implemented (see 2 Peter 3:10 and the number of diamonds in the Catholic Epistles of the NA28). I’ll end with this quote by textual scholar DC Parker, which I find to accurately assess the nature of the modern critical text.  

 “The text is changing. Every time that I make an edition of the Greek New Testament, or anybody does, we change the wording. We are maybe trying to get back to the oldest possible form but, paradoxically, we are creating a new one. Every translation is different, every reading is different, and although there’s been a tradition in parts of Protestant Christianity to say there is a definitive single form of the text, the fact is you can never find it. There is never ever a final form of the text.”

For more resources:

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/text-and-canon-conference-tickets-58685137827

https://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakerWithinSource=&subsetCat=&subsetItem=&mediatype=&includekeywords=&exactverse=&keyword=Word+Magazine&keyworddesc=Word+Magazine&currsection=&AudioOnly=false&SeriesOnly=true&SourceID=crbchurch&keywordwithin=james+white&x=0&y=0

Does the Confessional Text Position Start with the TR?

The Young, Textless, and Reformed7 Comments

Introduction

A common misconception with the Confessional Text is that the starting point of the position is that the Received Text is the preserved Word of God. It is said that adhering to this view on the text of Holy Scripture is simply an exercise of picking a text based on tradition and defending it tooth and nail. While this may seem convincing and easier to write off, it is an unfortunate misrepresentation. It may be that those who make the argument do not fully understand the position, or perhaps have no other method of responding. Those in the Confessional Text position defend the various readings of the TR, but it is not because of blind tradition. When it comes to the text of Scripture, it is important that the conversation starts with the foundations and works up to the more surface level discussion of variants. Variants are certainly important to understand, but not even those who advocate for the Modern Eclectic or Modern Critical Text do not start with variants. If they do, they likely do not understand their own camp.  

All views on the text of the Holy Scriptures ultimately begin with the theology of Scripture, specifically with inspiration and preservation. Any person who is unwilling to admit this plain fact is unfortunately blind to their tradition, or acknowledge their tradition but conflate it with the tradition of the Reformation and Post-Reformation. The difference between those who adhere to the Received Text and those that adhere to the Modern Critical Text is first and foremost a difference in the theology of Scripture. Before I get into the article, it is also important to recognize that the vast majority of Christians who read an English Bible do so based on translation methodology like Rev. Christian McShaffrey presents in this article here. While the textual issue is ultimately the foundational reason in determining which Bible one reads, it is not the only contributing factor. That being said, it is important that people recognize that no, those in the Confessional Text camp do not begin with the Received Text and then defend it. Christians need to realize that this is a cheap parlour trick of an argument that nobody who actually adheres to the position takes seriously. 

Foundations 

The starting point for the Confessional Text position is primarily that God has spoken (Deus dixit). In the time of the Old Testament, “holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Pet. 1:21), and those holy men were “the prophets” (Heb. 1:1). God In these last days, has spoken through His Son Jesus Christ (Heb. 1:1). God, in His providence, chose to do so by way of human authors in the Apostolic age of the church. He used their unique vocabulary and experiences, though the words were not so organic as to say that the words were not truly that of God. That is how Paul can say that “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Tim. 3:16), despite Paul himself being an author of many of the letters which would eventually become the New Testament. The Scriptures do not speak of themselves as being an invention of the Apostolic era writers, but a deposit that God delivered by His inspiration of men by the power of the Holy Spirit.  

The connection between the Old Testament and the New Testament in Hebrews 1:1 demonstrates the continuity between the two testaments and thus the continuity of God’s purpose. That purpose being the same one promised in Genesis 3:15 when He said, “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel”. This promise of Grace in the form of a covenant is progressively revealed in each of the “sundry times and divers manners”, catalogued in Hebrews 11, leading up to the time when God would make a “New Covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah” (Jer. 31:31), which would inaugurate the “last days” (Isa. 2:2-4;1 Pet. 1:20;Acts 2;2 Tim. 3:1). The purpose of Scripture, from the time of the “people of God of old” to the people of God in the last days, is covenantal in nature and sufficient in making men “wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” and is “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim. 3:15-16). Turretin rightly says, “They were intended to be the contract of the covenant between God and us” (Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. 1, 139). 

The New Testament is part of the fulfillment of Genesis 17:7 and Ezekiel 34:24 when God says, “And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee” and “I the LORD will be their God, and my servant David a prince among them; I the LORD have spoken it.”. Since the Scriptures are the means that God has chosen to accomplish this task through faith in Christ, the expectation of the New Testament also carried with it the expectation of new covenant documents. We know that God did indeed fulfill this promise in Jesus Christ, and since God cannot fail (Isa. 46:10), we know that not only will he succeed in saving a people unto Himself, He will succeed in speaking to those people. Hence the principle foundation is Deus dixit, not the TR. 

God Continued to Speak 

The promise of God to His people was not limited to the first century AD. Jesus promised that “I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world” (Mat. 28:20). How is it that God accomplishes this? Through the Holy Scriptures (Heb. 1:1) by the power of the Holy Spirit (John 14:16; 10:26). This is a perpetual promise to the people of God until Christ returns. This is how the doctrine of inspiration is joined to the doctrine of preservation. Since the covenant promise of God is true and sure until the Last Day, it is rightly said that Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:18, “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” apply to the means by which God prescribes for the fulfillment of all things – the Holy Scriptures. Thus the Westminster Divines rightly employ this as a proof text in  the Westminster Confession of Faith when they said that “by His singular care and providence, kept [the Scriptures] pure in all ages” (1.8, bracketed material added). The Reformed doctrine of the Scriptures explicitly joins the inspiration of the initial New Covenant documents (autographs) with the continued preservation of those inspired texts in the copies (apographs). This doctrine has been unfortunately abandoned in the modern period with the severing of inspiration from preservation as demonstrated in the critically acclaimed textbook, How to Understand and Apply the New Testament by Dr. Andrew Naselli (43) and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (Article X). 

It is from this theological starting point that the Reformed proceed. It is likely that the redefinition of Reformed Theology to only include TULIP has resulted in this departure, in part at least. The historical Calvinists were fundamentally covenantal. Thus Reformed Theology must include this rich, covenant structure which supplies a robust understanding of the Holy Scriptures. 

But Can You Produce a Text? 

The very request to “produce a methodology to create a text” stands in opposition to not only the Reformed doctrine of Scripture, but the Biblical doctrine of Scripture. This is made plain in the fact that the Westminster Divines employed the language “kept pure in all ages”, clearly demonstrating that they believed it was by God’s providence which prevented the Holy Scriptures from falling into such disarray that total corruption was possible and a reconstruction effort necessary. It is only when one disconnects the theology of the Reformation from the textual scholarship of the Reformation that one can say, “Beza and Erasmus were doing the same thing as modern textual scholars!” 

This claim is drawn from the conclusions made by Jan Krans in his work Beyond What is Written, which is a part of the Brill series New Testament Tools and Studies edited by Bart Ehrman and Eldon J. Epp. Yet it does not seem that Krans would necessarily agree with such statements made about his work. Krans makes a case for this regarding Erasmus in a certain sense, but even then his conclusions are not so broad and absolute. This is a major flaw in anybody who says this regarding Krans’ work. I will be releasing a full review at some point in the near future, cataloging where his conclusions may be a bit ambitious regarding Erasmus. In any case, he provides one valuable insight which directly refutes the claim that the textual scholars of the Reformation were doing the “same thing” as modern textual scholars in one quotation. 

“In Beza’s view of the text, the Holy Spirit speaks through the biblical authors. He even regards the same Spirit’s speaking through the mouth of the prophets and the evangelist as a guarantee of the agreement between both…If the Spirit speaks in and through the Bible, the translator and critic works within the Church. Beza clearly places all his text critical and translational work in an ecclesiastical setting. When he proposes the conjecture ”  (‘wild pears’) for (‘locusts’) in Matt 3:4, he invokes “the kind permission of the Church” (328,329).

The last time I checked, the CBGM does not include any mention of the Holy Spirit, a doctrine of inspiration, or the church in its methodology. So while Krans certainly does draw parallels between Reformation era scholarship and modern scholarship, it does not appear he would agree with such broad conclusions. Since that has been dealt with, I will now turn to explain why those in the Confessional Text camp are not phased by the accusation of “not doing textual criticism”. 

The Received Text

The Reformed doctrine of inspiration and preservation, as laid out above, is the starting point for determining the text that God has spoken in. Due to God’s covenantal promise, there is no need to “reconstruct” a text from the Reformed perspective. To admit as much is to admit that God has failed in His covenantal purpose. A total corruption of certain texts does not comport with the reality that God has preserved His Word. So the fact that the modern critical text contains a multitude of uncertain readings should cause the Reformed believer to pause. Those in the Confessional Text camp do not see a need to “construct” a text, but rather to receive a text. God has not failed, and thus His Word readily available. It is not the task for the Christian to “produce” or “reconstruct” a text, but to determine which text reflects a story of God succeeding in His task. 

On one hand, there is a text that represents generally a handful of 3rd and fourth century manuscripts which only gained popularity in the modern period. On the other, there is a text that represents generally the vast majority of extant manuscripts and the text which the vast majority of the commentaries, translations, and theological works employed after the printing press was invented. The Confessional Text position accounts for differences between the Majority Text by taking into consideration the use of such texts by the people of God throughout time.  

Conclusion

It should be clear to all that the Confessional Text position does not start with the TR as its foundation. It begins with the reality that God has spoken. It then builds on the covenantal reality that God has spoken in His Scriptures in these last days. It then applies the unfailing purpose of God to have a people unto himself and His promise to be with His people until the Last Day. These building blocks form the doctrines of inspiration and preservation, which were affirmed by the Post-Reformation Divines and codified in the confessional standards of the 16th and 17th centuries. Finally, a text is received which most aligns with the doctrines laid out in Scripture. The plain reality is that the ever-changing and recently adopted modern critical text does not comport with historical and Scriptural reality. 

So yes, it is true that those in the Confessional Text camp defend the Masoretic Hebrew Text and the Greek Received Text. It is also true that many disagree with the textual decisions of these texts. The goal of this article is to demonstrate that this is not a blind tradition, it is one built on a sturdy doctrine of Scripture. The adoption of the specific Greek and Hebrew texts of the Reformation  is simply the result of looking into history and seeing which text is more consistent with the Biblical doctrines of inspiration and preservation.

Has the CBGM Gotten Us to 125AD?

The Young, Textless, and Reformed7 Comments

Introduction

So it has been said that the CBGM has been able to “get us to 125AD” as it pertains to the New Testament manuscripts with its analysis – or at least in Luke 23:34. Anybody who makes such a claim clearly has no working understanding of the Munster Method, or at least is choosing to use an invisible rod to bash people over the head. In any case, I thought it would be helpful to examine some potential weaknesses in the methodology in a series of articles. To begin, I thought I would discuss the reality that the CBGM is still in need of critical analysis. Dr. Peter Gurry, in his work, A Critical Examination of the Coherence Based Genealogical Method, as a part of the Brill Academic series New Testament Tools and Studies writes, “Despite the excitement about the CBGM and its adoption by such prominent editions, there has been no sustained attempt to critically test its principles and procedures” (2).

So my advice to any of those who believe such a bold claim that the CBGM can “get us to 125AD” should put on their discernment ears and wait until 2032 when the effort can be accurately examined in full. If its use in analyzing the Catholic Epistles is any indication of the kind of certainty it will provide, I now direct the reader to open their Nestle-Aland 28th Edition, if they own one, and examine the readings marked with a black diamond. It should be loudly noted that the methodology of the CBGM has not been fully examined, and I agree with Dr. Gurry when he writes, “If the method is fundamentally flawed, it matters little how well they used it” (4).

The CBGM and the Initial Text

Before the Christian church preemptively buys into this method wholesale, it is important to first recognize that there is not uniform agreement, even in the early implementation process of the CBGM, by all that this methodology will result in establishing what is being called the Initial Text. Bengt Alexanderson, in his work, Problems in the New Testament: Old Manuscripts and Papyri, the New Coherence-Based-Genealogical Method (CBGM) and the Editio Critica Maior (ECM), writes, “I do not think the method is of any value for establishing the text of the New Testament” (117). What should be noted loudly for those that are falling asleep, is that a significant shift has occurred under the noses of laypeople in the effort of textual scholarship as it pertains to the New Testament text.

That shift is the abandonment of the search for the Original or Authorial text for the pursuit of what is being called the Initial Text. Dr. Gurry writes, “These two terms [authorial or original text] have often been used interchangeably and their definition more often assumed than explained. Moreover, that this text was the goal of the discipline remained generally undisputed until the end of the twentieth-century. It was then that some scholars began to question whether the original text could or should be the only goal or even any goal at all” (90, bracketed material added). Regardless of whether this is the method one decides to advocate for, let it be said that this is indeed a shift, for better or for worse. Dr. Gurry continues, “Rather than clarify or resolve this debate, the advent of the CBGM has only complicated the matter by introducing an apparently new goal and a new term to go with it: Ausgangstext, or its English equivalent “initial text” (90-91). The problem of defining terms will always gray the bridge between academia and the people, so hopefully this article helps color in the gap.

While the debate rages on between the scholars as to how the Initial Text should be defined, I will start by presenting what might be considered as the conservative understanding of it and work from there. Gerd Mink, who is credited with the first use of the term Ausgangstext, employs the term to mean “progenitor” or the “hypothetical, so-called original text”(92). That is to say that the goal of the CBGM in theory is to produce the text that the rest of the manuscripts flowed from. This sounds great, in theory, but there remains a great distance to cover from saying that the CBGM should produce this Initial Text and the CBGM has produced this Initial Text. In any case, the use of the terminology “Original Text” is not employed in the same way as it was historically, and there is much deliberation as to whether Mink’s proposed definition will win out over and above those that wish to define it more loosely.

Based on my experience with systems, an appropriate definition of the term as “the text from which the extant tradition originates” (93) is much more precise and descriptive of what the method is capable of achieving. Any talk of whether or not the Initial Text represents the Original Text is merely speculation at this point, and I argue will remain speculation when the effort is complete. This of course requires a more humble assessment of the capabilities of the CBGM, in that an empirical method is only good for analysis on that which it has is its possession. Which is to say that methodologically speaking, there is still a gray area between the time that the earliest extant manuscripts are dated and the time that the original manuscripts were penned of about 300 years or more, depending on how early one dates the earliest complete manuscripts. This is what I have been calling the “Gray area between the authorial and initial text” or “The Gray Area” for short. Dr. Gurry has defined it as the historical gap (100). I suspect that this gray area will be the focus of all discussion pertaining to the actual value of the ECM by the time 2032 arrives.

The Gray Area Between the Authorial and Initial Text

Any critique of the CBGM is incomplete without a sincere handling of the Gray Area between the Original and Initial Text. Until that conversation has happened, it is rather preemptive to make any conclusions such as, “The CBGM can get us to about 125AD”. Dr. Gurry writes, “The reason is that there is a methodological gap between the start of the textual tradition as we have it and the text of the autograph itself. Any developments between these two points are outside the remit of textual criticism proper. Where there is “no trace [of the original text] in the manuscript tradition” the text critic must, on Mink’s terms, remain silent” (93).

This is understandably a weakness of the methodology itself, if one expects the methodology to produce a meaningful text. Dr. Gurry continues, “Minks statement that the initial text “should not necessarily be equated with any actual historical reality” is best read as a way to underscore this point” (93). I propose that it is of greatest importance that Christians begin discussing the Gray Area between the Original Text and the Initial Text now, as it outside of the interest of the text-critic proper. Yes, this discussion is most certainly a theological one, as much as that might pain some who have buried their heads in the sand to the weaknesses of the CBGM care to admit.

It is important to note, that in this conversation over the methodology of the CBGM, that there is certainly not uniform agreement on the capabilities of this relatively new method. It is my hope that by bringing this discussion into a more public space, that the terminology of Original and Initial Text, and the space between these two points in the transmission of the New Testament, fosters an important conversation as it pertains to the orthodox doctrinal standards of inspiration and preservation. Dr. Gerd Mink indirectly proposes one possible method of analyzing the Gray Area, which would be to demonstrate that there is a significant break between the Original and Initial Text. Perhaps some ambitious doctoral student might take upon himself to conduct this work, though I wonder if it is even possible to analyze data that does not exist. That is to say that determining the quality and authenticity of the Initial Text might as well be impossible, and any conclusions regarding this text will be assumptive, given that some new component is not added to the CBGM which allows such analysis to be done.

The ontological limitations of the CBGM give cause for the discerning onlooker to side with the assessments of DC Parker and Eldon J. Epp. Dr. Epp writes, “Many of us would feel that Initial Text – if inadequately defined and therefore open to be understood as the First Text or Starting Text in an absolute sense – suggests greater certainty than our knowledge of transmission warrants”(Epp, Which Text?, 70). Until those that have a more optimistic understanding of the Initial Text produce a methodology that is adequate in testing the veracity of the Initial Text, I see no reason why anybody should blindly trust that the Initial Text can be said to be same as the Original Text. And that is assuming that the ECM will reveal one Ausgangstext. It is likely, if not inevitable, that multiple initial texts will burst forth from the machine. A general understanding of the quality of the earliest extant texts certainly warrants such a thought, at least.

Conclusion

The purpose of this article is to 1) make a wider audience aware of the difference between the Initial Text and the Original Text and 2) to begin the conversation of the Gray Area between the Initial Text and the Original Text. It is best that the church begins discussing this now, rather than in 13 years when the ECM is completed. There are many Christians out there who may be caught completely off guard when they discover that the somewhat spurious claim that the CBGM has “gotten us to 125AD” is in fact, not the truth. The fact stands that nobody has the capability of making such a precise claim at this point, and will not be able to make such a claim in 2032 either. It is best then, that people allow the scholars to finish the work prior to making claims that the scholars themselves are still in dialogue about.

A Meaningful, Reformed Defense of the Scriptures

The Young, Textless, and ReformedLeave a comment

Before reading this article, I recommend listening to this electrifying sermon by Pastor Joel Beeke: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjANwDtJkwc

Introduction

Charles Spurgeon once said in a Sermon dealing with the defense of the Scriptures:

“I am a Christian minister, and you are Christians, or profess to be so; and there is never any necessity for Christian ministers to make a point of bringing forth infidel arguments in order to answer them. It is the greatest folly in the world. Infidels, poor creatures, do not know their own arguments till we tell them, and then they glean their blunted shafts to shoot them at the shield of truth again. It is folly to bring forth these firebrands of hell, even if we are well prepared to quench them. Let men of the world learn error of themselves; do not let us be propagators of their falsehoods. True, there are some preachers who are short of stock, and I want them to fill up! But God’s own chosen men need not do that; they are taught of God, and God supplies them with matter, with language, and with power” (New Park Street Pulpit, Volume 1, 110). 

This has always been the Reformed defense of the Holy Scriptures. Greg Bahnsen, in his work, Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended, writes:

“Faith is humble submission to the self-attesting Word of God. Faith accounts God truthful, faithful, and powerful on the basis of His own Word, not requiring to see demonstrable proof or evidence outside of God’s Word that could confirm it as trustworthy” (64). 

While many in the Reformed camp do not subscribe to a presuppositional method, this thought is pervasive throughout the Reformed Scholastics. See Francis Turretin on the topic: 

“But the orthodox church has always believed far otherwise, maintaining the revelation of the word of God to man to be absolutely and simply necessary for salvation” (Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 1, 55). 

“The authority of the Scriptures depends on the origin. Just because they are from God, they must be authentic and divine” (62). 

“The Bible proves itself divine, not only authoritatively and in the manner of an artless argument or testimony when it proclaims itself God-inspired (theopneuston)” (63). 

Turretin then details the external and internal arguments for the authority of the Scriptures, which follows the same form as that of the Westminster Divines, and post-Reformation Divines:


“With regard to the duration; the wonderful preservation (even to this day) of the divine word by his providential care against powerful and hostile enemies who have endeavored by fire and sword to destroy it…the consent of all people who, although differing in customs (also in opinions about sacred things, worship, language and interest), have nevertheless received this word as a valuable treasury of divine truth and have regarded it as the foundation of religion and the worship of God. It is impossible to believe that God would have suffered so great a multitude of men, earnestly seeking him, to be so long deceived by lying books” (63). 

Turretin goes on to detail the internal testimony to the authority of the Scriptures:


“The internal and most powerful marks are also numerous. (1) With regard to the matter: the wonderful sublimity of the mysteries such as the Trinity, incarnation, the satisfaction of Christ, the resurrection of the dead and the like; the holiness and purity of the precepts regulating even the thoughts of the internal affections of the heart adapted to render man perfect in every kind of virtue and worth of his maker; the certainty of the prophecies concerning things even the most remote and hidden. (2) With regard to the style: the divine majesty, shining forth no less from the simplicity than the weight of expression and that consummate boldness in the commanding all without distinction, both highest and lowest. (3) With regard to the form: the divine agreement and entire harmony of doctrine, not only between both testaments in the fulfillments of predictions and types, but also between particular books of each testament; so much the more to be wondered at, as their writers both were many in number and wrote at different times and places so that they could not have an understanding among themselves as to what things should be written. (4) With regard to the end: the direction of all things to the glory of God alone and the holiness and salvation of men. (5) With regard to the effects: the light and efficacy of the divine doctrine which is so great that, sharper than any two-edged sword, it pierces to the soul itself, generates faith and piety in the minds of its heareers, as well as invincible firmness in its professors, and always victorious triumphs over the kingdom of Satan and false religion.” (64). 

A Return to the Power of God in the Gospel 

So the opinion of the Reformed, both presuppositional and classical, is that the nature of the Scriptures is self-authenticating (αυτοπιστος). The Scriptures testify to themselves that they are the Word of God. Where will one turn to find a sufficient apologetic outside of this testimony? Certainly not Bahnsen. The Lord has prescribed a sword to do battle (Hebrews 4:12), and many, supposing their own prowess, charge into battle with a shield as though God will honor that vain effort. 

The Scriptures are not to be put on trial, and the faithful of God are to go forth with the power which is the Gospel (Rom. 1:16). The heathen and infidel are not to be entertained with debate, as though a careful examination of corruption found within the manuscripts will convince them that God’s Word is inspired and preserved. Evidence of such attempts are well documented by the opinion of Muslims, Atheists, and Momons, who readily use the failed efforts of apologists who have put the Word of God on trial. The effort of the Christian is not to convince, it is to proclaim. This is in fact the testimony of the Apostle when he went forth to the pagan city of Corinth. 

“And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God” (1 Cor. 2:1-5).

Christians, do not lose sight of the covenantal purpose of the Scriptures (2 Tim. 3:15), or the covenantal purpose of God, which is to make all things new (Gen. 3:15; Rev. 21:5). Our approach to the Muslim, and to the Atheist, and to the Mormon is not to demonstrate that Christians have a defense, it is to bring forth the power of God in the preaching of the Gospel. Remember, that when the Apostle arrived in Athens, the “spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city was wholly given to idolatry” (Acts 17:16). He then calls them to note their great idolatry and then “preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection” (Acts 17:18). He did not tarry on about the opinions of various gnostics who were already want to corrupt the orthodox profession of the faith. He proclaimed Christ. 

The faithful in Christ should remember the words of Bahnsen:

“Finally, it remains for us to see that according to the Bible a man cannot come to an understanding of God’s Word or a knowledge of God without regeneration and faith. Hence the apologist cannot give the unbeliever convincing understanding, rational demonstration, probable verification, or knowledgeable proof and expect these to bring him to faith in God’s Word. All the argumentation in the world, all the scholarly explanation that we can set forth cannot effect saving knowledge in the unbeliever, for as dead in his vanity of mind he needs regeneration by the Holy Spirit. Thus the apologist presupposes the Scripture and focuses on the unbeliever’s intellectual rebellion or sinfulness, witnesses to the Word of Christ, and argues upon its self-attesting authority, looking to God rather than secular “wisdom” to give success to his words of proclamation and defense. The apologist does not expect the unbeliever to be able properly to understand and thereby be convinced of the truth of the gospel as long as he remains unrepentant for his guilty rebellion against God and does not begin by faith in his approach to God’s Word” (64-65). 

The Reformed method of prolegomena is to first detail Natural Theology, then to describe the weakness of Natural Theology as it pertains to salvation, and finally to detail the particular beauty, power, and infallibility of the Special Revelation of God in His Holy Writ. The post-Reformation Divines emphatically declared the foundational, Trinitarian nature of God and salvation, the self-authenticating nature of the Scriptures, the inability of man to reconciled of His own accord, the great distance between God and man and the necessity for God’s voluntary condescension, and the importance of practical, experiential religion. 

Conclusion

If the purpose of our apologetic is not to win souls to Christ, than our apologetic has failed. And if the Gospel is only a footnote or even lacking in our presentation to the unbeliever, than we have not used the tools prescribed by Christ. And if we put the authority of Scriptures in the hands of men, we are no better than the Papists which the Reformers fought so vigorously against. There is a war waging which dates back to the time of Adam and Eve, and the weapons of choice chosen by the enemy are “Yea hath God said” (Gen. 3:1) and then “God hath said” (Gen. 3:3). The methodology of the enemy is simple and twofold: 

  1. Question the authority of God’s Word
  2. Assert himself as the authority over God’s Word

The Christian should not be so foolish as to fall to the same error as Adam and Eve. The seed of all errors is to believe that we owe a response to the method proposed by the enemy. Even when Christians proclaim, “I want to know what Paul wrote!” they suppose the thoughts of the enemies of faith which says we are still attempting to find out what Paul wrote, as though God has not delivered His Word and kept it pure. Thus, when one declares that they “want to know what Paul wrote!” as though they don’t know, they really are saying, “Yea hath God said?” When Satan tempted Jesus in the wilderness he attempted the same method that he tried with Adam and Eve. Jesus responded with Scripture. When Satan and his minions attempt to attack the authenticity of Scripture, our only response is to turn heavenward and declare, “Thy word is truth” (John 17:17). 

“For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe” (1 Cor. 1:18-21). 

Does the Modern Apologetic Offer a Meaningful Response to Bart Ehrman?

The Young, Textless, and Reformed2 Comments

Introduction

It is often stated that the Confessional Text position, which was the position that the post-Reformation divines defended against the Papists and Anabaptists, offers no meaningful answer to critics like Bart Ehrman. It is said that in order to defend the text of the New Testament, one has to adopt the epistemology and methods of modern textual scholarship. There are two problems with this claim. The first is that Bart Ehrman is a huge influencer in the scholarship that is said to refute him. In other words, he is one of the top scholars in the field and has contributed a vast amount of work to the method that is said to refute him. He is the editor on the Brill series, New Testament Tools and Studies, which represents the latest research in New Testament Textual scholarship. In the recent work on the Pericope Adulterae produced by Tommy Wasserman and Jennifer Knust, the authors thank Bart Erhman for pointing them in the right direction. Additionally, he is the editor of the textbook that is standard curriculum in most seminaries (The Text of the New Testament). 

Either Ehrman doesn’t know his own discipline well, or the claim is woefully lacking in any sort of support. In fact, one has to severely downplay the tremendous influence Ehrman has in the current effort of textual scholarship, obfuscating the fact that Erhman’s position is not all that different than the believing version of his view. Despite the fact that many New Testament scholars disagree with his conclusions, the fact stands that at its foundational level, the methods Ehrman uses to come to his conclusions are nearly the same as anybody else who adheres to the modern critical text as it is represented in the NA/UBS platform. In a debate held five years ago between Ehrman and a popular apologist, Ehrman rightfully comments that the apologist agreed with 8.5 out of 9 points presented in his book, Misquoting Jesus (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8nqibqfhKw&feature=youtu.be). 

The apologist had no response to this pointed observation. At this point, the debate was definitely lost, and Erhman walked out of that room with a victory against the text of the Holy Scriptures (Not to mention that the whole of the debate was akin to a cat playing with a mouse). That is what happens when Christians put the Word of God on trial. So despite the claim made that this is a valid defense against Erhman, Erhman himself finds the position not significantly different than his own. It seems reasonable, that in order to refute Erhman, one must adopt a position different than is espoused by the books that Ehrman himself penned, or edited. It stands to reason that in order for a position to be potent apologetically, it must be different than the position that it is trying to refute. 

The second problem with the claim that defending the Bible requires an adoption of modern critical methods is that the method itself is not capable of proving anything one way or another as it pertains to what is considered the “original” or “authorial” text of the New Testament. Scientific methods do not care about Christians who believe the Bible to be preserved. Scholars and apologists can make conclusions regarding the data, but those conclusions are simply not definitive or demonstrable using the data itself. This is the entire claim of those who hold to a presuppositional method of apologetics. Yet, by adopting this method, one must adopt the folly of the fool to try to prove the fool wrong. Ehrman actually offers the same critique of the methods that those in the Confessional Text camp do, which certain apologists have pointed out. When this is pointed out, there is never a defense offered to silence the critique. Rather than refuting the claim, one must resort to various ad hominem attacks, assaults on the Bible that the Christian church used for centuries (and those that produced it), and other uncharitable schemes that do not provide a substantial argument. Is this really the best possible defense of the text of the Holy Scriptures? I argue no on several accounts. 

Does the Modern Critical Text Apologetic Refute Bart Ehrman?

The answer is a simple “no”. For those that are familiar with a presuppositional method of apologetics, the reason should be clear. It leaves the Christian unequivically incapable of answering the claims of Bart Erhman, and the Muslim apologist at that. Typically, if one wishes to refute somebody, one needs to take an opposing position, not the same one. I cannot think of a more apt example of a Christian handing their Bible over to the unbeliever in apologetics for the sake of neutrality. In this example, it is not just a metaphor, it is quite literally the case that the believer has handed their Bible over to Bart Ehrman to stand as judge over it. In the premise of the argument, the believer has already lost the debate by allowing the unbeliever to decide what the Bible does and does not say.  

Charles Spurgeon offers a great response to those that believe they need to prove every line of Scripture to the unbeliever using evidence.

“I am a Christian minister, and you are Christians, or profess to be so; and there is never any necessity for Christian ministers to make a point of bringing forth infidel arguments in order to answer them. It is the greatest folly in the world. Infidels, poor creatures, do not know their own arguments till we tell them, and then they glean their blunted shafts to shoot them at the shield of truth again. It is folly to bring forth these firebrands of hell, even if we are well prepared to quench them. Let men of the world learn error of themselves; do not let us be propagators of their falsehoods. True, there are some preachers who are short of stock, and I want them to fill up! But God’s own chosen men need not do that; they are taught of God, and God supplies them with matter, with language, and with power” (New Park Street Pulpit, Volume 1, 110). 

There is a difference between defending the texts of the Holy Scriptures, and adopting the methods of modernity which say that the Bible has been lost and needs to be reconstructed, and then trying to defend that it has not been lost. So what is the difference between the modern critical text apologist and Bart Ehrman? The difference is that both the modern critical text apologist and Bart Erhman look at the same dataset, and one says that the dataset is the preserved Word of God, and the other doesn’t. On this point, I agree with the modern critical text apologist that God has preserved His Word. I disagree, however, with the conclusion that the modern critical text has demonstrated that, or can demonstrate that. 

The way that this position is defended is by simply saying that God has preserved His Word. There is no evidence to support this claim, however, because there is not a single person who defends this method who will point at a text and say, “This is God’s preserved Word!” They must argue that God has generally preserved all the words, and that it is the task of human scholars to dig through the decaying manuscripts to find out which words He preserved. The modern critical text apologist says that this can be accomplished, and Bart Ehrman, along with a multitude of his peers, say that it cannot be done. Which is to say that the scholars who have all of the credentials, all of the accolades – the masters of this method – say that it cannot be done. That is why Christians should take the opinions of DC Parker and Bart Ehrman seriously when they critique the modern methods and the inability of such methods to produce a final form of the text. Of course there are more optimistic scholars than DC Parker and Bart Ehrman, but even they will not say that God’s Word has been preserved down to the word. Yet the problem does not lie in the fact that God’s Word has not been preserved, it rests in the reality that the methodology itself is incapable of proving such a claim. 

If it were able to prove this claim, the work of modern textual scholarship on the New Testament would have been completed decades ago. It is not that God has not preserved His Word that is the problem, the problem is that the modern methodology has decided this to be the case. So in adopting this modern method, one must adopt the various methods that have led scholars, both atheist and believer alike, to abandon the search for the Divine Original. In its premise, the argument admits that the Word of God still needs to be found, and the original (as I have defined it here) cannot be found. In admitting that the Word of God still needs to be found, the Christian has lost all claims on a Bible that is preserved. In a very real sense, this position says that while God has indeed preserved His Word, we simply will never know which one He preserved. This “defense” of the Holy Scriptures is no defense at all, it is surrender. It is like standing in a pile of keys that open a door, and not ever being able to find the key that opens the door. What a capricious God, who would dangle His Word in front of His people, declaring that He preserved His Word for them but never allowing them to know what that Word is that He preserved! 

Conclusion

The only meaningful apologetic for the Holy Scriptures is one which does not adopt the speculations and theories of modern scholarship. A Christian does not need to believe that in order to defend the Scriptures, they must capitulate to the opinions of Bart Ehrman and Muslims. We do not need to place the Holy Writ on an alter in a mosque or the academy and stand by as opponents of the faith critique and dismantle each line of God’s Word. We do not need to wait until 2032, when the scholars have handed the Bible back to the church with a big red stamp reading, “Undecided”. The defense for the Scriptures remains the same as it has for centuries – that God’s Word is self authenticating. It is in itself the rule of faith. It does not stand judged by men, but it is the judge of men. 

It is high time that the mockery of those who adhere to this divine truth be cast out of our favor as Christians. Those who truly wish to defend the Holy Scriptures must begin by rejecting the model that says the Bible has not been preserved perfectly, and kept pure in all ages. Christians should abhor those who mock the self-authenticating nature of the Sacred Deposit, and reject the opinions of those who do not see the Scriptures as any different than the Iliad. We must stop blindly believing the unfounded claims that the modern method has produced a meaningful apologetic for the Holy Scriptures when it clearly hasn’t, and return to the theological foundations of the protestant faith. God alone has spoken, and He does not need men to decide what He did, or did not say. I will follow up this article with a positive defense of the Holy Scriptures using a theological method, which is the method espoused by the giants of the faith whose shoulders we, as modern Christians, stand on. 

The Most Dangerous View of the Holy Scriptures

The Young, Textless, and Reformed3 Comments

Introduction

Quite often in the textual discussion, it is boldly proclaimed that “our earliest and best manuscripts” are Alexandrian. Yet, this statement introduces confusion at the start. It introduces confusion due to the fact that there are sound objections as to whether it is even appropriate to use such a term as “Alexandrian” when describing the “earliest and best manuscripts”, as though they were a text family or text type. This is because there doesn’t seem to be an “Alexandrian” text type, only a handful of manuscripts that have historically been called Alexandrian. This is due to the more precise methods being employed, which allow quantitative analysis to be done in the variant units of these manuscripts. The result of this analysis has demonstrated that the manuscripts called Alexandrian do not meet the threshold of agreement to be considered a textual family. Tommy Wasserman explains this shift in thought. 

“Although the theory of text types still prevails in current text-critical practice, some scholars have recently called to abandon the concept altogether in light of new computer-assisted methods for determining manuscript relationships in a more exact way. To be sure, there is already a consensus that the various geographic locations traditionally assigned to the text types are incorrect and misleading” (Wasserman, http://bibleodyssey.org/en/places/related-articles/alexandrian-text). 

Thus, the only place the name “Alexandrian” might occupy in this discussion is one of historical significance or possibly to serve in identifying the handful of manuscripts that bear the markers of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, which disagree heavily among themselves, as the Munster Method has demonstrated (65% agreement between 01 and 03  in the places examined in the gospels/26.4% to the Majority text http://intf.uni-muenster.de/TT_PP/Cluster4.php). So in using the terminology of “Alexandrian”, one is already introducing confusion into the conversation that represents an era of textual scholarship that is on its way out. Regardless of whether or not it is appropriate to use the term “Alexandrian”, it may be granted that it is a helpful descriptor for the sake of discussion, since the modern critical text in the most current UBS/NA platform generally agrees with it in at least two of these manuscripts (03 at 87.9% and 01 at 84.9%) in the places examined (See Gurry & Wasserman, 46). 

The bottom line is this – the new methods that are currently being employed (CBGM/Munster Method) are still ongoing, and will be ongoing until at least 2032. So any arguments made on behalf of the critical text are liable to shift as the effort continues and new data comes to light. As a result of this developing effort, any attempt to defend such texts is operating from an incomplete data set, based on the methods that are being defended. Given that the general instability of the modern critical text is granted, at least until the Editio critica maior (ECM) is completed, know that the conversation itself is likely to change over the next 12 years. In the meantime, it seems that the most productive conversation to have is that which discusses the validity of the method itself, since the dataset is admittedly incomplete.

Is the Munster Method Able to Demonstrate the Claim that the “Alexandrian” Manuscripts Are Earliest and Best?

The answer is no. The reason I say this is due to the method being employed. I have worked as an IT professional for 8 years, specifically in data analysis and database development, which gives me a unique perspective on the CBGM. An examination of the Munster Method (CBGM) will show that the method is insufficient to arrive at any conclusion on which text is earliest. While the method itself is actually quite brilliant , its limitations prevent it from providing any sort of absolute conclusion on which text is earliest, or original, or best. There are several flaws that should be examined, if those that support the current effort want to properly understand the method they are defending. 

  1. In its current form, it does not factor in versional or patristic data (or texts as they have been preserved in artwork for that matter)
  2. It can only perform analysis on the manuscripts that are extant, or surviving (so the thousands of manuscripts destroyed in the Diocletian persecution, or WWI and WWII can never be examined, for example)    
  3. The method is still vulnerable to the opinions and theories of men, which may or may not be faithful to the Word of God

So the weaknesses of the method are threefold – it does not account for all the data currently available, and it will never have the whole dataset. Even when the work is finished, the analysis will still need to be interpreted by fallible scholars. It’s biggest flaw, however, is that the analysis is being performed on a fraction of the dataset. Not only are defenders of the modern critical text defending an incomplete dataset, as the work is still ongoing, the end product of the work itself is operating from an incomplete dataset. So to defend this method is to defend the conclusions of men on the analysis of an incomplete dataset of an incomplete dataset. The scope of the conclusions this method will produce will be limited to the manuscripts that we have today. And since there is an overwhelming bias in the scholarly world on one subset of those manuscripts, it is more than likely that the conclusions drawn on the analysis will look very similar, if not the same, as the conclusions drawn by the previous era of textual scholarship (represented by Metzger and Hort). And even if these biases are crushed by the data analysis, the conclusions will be admittedly incomplete because the data is incomplete. Further, quantitative analysis will never be free of the biases of those who handle the data. Dr. Peter Gurry comments on one weakness in the method in his book A New Approach to Textual Criticism. 

“The significance of the selectivity of our evidence means that our textual flow diagrams and the global stemma do not give us a picture of exactly what happened” (113). 

Further, the method itself is not immune to error. Dr. Gurry comments that, “There are still cases where contamination can go undetected in the CBGM, with the result that proper ancestor-descendant relationships are inverted” (115). That is to say, that after all the computer analysis is done, the scholars making textual decisions can still make incorrect conclusions on which text is earliest, selecting a later reading as earliest. In the current iteration of the Munster Method, there are already many places where, rather than selecting a potentially incorrect reading, the text is marked to indicate that the evidence is equally strong for two readings. These places are indicated by a diamond in the apparatus of the current edition of the Nestle-Aland text produced in 2012. There are 19 of these in 1 and 2 Peter alone (See NA28). That is 19 places in just two books of the Bible where the Munster Method has not produced a definitive conclusion on the data. That means that even when the work is complete, there will be thousands of different conclusions drawn on which texts should be taken in a multitude of places. This is already the case in the modern camp without application of the CBGM, a great example is Luke 23:34, where certain defenders of the modern critical text have arrived at alternative conclusions on the originality of this verse.   

There is one vitally important observation that must be noted when it comes to the current effort of textual scholarship. The current text-critical effort, while the most sophisticated to date, is incapable of determining the earliest reading due to the limitations of the data and also in the methodology. A definitive analysis simply cannot be performed on an incomplete dataset. And even if the dataset was complete, no dataset is immune to the opinions of flawed men and women.  

An Additional Problem Facing the Munster Method

There is one more glaring issue that the Munster Method cannot resolve. There is no way to demonstrate that the oldest surviving manuscripts represent the general form of the text during the time period they are alleged to have been created (3rd – 4th century). An important component of quantitative analysis is securing a data set that is generally representative of the whole population of data. This may be fine in statistical analysis on a general population, but the precision of the effort at hand is not aiming at a generic form of precision, because the Word of God is being discussed, which is said to be perfectly preserved by God. That means that the sample of data being analyzed must be representative of the whole. The reality is, that the modern method is really doing an analysis on the earliest manuscripts, which do not represent the whole, against the whole of the dataset.

It is generally accepted among modern scholarship that the Alexandrian manuscripts represent the text form that the whole church used in the third and fourth century. This is made evident when people say things like, “The church wasn’t even aware of this text until the 1500’s!” or “This is the text they had at Nicea!” Yet such claims are woefully lacking any sort of proof, and in fact, the opposite can be demonstrated to be true. If it can be demonstrated that the dataset is inadequate as it pertains to the whole of the manuscript tradition, or that the dataset is incomplete, then the conclusions drawn from the analysis can never be said to be absolutely conclusive. There are two points I will examine to demonstrate the inadequacy of the dataset and methodology of the CBGM, which disallows it from being a final authority in its application to the original form of the New Testament.

First, I will examine the claim that the manuscripts generally known as Alexandrian were the only texts available to the church during the third and fourth centuries. This is a premise that must be proved in order to demonstrate that the conclusions of the CBGM represent the original text of the New Testament. In order to make such a claim, one has to adopt the narrative that the later manuscripts which are represented in the Byzantine tradition were a development, an evolution, of the New Testament text. The later manuscripts which became the majority were the product of scribal mischief and the revisionist meddling of the orthodox church, and not a separate tradition that goes back to the time of the Apostles. This narrative requires the admission that the Alexandrian texts evolved so heavily that by the Middle period, the Alexandrian text had transformed into an entirely different Bible, with a number of smoothed out readings and even additions of entire passages and verses into the text which were received by the church as canonical! Since this cannot be supported by any real understanding of preservation, the claim has to be made that the true text evolved and the original remains somewhere in the texts that existed prior to the scandalous revision effort of Christians throughout the ages. This is why there is such a fascination surrounding the Alexandrian texts, and a determination by some to “prove” them to be original (which is impossible, as I have discussed).

That being said, can it be demonstrated that these Alexandrian manuscripts were the only texts available to the church during the time of Nicea? The simple answer is no, and the evidence clearly shows that this is not the case at all. First, the number of examples of patristic quotations of Byzantine readings demonstrate the existence of other forms of the text of the New Testament which were contemporary to the Alexandrian manuscripts. One can point to Origen as the champion of the Alexandrian text, but Origen wasn’t exactly a bastion of orthodoxy, and I would hesitate to draw any conclusions other than the fact that after him, the church essentially woke up and found itself entirely Arian or some other form of heterodoxy as it pertained to Christ and the Trinity. Second, the existence of Byzantine readings in the papyri demonstrate the existence of other forms of the text of the New Testament which were contemporary to the Alexandrian manuscripts. Finally, Codex Vaticanus, one of the chief exemplars of the Alexandrian texts, is proof that other forms of the text existed at the time of their creation. This is chiefly demonstrated in the fact that there is a space the size of 11 verses at the end of Mark where a text should be. This space completely interrupts the otherwise uniform format of the codex which indicates that the scribes were aware that the Gospel of Mark did not end at, “And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.” They were either instructed to exclude the text, or did not have a better copy as an exemplar which included the text. In any case, they were certainly aware of other manuscripts that had the verses in question, which points to the existence of other manuscripts contemporary to Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Some reject this analysis of the blank space at the end of Mark as it applies to Sinaiticus (Which also has a blank space), but offer additional reasons why this is the case nonetheless, see this article for more. James Snapp notes that “the existence of P45 and the Old Latin version(s), and the non-Alexandrian character of early patristic quotations, supports the idea that the Alexandrian Text had competition, even in Egypt.” Therefore it is absurd to claim that every manuscript circulating at the time looked the same as these two exemplars, especially considering the evidence that other text forms certainly existed.

Second, I will examine the claim that the Alexandrian manuscripts represent the earliest form of the text of the New Testament. It can easily be demonstrated that these manuscripts do not represent all of their contemporary manuscripts, but that is irrelevant if they truly are the earliest. Yet the current methodology has absolutely no right to claim that it is capable of proving such an assertion. Since the dataset does not include the other manuscripts that clearly existed alongside the Alexandrian manuscripts, one simply cannot draw any conclusions regarding the supremacy of those texts. One must jump from the espoused method to conjecture and storytelling to do so. Those defending the modern text often boldly claim that fires, persecution, and war destroyed a great deal of manuscripts. That is exactly true, and needs to be considered when making claims regarding the manuscripts that survived, and clearly were not copied any further. One has to seriously ponder why, in the midst of the mass destruction of Bibles, the Alexandrian manuscripts were considered so unimportant that they weren’t used in the propagation of the New Testament, despite the clear need for such an effort. Further, these manuscripts are so heavily corrected by various scribes it is clear that they weren’t considered authentic in any meaningful way. 

Even if the Alexandrian manuscripts represent the “earliest and best”, there is absolutely no way of determining this to be true due to the simple fact that the dataset from that time period is so sparse. In fact, the dataset from this period only represents a text form that is aberrant, quantitatively speaking. It is evident that other forms of the text existed, and despite the fact that they no longer are surviving, the form of those texts survive in the manuscript tradition as a whole. The fact remains, there are no contemporary data points to even compare the Alexandrian manuscripts against to demonstrate this to be true. Further, there are not enough second century data points to compare the third and fourth century manuscripts against to demonstrate that the Alexandrian manuscripts represent any manuscript earlier than when they were created. It is just as likely, if not more likely, that these manuscripts were created as an anomaly in the manuscript tradition. The fact remains that the current methods simply are not sufficient to operate on data that isn’t available.  This relegates any form of analysis to the realm of story telling, which exists in the theories of modern scholars (expansion of piety, scribal smoothing, etc.) 

Conclusion

Regardless of which side one takes in the textual discussion, the fact remains that the critiques of the modern methodology as it exists in the CBGM are extremely valid. The method is primarily empirical in its form, and empirical analysis is ultimately limited by the data available. Since the data that is available is not complete outside of a massive 1st and 2nd century manuscript find, the method itself will forever be insufficient to provide a complete analysis. The product of the CBGM can never be applied honestly to the whole of the manuscript tradition. Even if we find 2,000 2nd century manuscripts, there will still be no way of validating that those manuscripts represent all of the text forms that existed during that time . As a result, the end product will simply provide an analysis of an incomplete dataset. It should not surprise anybody when the conclusions drawn from this dataset in 2032 simply look like the conclusions drawn by the textual scholarship of the past 200 years. This being the case, the conversation will be forced into the theological realm. If the modern methods cannot prove any one text to be authorial or original, those who wish to adhere to that text will ultimately be forced to make an argument from faith. This is already being done by those who downplay the significance of the 200 year gap in the manuscript tradition from the first to third centuries and say that the initial text is synonymous with the original text. 

The fact remains that ultimately those who believe the Holy Scriptures to be the divinely inspired word of God will still have to make an argument from faith at the end of the process. Based on the limitations of the Munster Method (CBGM), I don’t see any reason for resting my faith on an analysis of an incomplete dataset which is more than likely going to lean on the side of secular scholarship when it is all said and done. This is potentially the most dangerous position on the text of Scripture ever presented in the history of the world. This position is so dangerous because it says that God has preserved His Word in the manuscripts, but the method being used cannot ever determine which words He preserved.

The analysis performed on an incomplete dataset will be hailed as the authentic word(s) of God, and the conclusions of scholars will rule over the people of God. It is possible that there will be no room for other opinions in the debate, because the debate will be “settled”. And the settled debate will arrive at the conclusion of, “well, we did our best with what we have but we are still unsure what the original text said, based on our methods”. This effectively means that one can believe that God has preserved His Word, and at the same time not have any idea what Word He preserved. The adoption of such conclusions will inevitably result in the most prolific apostasy the church has ever seen. This is why it is so important for Christians to return to the old paths of the Reformation and post-Reformation, which affirmed the Scriptural truth that the Word of God is αυτοπιστος, self-authenticating. It is dishonest to say that the Reformed doctrine of preservation is “dangerous” without any evidence of this, especially considering the modern method is demonstrably harmful.  

Is the Confessional Text Position Mythical, Anachronistic, Anti-Reformed, and Ahistoric?

The Young, Textless, and Reformed5 Comments

Introduction

A major problem with the textual discussion as it pertains to which Greek and Hebrew text Reformed Christians accept as authentic, is that many people who have strong opinions regarding the matter have not consulted Reformed sources regarding the text. This extends beyond the textual issue with modern “Reformed” Christians who claim the title but are not confessional, do not observe the Sabbath, make a two-fold distinction of the law, adopt strange interpretations of Romans 7, consider internet forums equivalent with the pulpit, and so on. This problem stems from the understanding that Reformed Christianity simply means Calvinism. Calvinism is one component of Reformed faith, but it is only one part of it. It is more appropriate to say that the defining distinctive of Reformed Theology is Covenant Theology and confessionalism, which helps form a robust understanding of the Holy Scriptures, the Church and the means of grace, the role of ministers, experiential preaching, and eschatology. 

A modern trend that extends into every area of Theology is the practice of defining Reformed Christianity however one likes, without consulting the source literature of Reformed Theologians. I do not say this to be a “gatekeeper” of who is and isn’t Reformed, but to simply point out that Reformed faith and practice points back to the 16th and 17th centuries, and that a basic definition for the term “Reformed” is easily attainable. Modern interpretations of Reformed Christianity, which are prolific, completely neglect the importance of confessionalism and the Theology of those who framed the confessions (WCF, LBCF, Savoy, Triple Knowledge). That is why the discussion of baptism and ecclesiology is so heated, as it pertains directly to the development of the particular baptists and independents over and against the common view of the Reformed at the time. Whether or not Reformed Presbyterians wish to acknowledge the Reformed title of the independents and particular Baptists is a conversation for another time. As it relates to the textual discussion, important Reformed sources include John Owen, Francis Turretin, John Calvin, John Gill, RL Dabney, Thomas Watson, Richard Capel, and the rest of the English Puritans. In this article, I will be handling the claim that the Confessional Text position is mythical, Anachronistic, Not Reformed, and Ahistoric by interacting with Francis Turretin. 

Mythical, Anachronistic, Not Reformed, and Ahistoric? 

So when one claims that the Confessional Text position is mythical, anachronistic, not Reformed, and ahistoric, it stands to reason that these claims should be inspected. There are many claims made by those who adhere to the Modern Critical Text that simply do not comport with reality when it comes to Reformation and Post-Reformation theology. For example, the claim made by apologist James White that the Confessional Text position does not believe in variants. Yet this is a claim made by nobody within the Confessional Text camp. Francis Turretin says this regarding the difference between a “corruption” and a variant.

“A corruption differs from a variant reading. We acknowledge that many variant readings occur both in the Old and New Testaments arising from a comparison of different manuscripts, but we deny corruption (at least corruption that is universal)…It is quite a different thing to speak of their success or of entire universal corruption. This we deny, both on account of the providence of God, who would not permit them to carry out their intention, and on account of the diligence of the orthodox fathers, who having in their possession various manuscripts preserved them free from corruptions” (Turretin, Vol. I, 111,112).

So this claim, which is agreed upon by all of the Reformed during the post-Reformation, is that while “corruption” as it is defined by modern scholars existed, yet the corruptions were not so total that they could not be corrected by simple manuscript comparison (73). So when asked to “prove” that this was the perspective of the Reformed, one simply needs to point to the Reformed Theologians of the time to demonstrate that this was the common opinion held by most, if not all of those within the realm of orthodoxy. It is rather ignorant to claim that those in the Confessional Text camp do not believe in variants, when the source literature for the position readily interacts with these variants. It is not that we do not believe in variants, we simply disagree as to which readings should be considered authentic. For example, Turretin comments on the Reformed opinion of the three most discussed variants today. 

“There is no truth in the assertion that the Hebrew edition of the Old Testament and the Greek edition of the New Testament are said to be mutilated; nor can the arguments used by our opponents prove it. Not the history of the adulteress (Jn. 8:1-11), for although it is lacking in the Syriac version, it is found in all the Greek manuscripts. Not 1 Jn. 5:7, for although some formerly called it into question and heretics now do, yet all the Greek copies have it, as Sixtus Senesis acknowledges: “they have been the words of never-doubted truth, and contained in all the Greek copies from the very times of the apostles”. Not Mk. 16 which may have been wanting in several copies in the time of Jerome (as he asserts); but now it occurs in all, even in the Syriac version, and is clearly necessary to complete the history of the resurrection of Christ” (115). 

While it is plainly obvious that Turretin accepted these readings as authentic (which “proves” that this was the common opinion), a more interesting fact noted by Turretin is that these readings were present in “all the Greek manuscripts”. Now we know that there were certainly manuscripts that did not have these readings, so what did Turretin mean by this? When the Reformed referred to the manuscripts and editions, they were discussing the authentic copies, which is a distinction that has been lost in modern textual scholarship. Turretin comments on this distinction,

“…the autographs and also the accurate and faithful copies may be the standard of all other copies of the same writing and of its translations. If anything is found in them different from the authentic writings… it is unworthy of the name authentic and should be discarded as spurious and adulterated, the discordance itself being a sufficient reason for its rejection” (113).

This commentary demonstrates that the Reformed view rejected manuscripts bearing the qualities of that of Codex Vaticanus, for example. Turretin also reveals something that is often overlooked by those in the modern critical text camp – that the authentic copies were those that contained the pericope adulterae (John 7:53-8:11), the comma johanneum (1 John 5:7), and the longer ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20). A brief glance at Calvin’s commentary will show that he too adopted these readings. In fact, if one were to examine the writings and commentary of John Gill, RL Dabney, Matthew Henry, and any of the Reformed for that matter, one would find that they too all adopted these readings! So when the claim is made that the Greek Text of the Reformation was not accepted by anybody, one has to ask, “Can you give an example of somebody within the Reformed tradition who didn’t accept these readings by the end of the 16th century?”    

The claim that the Reformation Text was received is not made because the 1633 Elzevir edition says, “This is the text received by all” . It is made because it was the text received by all, in the general sense of the word. The claim is overwhelmingly shown to be true by the wealth of commentaries, theological works, and of course the Bibles produced during that era that all accept the form of the text as it exists in the Traditional Text. The statement in the introduction to the Scrivener TR and 1633 Elzevir TR is simply is commenting on the reality that there was little dispute as to what the authentic Scriptures were heading out of the Reformation period by the Orthodox. 

Mythical, Anachronistic, Not Reformed, and Ahistoric

After interacting with the Theologians of the Reformation and post-Reformation period such as James Usher, Thomas Watson, John Calvin, Matthew Henry, RL Dabney, John Gill, Francis Turretin, and literally anybody else, it is astounding that such claims can be made that this perspective of Scripture is somehow not Reformed, or mythical, or anachronistic, or ahistoric. This claim is often made by severing the opinions of Stephanus and Beza from the rest of the Reformers, as though they were the “church”. Turretin clears away this confusion when he says, 

“The question is not Are the sources so pure that no fault has crept into the many sacred manuscripts, either through the waste of time, the carelessness of copyists or the malice of the Jews or of heretics? For this is acknowledged on both sides and the various readings which Beza and Robert Stephanus have carefully observed in the Greek ( and the Jews in the Hebrew) clearly prove it. Rather the question is have the original texts (or the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts) been so corrupted either by copyists through carelessness (or by the Jews and heretics through malice) that they can no longer be regarded as the judge of controversies and the rule to which all the versions must be applied? The papists affirm, we deny it” (106).  

The fact that those who attack the Reformation Text by way of Erasmus is quite curious indeed, considering this quotation by Turretin, who does not even mention him. Yet the opinion of the Reformed was that the work of Stephanus and Beza was successful, and the theology built upon their work all throughout the post-Reformation clearly demonstrates that even if Erasmus was an anti-trinitarian, humanist-papist, the Reformed did not consider his blunders or work the final authority or problematic. In other words, Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza do not comprise the “church” that is so commonly referred to by the Confessional Text camp – the commentators, theologians, pastors, and translations which everybody read do. When it is said that the “church” received the text of the Reformation, it is not meant that a council was held, or the pope declared, but rather that the text was overwhelmingly adopted by all, as evidenced in quite literally all of the Reformed theological works and commentaries produced in the post-Reformation, not to mention the obvious reality that this was the text used and defended by the framers of the 17th century confessions. Hence the name, Confessional Text. 

So it does not hold that this view is mythical, anachronistic, not Reformed, or ahistoric. In fact, an interaction with the Theological works of the Reformation and Post-Reformation demonstrate this to be exactly the opposite of that. The claim that the Reformers would adopt the modern critical perspective is curious, considering they heavily critiqued the opponents who rejected the variants still in question today, and the manuscripts that contain them. Despite the common misconception that this is a view that requires putting one’s head in the sand to variants, they did deal with the evidence. The claim made by those in the Confessional Text camp is not to defend the TR blindly, as is often claimed. We do not start with the TR, we start with the reality that God has spoken (Deus dixit). We stand on the historical understanding of the Holy Scriptures, that it was received and not created or reconstructed. There is not a methodology to “reproduce” the TR because God did not fail in preserving His Bible. The assumption in the demand for the Confessional Text advocates to “produce a methodology” assumes the total corruption of the Scriptures in its premise. Let me explain. 

  1. There is no final form of the modern critical text, it is an ongoing, incomplete process 
  2. There is wide disagreement within the modern critical text as to which variants be accepted or rejected, which further demonstrates the instability of such a text
  3. This being the case, the current effort of reconstructing the initial text has not been completed yet (even if some believe it can be completed)
  4. Considering the reality that the effort of constructing the modern critical text is ongoing, the plain reality is that they admit we live in a time where the final text has not been reconstructed as of the time of writing this article
  5. Thus, in demanding a methodology to reproduce the TR, it assumes that there is no final form of the text, and are thus demanding that we step onto the epistemological starting point assumed by modern textual scholarship to “prove” that our text can be reconstructed

So the demand in itself misunderstands the Confessional Text position in its premise. In adopting the assumption of the question, we would have to adopt the view that there is no final form of the text, which is why it is a strange challenge that no one need answer, as we believe that God has already delivered His Word in every age, which is, as I’ve demonstrated, the view of the Reformed in history. The modern critical text comports with the modern views of general and partial preservation, but it does not comport with the confessional language of “pure in all ages” (WCF 1.8). The effort of the textual scholarship done during the Reformation does not stand against this position, as it is the position of those writing during the time of that textual effort. It is in fact anachronistic to claim that the Reformers believed in a text that needed to be reconstructed, as that was a view held by none of the Reformed at the time that the Reformation era text was being collated and edited. If it is the case that any of the Reformed held to the modern view of the text, I have yet to see it demonstrated by anybody outside of Jan Krans’ strange attempt to say that Erasmus was operating from the modern perspective similar to Metzger. 

Conclusion

The beautiful reality of adhering to the Confessional Text position is that it is not new in the slightest. While the name is new, as some have needlessly pointed out, the underlying position is not. The need for the new name arose only because it is the most descriptive of the position over and against the modern perspective. It is entirely appropriate for Reformed men and women to adhere to this understanding of the text of the Holy Scriptures, as it aligns with the theology of the Reformers and post-Reformation divines. It specifically aligns with the Westminster Confession of Faith, as demonstrated by the various theological writings of those who were present at the Westminster Assembly, who penned chapter one and paragraph eight of the confession. For an in depth analysis of the interpretation of this passage, see Garnet Howard Milne’s work, “Has the Bible Been Kept Pure?”. For overwhelming support that this position is not anachronistic, mythical, ahistoric, and not Reformed, literally pick up any of the Reformation and post-Reformation writings on the topic. I recommend James Usher, Thomas Watson, Francis Turretin, John Calvin, John Gill, and RL Dabney. It is strange and unusual that one would claim that this view is not Reformed, as it is the literal theology and text of the Reformers and post-Reformers, whose tradition we look back to for our understanding of Reformed Theology. 

An honest handling of the topic would include a recognition that the confession was reinterpreted by A.A. Hodge and B.B. Warfield, which led to the development of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. It is completely fine if a believer does not subscribe to a confession, or the confessional view of the Scriptures because being Reformed does not determine one’s salvation, however the distinction between the views is necessary. One might even disagree with the Reformers on their perspective, which again, is fine. It is completely bizarre however, when the claim is made that this was not the view of the Reformers, or that this view is not Reformed. If one wants to say that this is an area that the Reformed needed to grow out of, that is fine, but it is necessary to accept that it is in fact a position that modern Reformed Christians have grown out of. In order to fairly represent the discussion, it is important to admit that the modern doctrine of the Holy Scriptures has evolved from the time of the Post-Reformation, and that there are Reformed believers who do not think this evolution was necessary, myself being one of them. Those like me, who do not wish to adopt the modern view, adhere to the view of the framers of the Confession and their contemporaries, which is why the name “Confessional Text” is entirely appropriate and accurately describes the position. 

The Divine Original and the Initial Text

The Young, Textless, and Reformed5 Comments

“At the most demanding level, I believe that we still await a truly critical edition of the New Testament…Each new discovery made the old critical apparatuses ever more out of date, and, even more worryingly, cast doubt on the quality of existing critical texts…The Nestle-Aland edition is a fine tool, and one could not imagine being without it. But it is a stopgap, awaiting the completion of the Editio critica maior… We begin to see that, great as the achievements of previous editors were, they were working with partial and arbitrarily selected materials which led to theories of the text and its history which were themselves partial, and thus almost bound to be mistaken. ” – David C. Parker, Textual Scholarship and the Making of the New Testament, 105-114

Introduction

The current and most advanced effort of New Testament textual scholarship is in progress as I write this article. By New Testament textual scholarship I mean what is commonly referred to as “Textual Criticism”, though the latter name may be inadequate to describe the breadth of the ongoing effort. In order to understand what the “modern critical text” is, it is important to understand that the various printed editions (NA28, UBS5, THGNT, etc.) of the Greek New Testament are just one facet of the work. There is no one “modern critical text”. The effort of textual scholars creating editions of the Greek New Testament is just the practical implementation of that work. So when I speak of “Modern Textual Criticism” on this blog, I am not exclusively referring to the work of creating printed editions of the Greek New Testament, but rather the larger effort as a whole. Within the umbrella of New Testament Scholarship, there is a wide array of projects being pursued and the creation of printed Greek texts just a part of that work. Simply reducing the conversation to printed editions when discussing modern textual scholarship neglects those researching New Testament texts in art, history, commentaries, and of course, the major effort of Modern Textual Scholarship – the Editio critica maior. 

The reason I say that the effort of those producing editions of the Greek New Testament is just a part of the work is not to be dismissive. Rather, it is an attempt to 1) accurately describe the scope of the work and 2) highlight the importance of the work that will impact all future printed editions of the Greek New Testament. Recently, I have noticed that there is a discussion over what it means for textual scholars to searching for the original. In this article, I will briefly address what is called the Editio critica maior as well as comment on the various uses of the word “original” as it pertains to the New Testament text.

The ECM and the Initial Text

The Editio critica maior (ECM) is as DC Parker describes it, “The narrative of the history of the [New Testament] text” (Parker, 128). In a more tangible sense, it is the largest collection of New Testament data ever compiled (and is still being created). It contains a critical text, a critical apparatus, and provides the editor’s justification for the methodology and conclusions (Parker, 112). It is being used in its incomplete form now in printed editions of the Greek New Testament, and will most likely be the standard by the time it is completed around 2032. Despite the tremendous advance in New Testament data the ECM will provide, it is still not a definitive text, it is a data set that represents the available data which does not go back to the time of the Apostles. Parker makes it clear that, “A critical edition is not a reconstruction of an authorial text. It is a reconstruction of the oldest recoverable text, the Initial Text” (122). Parker is not alone in his conclusions regarding the current effort of textual scholarship, though some do stand in opposition to him. One of the most controversial claims that I have made is that “No scholar is trying to find the original”, and Dr. Peter Gurry has taken me to task to clarify what I mean by that. In all fairness, it is probably not fair to make such a sweeping statement without clarification. Dr. Gurry has been quite charitable and pointed me to many valuable resources, which I hope to use accurately. There are in fact many scholars who believe that the initial text might as well be the authorial text, though they do seem to be in the minority depending on how “initial text” is defined.

Dr. Gurry argues that this convolution is due to widespread disagreement on the use of the term “initial text”, or even its misuse. Many mean by “initial text” the earliest text available in the extant manuscript tradition, which is how Parker employs the term. Yet its original definition by Gerd Mink goes beyond how it is commonly employed. Mink defined the term to refer to the hypothetical archetype of the earliest extant manuscript tradition. This effectively puts the initial text earlier in the transmission history than the oldest surviving manuscripts. With this definition, it is more reasonable to believe that the initial text and the authorial text are much closer to each other than the authorial text is to let’s say, Vaticanus. In this regard, Mink and Parker stand in opposition to one another. 

Based on the limitations of such methods employed by CBGM, I agree with Parker’s conclusions on the practical understanding of the initial text over the idealistic definition offered originally by Mink. While Mink’s assumption is that the initial text is a hypothesis for the authorial text, there does not seem to be a good reason for believing this with a high degree of certainty. That is the point of contention between myself and Dr. Gurry – I believe the Scriptures set forth the standard of certainty (Mat. 5:28;24:35), and that anything less than certain leads to having no text at all. And since the ECM itself declares that, “Apart from the fact that a reconstruction cannot achieve the same degree of certainty at each variant passage, this does not mean that a reconstruction of the authorial text is possible in each case. Moreover, it does mean that any reconstructed text can claim to be absolutely identical with the authorial text” (30), there will always be somewhat of a gray area between the authorial text and the initial text – even if that gray area is believed to be inconsequential by some. 

In any case, it is in fact a matter of nuance as to whether or not textual scholars are trying to find the authorial or original text. If by “original” it is meant the hypothetical initial text, than I am defining “original” differently and some textual scholars are indeed trying to find the “original” as they define it. If by initial text it is meant the “earliest form of the extant text” than the original is not being discussed at all. In both definitions of the initial text, the way “original” is being defined is different than is being discussed on this forum. By original I mean “the text that the Holy Spirit inspired”, down to the word, as defined by the Reformation and Post Reformation divines. The Puritan John Owen says this, “the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament [which] were immediately and entirely given out by God himself … [are] by his good and merciful providential dispensation … preserved unto us entire in the original languages.” (Works, 16, pp.351,352)

So it seems that it is a matter of disagreement in how “original” is being defined. In the sense that the theological definition of the word “original” is employed, there are no scholars trying to find the original. When it is framed in this light, the discussion becomes a theological and exegetical discussion as to what the Scriptures say about the doctrine of inspiration and preservation and what “original” means, not a discussion of how the evidence is interpreted. A major focus of this blog is to demonstrate that the discussion of Textual Scholarship should be framed from a theological starting point, not a historical critical one. I have already received the critique by some that since I do not have a PhD in the area of textual scholarship, I do not have the right to speak on this issue. While I understand the nature of this argument, my understanding of the Scriptures is that they are sufficient to speak on matters of faith and practice (2 Tim. 3:16). This is most certainly one of those areas, though I can understand if somebody wishes to exit out of the article at this point based on my lack of credentials. 

The Pursuit of the Divine Initial Text 

The reality is, that the methods being employed to construct the ECM do not offer the degree of certainty that the theological giants of the past had in the Holy Scriptures. Thomas Watson says this, “We may know the Scripture to be the Word of God by its miraculous preservation in all ages … Nor has the church of God, in all revolutions and changes, kept the Scripture that it should not be lost only, but that it should not be depraved. The letter of Scripture has been preserved, without any corruption, in the original tongue.” (Body of Divinity, 19). It is clear that the methods being employed simply cannot ever produce this level of certainty. So regardless of whether or not some may believe that the Initial text, as defined by Mink, represents the authorial text – it can never be said with absolute certainty that this is true using the methodology itself. 

The problem is a matter of methodology, not a matter of interpretation. Thus my critique is not of those who believe the initial text represents the authorial text, it is of the methodology used to arrive at such conclusions. Parker agrees with my understanding of the Munster Method (CBGM), though I disagree with his view of the text vehemently. “I say again that the user who treats the text of James in the Editio critica maior as identical to a letter written several hundred years before the oldest extant manuscript was copied has made a serious methodological error” (Parker, 122). Regardless of Parker’s opinion, those who believe that the initial text represents the authorial text will take the same data as Parker and come to the opposite conclusion as him.

While Parker’s conclusion, and thus my conclusion, might be considered inflammatory by some, an examination of the method demonstrates that it is simply a cold truth regarding the methodology. The Munster Method (CBGM) itself can never prove that it has produced an original text, in any sense of the word, that recreates exactly what Paul wrote. The text that Paul wrote might be considered as a highly likely original reading, but scholars might delegate it to the apparatus due to the limitations of the methodology and data used for analysis. It is the interpretations of scholars that will ultimately come along and conclude which version(s) of the initial text represents the authorial text. So in a very real sense, the interpreters’ theology of preservation and inspiration, along with other suppositions, is being applied retroactively to the work done by the methods being employed, and the flawed decisions of men are the final authority over which texts are considered “original”.

This shifts the authority of the Holy Scriptures from the object to the subject. Because the authority lies in the subject, and the subject is not omniscient, it is not only likely, but inevitable that a legitimately original reading is rejected for some other reading that is determined “earliest and best” by a scholar. It does not matter how earnest a particular scholar is in saying that “I want what Paul wrote!”, the fact remains that the methodology does not allow for that desire to actualize in any meaningful way. The final authority will always rest on the determinations of scholars and their theological suppositions. At the end of the day, the modern textual scholar must employ faith in believing that they have chosen God’s Word correctly. This is part of the reason why the historical doctrine of the Scriptures as self-authenticating is held by those in the Confessional Text camp. A return back to the 16th century is most necessary, for both practical and theological reasons. The authority of the Scriptures does not rest in the determinations of men, but the providential work of God. This is the fundamental difference between those in the modern camp and those in the Confessional camp, which is why I continue to press theologically on the issue and not evidentially.  

Conclusion

I have taken some time to demonstrate the nuance in the discussion of what “original” means. Historically, as I have shown by quotations of those at the Westminster Assembly, the word “original” meant the words penned by the prophets and apostles. In the modern period, scholars prefer the term “initial text”, and the definition of that term is debated. To some, the initial text is the hypothetical archetype that all texts flowed from, and to others, it is the text that represents the earliest extant form of the New Testament texts. In all three cases, three different things are being discussed. Thus, using the definition provided by the framers of the 17th century confessions, I do say confidently that there are no scholars in pursuit of the original as defined by the Reformed in mainstream New Testament textual scholarship. Therefore it is especially appropriate that the view of the text of Scripture presented and defended here on this blog be called “The Confessional Text”, as it not only represents a physical form of the text, but also a distinct theological foundation with specific definitions of terms that have evolved in the modern period. 

Many scholars have attempted to reinterpret Francis Turretin and James Usher and others to fit the modern definitions of “original”, “preserved”, “kept pure”, and so forth, but the fact remains that these theologians did indeed mean what they said plainly. It is simply more accurate to say that the modern view of the text of Holy Scripture is different than the view presented by the Westminster Divines and their contemporaries. In recognizing this difference, I believe it possible to have a fruitful discussion on the theological differences underpinning each position. The modern method is to many hidden in a black box, and as it becomes more developed, will come into plain sight by all. When this time comes, the Reformed must be prepared to stand on the truth that the Scriptures are self-authenticating. 

“The marvelous preservation of the Scriptures [demonstrates this]. Though none in time be so ancient, nor none so much impugned; yet God hath still by his providence preserved them, and every part of them” (James Usher. Body of Divinity, 8).

The Septuagint and the Received Text

The Young, Textless, and Reformed4 Comments

Introduction

Recently, I encountered the view that the Hebrew masoretic text of the Old Testament was not inspired. Some say that it was a wicked, corrupted, invention of Christ hating Jews. Others simply deny the authenticity or preservation of the Hebrew text in favor of the Septuagint. This is not some niche corner of the internet either. This is a popular opinion, even among the Reformed. First, it must be stated that the argument needs clarification at its beginning, as there is not one “Septuagint”, there are Septuagints. There is not one Greek Old Testament, there are many versions and editions. Further, the Dead Sea Scrolls do not contain an entire Old Testament, so it is not adequate to appeal to them as a complete authority.

While that may not cause those who adhere to this position to reconsider, it is an important observation nonetheless. In any case, it should be understood why the people of God should start with the Hebrew Old Testament texts over the Septuagint or any other version. It is important then to examine the foundation and logical end of these claims according to the standard of Scripture and to see the implications of such a belief. First, I will examine the Scriptural testimony to itself in regard to its sufficiency and purpose, source and method, and scope and promise. Second, I will present several affirmations for and against considering translations as immediately inspired . Third, I will comment on the nature of citations of external sources in the New Testament text. 

Sufficiency and Purpose

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.”

2 Timothy 3:16-17 KJV

The first standard set forth in the Holy Scriptures is that all Scripture is given by way of inspiration by God and is sufficient for all matters of faith and practice, “That the man of God may be perfect”. From this text, there are several important claims regarding Scripture:

1. That all Scripture is inspired, not just some 

2. That all Scripture is sufficient, not just the important parts 

3. That Scripture alone is the means that God has given to the people of God for all matters of faith and practice 

The method of inspiration is debated as to how exactly God inspired the text, yet this much is clear: 

1. In the Old Testament, God used means of prophets, dreams, visions, Christophanies and Theophanies, and angelic messengers to deliver His Word to His people

2. In the New Testament, God used means of apostolic writers to deliver His Word to His people

The method of inspiration of the Scriptures is often called “verbal plenary”, and it is typically nuanced in such a way that God used the unique authors and their vocabulary and experiences to inspire the words of the New Testament Scriptures. There are various ways of describing the nature of this inspiration, some much too liberal for conservative belief, but I will save that for another article. In the meantime, please refer to this article: https://purelypresbyterian.com/2016/10/13/the-apostles-and-prophets-secretaries-of-the-holy-ghost/

Source and Method 

“For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”

2 Peter 1:21 KJV

The second standard set forth in the Holy Scriptures is that Scripture was delivered through “holy men of God”. This was done specifically, as Hebrews 1:1 says, “by the prophets” in the Old Testament, and in these last days, “by his Son”. The language of the people of God in the Old Testament was Hebrew, and in certain places, Aramaic. These comprise the “Hebrew Scriptures”. The language that the New Testament was written in, as attested to by every generation of orthodox believers until the modern period, was Greek. Thus, it should be universally accepted that the documents that were immediately inspired were those written in these languages. This is affirmed by both the 17th century confessions as well as the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. Most conservative Christians accept at least one of these as a valid creedal statement on Scripture.

Scope and Promise 

“For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”

Matthew 5:18 KJV

The third standard set forth in the Holy Scriptures is that not “one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled”. In this text, Jesus is declaring that “the truth of the law, and every part of it, is secure, and that nothing so durable is to be found in the whole frame of the world” (Calvin, Commentary Mat. 5:18). This directly applies to the Old Testament as the covenantal document given to the people of God of old, and necessarily applies to the New Testament as it is the covenantal document given to the people of God in the last days. The Westminster Divines affirmed the usage of this passage as speaking authoritatively to the perfect preservation of God’s Word (1.8). 

“The authority of Scripture has always been recognized in the Christian church. Jesus and the apostles believed in the OT as the Word of God and attributed divine authority to it. The Christian church was born and raised under [the influence of] the authority of the Scripture. What the apostles wrote must be accepted as though Christ himself had written it, said Augustine. And in Calvin’s commentary on 2 Timothy 3:16, he states that we owe Scripture the same reverence we owe to God. Up until the 18th century, that authority of Scripture was firmly established in all the churches and among all Christians.”

Herman Bavinck. Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 1, 455.

The Nature of Translations

Are translations of the original languages as authoritative in so far as they represent the immediately inspired text? We affirm. Are translations themselves immediately inspired? We affirm against. There is a severe error among the people of God today which says that not only can a translation be immediately inspired, but certain translations are indeed immediately inspired – even when they disagree with the immediately inspired text.

Yet, the Scriptures are clear that “God spake” through the prophets and the apostolic witnesses, not scribes, translators, or text-critics. The argument that a translation is immediately inspired is in fact the argument that Ruckmanites employ to affirm the inerrancy of the Authorized Version. They claim that God supernaturally worked in the translators of the King James Version and inspired anew the text of Holy Scripture into an English translation. The main application of this heinous error is found equally among the Ruckmanites and those that affirm that the various Greek translations of the Old Testament, commonly called “the Septuagint” (LXX), is the immediately inspired text of the Old Testament. 

First, let us examine the claim that the Septuagint is the immediately inspired Word of God in the Old Testament. The first premise that must be agreed upon, is that the text of the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew (and in certain places Aramaic). This must be affirmed due to the fact that at the time of the inspiration of the Old Testament, the Greek language either did not exist, or in later times existed in a form entirely foreign to that of the Septuagint. Thus, by affirming the reality that the Old Testament could not have been originally penned in Greek, we affirm that the Greek text of the Old Testament cannot be the immediately inspired text. Additionally, the language of the people of God of old was not Greek, but Hebrew. So by both accounts, the immediately  inspired text of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew (and in places Aramaic). 

Second, let us examine the implications to the doctrine of inspiration, should the Septuagint be accepted as the immediately inspired Word of God in the Old Testament. The first assertion that I will examine is that a translation can be accepted as the immediately  inspired Word of God. If this is the case, then one must deny the method of inspiration employed by God as attested to in the Scriptures (2 Peter 1:21; Hebrews 1:1). The authority of inspiration then is shifted to those who have translated the original text into vulgar tongues of the nations. Granting this premise, there is no reason to affirm against any vulgar translation being accepted as the immediately inspired Word of God, and one has no grounds to affirm against the Ruckmanites, or the Papists for that matter. 

Third, let us examine the implications to the shape of Scripture, should the Septuagint (or any other translation) be accepted as the immediately inspired Word of God in the Old Testament. If a translation can be accepted as immediately inspired, one must first attempt to find a Scriptural standard which informs the people of God which translation should be accepted. The common proof that is given for the Greek Old Testament are the various quotations of the Septuagint by the Apostolic authors. Should it be the case, that any text cited by the Apostolic authors causes the source text to be accepted as Scripture, a serious error arises. By adopting this understanding, one must also accept the writings of the pagan authors Menander and Epimenides as quoted by the Apostle Paul in Acts 17:28, 1 Cor. 15:33, and Titus 1:12. Further, one must also accept the book of Enoch as Scripture (Jude 14). That is not to say that a translation of the original texts is equivalent with pagan authors or apocryphal texts, but that the form of the argument as it pertains to inspiration requires such an admission. If a text is qualified as inspired based on its quotation by the Apostolic authors and not by the source of the revelation which is God, than all cited texts should be considered inspired. In inspiring the text of Holy Scripture, God does not inspire the source texts cited, only the text itself as it exists within the Holy Scriptures. 

Do quotations by the Apostolic writers retroactively inspire a cited text? We affirm against this error. In order to suppose that any text quoted by the Apostles actually inspires the whole of the cited text, or even the portion of text cited, one must accept that the method of inspiration is interrupted. We affirm that the words delivered by the Apostles are inspired, but not the source cited. In this sense, the Septuagint quotations and quotations of other authors are equally uninspired as they exist outside of the New Testament text. Not that the Septuagint in itself is uninspired as it represents the original Hebrew, just that the words themselves were not immediately inspired. In simple terms, a translation is only considered authentic insofar as it represents the inspired text it is translated from. Should this be the case that the standard for inspiration of a text is its use by the Apostolic writers in the New Testament, the canon should be edited to include the aforementioned cited works, as they are inspired. To this we affirm against. 

Further if the Septuagint is accepted as an inspired text apart from the original Hebrew, one would have to accept the various apocrypha contained within that text, including the multiple versions of “Bell and the Dragon”. To accept one book of the Septuagint and not another is to accept the form of the Hebrew Scriptures but not the content. If the argument is made that the Septuagint is only inspired as far as it is cited in the New Testament, then the whole corpus of the Septuagint is to be rejected where it is not cited by the New Testament authors, in which case the argument that the Septuagint is inspired is refuted. In the case that the Septuagint is affirmed as inspired and not immediately inspired, it would need to be demonstrated that the Septuagint is a faithful representation of the immediately inspired text, in which case appealing to the Septuagint is no longer necessary. We affirm that both the shape and content of the Hebrew Scriptures are immediately inspired, and not any part of the form or content of the Septuagint as it exists apart from the text it was translated from.

Understanding the Quotations of Non-Inspired Texts by the Apostolic Authors 

Now that is abundantly clear the implications of holding to such a doctrine that translations and other non-canonical texts can be inspired apart from its representation of the original, let us examine the proper understanding of quotations of non-inspired texts by the Apostolic authors. Though the Apostolic authors employ non-inspired texts, this does not mean that those texts are uninspired as they exist within the Holy Scriptures. We affirm that the use of quotations in the New Testament authors are inspired insofar as they exist within the New Testament. This is due to the New Testament being inspired by God. We affirm against the practice of using New Testament quotations to correct the immediately inspired text, specifically the Hebrew Scriptures. 

We affirm against this for several reasons. The first is that the Greek Old Testament(s) is a translation, and not the immediately inspired text. The second is that the Greek Old Testament and the Hebrew Old Testament are not the same text. It may stand to reason that the New Testament quotations of the Septuagint may be used to correct other versions of the Greek Old Testament, but it does not follow to then say that the Hebrew Text should be corrected by the Greek. This is the same argument employed by the Ruckmanites when they affirm that the Greek and Hebrew should be corrected by the English Bible. The use of the Septuagint by the Ancient Fathers does not authorize the use of the Septuagint in the correction of the text in the authentic copies, just like the use of the ESV in contemporary writings does not authorize the correction of the original text .

The Ancient Fathers did not have Apostolic authority. The third is that though translations are necessary and are the common means that the people of God access the Bible in their mother tongue, translations in themselves are subject to translational obscurities and the equivalency of one word to another may be misunderstood due the semantic evolution of a word or poor translation. This being the case, we affirm against using versional readings to correct any immediately inspired text of the Holy Scriptures. This is not to say that versional readings cannot be consulted to better understand the nature of the evolution of a variant, or to gain confidence in an original reading, but that versional reading should not be held over and above the authentic reading in the original tongues. 

Conclusion

It should now be understood by all the doctrinal foundations for accepting a text as immediately inspired, as well as the doctrinal foundations for rejecting a text as inspired. It is abundantly clear that the only texts that should be considered immediately inspired are the authentic Hebrew Old Testament Scriptures and the authentic Greek New Testament Scriptures. The translations made from these texts are warranted and necessary, though they do not stand above the original texts as a judge or a corrector. To affirm this is to affirm against the Biblical doctrine of inspiration and to reject the authority of God’s revelation to His people. In affirming that versional readings are inspired or of higher authority than the immediately inspired text in the original languages, one must accept that the method of inspiration as detailed in Scripture has failed or is incorrect, and the Word of God not authoritative or preserved. To affirm this is to affirm the same doctrine of inspiration as the Ruckmanites, and against the orthodox doctrine of Scripture as articulated from the beginning. 

Text and Translation

The Young, Textless, and Reformed4 Comments

Introduction

It is easy to read an article or facebook thread on the issue of textual criticism or translation and have trouble understanding what is going on. The conversation is shrouded by specialized terminology and polemics. This is often due to people getting their information from their favorite podcast or YouTube program. Often times, the conversation becomes muddled when it comes to differentiating between the underlying text and the translations made from those texts. There are two important conversations that happen regarding the Bible – the conversation of which New and Old Testament texts should be used for translation, and the conversation of translation methodology and quality. Yet these two distinct topics are constantly conflated and mixed together.

The most common occurrence of this conflation happens when people utilize the term “KJV Onlyist” when discussing the Greek and Hebrew. This argument was made popular first by internet podcast host James White and reiterated in Dr. Andrew Naselli’s critically acclaimed textbook How to Understand and Apply the New Testament. It is almost impossible to have a conversation about which underlying Greek and Hebrew should be used in translation now without being called a “KJV Onlyist” if you are brave enough to affirm against the modern text.

Yet there is an important difference between the text a Bible is translated from and the translation itself. This is easily demonstrated in the fact that people disagree on which modern translation is the best. Some people swear by the NASB because they believe it to be “the most literal translation available”, and others only read the ESV because it is the “most scholarly translation”. Most times, Christians select their Bible based on the translation methodology and the quality of the translation itself. The underlying Greek has nothing to do with it. So it is absolutely possible that somebody prefers the modern Greek texts, but does not prefer any of the modern Bible translations, and reads a traditional Bible based on their preference of translation alone. Yes, it is possible that somebody would prefer a KJV without knowing anything about the underlying textual discussion. 

The Textual Discussion

The conversation of “which Bible is the best” can be separated into two categories, text and translation. The first category has to do with the Biblical languages, which are the Hebrew Old Testament (which includes small portions of Aramaic or Chaldean as the Puritans called it) and the Greek New Testament. Some people have also taken the modern position that the Bible can also be translated from other translations, such as the Greek Old Testament or the Syriac Old Testament. The ESV, NIV, and NASB all do this. This would be akin to creating a fresh Bible out of the ESV. The confessional position states that translations should not be made from versional readings like the Greek Old Testament, but that falls into the category of translation methodology. 

In terms of the first category, which is the text, the conversation has to do with answering the question “which original text should be translated from?” There are a handful of positions when it comes to text. The first can be generically called the modern critical text position. Within this camp, there are an array of different thoughts, so this brief description will obviously not cover every nuance of the conversation. The main thought is that the Greek Testament is best represented in Codex Vaticanus and other texts similar to it. Codex Vaticanus is said to have originated in Alexandria around the fourth century and was published in the 19th century. Codex Vaticanus is stored at the Vatican Library and the first time it was explicitly mentioned was in the Reformation period due to Erasmus consulting some of its readings as a part of his work on his Latin and Greek New Testaments. Erasmus believed that the Vatican codex followed Latin versional readings, and rejected it based on his detestation for the contemporary iteration of the Vulgate he was seeking to correct in his Latin edition. 

The most significant markers of these types of manuscripts are their short, abrupt readings and the absence of the three most discussed variants (John 7:53-8:11; 1 John 5:7; Mark 16:9-20). It also excludes many majority readings such as John 5:4 and Romans 16:24. If you look in a modern Bible, these verses are simply skipped over without renumbering the whole chapter. The Vatican Codex was employed heavily by Westcott and Hort in their Greek New Testament published in 1881 and all modern translations closely follow the readings of this manuscript and those like it. Out of the close to 6,000 manuscripts extant today, Vaticanus represents anywhere from 17 to 30 of them. These manuscripts were formerly called the “Alexandrian Family”, but recent scholarship has moved away from that conclusion due to their lack of coherence with one another. It is more accurate to say that they are cousin manuscripts than a text family. 

In any case, those that hold to the modern critical text position believe that the Bible is best preserved (Read partially or generically preserved) in the readings contained within these manuscripts, and make textual decisions based on prioritizing the Alexandrian texts as better than the majority of the manuscripts available today. There are many nuances within this camp, and some modern critical text advocates adopt some majority readings over Alexandrian readings (Like the Tyndale House Greek New Testament at John 1:18). The Greek New Testament most employed by those in this camp is the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament which is now in its 28th edition. The Nestle-Aland text is the base text used for almost all of the modern Bible translations made today. The modern critical text position also tends to favor Old Testament versional readings like the Greek, Syriac, and the Latin Vulgate over the Masoretic Hebrew text (see ESV 2016 prefatory material for more information). 

The second position is called the majority text position, which also has an array of different thoughts within it. Some scholars, like Wilbur Pickering, take a theological approach within the majority text position, and others take more of an evidential approach. In both cases, the majority text advocates reject the theory that the Alexandrian manuscripts are “earliest and best” and instead start with the readings represented most abundantly in the manuscript tradition (Or even pick one manuscript as the authentic representative). The basic premise of this position is that the readings that are most abundant are the readings that God preserved. Some within this camp do not dogmatically pick the majority reading every time, however. They still make decisions on each variant like one might do within the modern critical text camp based on the extant data available. There are Bible translations made from various collations of the majority text, like the family 35 majority text. Often times, the majority text advocates do not read a Bible that represents their favorite text, though the NKJV and even the KJV are popular within this camp. 

The third position is called the confessional text position (also called the Ecclesiastical text, canonical text, or less preferably TR advocates). This position favors the texts that were employed during the time of the Reformation and confessional period after which are represented by the Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament and the Received Text of the New Testament. While this position typically favors the Authorized Version (KJV), many within this camp read the NKJV, MEV, or GNV, and are open to fresh translations of the texts of the Reformation. Most read the AV simply because they believe the translation methodology employed by the translators is more faithful than the other Bibles available. This position is not so much about translation, but rather about the underlying Biblical texts used for translation. Since the modern Bibles employ a different underlying text, this camp rejects those Bibles because they do not believe they represent the original.

The Greek text preferred by the confessional text position aligns most closely with the majority of manuscripts available today, though it does depart from the majority text in certain places, which makes it a distinct position. This is why this position is often conflated with the majority text position, though they are different from one another. This conflation is made in Dr. Andrew Naselli’s textbook mentioned above. The major difference between this and the modern critical text position, is that this camp believes the work of collating manuscripts was accomplished during the Reformation period. During this time, the process of copying manuscripts evolved from hand copying to printing with the invention of the printing press, and thus the method of copying was formalized and a more concentrated effort of textual criticism was warranted. Since this text was to be massively distributed for the first time in church history, this effort represents a significant phase in the providential preservation of the Word of God. 

A major point of confusion by those who do not adhere to this position, is the fact that the confessional text camp is not trying to find the original Bible, they believe they have it. They are not primarily concerned with supporting every reading with extant manuscript evidence (though they can) because they do not believe this aligns with the Biblical doctrines of inspiration and preservation. The manuscripts do not offer definitive conclusions on the text 400 years removed from the time when they were still being copied in the Reformation period. Modern critical text advocates have trouble understanding the idea that the Bible was never in need of reconstruction, it was received in every generation and massively distributed for the first time in the 1600s. The effort of Reformation era textual criticism was not an effort of reconstruction, like today’s effort, but rather a collation and editing. Simply put, the Reformation era text-critics (not just Erasmus), were collecting faithful copies of the New Testament, and editing them into printed editions. Reformation era scholarship on inspiration and preservation demonstrates that this was the common thought of the day. They believed that the text of the New Testament was available, and with editing into one edition, could be found easily. Commentary by the Westminster Divines and other Puritan scholars affirms this overwhelmingly. Those in the confessional text camp affirm the determinations of these scholars and theologians, and believe that the text used for translation and theology for the next 300 years was the text that the people of God had used since the beginning (While acknowledging aberrant text streams and variants). 

Notice that while translation is connected with the textual discussion, it is not the same discussion at all. Those that are nuanced in the conversation select their Bible translation based on their understanding of the underlying text, but the translations themselves are entirely distinct from the text they are translated from. That is why it is unhelpful and actually detrimental to reduce the conversation of text to a matter of translational preference, as many do today. In fact, labeling somebody a “KJV Onlyist” for preferring the Received Text or Majority text only demonstrates an extreme amount of ignorance on the topic. Conflating the Received Text with the Majority text is even more condemning. The conversation of text can take place without discussing translation at all, though translation often comes up. It has to do with the underlying Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament. 

The Translation Discussion

A translation is simply the product of translating one language to another. In the context of Bible translation, the translations are typically made from the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament (though many modern translations translate from translations in the Old Testament). It is true that people often select the translation they read based on their view of the underlying text, though this is not always the case. That is because translation methodology is an entirely different discussion. A good translation has nothing to do with the text it is translated from. In fact, it is possible to make a horrible translation from a great underlying text, and an accurate translation from a horrible underlying text. A translation simply takes a text from one language into another. 

The conversation of translation can be separated into two categories – translation methodology and the accuracy of the translation itself. Translation methodology is more closely related to the textual discussion due to methodology often being impacted by the translator’s view of the text. For example, the Reformation era translators did not translate from versional or translational readings. They translated from the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament. Modern translation methodology does not strictly translate from the original languages, but often translates from other ancient translations. Somebody could agree that the modern critical text is better, but disagree with the modern translation methodology, and choose to read a traditional Bible because of it. 

In my experience, translation methodology is actually way more significant to people when choosing a Bible than the textual discussion. Most people choose the NASB because it is “the most literal” or the ESV because it is “the most scholarly” or the NIV because it “captures the original intention of the authors”. Most people reject the KJV because they “cannot understand it”. While the textual discussion is extremely important to some people, most Christians choose a Bible based on the translation itself. In fact, most people pick the ESV simply because they enjoy how it reads. 

Translation methodology is actually an extremely important topic that often goes neglected. It is important because most people only have access to a translation, so they have to trust that the translators have faithfully given them God’s Word in their mother tongue. Translation methodology has to do with which texts are being used to translate from, whether the translators are attempting to translate more formally (ESV, KJV, NASB) or dynamically (NIV, MEV), and even the complexity of the vocabulary. Bibles that are translated using formal equivalence (more literal) are often preferred over Bibles that are translated using dynamic equivalence (thought for thought). A simple internet search reveals that when people are selecting a Bible, this is the primary motivating factor for most people when selecting a translation.  

The second category of the translational discussion is the actual accuracy of the translation itself. This has to do with the accuracy of a word actually being translated from one language into another. It is more uncommon for people to choose a translation based on accuracy, but it is a factor that people take into account. People want to know that what they are reading represents the original language. This part of the discussion is another important component that is frequently neglected but it is certainly becoming more central to the translation discussion as the NASB and ESV are beginning to do more interpretation instead of translation in each new edition. A great example is whether or not αδελφοι should be translated as “brothers” or “brothers and sisters”. A literal translation would simply translate the plural form of the word “brother” (αδελφος) into “brothers”, but modern translation methodology has evolved into doing more interpretation than translation. While the usage of the word can include both men and women depending on the context, it literally just means “brothers”. In the case that a translation team decides to translate the word into “brothers and sisters”, the translators are making a decision to include an interpretation of the word in the translation itself. 

While this might seem like an unimportant nuance, translation accuracy is the reason many are decrying the next edition of the NASB. People are not comfortable with the translators interpreting a passage – they simply want the passage translated and the interpretation left to the person reading the text. Due to the trend of modern Bibles doing an increasing amount of interpretation in the translation itself, many people have actually decided not to purchase the newest editions of the ESV, NASB, and NIV. This is another great example of how translation methodology can cause somebody to determine which Bible they read, despite somebody’s understanding of the textual discussion. When I was a modern critical text advocate, I had already considered abandoning modern translations based on the direction that the translation methodologies were going. There are many people who read the KJV and NKJV simply because the modern translations take many liberties in translation. 

Conclusion

The conversation of text and translation is complicated and nuanced. There are a vast array of reasons that one might decide to read a particular translation over another, and the underlying text is only one of those reasons. In many cases, the underlying text is not even the main reason somebody picks one Bible over another. The important thing to recognize is that there are many important differences between text and translation, and some people care more about one than the other. In fact, most people are fine with the differences between the underlying texts used for translation because they believe they have “all the important stuff” no matter which Bible they read. The reality is, that many Christians read the NKJV or KJV based on translation methodology, preference, or familiarity over and above the textual discussion. That is because it does not matter how pure the underlying Greek and Hebrew is, if the translation is not faithful, than people want nothing to do with it. 

Simply calling somebody a “KJV Onlyist” reduces the conversation to polemics and is entirely unhelpful and even detrimental to the discussion. There is a plethora of reasons to reject modern Bibles, tradition is just one of them. It is time that Christians realize that being a “KJV Onlyist” is not the only reason to read a KJV, or the only reason people reject modern Bibles. The fact is that many Christians are becoming disenchanted with the increasing number of revisions to the underlying modern Greek text and the evolving translation methodologies of modern Bibles. People do not want a changing Bible. They want consistency and stability. The direction that modern translations have been heading for decades does not, and cannot offer this.