Category: Uncategorized

The Double Speak of Modern Criticism

The Young, Textless, and Reformed4 Comments

Introduction

“Textual criticism is that discipline that tries to recover the original wording of a work whose original documents have now been lost. Since no original document survives for the New Testament and since the existing copies disagree with one another, textual criticism is needed for all 27 books. Since we cannot study, teach, and apply the Bible if we don’t know what it says, textual criticism—whether we know it or not—plays a foundation role in pastoral ministry.”

Gurry, Peter. https://ps.edu/busy-pastor-know-developments-nt-textual-criticism-part-1-new-editions/. 2018.

If you ask the average pastor what is the goal of textual criticism, they will tell you it is the process of finding the original, inerrant text of the Bible. That is largely due to the definitions that modern scholars assign to the discipline and what is communicated in seminaries. The scholars that contribute to the consensus will assure you that even the non-Evangelical sources admit that, “with only a few minor exceptions, we can be confident that the Gospels and the New Testament as a whole reliably report what was originally written.” What they don’t tell you is that those same scholars believe that what was originally written was “a product of developing traditions.” In other words, the definition of “original” is highly co-opted for some other definition.

This is the reason why many well-meaning pastors are still on board with the idea of “Evangelical Text Criticism.” They think, along with most Christians, that there is a group of stalwart scholars trying to find the original Bible. This, without a doubt, is the stated goal of many Evangelical textual scholars, but has no basis in the scholarly works of said scholars. In short, what the scholars desire is not synonymous with what they are actually publishing or doing. While it is true to say that said Evangelical textual scholars desire to find the original wording of the Bible, it is also true that none of them believe this is possible with the current data. The way they get around this conundrum is by asserting theological interpretations of empirical processes. They engage in doublespeak.

Two Opposite Things True at Once

The Evangelical scholars often say that they are in pursuit of the original wording of the text of the New Testament. This is true, if by “in pursuit” we mean, “is emotionally invested in finding the original.” The reality is, in order to actually substantiate this claim, they must add an additional 20 lines of nuance. What the average Christian hears when Evangelical textual scholars talk about the original is that there is a very real, vigorous process that is currently honing in on the final jots and tittles of the Bible that remain uncertain. What is actually going on is the attempt to reconstruct a hypothetical initial text that represents the earliest form of the manuscripts scholars have decided are “earliest and best.” Notice that this doesn’t have anything to do with what is ontologically original.

Since the actual effort that is taking place is not actually being done, for the most part, by the Evangelicals, nothing that they say actually matters all that much. Regardless, let’s suppose that the Evangelicals were in charge of creating the texts that the Bible the average Christian reads are translated from. Even if it were the case that these were the people making Greek Bibles, they wouldn’t be doing so from the standard assumed in the definition they provide of text criticism. In the actual methodology, they admit that they are trying to find a substantially accurate representation of the original Bible, even though there is not a single method that can validate the “substantially” part of that claim.

Assuming that the Evangelicals weren’t just glorified commentators, they wouldn’t be doing what they say that text critical efforts are doing. Objectively, the effort of text criticism is trying to scrape together an early form of a handful of manuscripts that in no way can be verified to be what was originally written. Theologically, they deal with this by saying that what is earliest should be considered original. In other words, the original assumption of “earliest and best” should be considered “as good as original.”

Conclusion

When Evangelical scholars discuss the original text of the New Testament in the context of the actual product that Bibles are translated from, they aren’t actually talking about a word-for-word representation of the original. They are talking about an early form of the text that they assume to be original. This assumption is based on no empirical grounds, and is not warranted by the methodology that created the text itself. So it is comforting for the average pastor and Christian to see that Evangelical text critics desire to find the original, that desire in no way comports with reality. After all, “there are many, many places where the text of the New Testament is uncertain” (Dan Wallace).

This is the doublespeak of Evangelical textual scholars. They will provide a definition of textual criticism, which states the goal of the effort while simultaneously making no effort to actually achieve that goal. Not only does the methodology itself not claim to arrive at a final product, the scholars engaging in the effort are quite open in admitting that they can’t arrive at a final product. So the next time you hear an Evangelical textual scholar talk about the original, remember that the actual work they are doing is an effort to find the earliest possible text, not the original. Any assumptions about that earliest possible text being original is not warranted by the methodology itself. It is fanciful double speak.

The Message, an Unnecessary Tool

The Young, Textless, and Reformed2 Comments

Evangelicals, for some strange reason, feel the need to defend the Message. In a recent video, a commentator on Bible translations advocates for it as a helpful tool that should be used to get Christians out of their Bible reading ruts. It is not a Bible in every place, but it is a Bible in some places, and therefore should be used. The overwhelming perspective that conservative Christians share on the Message is that it is not a Bible, and should be avoided, but there has been a recent push to crush this line of thinking.

I used to joke that the “Calvinist Starter Kit” included slamming the Message and listening to Paul Washer. Now it seems that Calvinists are welcoming the Message into the standard lineup of acceptable translations. Sadly, Calvinists seem to be leaders in accepting bad ideas into their doctrinal corpus. In every case that I have seen of people advocating that Christians use the Message, they also advocate that the King James should not be used. Such is the case for Andrew Naselli, author of the critically acclaimed textbook, How to Understand and Apply the New Testament.

The phenomenon of conservative evangelicals warming up to the Message is commentary on the doctrinal downgrade happening in the church. Rather than teach people what difficult passages mean, pastors would rather just hand them a dumbed down Bible that often times is so paraphrastic it misses the point of entire verses and passages. It demonstrates that there is a trend within conservative evangelical churches to have a low view of the Bible, and a low view of the pastorate.

More importantly it reflects a downgrade in Bibliology. Since the modern critical approach to the Bible sets forth that there is not a single representative text that can be called “the very Word of God,” all translations must be viewed as a corpus to help Christians access Scripture. We don’t have the very Word of God, so we have to use every means necessary to access what we do have. They say that not a single Greek text represents the original, and not a single translation renders those incomplete Greek texts 100% accurately into the target language (in this case, English). Since this is the modern academic orthodoxy being pushed out of the seminaries and into pulpits, it should surprise nobody that modern evangelicals have such a low view of Scripture. The modern church is fine eating scraps off the floor like a dog when Christ has offered them a meal at His table.

You might take issue with the claim that modern, Bible believing, evangelicals have a low view of Scripture, but it is true. I am not just asserting that for shock value. There used to be a standard for what Bible was acceptable in churches. Now, the only rule is that it can’t be a KJV. If Christians actually held Bible publishers accountable, there would be much less translations and paraphrases on the market. Instead, academics are actually supporting the idea that a translation can be poor, because they all have their value in some regard or another. The goal for these scholars is not, and never has been, to give the people of God something tangible to hear the voice of their shepherd.

This is the product of a low view of Scripture. Christians should expect that a Bible translation would get more and more accurate until all of the kinks are worked out and a final product can get to market. ESV tried to do this in 2016 and received such push back that they had to recant. Even a common novel like Harry Potter can be accurately translated into 80 different languages accurately. Why can’t the scholars, who allegedly have much more interest in the Holy Bible than the translators of Harry Potter have in an entertaining story, continue to produce translations that they admit aren’t 100% accurate? Instead of aiming for a 100% accurate translation, these academics say, “They all are imperfect, so read them all.”

The scholars and academics will continue pushing this on the church until it is the accepted orthodoxy. The time to push back on this lunacy is now. The church needs to stop letting the “niceness” of a scholar determine whether or not an idea is good or bad and simply evaluate what is actually being said. If you have such a low view of the Bible translation you read that you feel the need to go out and supplement it with the Message, it is probably time for you pick up another translation that is adequate in every regard.

A Tribute to Brother Robert Paul Wieland: Introduction

The Young, Textless, and Reformed7 Comments

Robert Paul Wieland was one of the most gentle and sincere defenders of the Textus Receptus in the 21st century. His YouTube videos were a foot in the door for many newcomers to the TR scene. He faithfully and accurately took on some of the toughest questions raised by critical text defenders and was one of the first men along with Pastor Jeff Riddle that I saw take on James White head on on the topic of textual criticism. I wish that I had the chance to meet him before he went to be with our Lord.

One aspect of Paul’s approach that has always stuck with me was his bold reliance upon the Reformed doctrine of the witness of the Holy Spirit working in the heart of the believer with the Word of God. He was unashamed to appeal to the self-authenticating nature of Scripture. This doctrine is often avoided by Reformed believers, and incredibly controversial in the scholarly climate we exist in today. I was incredibly humbled the first time I heard him make this appeal. I have used his material and have benefited from it greatly, as have many others. We can still learn from his faithful approach to the discussion of textual criticism. I rejoice that he is with our Lord and no longer suffering from his temporal afflictions.

This blog is officially one year old as of September 4, and I thought it would be cool to share some of Wieland’s arguments and comment on them in this blog. His insights are still valuable today, and my audience would be blessed to get exposure to his ideas. I have plans to transcribe his YouTube videos into text at some point, which I am looking forward to starting soon. To my reader, be on the lookout for future articles interacting with brother Wieland’s material. Hopefully it will continue to be a blessing to the church.

Here is a link to his channel, I recommend you take advantage of his content.
https://www.youtube.com/user/RobW0071/videos

The Diversity Within the TR Camp

The Young, Textless, and Reformed13 Comments

Introduction

Many people are introduced to the TR position through its critics. This is often unhelpful in understanding just exactly what “the” TR position is, and what those that adhere to some form of it actually believe. It may be shocking to men like James White and Mark Ward, but the TR position, while mostly uniform, has subsets of people who differ in various ways. As a point of clarity, I will not be discussing the topic of translation here. In this article, I want to highlight two major camps within “the” TR position as it pertains to the underlying Greek and Hebrew. It may be helpful for those that are new to the discussion, or perhaps to those who want to see an inside perspective that isn’t tainted with the aggressive argumentation of modern apologists.

The Two Kinds of TR Adherents

The Corpus TR View

This is a very common view within the TR community. Due to minor variations between editions of the TR and the translations thereof, those in this camp believe that the TR is the collection of readings contained within Reformation era Greek texts and translations. Some in this camp rightfully argue that Erasmus’ editions do not properly represent what has been come to be known as the TR, and others accept Erasmus with open arms. This group is more open to accepting various readings at certain places like Rev. 16:5. As with all people that fall in the TR camp, they reject the critical text and versions made from it.

The KJV as a TR View

This is also a very common view within the TR community. This camp recognizes the variations within the TR corpus, but believes that there is not sufficient evidence to make any ruling on one variant or another based on the extant evidence. This skepticism towards the authority of the available manuscript evidence in 2020 necessitates that this group validates readings by measuring the reception of a reading by the church rather then the preponderance of extant evidence for or against a reading.

The basic argument justifying this view is that, due to how many manuscripts have been lost or destroyed and the lack of documentation detailing which manuscripts were available in the 16th century, there is no way to tell with confidence which manuscripts were available throughout time. A common practice within the modern camp is to simply assume that we know everything there is to know regarding the availability of manuscripts during the 16th century, when we clearly don’t. As a result of recognizing this reality, the editorial decisions made by the KJV translation team using Greek and Hebrew manuscripts and editions effectively becomes a definitive TR, as these readings have been received and used more than any other edition in the last 400 years.

Critiques

The Corpus TR View

One of the major critiques of those in the corpus view group is that they are essentially engaging in the same kind of text criticism as the modern camp, only with a smaller subset of data. The difference is said to be in “number and not in kind”. This group is still faced with the reality that we do not have a clear perspective on the sum total of manuscripts that were available to those producing the TR corpus. Despite this critique, this position more readily recognizes some of the difficulties of the variants that exist within the TR corpus, and leaves some room for discussion as to what exactly is “the” TR.

The KJV as a TR View

The most common critique of this position is that it is no different than Ruckmanite King James Onlyism. This is often set forth by men like Mark Ward and James White. The argument is essentially that, because the basic reality is that this group only reads the KJV, it doesn’t matter how they arrived to this position, as the end result is the same. This is a rather uncharitable interpretation of the position, and unhelpful if you are actually trying to understand what is being set forth. All adherents of this position vehemently deny any association to the methodology of Ruckman or Gipp. A fair reading of this position easily reveals that this group does not view the KJV as “reinspired” or esteem an English translation more highly than the inspired original texts.

The basic objection to this critique is that the position is far more nuanced than a blind adherence to the KJV. Often times, those in this camp begin with the corpus view, and through careful study and application of a faith-based criteria, end up adopting all the readings chosen by the KJV editors. Though this is actually quite common, there are still many people within this camp who adopt the KJV as a TR due to how widely and consistently the church has used the KJV for faith and practice. It is important to remember that the reception of Scripture is a theological issue, not an issue of modern criticism.

Conclusion

While both the Corpus view and the KJV as a TR view are practically the same, there are careful nuances within the two camps that deserve recognition. The TR camp should not be swept into one monolithic tribe, as there are differing opinions that may change how one person approaches the debate compared to the next. For example, somebody in the corpus view may be more willing to discuss manuscript evidence in certain places, whereas somebody in the KJV as a TR group might not due to skepticism about the progeny of the manuscripts being discussed.

In both cases, those within the TR camp recognize the absurdity of making hard claims regarding the early surviving manuscripts, often called “Alexandrian”, which make up the critical text. The TR camp finds unity in understanding that we simply do not know enough about the transmission history of the text until we see relative uniformity in the manuscripts leading up to the Reformation period. In the end, both groups agree that the best text is a TR type, as it is the text that God has providentially and unquestionably used most powerfully since the time Bibles began being mass produced via the printing press.

“KJV Onlyism” is a Christian Virtue

The Young, Textless, and Reformed2 Comments

Introduction

There is a common line of thinking that says that the KJV is a fine translation, but it should not be read in exclusivity. Those that do are foolish or ignorant, according to many. Such has become the default layperson’s opinion within what might be considered “conservative” evangelicalism. The scholars who contribute to this discussion are typically more extreme, often times advocating that the KJV should not be read by anybody (See Andrew Naselli). Such opinions are extremely uncharitable, and quite frankly, ignorant. The two common threads that run through those in the critical text crowd is that they refuse to hear any legitimate critiques of their own position on the text, and they refuse to see the virtues of the positions that are in conflict with their own. Instead, they focus only on the critiques of “KJV Onlyism”, which is defined as anybody who simply reads the KJV. As a former critical text die hard, I tried to see the virtues in the critical text, and found none.

“He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him”

Proverbs 18:13

The KJV Only Boogeyman

When people talk about KJV Onlyism as a “heresy” or “foolishness”, one might think they are referring to Ruckman or Gipp and those who follow in that school. While this would be charitable to assume, this is almost never the case. When people use the phrase “KJV Onlyism”, they are referring to people who do not choose to make use of the modern critical translations of the Bible. The reasons do not matter. This is not only the case at a popular level, but also the case within available academic literature (See Naselli). That is to say, that if you as a 21st century Christian do not read a 21st century Bible, you are a “fool” or in Naselli’s words, “ignorant”.

What many people who advocate against “KJV Onlyism” fail to see is the growing list of criticisms of their own position that have caused many, many people to return to the King James Bible. Since most “defenses” of the critical text involve attacking the TR, it’s near impossible to find an actual presentation as to why one should read a modern critical bible other than “You don’t want to be a kooky KJVO”. In fact, when critical scholars attempt to defend their bibles, they end up advocating against historical protestant orthodoxy. The best that modern scholars can do at this point is to say, “We know we don’t have every word that was originally written, but what we have is good enough for me”. I have yet to see a single argument at the scholarly or popular level that can explain how the Bible can be pure, and also be changing and uncertain without abandoning the historic protestant view of the Scriptures.

In order to justify the use of critical bibles, critical apologists must reinterpret historical theology to say, “They were actually saying what we’re saying”. Most Christians who use this line have no idea what it is that modern scholars are actually saying, unfortunately. You would think that somebody who is calling other Christians “ignorant”, “foolish”, and “cult-like”would know a little bit about the position they are saying is the better position, but most of the time they have no idea. Nine times out of ten they are woefully ignorant on the state of modern textual criticism. So let’s take a look at what the modern scholars all agree upon from the mouth of Dan Wallace.

“We do not have now – in our critical Greek texts or any translations – exactly what the authors of the New Testament wrote. Even if we did, we would not know it. There are many, many places in which the text of the New Testament is uncertain”.

Gurry & Hixson, Myths & Mistakes, xii. Quote Dan Wallace.

Now, if the average Christian were to just evaluate this quote, which represents the doctrinal core of the modern critical text, they likely would not find themselves in full agreement. In fact, it might even cause them to question their undying support of the bibles that are produced with this theological core in mind. Yet, the mind of modern Christian is seldom convinced of a new position, because the modern Christian is trained to believe their favorite authority. Even if their favorite authority is dead wrong.

Conclusion

What many Christians who vehemently defend modern bibles fail to recognize is that there is nothing tangible that they are actually defending when they take up the cause of modern bibles. There is no “modern critical text”. There is no “modern bible”. There are only modern critical texts, and modern critical bibles. If you listen carefully to the scholars, notice how they will not ever defend the notion of a single bible. All bibles are good in their own way, and they all should be read and used, even if they disagree in text and translation – and they do. This is because modern Bibliology does not believe there is a single bible. If you don’t believe me, ask a scholar or proponent of critical bibles to identify one.

So when a defender of the modern critical text calls “KJV Onlyism” “foolish” and “ignorant”, they are actually saying that it is foolish and ignorant to believe that there could possibly be one text of the New Testament. In other words, it is foolish to believe that God kept His Word pure in all ages. You may believe that Erasmus was a papist idiot, or that Beza copied from the Vulgate, but at the end of the day, “KJV Onlyists” believe that God preserved His Word, and that it’s available today. This is doctrinally accurate and virtuous, not “foolish”. Before you scoff at the conclusion of the “KJV Onlyists”, think of what you have to affirm to do so. You have to affirm that there is no bible, and that God did not preserve and deliver His Word in the 21st century. Even if He did accomplish such a feat, you wouldn’t know it. What we have is “good enough” and you just need to deal with it. So before you go calling your brother in Christ a fool for reading the KJV, realize that many who read the KJV have adequate reasons for doing so. It may be wise to hear them out, and attempt to understand why men like Joel Beeke are among those who you call a “KJV Onlyist” and a “fool”.

The Big Lie of Critical Bibliology

The Young, Textless, and Reformed1 Comment

The United States, and many other countries, are seeing the fruit of critical scholarship. Statues are coming down, cities are being vandalized and burnt, and people are being assaulted and even killed in what the media is reporting as “mostly peaceful protests”. Many of us are wise to what’s actually going on – the Frankfurt school had children and those children are living out their revolutionary fantasies. What we are seeing right now is the epitome of what critical theories are designed to do, deconstruct and rebuild.

Critical theories begin with the premise that there is something inherently wrong with whatever was formerly considered “traditional”. Scholars then come along assuming this premise and attempt to deconstruct the traditional perspective and reform the narrative in a way that aligns with whatever the academic orthodoxy is at the time. This deconstructing/reconstructing dynamic is done by assuming that all things must be described through psychological, cultural, and social constructs. It is axiomatically and necessarily godless. The world cannot be explained by what can be learned from divine revelation, it must be explained by way of the experience of individuals and communities.

All forms of critical scholarship share these fundamentals. It is deeply dogmatic, and ironically, a form of fundamentalism. Scripture describes the first principle of critical theories in 2 Timothy 3:

“Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of truth”

2 Timothy 3:6

Conservative Christians are seeing the fruit of critical ideology in its extreme form right now, yet many are reluctant to admit that critical textual scholarship does the same exact thing as the ideology that invented “White Fragility”. Students, professors, and pastors have weaponized terms like “fundamentalist” towards “textual traditionalists” just like they weaponized the term against those that believed in inspiration and inerrancy in the 20th century. These same people engage in what can only be called “the big lie” of Bibliology.

The Big Lie of Bibliology is that Higher and Lower criticism are agnostic towards each other. Yet, as we have so plainly seen, the higher and lower critics have been engaged in a ritual dance for decades. Behind every discussion of textual data is a story of how that textual data came to be. A textual variant “came into the text” by way of a sentimental, well meaning scribe, or something like that. Stories and passages were omitted or added depending on the perspective of the communities that copied manuscripts. The history of the text is described not by way of divine revelation, but rather in a manner that adopts the axiomatic foundation of every other critical school.

Big Lies are fundamental to critical ideologies, because they challenge the narrative that has always been told. These ideologies are necessarily destructive, and if you don’t believe me, turn on the news. The traditional narrative must be usurped or critical methodologies die. So what can we learn from what we are seeing on the news right now? Look at the streets of Seattle, Portland, and New York, and look at your modern Bible. They are the same picture, produced by the same kind of ideology.

In the 21st century, Christians must reject critical theories and methodologies of all kinds. They are godless and destructive no matter which discipline they touch.

The Theology of The Text: Why Not the Modern Critical Text?

The Young, Textless, and ReformedLeave a comment

This article is the eighth in the series called “The Theology of the Text,” designed to cover the topic of the text in short, accessible articles. 

The Theology of The Text: Why Not the Modern Critical Text?

Many Christians in today’s context have never been introduced to the text-criticism discussion beyond what John Piper or John MacArthur say about it. They are told adamantly by their pastors that they have the very Word of God, regardless of which translation they read. They are then told that a countless number of verses were “not originally in Scripture,” and should not be read as original. This is problematic because the scholars who determine which verses were “not originally in Scripture” do not believe that the modern text is the “very Word of God.” 

“We do not have now – in our critical Greek texts or any translations – exactly what the authors of the New Testament wrote. Even if we did, we would not know  it. There are many, many places in which the text of the New Testament is uncertain.”

Gurry & Hixson, Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism, xii. 

“It’s true that human beings need ‘every word that comes from the mouth of God’, but we don’t necessarily need every word all at once…but preservation doesn’t imply constant availability, just as translation doesn’t imply perfection.” 

Richard Brash, How God Preserved the Bible, 62,63

“I do not believe that God is under any obligation to preserve every detail of Scripture for us” 

Dirk Jongkind, An Introduction to the Greek New Testament, 90. 

The evangelicals who advocate for the modern critical text all say that they believe God has preserved His Word somewhere, but that the church doesn’t have all of it today. Even if it was available, they say that there would be no way to determine that what is in the printed Greek texts is original, because the originals are not extant. How is this reconciled with the doctrine of preservation? God must not desire to give His people all of His Word, so what the scholars determine the church has access to must be the very text that God desired the people of God to have today. It is a theology and a text that is conveniently shaped according to the opinions of 20th and 21st century scholars. 

The problem with this is that Christians who read these texts often do not know that this is the nature of the text produced by modern criticism. The scholars not only say that the modern Bibles have many, many uncertain places, but also that there are passages that God simply hasn’t given to the church, even though they were originally there. These uncertainties inevitably make their way into the text and footnotes of modern translations which introduces an unnecessary problem to the modern church. So the scholars that are informing the pastors which verses are “not originally Scripture,” do not believe that God has fully preserved His Word, and have no way of proving their claims about which Scriptures Christians should not read. In short, these scholars have abandoned the Scriptural doctrine of preservation based on the early manuscripts that have survived today, which we know essentially nothing about, and as result are left with a doctrine that says, “What we have is good enough.” Christians can continue teaching that they have the “very Word of God” in their modern Greek texts and translations, but none of the scholars producing these texts and commenting on these texts would affirm this in any meaningful way. They say that what is available is “greatly accurate,” but how is this even determined? Greatly accurate in what way? Which passages are greatly accurate, and which are not? Is accuracy now synonymous with “original”?

In addition to rejecting the Scriptural doctrine of preservation, the scholars which produce these texts utilize axioms which also contradict what Scripture says about itself. Critical opinions cause the scholars to place readings which do not comport with inspiration in the main text of modern Bibles. The shorter, grammatically hard reading is to be preferred. Certain passages which harmonize with the rest of Scripture should be considered as additions to the text. Longer readings which affirm the Deity of Christ are to be viewed as scribal tampering. The most concerning of all, is that the handful of manuscripts which serve as a base text which these Bibles are based on disagree heavily with each other, and even more so with the thousands of manuscripts that have survived.  Finally, it needs to be noted that this modern critical text is changing with new methods such as the CBGM. It is not a stable text.

“Clearly, these changes will affect not only modern Bible translations and commentaries but possibly even theology and preaching”

Peter Gurry, A New Approach to Textual Criticism, 6.

Conclusion

Christians should not use the modern critical text because it does not align with what Scripture says about itself. Further, none of the scholars credentialed in the discipline believe it to be the original text which the prophets and apostles wrote by inspiration. The axioms used to produce such Bibles do not consider inspiration, providence, or the Holy Spirit, and are actually formulated in such a way that assumes the earliest extant text must have been choppy, abrupt, and grammatically difficult. Even if the Bible needed to be reconstructed, which it doesn’t, this is not how it should be done. The methods are designed to produce a text which does not assume that the original was perfect, and therefore the final product of such methods will inevitably represent the quality of the text that is trying to be produced.

God can use such translations, because not every line is incorrect, but it should be apparent that the Scriptures do not teach that the Bible is just “good enough.” Christians should not desire a “good enough” Bible, because God doesn’t say His word is “just okay.” The Bible says that “All Scripture” is profitable, not “some of Scripture” is profitable. It is great that such scholars affirm that God has preserved His Word, but preservation is the most useless doctrine in all of Christianity if Christians do not have access to that preserved Word.  An important question to ask, if it is the case that none of the critical Greek texts and translations have exactly what the prophets and apostles wrote, what exactly are Christians reading when they open their Bible? This theological position, and the texts that it produces, literally takes the Word of God away from Christians, transforming it into some ethereal concept that will never actualize into anything the people of God can actually put their hands on.

The Difference Between Appeals to Authority and Appeals to Providence

The Young, Textless, and Reformed2 Comments

Introduction

Recently, the claim was made that appeals to God’s providence are the same as appeals to authority regarding the Received Text. The argument goes, that TR advocates simply appeal to the authority of those that used the TR in history to justify retaining the historical text of the Protestants. This argument presents the case that the defense of the TR is simply a dull-minded and lazy appeal to theologians of the past, and for those that have not investigated the argument, it likely is convincing. While it is important to be clear as to why we appeal to a particular authority, it is false that an appeal to God’s providential use of means is categorically the same as a fallacious appeal to authority.

The Westminster Confession of Faith says, 

“God the great Creator of all things doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the elast, by His most wise and holy providence, according to His infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of His own will, to the praise of the glory of His wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy”

(WCF 5.1)

An appeal to God’s providence is an appeal to God working in all things, not an appeal to the authority of those means. God uses the means of men preaching the Gospel to bring people to a saving knowledge of God, that does not mean that somebody is saved by the person who delivered the message. The authority is God’s, not the means He uses. Now, that is not to say that Received Text advocates do not make appeals to authority, they do. The same can be said for those in the modern critical text camp.

When a modern evangelical appeals to DA Carson, or John MacArthur, or John Piper, that is exactly what they are doing. In fact, in John Piper’s “sermon” on why the Pericope Adulterae is not Scripture, one of his points is that most scholars do not believe it to be Scripture. It is important to note that not all appeals to authority are necessarily bad. There is a reason people become authorities in various disciplines, and appealing to the scholarship of somebody who has invested their life studying something isn’t immediately fallacious, if that scholarship is well founded. In academic, scholarly, and even casual blog writing, quoting a well reputed scholar is helpful to give external witness to the idea that you are setting forth. Appeals to authority should be done with care, and should not be the entire foundation of an argument, but sometimes an appeal to authority can be helpful, and is often necessary to give an argument more credibility. Regardless of whether or not appeals to authority are good or bad, the real question that I want to answer in this article is, “Are appeals to God’s providence mere appeals to human authority?” 

No They Aren’t

When an appeal is made to God’s providence, the appeal is first to what God has done in time by use of means. At a time where the printing press was introduced to Europe, and the church was going through the most significant revival in the history of Christianity, the first effort of editing handwritten manuscripts into printed editions started taking place. The appeal to providence here is that God worked in this technological improvement to distribute His preserved Word during the time where people could actually use it. This is vindicated by the fact that the Reformation simply doesn’t happen without the distribution of Holy Scripture to the people outside of the Roman church polity. Further, the language capabilities of those men exceeded many of those working in New Testament and Old Testament studies today. Men like Erasmus and Melanchton were champions of teaching the classical languages to proficiency, and as a result, many men knew the languages much better than the average scholar today. Not to be disparaging, but many of the men who teach Greek in seminary demonstrably couldn’t watch an episode of Spongebob in Greek and understand it, count to 20, or even order a sandwich in Greek. Despite this, the modern perspective says, “I have a bigger lexicon, therefore I know Greek better.”

That is not to disrespect the men who hold teaching posts at seminaries, or men who have learned Greek at seminaries, it is just a gentle reminder that owning a bigger dictionary than Shakespeare doesn’t make one better at English than Shakespeare. The goal of seminary Greek is exegesis and use of tools, not fluency. This approach serves its purpose when used appropriately and with a bit of humility. The problem is that this approach is often used inappropriately, and without much humility. Simply knowing grammar doesn’t make one qualified to translate a text. You wouldn’t hire somebody who knew the grammar of Spanish to be a Spanish translator unless they also knew the nuances and idioms of Spanish. This requires fluency.

Appealing to the language skills and theology of the men of the 16th century is not an appeal to authority, it’s an appeal to the fact that they were simply more adept at languages and theology than most modern scholars, and thus more capable of examining evidence and translating than these scholars. If you’ve ever watched a modern pastor “Go back to the Greek” in a sermon, and know anything about languages, you know this is true. Today, the Biblical languages are viewed as mystical symbols which surpass the normal value of words in any other language, to the point where it’s actually damaging to modern exegesis. 

So are “appeals to authority” used by those in the Received Text camp? Yes, if appeals to authority means appeals to the skills of those men. Yet those appeals are not the foundation of the Received Text argument, they simply point out the weakness of modern thinking. It is important to distinguish between the means God uses by His providential care, and the authority of those means apart from God’s providential oversight. The crux of the Received Text argument is that in time, and by God’s providence, the manuscripts which were providentially kept pure were received, examined, edited, and printed. These printed editions were tried, tested, edited, and reached a point of maturity in Beza’s text where the Protestant church accepted it as the main text from which translations should be made.

Hyper focusing on the early editions of that process misses the point of the argument completely. The fountainhead of the textual effort in the 16th century does not represent the full breadth of that effort. The orthodox did not believe that the text was a “reconstruction,” they believed it had been “kept pure in all ages.” The text was received, not lost. The appeal to providence is not an appeal to the authority of those that received that text, it is first an appeal that the Scriptures had not fallen away prior to the 16th century effort , and secondly to the fact that the text was received almost universally by the late 16th century and into the high orthodox period. It is an appeal to God doing an extraordinary work through ordinary means, not an appeal to the authority of those means. There certainly is a powerful argument to be made by comparing the skill set of the 16th century scholars to many modern scholars, but that is a secondary appeal, not the foundation.

Conclusion

At this point in the discussion, the real issue is not about which Greek text is “better.” It is about “Which Greek text” is the text that should be used. By God’s providence, the fruit of modern text criticism is doubt, unbelief, and skepticism towards the Word of God. It has resulted in the belief that a proper translation cannot possibly be made that accurately reflects the original Biblical languages. It has produced the mindset that if Christians really want to know what God said, they have to go back to the Greek and study text criticism. It has revealed that if Christians cannot claim intellectual authority over the Scriptures, they are unwilling to believe that the Scriptures have been preserved. If men and women honestly believe that the modern effort of text criticism is “the same” as what has been done historically, there is nothing really more to say. Ironically, the strong trust in authorities has led to this kind of thinking. Since all of the authorities are saying, “We know Greek better” and “We have better data,” modern evangelicals have bought into the idea that our modern Greek scholars are standing on the pinnacle of knowledge in church history. There are certainly cases where the great scholars of the past were wrong, and very much so. However, these errors should not used to assume they were wrong in every case. Further, the amount of data that the 16th century scholars had is irrelevant to the conversation of God’s providence, because by God’s providence, they had the right data at the right time. It may be the case that having access to more data makes one a better scholar, but perhaps it is more wise and humble, in our modern context, to view the scholarship of the past with slightly more respect than it is currently given.

While appeals to authority are not the foundation of the Received Text argument, it is warranted to discern the actual skill set of the authorities we trust. If a pastor is not aware the wealth of new ideas in text criticism over the last decade, perhaps they should avoid making comments on the discussion that assume axioms that have evolved or have been abandoned. If a Greek scholar cannot translate an episode of Spongebob from Greek to English, should they be making determinations on the text of Holy Scripture? That also applies to the average person who thinks they know Greek because they can use Biblehub or some other lexicon. People wouldn’t do that with any other language, and yet with the Biblical languages it is allowed for some strange reason. The men at the time of the Reformation could debate in the original Biblical languages. They wrote treaties from scratch in Latin and Greek. They didn’t need a Greek lexicon because they actually knew Greek. Yet we still say, “We know better.” Perhaps it’s time, in our modern context, to become students of the great theologians of the past again, rather than asserting our intellectual superiority over them. In a time where the church is fighting downgrades in every category of theology, it seems a return to the old paths would be greatly beneficial to all. In any case, it should be clear, that an appeal to providence is not a fallacious appeal to authority. They are two different categories, and should be treated as such. The theologians and scholars could have been equally yoked with the modern scholars in their language skills, and by God’s providence, had the right theological framework and the right manuscripts, to be the means God used to continue delivering His pure Word to the church.

The Role of Text Criticism in Apologetics

The Young, Textless, and Reformed1 Comment

Introduction

As this world has become more and more postmodern, apologetics have become a major focus of Christian interaction with the world and even each other. This has resulted in a hyper-focus on giving a defense of the Christian religion to anybody with a critique and debates between Christians regarding the best method of doing so. Often times, Christians provoke “apologetic” scenarios by antagonizing others or inviting them to challenge God. Christians spend hours upon hours learning different apologetic strategies, and even more time squabbling over which one is “best.” This culture of apologetics has gotten out of hand especially in Calvinistic circles. Not only are there countless forums dedicated to debate between Christians and non-Christians, there are countless more dedicated to debate within the Christian camp. There are even YouTube channels dedicated to hosting live stream debates, often times broadcasting interactions between men that are novices in the faith. The whole “debate culture” that has developed within Christianity is a major victory for the devil, as it often distracts men and women of God from doing what they are commissioned to do – .”preach the gospel to every creature.” 

Apologetics Gone Wrong

In order to address the role of text criticism in apologetics, it is first helpful to discuss the role of apologetics in general. There is one key verse that Christians use as didactic license for such a practice, 1 Peter 3:15-16. 

“But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear. Having a good conscience; that whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, that may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.” 

There are three points from this text that are important to examine ourselves by: 

  1. The situation in which we are licensed to give a defense is when we are asked why we believe in Jesus Christ, our hope
    1. Do we engage in “apologetics” for the reason given in this text, or are we being combative? Do we invite attack by asking for it?
  2. The content of that questioning is that which questions the genuineness of our conversion and confession
    1. Do we give apologetic responses when we should be preaching the Gospel?
  3. The purpose for answering is to demonstrate that we are not ashamed of our conversion, and thus of the God that converted us
    1. Do we proclaim Christ in our apologetics, or engage in the folly of the fool? 

Calvin comments:


It would have been, therefore, the highest perfidy against God, if, when asked, they had neglected to give a testimony in favour of their religion. And this, as I think, is the meaning of the word apology, which Peter uses, that is, that the Christians were to make it evident to the world that they were far off from every impiety, and did not corrupt true religion, on which account they were suspected by the ignorant.

John Calvin and John Owen, Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 109.

The purpose of apologetics is not to make faith more reasonable to the unbeliever, but rather to defend the genuineness of the conversion wrought in a believer by Jesus Christ. The context is persecution. This passage does not give license to go out of our way to be persecuted so that we can give a defense of our faith, and the defense that we give should be the gospel, not a defense of facts or philosophy. The preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness (1 Cor. 1:18), and nothing we say can make it any less so unless it be by the power of God. When Christians take a shield and wield it as a sword, they abandon the ordained means that God has promised to work in for salvation. What is commonly ignored about the principle apologetic passage in 1 Peter is that the answer as to how we respond is given further down in the text. 

“For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit”  

(1 Peter 3:18).

The reason we have hope, dear Christian, is not because of extant manuscript evidence, or proof of a global flood, or that evolution can be debunked mathematically. While those things are helpful to us, they are not the reason for our hope. The work of Christian apologists has helped many Christians, but any hope given by various interpretations of data is not real hope. The reason that we have hope is because “Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh” (1 Peter 4:1) and “that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” (1 Timothy 1:15) and “not that we loved God, but that he loves us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins (1 John 4:10). The goal of providing a defense is not to make the fool look foolish or ourselves smart, but rather to make Christ look great in our unashamed profession of His salvation. 

The Use of Text-Criticism in Apologetics 

Our method of apologetics says more about our hearts than anything else. Christians must ask themselves if they are truly giving a “reason for the hope” or simply trying to defend a Christian interpretation of data. The Scriptures do not say, “For I am not ashamed of 5,600 extant manuscripts which give me confidence the Bible is inspired,” the Scriptures say, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ” (Romans 1:16). The plain reality is, there is no way to convince an unregenerate person that a text is God’s Word, preserved to this day, by way of the extant data. If it were the case that the manuscript evidence was in any way compelling, Bart Ehrman would be a champion of the Christian faith. Claiming that these manuscripts are the preserved Word of God is just as absurd to an unbeliever as the second person in the trinity taking on flesh, being born of a virgin, living a sinless life, dying, and then resurrecting three days later. It is just as foolish to them as a six day creation, or a literal global flood. In the same way that unbelievers attack the validity of these claims, they attack the validity of the claims made about the Holy Scriptures. Unless the Holy Spirit has worked in the Word in the heart of a man, he simply will not believe. 

As a believer, I find nothing foolish about a six day creation, a risen Christ, or a preserved Bible. The reason a believer finds nothing foolish about these claims is because their mind has been renewed.


“but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God” (Romans 12:2). 

When we give a defense for the hope that is within us by defending something other than the miraculous work of Christ in us by the Holy Spirit, we do not give honor to God for our conversion, we give honor to our interpretation of facts and the strength of our rhetoric. We point to something other than the “reason for the hope that is within” us. No man has been saved by a presentation of facts, but only by hearing the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (Romans 10:17). This is the greatest weakness of a debate – the best rhetorician will win, regardless of what is true. Christians often point to Paul in Acts 17:16-30 as a justification for going and debating unbelievers and being combative. This passage is often used as a proof text for various apologetic methods. It is not a proof text for apologetics, even though Paul does use rhetoric. In the first place, he is compelled to engage because “ he saw the city wholly given to idolatry.” He is not defensive, he is offensive, and he leaves when mocked. 

“Some mocked; and others said, “We will hear thee again of this matter”. So Paul departed from among them. Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed” 

Note that Paul does not engage in defense here – he is being offensive, “convinc[ing] the gainsayers” (Titus 1:9). In fact, how does he respond when people mock? “Paul departed from among them” (Acts 17:33), and takes with him those that received the Gospel. He is not trying to have a “meaningful dialogue” or “engage in the marketplace of ideas” or give the philosophers of Athens a stage in his church. He points them to their idolatry, preaches the resurrection, and then leaves. Paul uses rhetoric in his presentation of the Gospel, not the Gospel as an add-in to his rhetorical presentation. We must have the discernment to recognize the difference between convincing and defending, and know when the time is appropriate for each. If apologetics are used in a Gospel presentation, they should be used to quickly get back to the actual Gospel. The very fact that the point of most of these debates is not the Gospel should say enough. 

Conclusion 

Think about the last debate you watched on the topic of text criticism. In any of these debates have you heard an evangelical scholar identify the idolatry of his opponent? Have you heard the gospel being preached as a response to their idolatry? No. What you see is an hour of God’s Word being mocked, and perhaps, if the evangelical wants to save face, a five minute gospel presentation at the end which is completely detached from the presentation. The main takeaway of these debates is how many errors the Bible has, how we will never know what the Bible originally said, and that this is completely acceptable for a Christian to believe. The opponent may even present stronger rhetoric and shake the faith of those watching. The evangelical apologist may give an inadequate defense. The “apologist” may even present gifts to the antagonist, thanking him for his refutation of God’s Word. 

If you’re reading this, you, like me, may have benefited from watching a debate. I am not saying that there is no place for debates or that debates are always bad. What I am saying is that Christians have become enraptured by them, and are often entirely inconsistent in how they debate certain topics, like text criticism. The ordained means of teaching in Christianity is the preached word, not a “meaningful exchange in the marketplace of ideas”. Teaching is a function of the pastorate, not rogue apologists. It is necessary that Christians stop being so pragmatic when it comes to these events. We are not called to give enemies of the faith platforms in our congregations and seminaries to attack God’s Word. In every debate I have seen on the topic of New Testament text-criticism, the evangelical has lost, because the apologist is simply giving a defense of his interpretation of data. 1 Peter 3:15 in no way gives license for this. The opponent will give his interpretation of data, and is more likely to injure Christians who are swept up by his arguments against Holy Scripture. These debates create a mess that pastors then have to clean up. Unless we want to redefine apologetics as giving a defense for something other than the hope that is within us, it seems that Christians should forego supporting such events which put God and His Word on trial. 

Does God exist? The answer is yes.
Is the New Testament reliable? The answer is yes.
Did Christ resurrect? The answer is yes.

Rhetoric and presentations of data cannot convince a man of that. Calling men to repent of their rebellious heart and to believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved should be our response. Winning debates is not our goal Christian. Glorifying God, enjoying Him forever, and winning souls is.

“He that winneth souls is wise”

Proverbs 11:30