No, Beza Was Not Doing Modern Text-Criticism

The Young, Textless, and Reformed12 Comments

Introduction

There is a lot of confusion over what exactly text-criticism is, and what it means to engage in it. Many people, due mostly to meaningless assertions made online, genuinely believe that the modern effort of textual scholarship equals the scholarship during the Reformation period. Many people say that because Beza and Stephanus did text-criticism, and that the modern textual scholars are doing text-criticism, the two efforts are both equal to one another. This is true in a certain sense, but the most important component of this appeal is completely neglected. If one were to compare Beza to the CBGM or Hort, for example, there are critical differences in their methodologies that shed light on the shallowness of the claim mentioned above. A brain surgeon and an ophthalmologist may both be doctors, but they are certainly not doing the same thing in their practice. 

There are four major distinctions that set apart Beza from modern textual scholarship.

  1. Beza approached his text-critical work believing that the text had been inspired and preserved by God
  2. Beza valued and utilized a different text platform than modern scholars value and utilize 
  3. Beza took into consideration the reception of a reading by the church as a part of his text-critical methodology, according to the “common faith”
  4. Beza utilized theology in his text-critical methodology

Beza, Set Apart from Modernity

In Beza’s time, there were no such notions as the Initial Text, or the earliest extant text that textual scholars must attempt to reconstruct. There was no such notion of an evolving text, or mockery of the idea that the people of God had the Scriptures in total within the Reformed camp. These theological concepts had not yet been introduced to the church, except perhaps by the Papacy and other heretical groups of course. The “default” text of the Reformation was default for a reason – it was the text that the church overwhelmingly used up to that point in history. The theological foundation that the Bible needed to be reconstructed was adopted by the church when modern textual scholarship realized it could not find the original text with its methodology. Rather than fighting this clear abandonment of orthodoxy, the church capitulated and adopted the modern view that the Bible had only been preserved in the autographs, the original writings of the New Testament. Since the autographs are lost to time, that effectively equates to a bible that is not preserved. Thus, any attempts to equate this modern perspective with Beza is confused at best. 

Beza was an astute scholar with a true faith in Christ. Despite the common misconception introduced by unreliable internet sources, Beza shared a wide correspondence with his contemporaries on his text, including John Calvin, Joachim Camerarius, Pierre Pithou, Patricius Junius, Johannes Gyrnaeus, Girolamo Zanchi, Meletius Pigas, Johannes Piscator, Johannes Drusius, Tussanus Berchetus, Cornelius Bertram, Matthaeus Beroaldus, and Isaac Casaubon. 

It is often stated that the text platform called the Received Text  is based on half a dozen manuscripts and that it was essentially developed by Erasmus in a vacuum. This is an unfortunate error, as Beza himself recorded that he used a copy from Stephanus’ library which was created from a collation of at least fifteen codices, as well as almost all of the printed editions.

“In addition to all this came a copy from the library of our Stephanus, collated by Henri Stephanus, his son and heir of his father’s assiduity, as accurately as possible with some twenty-five manuscript codices and almost all the printed ones” (1565, p. *.iiiii  and Correspondance 5, p. 170). 

This copy, along with readings from as much as nineteen Greek ancient manuscripts were used in Beza’s 1598 edition.

“…with as many as nineteen very old manuscripts and many printed books from everywhere…” (1598, preface).

Some scholars assert that this number 25 was a typesetting error, and that fifteen manuscripts were used. In any case, this number is certainly much higher than the low evaluation of six manuscripts which Erasmus is said to have used. It is also important to note that this a greater number of full manuscripts than are valued highly and used for the modern critical text, and that those manuscripts represented the great majority of manuscripts that we have today. The modern critical text cannot say the same. This brings up an extremely important point – the work of Erasmus does not represent the whole work of what became the Textus Receptus. It is far more accurate to say that the Received Text is a representation of Beza and Stephanus than of Erasmus, though Erasmus’ work played a part in the effort. Jan Krans recognizes as much in his work, Beyond What is Written. 

“Beza acquired a very high status in Protestant and especially Calvinist circles during his lifetime and in the first generations after him. His Greek text was not contested but faithfully reprinted; through the Elzevir editions it was elevated to the status of ‘received text’, textus receptus. ”(197). 

While the differences between Erasmus and Beza’s work were slight, many of Beza’s corrections were actually revisions of Erasmus’ work, especially in Revelation, where he made 17 changes.  The claim is often made that Beza utilized Vulgate readings, but this is intentionally misleading, because though he referred to the Vulgate, he never considered a Vulgate reading sufficient to edit the Greek text on its own. It was actually the Papists who circulated such rumors to undermine the validity of Beza’s work. An example of Beza’s methodology which sets it apart from the modern effort is his use of theological principles to decide on a variant, like in Luke 2:22.

“Of Mary, αυτης. In the Vulgate: ‘eius (‘of him/her’), apparently ‘of Mary’. For it is proper to fulfill the Law, although Mary after Christ’s birth would be all the more sanctified, in any case, we have expressed the antecedent itself in full, in order to avoid any ambiguity. Most manuscripts [codices] have αυτων, and thus Origen reads also, followed by Erasmus. But I fail to see how this could fit, while the law of purification only concerns the mother. And so I prefer to follow the old edition with which the Complutensian edition agrees” (Krans, 294. Cited from 1556 edition). 

This sort of methodology is exemplary of Beza’s work. Modern critical text advocates may not approve of this sort of methodology, which should cause them to distance themselves from Beza, not claim that he was doing the same thing that they are doing. As far as I can tell, no actual textual scholars are claiming to do what Beza did. The only people who make this claim are the ones who wish to convince Christians that the modern effort is acceptable for use in the church. It is abundantly clear that Beza approached the text from a much different perspective. In order to support the claim that Beza and Stephanus, whose work represents what would eventually be called the Received Text, were doing the “same thing as we are today”, one would have to demonstrate six things:

  1. Modern scholars working on the ECM are orthodox, protestant believers
  2. Modern scholars working on the ECM believe they have the original
  3. Modern scholars that are working on the ECM believe the Bible to be inspired by God 
  4. Modern scholars utilize, in part, orthodox protestant theology to decide on variant readings 
  5. Modern scholars consult the “common faith” of the Christian religion in their methodology 
  6. Modern scholars value the readings historically received by the church when deciding on a variant

Saying that Beza was “doing the same thing as modern text-critics” because both Beza and modern scholars have made editions of the Greek New Testament is simply ignorant. This is apparent in the perspective of DC Parker, who is leading the team who will give the book of John to the people of God in the ECM, which modern bibles will use in translation. 

“The New Testament continued to evolve, so that the New Testament of today is different from the New Testament of the sixteenth century, which is in turn different from the ninth” (Textual Scholarship and the Making of the New Testament, 12). 

“In its text and in its format, the work will continue to change, just as it has done throughout history hitherto. The textual scholarship of each generation and each individual contribution has its value as a step in the road, but is never complete in itself” (Ibid., 21). 

“I argued, the modern concept of a single authoritative ‘original’ text was a hopeful anachronism, foisting on early Christianity something that can only exist as a result of modern concepts of textual production” (Ibid., 24). 

“The New Testament philologist’s task is not to recover an original authorial text, not only because we cannot at present know on philological grounds what the original text might have been, nor even because there may have been several forms to the tradition, but because philology is not able to make a pronouncement as to whether or not there was such an authorial text” (Ibid., 27). 

“As I have said, the task of editing is to reconstruct the oldest available form of a work by analysis of the texts that appear in the extant witnesses. This is a logical process which unveils the history of the text and its oldest form. It cannot itself have anything to say about the relationship of that oldest form to an authorial text” (Ibid., 28). 

“But we need not then believe that the Initial Text is an authorial text, or a definitive text, or the only form in which the works once circulated” (Ibid., 29). 

“I should add a word of warning, that in the case of biblical research and bibliography will inevitably find theology dragged into it at some point. Where a text is revered by some people as divinely inspired, in some cases as verbally precise pronouncement by an all-powerful God, or even at its least dramatic when it is viewed as a helpful guide for daily life, the findings of the bibliographer may be of particular importance. And in case we get too carried away with the importance of penmanship and of the texts by which it is preserved, let us remember that our codices are not all in all, and may be no more than a byproduct of our lives” (Ibid., 30,31). 

Conclusion

It is clear then, that the work of Beza stands in stark contrast to the work of modern textual scholars. It is high time that the assertion that Beza did the same thing as modern text critics are doing now is viewed with incredulity and rejected outright. The fact remains that Beza employed a number of principles that are found nowhere in the CBGM, or any other significant text-critical methodology for that matter. DC Parker is actually a huge blessing to the church, because his commentary on the effort of modern textual criticism is accurate and not plagued by religious feelings or optimism. What a better spokesperson for the modern critical text than one of the editors for the ECM? Christians should examine the quotations above and test them against the Scriptures and against their conscience. I doubt I could find a single Reformed believer who would agree with DC Parker on what the Bible is, and yet the vast majority of the modern day Reformed are getting their Bible from him and his colleagues. I do not say that to disparage Dr. Parker, he is one of the best textual scholars alive today. I say that to highlight the reality that the methodology being employed is not the same as has been employed throughout the ages, and it is hard to believe that many Reformed believers would approve of the methodology if they understood it better.

The time is coming where every Christian will be faced with the reality of this evolving text. Many have already seen enough of it to know that they cannot, in good faith, support such a text. An evolving bible simply does not comport with orthodox Christian belief. There are a wealth of reasons to reject the modern critical text, and this is another one. The work of Beza was the work of a faithful Christian and a brilliant scholar. He used the manuscripts which the people of God consented to, and consulted many scholars and theologians in the process. When Christians attack the Received Text, they really need to consider which text it is that they are attacking. Further, when Christians advocate for the modern critical text, they need to consider the text that they are supporting. Almost always, the only arguments offered for the modern critical text are simply attacks on the Received Text. Yet that same text that is attacked so viciously in order to prop up the evolving modern critical text is the text that the church faithfully used and built the doctrines that we, as modern protestants, stand on. The only reality in which the Bible is preserved is the reality that the textual efforts of the Reformation period were the faithful efforts of men that God used to distribute his preserved Word to the world. 

This is possibly the most severe disconnect in the logic of those who support the modern critical text. The modern critical text does not offer what orthodox Christianity expects from a book claiming to be the Holy Scriptures. I have not seen a single meaningful argument which addresses how a text that disagrees with the text of the previous era can possibly be the same preserved text. On one hand, a Christian offers lip service to the perfect preservation and inerrancy of God’s Word, and on the other, adopts a text that nobody actually involved in the creation of that text thinks is inerrant or preserved in any meaningful way. All it takes is a brief conversation with a textual scholar at Tyndale House to realize as much.The reality is, if I believed that the modern critical text was the only option, I wouldn’t believe it preserved either. It disagrees in important places with the vast majority of manuscripts and even more importantly, the testimony of the church throughout the ages. It disagrees with the same text which theologians built doctrine upon that modern scholars have casually tossed out in modern bibles. The only logical conclusion that can be drawn from the modern critical text is that the bible has not been preserved. Any attempt to claim otherwise is simply a Kantian leap of faith. It should be abundantly clear that the theological problems posed by the modern critical text have not been answered in any way that comports with the reality that God has preserved His Word. 

The Confessional Text Position is Not “Anachronistic” – It’s Reformed

The Young, Textless, and Reformed4 Comments

Introduction

In light of the recent discussion on various text platforms and textual scholarship, a great effort has been made to conflate the modern view of Scripture with the historic, protestant view of the Holy Scriptures. One of the great benefits of dividing the conversation into the three categories of Textual Methodology, Text Platform, and Translation is that the distinction between the historic view and the modern view becomes abundantly clear when compared. In order to properly assess the claim that the historic view of Scripture is the same as the modern view or that the Reformed would adopt the modern view, one must first be willing to understand the doctrine of Scripture from the 16th and 17th centuries. It is often asserted that the Reformers, framers of the confessions, and Post-Reformation Divines would have adhered to the modern critical text, had they lived to see the publication of all of the “new data” introduced in the modern period. That is what is called an assertion, and it needs to be supported and demonstrated. 

The Textual Methodology of Beza and the Reformed

In an attempt to demonstrate the validity of this claim, some have used Jan Krans’ work, Beyond What Is Written (In a series edited by Bart Ehrman), wherein Krans examines the text-critical methodologies of Erasmus and Beza and provides commentary on how he believes their methodologies to be similar to the modern methods, or perhaps even a precursor which contained the seeds of Hort and Metzger. It is certainly true that Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus, and many more were collating and editing manuscripts into printed editions during the 16th century, but it is clear that they employed distinct methodologies that stand against the modern methodologies.

Though I disagree with many of Krans’ conclusions, the work itself is thorough and helpful. Krans even highlights many ways in which the text-critical methodology of Erasmus and Beza were far more advanced than many give them credit. Yet it does not stand that the textual efforts of the 16th century can be said to equal the work being done today simply because some have made this assertion. In Krans’ work, he certainly makes some of these conclusions himself, especially regarding Erasmus, but the theology of Erasmus does not necessarily represent the Reformed doctrine of Scripture, whereas Beza’s does. As many are wont to point out, Erasmus was a “Dutch Roman Catholic Priest and humanist”, after all. While this is an important consideration, and the theology of Erasmus certainly can explain the differences between his editions, those that make such arguments are using a text which was edited in parts by literal Jesuits, so I’m not sure what sort of conflict they have with Erasmus. In any case, it is apparent to those that have read Krans’ work, that Krans draws a line between Erasmus and Beza and highlights some important differences that may be helpful for those who have heard various claims being made regarding the text-critical work of the Reformation.

“Beza’s editions of the New Testament represent a world which differs in many respects from the one encountered in Erasmus’ Novum Testamentum and Annotations…Beza’s Latin translation was the result of an effort to provide a translation better than those of Erasmus and Sebastian Castellio, one that reflects the ‘correct’ understanding of the text and that follows ‘correct’ rules of translation…Beza aimed to provide the definitive translation and interpretation of the New Testament for the Protestant (Calvinist) world, and largely succeeded in doing so…Beza’s critical and editorial activity received very different appreciations, both in his own days and in subsequent centuries. His editions were rejected en bloque by his Catholic critics, not only for his decision to reject the Vulgate in favour of a Greek text that they considered to be corrupt, but also because of the onesided interpretation which permeates his Latin Translation…Beza acquired a very high status in Protestant and especially Calvinist circles during his lifetime and in the first generations after him. His Greek text was not contested but faithfully reprinted; through the Elzevir editions it was elevated to the status of ‘received text’, textus receptus. ”(196, 197). 

Krans goes on to comment on the subsequent development of Beza’s text, and even comments that when it comes to understanding the text-critical work of Beza, “modern New Testament scholarship suffers from amnesia in this matter” (201). It appears that not only have modern scholars suffered from such amnesia, so have many modern Christians. Krans continues to highlight some considerable differences in the methodology of Beza from the modern critical methods.

“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). 

Unfortunately, the burden of proof for these kinds of claims has been set at the low-bar of, “I have said it, therefore it is true”. In order to support such a claim, one must demonstrate that the textual methodology (Doctrine of inspiration, preservation, text-critical methodology, and transmission narrative) of the Reformed in the 16th and 17th centuries is the same as or coherent with the modern critical methodology, as well as demonstrate that the new data introduced in the modern period is so significant and compelling that the Reformed would have changed their view (though I would say it’s impossible to convince dead men to change their minds). In order to prove the latter claim, one would have to list the significant variants introduced by the newly published manuscripts and compare them to the commentary on variants provided by the Reformed during the 16th and 17th centuries. 

A brief survey of the variants introduced in the modern period compared against the variants commented on during the 16th and 17th centuries reveals that the significant variants in question today were also the variants in question historically  (though the number of insignificant variants seriously considered has increased exponentially). A survey of the commentaries of Calvin, Gill, and others clearly demonstrates this to anybody who can do an internet search. This being the case, the claim that the Reformed would have been compelled to adopt the conclusions of modern textual scholarship is already resting on a thin chord. The material clearly demonstrates significant differences in methodology and conclusions. When a claim is made that these men would have been compelled to adopt the “new data”, those that make such claims are  implicitly recognizing that the view of the Reformed was different then their own.  

If one truly wanted to support the claim that the Reformed would have adopted the modern critical text, one would have to demonstrate the Textual Methodology of the Reformers and framers of the confessions to be coherent with the Textual Methodology of the Modern Critical Methods. Simply calling the perspectives of the Confessional Text position “anachronistic” and “mythical” does not meet any sort of scholarly, or even popular level burden of proof. It should also be stated that one’s wielding of a particular volume (librum usque tenere)  is not an actual argument. If a book proves, or supports a claim that one is making, that person must demonstrate how a particular volume proves or supports that claim.   

As demonstrated above, Beza’s work was rejected by the Papists, and accepted by the Calvinists. He believed that text-critical work should be done within the context of the believing church, and that the reception of a reading by the church a valid component of text-critical methodology. He also believed in a definitive text, one that could be considered authoritative for use by the people of God, even applying this certainty to the very translations the church used. That means that Beza, along with the Reformed, held different views on Textual Methodology, Text Platform, and Translation than in the modern view.

The amount of data is overwhelming that the historic view of the Holy Scriptures is completely at odds with the modern view. It is fine if one wishes to disagree with that view, but it simply does not hold that the Modern Critical Text is coherent with the views of the Reformed in the 16th and 17th centuries. During that time, Erasmus even details two classes of manuscripts, those resembling the Vatican Codex, and those not resembling that of the Vatican Codex. It is interesting how modern scholarship essentially makes the same distinctions. In this regard, Erasmus and Beza were in agreement as to which manuscripts were better. Not only did Beza have certain criteria in his textual methodology that are not present in modern textual scholarship, he rejected the form of the text that is adopted today as “Earliest and Best”.  It does not matter if categories of “Byzantine” and “Alexandrian” did not exist back then, the readings and manuscripts did exist, and it is clear which manuscripts the Reformed favored.

Conclusion

It is apparent that at bare minimum, there is a stark contrast between the historic protestant view of the Holy Scriptures and the Modern Critical view of the Biblical texts. There are certain criteria which must be met in order to support the assertion that the Reformed either 1) adhered to the same view that has been presented in modernity or 2) would adopt the view presented in modernity. None of these criteria have been met by those who make the claim, and I imagine it would be tremendously difficult, even impossible to support such claims, considering the voluminous nature of the writings of the framers of the confessions and their contemporaries on the topic. It is more consistent to simply say that the Reformed were in error and to reject the Reformed view, rather than continuing to make meaningless and empty assertions that the modern critical understanding of the Scriptures is somehow “reformed” or “historic”. 

Yet, these claims will continue to be made, and Christians will continue to repeat these claims that the Reformed view of the Scriptures is somehow anachronistic and mythical. One might assert that the actual Reformed view is mythical, but it does not follow that an accurate understanding of the Reformed doctrine of Scripture is mythical. If one wants to actually be consistent, the logical conclusion is to simply say that the modern critical perspective is not Reformed, because the Reformed were wrong. Never has there been a time in history where Christians were more outspoken on the doctrine of Scripture then during and after the Reformation, when the Scriptures were under attack by the Papacy. There is so much material to interact with, all of it harmonious with the historic Reformed view. It is clear that in order for one to make such claims that the Confessional Text position is “ahistoric” or “anachronistic” or “mythical”, one has to intentionally obfuscate or reinterpret the information presented by the Reformers, Post-Reformation Divines, and framers of the Reformed confessions. There is no shame in disagreeing with a component of historical protestant theology, but the material is too abundant here to deny that the historic view is different than the modern view. If one wants to support such claims, I have conveniently provided the methodology to do so within this article.

So You’re a Presuppositionalist? Prove it.

The Young, Textless, and Reformed2 Comments

Introduction

Presuppositional Apologetics has been critically acclaimed as the “only Biblical defense of the faith” by many who advocate for the method. Yet there is a critical inconsistency in the vast majority of those who champion Greg Bahnsen and Cornelius Van Til, especially when it comes to the text of Holy Scriptures. Bahnsen provides a starting point in his critically acclaimed book, Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended. 

“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). 

Bahnsen proposes in his book that every system must give an account for it’s claim to intelligibility. The Christian, being regenerated by the Holy Spirit in salvation, has had his mind renewed and operates from the epistemological starting point that God has spoken in His Word. The Christian system provides all of the meaningful conditions for logic, induction, and absolute morality.  If a system cannot provide a foundation for such intelligibility, then all claims that follow must be operating from another system that does provide those conditions for intelligibility. They must borrow from the Christian worldview. The goal of the apologist is to first present Biblical truth, and then step into the opposing system and perform an internal critique, demonstrating the foolishness of the opposing system. If the presuppositionalist first begins by assuming neutrality, which is to admit the other system does provide the preconditions for intelligibility outside of the Christian worldview, then they are violating the principles laid out in 1 Peter 3:15 and have lost the argument. 

Step 1: Answer Not a Fool According to His Folly

In order for this system to work, one must first presuppose that God exists (natural truth), and that He has spoken (revealed truth). In these last days, He has spoken through Jesus Christ in His Holy Scriptures (Heb. 1:1). Therefore, all meaningful presuppositional defenses of the Christian faith must begin with this premise. This presupposition is that the Holy Scriptures are the ultimate standard that all other standards must be evaluated by, because this standard is the only standard that provides the aforementioned preconditions for intelligibility. That means that the only standard that is capable of examining the standard set forth in the Holy Scriptures are the Scriptures themselves. If at any point an external standard is applied to this ultimate standard, then the Scriptures are no longer the ultimate standard. That is why the standard is presupposed, hence the name, presuppositional apologetics. 

Based on this starting point, any attempt to defend the Holy Scriptures outside of the Scriptures themselves is to immediately surrender the argument, and adopt the folly of the fool. 

Step 2: Answer a Fool According to His Folly

A modern trend in the practice of presuppositional apologetics is to defend the Scriptures evidentially. Evidence certainly has its place, as Van Til put forth, but not when it comes to evaluating an ultimate standard. The ultimate standard is presuppositional. Therefore, any attempts to “prove” the ultimate standard sets another standard above the ultimate standard, and the “ultimate standard” is no longer ultimate. In other words, the person has given up their claim to the preconditions of intelligibility, and they themselves have become the fool. A great example of this is to examine a situation wherein an atheist attacks the credibility of the ultimate standard by calling into question the ending of the Gospel of Mark. The presuppositionalist has two options here. 

The first option is to say, “Well our earliest and best manuscripts do not contain that passage, so it is not a part of the Scriptures. It is not part of the ultimate standard I am appealing to.” At that point the opponent should ask, “By what standard are you defining the parameters of your ultimate standard?” The presuppositionalist responds, “There are thousands of manuscripts that testify to the New Testament, it is the best testified document from antiquity. Our earliest and best manuscripts date back to the third and fourth century AD, and they do not have the ending of Mark. There is no other book in the history of the world that gets that close to the authorship event.” The opponent continues, “So it is the ultimate standard because it is the best testified document in antiquity?” The Presuppositionalist, realizing his error, responds, “No, it is the ultimate standard because it is God’s Word”. The opponent, noticing that he has won the exchange, presses harder. “So what standard do you use to determine the parameters of the Bible?”  The presuppositionalist has lost his right to claim that he can account for the preconditions of intelligibility, because in order to respond, he must apply an external standard upon the standard he has set forth as ultimate. He has stepped off of his proposed system and borrowed the canons of some other worldview.

The second option is to say, “By what standard are you calling into question the validity of the ending of Mark?” This answer is consistent with presuppositionalism, the first is not. By answering in this way, the presuppositionalist continues to point out that in order to call into question the authority of the Scriptures, one must assume the truths of Scripture in the first place. The opponent may not see this as a valid response, but the presuppositionalist has remained consistent. 

Conclusion

There is an interesting phenomenon within the people who adopt a presuppositional apologetic. On one hand, they claim that the Scriptures are the ultimate authority, and on the other, apply external standards to that ultimate authority. If the Scripture truly is the ultimate authority, it must be, well, ultimate. It is one thing to do this in an apologetic scenario – occasionally somebody outmaneuvers a Christian in debate. That has happened to anybody who has engaged in a difficult conversation with a learned atheist. It is an entirely different thing to claim that the Bible is the ultimate standard, and then adopt an entire system which says the Bible must be validated by way of the standards set forth by that other system. That is to say, that the Bible is not the ultimate standard because it is the Word of God, it is the ultimate standard because an individual thinks it is based on the work of that other system. The standard shifts from objective to subjective, and at that point it’s simply a matter of personal preference if one wants to consider the Bible to be the Word of God. 

This forces one to admit that the Bible is not ontologically the ultimate standard, it becomes the ultimate standard when shaped by the canons of some other system. So it does not follow that the presuppositionalists have any sort of meaningful, consistent claim to the preconditions of intelligibility if they adopt the ultimate standard of some other system, like modern textual scholarship. They must borrow from the worldview that says that the Bible is self-authenticating. In order to make such a claim that Mark 16:9-20 is not Scripture, one must apply some external principle to determine that. I wonder, does that standard meet the preconditions for intelligibility? 

Common Sense Arguments Against the Modern Critical Text

The Young, Textless, and Reformed5 Comments

Introduction

It is easy to get bogged down in conversations about textual variants, manuscripts, and elusive terminology when it comes to any talk about Textual Criticism. These types of conversations prevent the average Christian from entering into the discussion, and so it is common to just side with a favorite pastor or scholar. Fortunately, the conversation is not as complicated as many make it seem. It is true that in order to analyze a variant or read a manuscript, an understanding of the Greek language and a general knowledge of textual scholarship is required. This should cause the average Christian to pause and consider that reality. Should every Christian need to learn Greek and study textual criticism in order to read their Bible? Does that sound like something that God would require for His people to read His Word? Does God require papal or scholarly authority for His people to know which verses are authentic? 

Those who advocate for this have made a serious error in their understanding of the availability of the Scriptures. They have imposed a burdensome standard upon the Holy Scriptures which puts a barrier between the average Christian and New Testament scholarship. This cumbersome gatekeeping tool has informed Christians everywhere that unless they have a PhD in Text-Critical studies and know Greek, they are simply unequipped to determine which Bible they should read, or which variants within those Bibles can be trusted. This common idea has introduced a neo-papacy within the Protestant church, which tells Christians that they must wait for scholars or pastors or apologists to speak Ex cathadra before trusting any verse in their Bible. 

Is it Really That Complicated? 

Not really, no. The direction of modern textual criticism has refuted itself in the fact that it readily admits it cannot find the original text of the New Testament. In other words, their methods have failed. In order to obfuscate this reality, scholars have shifted the effort to finding the Initial Text, which is really just a presuppositional effort to produce a hypothetical (non-existent) archetype from the smattering of Alexandrian manuscripts. This is the first common sense argument against the Modern Critical Text – it doesn’t claim to be the original text, and the methodologies being employed cannot and do not make any certain claims on producing the original text. So for any Christian who wants to “know what Paul wrote,” the modern methods aren’t claiming to provide that kind of certainty. That kind of certainty is only provided, given a scholar or somebody else speaks authoritatively over a text for the people of God. This being the case, Christians need to pick a pope to decide for them if Luke 23:34 really is original, because the popes disagree. If the protestant religion is truly a religion of Sola Scriptura, this simply does not work. It is the same argument the Papists make, only the pope is exchanged for a scholar. If a Christian is okay with maybe knowing what Paul wrote, I present a second common sense argument against the Modern Critical Text. 

If you are fond of the argument that claims that the New Testament is the best attested piece of literature in antiquity, boasting thousands of manuscripts compared to other works such as the Iliad, than the Modern Critical Text fails that criteria. The only text platforms that can use this argument are texts that represent the vast majority of manuscripts, such as a Byzantine priority or Traditional Text based Bible. The Modern Critical Text is based primarily on two manuscripts, which means that the apologetic which says that we have thousands of manuscripts isn’t true for the Modern Critical Text. One would have to say that the New Testament is only supported by less than fifty manuscripts, which makes it one of the least attested to books in antiquity. The narrative of transmission presented by the modern critical scholars says that the rest of the thousands of manuscripts were byproducts of scribal smoothing and orthodox revision. In supporting these modern texts, one has to accept that fact that the vast majority of the 6,000 manuscripts we have were the product of scribal revision and orthodox tampering, and do not testify to a preserved Bible. In fact, this is the common opinion of the men and women engaged in actual textual scholarship. This reality transitions quite nicely to the third common sense argument against the Modern Critical Text. 

Christians should be confident that the thousands of manuscripts testify to the authentic New Testament when compared and edited together. The fact that these manuscripts were copied so much and were used to heavily throughout time should tell a story that is often brushed over by modern scholarship. The story is that these manuscripts, or a comparison of these manuscripts, were always treated as authentic throughout time. In fact, the manuscripts used by Erasmus represent the majority of manuscripts far more closely than the Modern Critical Text. While I don’t believe that simply counting manuscript readings produces an original text without any further consideration, it is a good place to start to reject the few spurious texts that the Modern Critical Text is based on. 

A common sense methodology would also admit that we do not have every manuscript surviving today, and that the testimony of the people of God throughout time should also be considered so that not one word is lost from the Holy Scriptures. In terms of data analysis, the amount of data points that the Modern Critical Text represents should be considered an outlier. So is it the case that a few manuscripts which did not survive in the manuscript tradition are original? Or is it more likely that the vast majority of manuscripts represent the original when compared? In order to responsibly represent the case for the Modern Critical Text, one has to tell a tale that the New Testament evolved over time, and became so corrupt that nobody alive today really knows what the original said. Thus the modern effort is focused on producing a hypothetical archetype for these outlier texts. The modern method assumes that the thousands of manuscripts are corrupt evolutions of the original text. That leads us to a fourth common sense argument against the Modern Critical Text. 

It technically could be true that the handful of early surviving manuscripts represent the original text of the New Testament. Simply counting readings does not necessarily prove originality. There are a handful of readings that the people of God have considered original throughout time that are no longer available in the majority of manuscripts. That is not proof, however, that these now minority readings were not the majority at one point in time, or considered authentic despite not being the majority. God never promised to preserve the majority text in every case, He simply promised that He would preserve His Word until the Last Day. The majority text simply testifies to a different text than the “earliest and best”, and the opinions of the people of God throughout time should serve as a way to understand which readings were considered authentic throughout time. The first time this was ever done on a large scale was during the 16th century, when the printing press was made available to 16th century theologians and scholars. 

So the work during the 16th century was taking place while manuscripts were still being used and copied in churches. The common sense argument is that those people had better access to the manuscripts that were circulating and considered authentic then we do today. After the Bible shifted from existing in hand-copied codices to printed editions, the hand-copied manuscripts were used less, and began being submitted to museums and libraries rather than being used in churches. The texts that the people of God used were no longer in manuscript form, but printed editions of those collated manuscripts. The simple reality is that in the modern period, the manuscripts are artifacts of a time before the printing press. Almost nobody has used a manuscript in a church for centuries, so the evaluation of those manuscripts is difficult without the testimony of the people who actually used them. Thus, the final common sense argument recognizes that the earliest surviving manuscripts are not a standard that anybody would use from the perspective of God preserving His Word. 

The final common sense argument is that the manuscripts used in the first effort of textual criticism do represent the best form of the New Testament as it was preserved in the manuscript tradition. Compare this to the opinion that a smattering of heavily corrected, barely copied past the fourth century manuscripts are “earliest and best”. That is because until the printing press, these handwritten codices were actually used in churches by the people of God. So at the time of the first printed editions, the textual scholars of the time had the best insight into the manuscripts that were actually being used, regardless of being majority or minority texts. In order to reject the text-critical efforts of the 16th century, one has to believe that texts were chosen which nobody was using or had never used. This stands in opposition to history however, as Erasmus was heavily influenced by readings that would received by all. Popular opinion often influenced Erasmus in his text-critical decisions. That is the real story behind his inclusion of 1 John 5:7 in his third edition of the Novum Testamentum. He did not lose a bet, he feared that people wouldn’t use his Greek New Testament if he didn’t include it. 

Conclusion

Based on common sense arguments, what makes more sense? Did the textual scholars who were doing text-critical work when manuscripts were actually being used have better insights into what the best manuscripts are?  Or do modern textual scholars who only have access to manuscripts in museums and libraries know which texts are the best? Is it more likely that God hid away His Word for a thousand years in a handful of manuscripts? Or did He preserve His Word in the manuscripts that were actually being used by the people of God? These are all questions that any layperson should be able to answer. It does not take a PhD in textual studies to determine that the Modern Critical Text starts in the wrong place, with the wrong manuscripts. 

The common sense conclusion is that texts used in the first production of printed texts represents the best form of the manuscript tradition that has ever existed. After this point in time, manuscripts were sent to libraries and museums and the printed form of the Greek New Testament was the form that the people of God used. These printed forms were translated into various common languages and used with little to no contest for the next 300 years, until modern theories of scribal tampering caused people to throw out the work of the 16th century. The claim that “we have more data” really does not mean a whole lot, considering we have less perspective on the value of said data. At the end of the conversation, one has to ask, “How valuable is the data that was hidden in caves and barrels?” Is the data that was not being used more important, or is the data that was being used more important? Modern scholars consent to the former, and the scholars of the 16th century consented to the latter. 

In order to conclude that modern scholars have a better perspective on the data, one must write off the perspective of Augustine, who said, “Certain persons of little faith or rather enemies of the true faith fearing I suppose less their wives should be given impunity in sinning removed from their manuscripts the lord’s act of forgiveness to the adulteress. As if he who had said, “sin no more” had granted permission to sin.” One must claim that Calvin and Beza were either liars, or confused and mistaken. One must declare that Turretin would have upheld the readings he rejected if “he simply had access to the data we have today”. It takes an effort of revisionist history to believe that the believing people of God would adopt the Modern Critical Text. The simple common sense conclusion is to read these theologians and scholars as though they weren’t fools, and determine that they simply disagreed with modern conclusions. Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus, Calvin, Turretin, Gill, and Dabney did not think anything of the Vatican Codex and manuscripts like it. In fact, they considered them a grotesque corruption of God’s Word. Based on the testimony of the people of God in time, which side is spinning tales and mythology? Is it the people who say that the Word of God evolved and became corrupted beyond repair? I heartily disagree, and affirm with the theological giants of the past that God has preserved His Word in the Received Text.  

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.