Tag: Christianity

Seeking Unity Amongst the Brethren Amidst TR Disagreements

The Young, Textless, and ReformedLeave a comment

Introduction

The average man in a Reformed Church is far more theologically astute than the average man in churches of other traditions. He is well read, devoted, and prayerful. He can tell you niche facts of church history, explain the doctrinal difference between infra and supralapsarianism, and successfully navigate high level debates with various theological heresies. In short, the average Reformed layperson and even pastor is quite powerful when compared to his peers in your average mega church or Bible church. This is largely due to the great emphasis the Reformed place on study. One area where his knowledge may be limited, however, is what I have been calling “The Textual Discussion” on this blog for many years now. The problem is not a lack of study, or a lack of concern. The problem is that it is unfortunately common for the apologists, seminaries, and popular authors to mischaracterize this debate in the academy, podcasts, blogs, and in popular writing. The mischaracterizations are such that it is easy for the average layperson, student, and pastor to walk away thinking themselves informed, while simultaneously missing a significant portion of the discussion. This is most likely due to the academic gatekeeping that exists on the topic. The current state of textual criticism is constantly shifting, and is often paywalled behind $200-300 books and difficult to access PhD work.

Another reason for this disparity in knowledge is due to the fact that many (not all) of the mainstream reformed writers today do not touch the topic, and when they do, they unfortunately characterize the argument incorrectly or incompletely (see above paragraph). If you have ever been a fly on the wall or even a participant in a “TR vs. Critical Text” discussion, you know what I mean. Most seminary level surveys of the topic do not cover much of the ongoing scholarship. I want to emphasize, this is not typically intentional. In a real discussion regarding the validity of the TR position, it is common to hear things like, “The KJV translators say in the letter to the reader that they expected more translations” and “The TR was its own type of Critical Text,” or “The Reformed were doing the same textual criticism as the scholars today,” or anything about the “Alexandrian Text Type.” You might even hear claims of Erasmus “rushing to print” or making a “rash wager” or any number of textual myths that have long been disproven. Such claims do not accurately represent the discussion as it exists beyond popular level apologetics. As is the case with most polemics, the arguments are designed to be rhetorically powerful, and not necessarily with the intention of attaining full understanding.

The point is, that the average Reformed believer, who is otherwise disproportionately informed compared to his peers, is understudied on this topic. What may be the case, is that he learned about textual scholarship in the seminary 20 years prior, which means much of what he learned may be out of date. Two decades ago the Coherence Based Genealogical Method was not invented, the roster of scholars was different, and the schools of thought were relatively stable. In other words, it is very easy to engage in a lopsided conversation with somebody if he is operating on old paradigms. One aspect of the conversation I haven’t discussed a lot on this blog is the importance of maintaining unity in the church despite this important difference in doctrine. I am venturing to write this article series to give my TR minded audience a tool to navigate the discussion as it exists in the real world, with all the grace and charity that is due to the well-meaning critical text advocate as a brother, not an enemy.

Navigating the Discussion Charitably and Graciously

In my blog, I often aim my arguments at the “Modern Critical Text Apologist.” It is easy to see a brother at church defending a talking point of the critical text and to categorize him as such. The reality is, most often, he is not an “apologist” of any kind, he just hasn’t been made aware of the entire discussion. In other words, he doesn’t see himself as an “apologist” of anything. Treating these brothers as apologists of the critical text is a mistake, and unleashing some of the arguments that I have made on this blog is like turning a firehose on somebody to cool them off in the summer heat. I’ll admit, I have done a poor job at making the distinction between apologist and the fellowship of the local church, which is the occasion for writing this article series. Many well-informed believers think that their modern critical text is only challenged by “Fundamentalists” and “KJV Onlyists”. He is not aware of the nuance of the discussion, and treating him as though he is would be a mistake, in my humble opinion. Even the brother who thinks himself informed, is often not as informed as he believes himself to be. I say this as a brother who once believed himself to be quite knowledgeable, when I wasn’t. The fact is, this conversation is steeped in specialized language, custom lexicons, and incredible amounts of nuance.

Even when I considered myself “informed,” I didn’t know terms like “Ausgangtext” or about the Coherence Based Genealogical Method. I hadn’t been familiarized with Peter Gurry, Elijah Hixson, Dirk Jongkind, Eldon J. Epp, Tommy Wasserman, Jim Royce, D.C. Parker, Jennifer Knust, or Jan Krans. I didn’t know what Dan Wallace believed regarding the idea of finding the original text when he says, “We do not have now – in any of our critical Greek texts or in any translations – exactly what the authors of the New Testament wrote. Even if we did, we would not know it. There are many, many places in which the text of the New Testament is uncertain” (Gurry, Hixson. Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism. xii). This atom bomb of a quote by Wallace is enough to get the layperson paying attention, but what does he mean by that when he says it?

As much to say, if a brother’s only knowledge of textual scholarship comes from The Dividing Line, or from Seminary decades ago, he will be massively underinformed. The text-critical scene has evolved from even a decade ago, and if you haven’t been keeping up to date (which is quite the task), you are missing a significant portion of the discussion. Not only that, but popular level apologists such as James White and even textbook authors such as Andrew Nasseli frame the discussion in ways that are unhelpful. An example of this is when they place everybody that does not read a modern Bible, even majority text advocates, into a category of “King James Onlyist.” This leads many well-meaning Christians to believe the entire debate is over “perfect” translations instead of textual methodology and scholarship.

If a brother responds to a claim regarding the TR with some line about the KJV translators not being KJV Onlyists, that is a clear indicator that somebody has misrepresented the discussion to him. Those familiar with the discussion know that there are two entirely separate debates over text and translation. A Bible can be translated from the incorrect text, but be an excellent translation of that incorrect text (and vis-versa). Being adversarial to this brother can only be unfruitful. There are many “tag lines” that a brother can say that can tell you how informed he is on the discussion – this is one of them. An unfortunate side effect of channels like “The Dividing Line” is that it is easy to think oneself “informed” after watching hours of content on the topic. As somebody who has watched much of James White’s catalog, I can assure my reader, I was once one of these men. I even parroted the line, “I would never want to hear John 7:53-8:11 preached.” I can speak to this issue specifically because I was once one of these brothers. It has taken me nearly half a decade of dedicated study to realize just how muddied this conversation actually is in the real world, away from the internet debate space. Most Christians have never heard of James Snapp’s equitable eclecticism, or any number of the majority text views. They don’t know the difference between John Burgon’s methods and Beza. The debate is much wider than many are led to believe.

What my reader must understand is that the average Confessionally Reformed man believes the default Reformed position is the modern critical text, and if popularity is our guide, he is correct. Yet, to my Confessionally minded TR advocates, you know that our argument is that it is actually the Reformed position to advocate for the Textus Receptus and Masoretic text as the text that has been “kept pure in all ages.” What many don’t know is that the modern scholars mostly agree that th eTR was the text of the Reformation. ““Historically speaking, the Textus Receptus was the Greek New Testament of the Reformation” (Jan Krans. http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2020/10/why-textus-receptus-cannot-be-accepted.html. October 22, 2020.) Reformed Scholars such as Muller agree that this in fact was the “default” position of the Reformation and beyond. We believe the default Reformed position is the TR position, despite what popularity has to say about it. So you can see, the conversation is difficult at the start because both sides believe that their respective position is the “Truly Reformed” position. The reason for this, in many cases, is that both sides have had the argument presented to them at the level of polemics.

Most of these men haven’t had an opportunity to engage with the full set of opinions or facts because they have never interacted with a Reformed TR advocate. These men have only heard the “meme arguments” online. Further, it is incredibly difficult to know where to start fact checking claims in this discussion. An example of this would be fact checking the claim that “Beza was doing the same thing as textual scholars today” would require you to buy a $256 book by Jan Krans. You would have to, in the first place, know about Jan Krans, and secondly, be willing to dish out nearly $300 on a book that has sections of untranslated Latin and Greek. The conversation is hugely gatekept behind academic paywalls and popular level apologists spouting dubious claims.

The Idea of the “Default Position” Discussed

Most of the time, disagreements in this discussion reduce down to the fact that a seminary trained man has never heard an honest presentation defending the TR. He has only heard James White’s, Mark Ward, Richard Brash, or Andrew Naselli’s counter presentation (or something adjacent to it). The default position of the seminary is the critical text position, and everything downstream of the seminaries like the local church has followed after the institutions. Most of the time, seminarians are not taught that only two manuscripts omit Mark 16:9-20, just that the “earliest and best” manuscripts do. This was the text-critical fact that sent me down the proverbial rabbit hole. There are many such facts that have this effect. The seminaries do not often teach that the textual scholars cannot find the original text, nor are they even trying to (See Dan Wallace above). The goal of modern textual scholarship is to reconstruct the “initial text” (ausgangtext). This is the text-critical fact that pushed me over the edge. Most seminaries do not teach that Beza included in his methodology the “kind consideration of the church.” This is what made me realize that modern critical apologists were willing to reduce any nuance out of the discussion. The idea that Beza was not doing what modern scholars are doing today would shock the well-informed Reformed believer.

My point is this – that the Critical Text position is the default position in the fact that it is really the only position taught in most seminaries. It is assumed correct by the academy, therefore it is assumed correct at every level downstream from the academy. Most Reformed men are not even aware that Owen and Turretin comment extensively on all of the major textual variants we discuss today because popular level apologists say things like, “They didn’t know any better. They would be Critical Text if they were alive today.” The problem is that most people get their text-critical information from out of date, or inaccurate sources who are otherwise trustworthy on other issues. This makes the conversation nearly impossible to have in a church setting without it becoming contentious. Therefore, I see it worthwhile to develop a guide on how to have this conversation with patience, charity, and grace. We must begin with the assumption of Christian fellowship, not polemics.

The Idea of the Charitable Discussion

In this blog space, I have engaged polemically with the modern critical text, with the intent to interact with the scholarly and apologetic space. I have failed to present my case for the context of the church setting, where you have to fellowship with these brothers the day after. If there is interest in a new series, I would love to write on the topic of finding unity amongst the brethren amidst disagreements on the text. I prayerfully look forward to writing more on this topic.

Modern Scholarship, Textual Variation, and the Received Text

The Young, Textless, and ReformedLeave a comment

Dr. Peter Gurry published a short article entitled Cole on Preservation and the Westminster Divines’ Sermons back in January of this year. This is an addendum to his academic article posted in the Midwestern Journal of Theology called “Textual Criticism in the Reformation.” This is a part of the continued effort to support the claim that modern textual scholars are doing the same thing as the Reformed during the Reformation and post-Reformation era, “These arguments are the all-important context for understanding the practice of textual criticism in the Reformation” (pg. 20). He notes correctly that this is not a term the Reformers used, which is of course true because the concept of critical studies was yet to be born. He also does a great job of pulling from Milne, Muller, and Turretin to give appropriate context, which many of his colleagues avoid. He cites Muller, saying that the Reformed did not “seek the infinite regress of the lost autographa as the prop for textual infallibility” (pg. 27). He rightly notices that the Reformed considered the copies of Scripture to be authentic as the originals.

Here is where, I think, the modern textual scholars get the argument confused. The tendency seems to be to anachronistically apply the term, “Textual Criticism” to the efforts of the Reformed and post-Reformed. Where many popular level apologists go wrong is to make the claim that the giants of our tradition were ignorant of textual variation in the manuscript tradition. Gurry does not make this error as his peers often do. He says, “None of this means that scholars and theologians in this period were unaware of variants within Greek manuscripts. One can find discussion of them in Erasmus and Beza, of course, and in plenty of other scholars’ too” (pg. 29). This of course is true, and these discussions continue all the way through Turretin, Owen, Gill, and more. Dr. Gurry even invokes Jan Krans correctly in his analysis of Erasmus, noting that Erasmus was engaging in some proto-genealogical method. An important addition is to remember that this actually distinguishes Erasmus from Beza, who was far too theologically motivated for Krans’ liking.

One important observation here is that Dr. Gurry invokes one of Turretin’s questions, “Are the sources so pure that no fault has crept into the sacred manuscripts, either through the waste of time, the carelessness of copyists or the malice of the Jews or of heretics?” (Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. 1, 106). He correctly characterizes the Reformed position via Turretin, which is to answer, “no.” This is where Dr. Gurry gets off the Reformed boat. He points out that modern evidence makes such claims such as the inspiration of the vowel points, “impossible to make” (pg. 33). He uses this as a starting point to argue that the Reformed could not have had a complete theology because they did not have a complete set of evidence.

This is the crux of the difference between the evangelical textual scholars and the non-evangelical textual scholars – the evangelicals appreciate the work of the Reformed and take their words into consideration. However, at the end of the day, they ultimately conclude that modern evidence has discredited the Reformed conclusions. Yet the question remains as to whether or not the Reformed would have consented to the conclusions of modernity. The modern scholars obviously say, “yes, how could they not?” Those in the Confessional Text camp say, “I don’t think they would.”

Would the Reformed have valued the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls as highly as modern scholars do? Would they likewise value Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as highly as modern scholars do? Dr. Gurry acknowledges that the Reformed were aware of textual variation, and yet they denied corruption, unlike modern textual scholars. The reason this is important, is because if the modern textual scholars are correct about the evidence discovered in the 19th and 20th centuries, the first chapter of the Reformed confessions must be understood in a different light and even reformulated. The evangelical textual scholars understand this, as they have produced several treatises and statements on the doctrine of Scripture in the last several years (Jongkind, Wallace, Brash). If chapter 1 of the confessions were adequate in light of modern evidence, there would be no need to add to the formulations produced in the Reformation and Post-Reformation period.

The reality is, most modern Reformed have already adopted the conclusions of modern textual scholars regarding the vowel points, the textual evidence, and the doctrinal statements regarding Scripture. The question that I always ask myself is this, “Would the Reformed have understood this evidence differently than our modern scholars?” My answer of course is, “yes.” Ultimately, this work by Dr. Gurry indicates a shift in the modern textual argument from, “The Reformed agree with us” to “The Reformed laid the foundations, but were ultimately betrayed by their lack of evidence.”

I see this as a welcome update to the conversation, which has been difficult to navigate due to modern scholars claiming the Reformed as their own for the past several years. The impact of this debate proliferates down to the layman quickly. The Reformed believed that their translation of the Hebrew and Greek to be inspired, literally God’s Word. The moderns believe that every translation is imperfect, and the Hebrew and Greek must be consulted at every turn. The Reformed believed that there were no places of corruption, meaning that every jot and every tittle had been preserved and made available. The moderns believe that some passages and words have indeed fallen away, yet what we have is “good enough” to ascertain all important doctrines. The pastor who believes the modern conclusions will preach in a manner which aligns with the modern textual scholars. The layman who believes the conclusions will read their Bible in a manner which aligns with the modern textual scholars.

While it may be true that this is an “open handed issue” as it were, it nevertheless has a significant impact on the Reformed and non-Reformed churches in the world. It changes preaching, reading, and practice. For that reason, this remains an important debate. Every pastor preaching through the Bible verse by verse will eventually have to side one way or another on this issue. Every Christian reading through the Bible will eventually have to do the same. Unfortunately, that debate is not easily settled, as it more or less comes down to answering the question, “Does modern evidence disprove the conclusions of the Reformed?” Those that answer, “Yes” will adopt the methods of Dan Wallace, Andrew Nasselli, Mark Ward, and Dirk Jongkind in Bible reading and preaching. Those that answer, “No” will retain the translation of the Reformed, say “Jehovah” instead of “Yahweh,” and so on. My point is this – whatever conclusion a believer lands on will impact the practice of their faith in a very noticeable way.

It is for this reason that this conversation continues to come up. You can be unaware of your brother’s doctrinal views on a number of issues, but not this one. It is inevitably going to come up, because it impacts the Bible translation you carry around, the words you use to pray, and the way a pastor preaches. It is unavoidable, and it is my hope that the modern day Reformed are at least more friendly to those of the Textus Receptus position than they have been in the past decade or so. It is my opinion that it is absolutely the position of the Reformed tradition, even if that tradition is considered wrong according to the modern perspective.

TurretinFan Attempts to Make an Argument

The Young, Textless, and Reformed2 Comments

Introduction

On Monday, anonymous blogster TurretinFan published an article titled The “Stable Text” King James Version Argument which can be found here. The point of the article is to say that the “misleadingly labeled” Confessional Bibliology position is the same position that the KJV translators had to respond to, and is essentially the position of the Roman Catholics. I want my reader to notice that this article is about 10 sentences worth of assertions, and the rest citations which he claims prove his point. TurretinFan hasn’t actually made an argument in this article, nor has he addressed the material I have written. Let’s break down his assertions and see if we have anything to engage with from the article.

Confessional Bibliology is Misleadingly Labeled

In the first sentence of the article, TurretinFan asserts that the label “Confessional Bibliology” is a misleading label. He does not explain why or how it is misleading. He continues to say that Confessional Bibliology “seems to recognize the authority of the original languages” but “seems to conform to whatever Greek or Hebrew was followed by the translators/revisers of the King James Version.”

Apparently it is news to TurretinFan that the King James Version translators used the base text which we now call the Textus Receptus to create the King James Version translation. Again, no argument provided by our anonymous poster, simply an assertion as to what “seems” to be the case. In other words, there is nothing we can reasonably engage with here.

The Stable Text Argument is a Roman Catholic Argument

TurretinFan’s major blunder here is a common error that Critical Text advocates make, which is to confuse an argument for the text with an argument for the authority of a translation. He references Clement VIII who is making an argument for the stability of the Latin manuscripts, which are translations. This is a common argument made by James White, and not original to TurretinFan. This is not the argument I am making, nor have I ever made. Perhaps if TurretinFan understood the moniker “Confessional Bibliology,” he would know that the position I defend is simply the position of chapter 1 of the 17th century confessions, which state, “The Old Testament in Hebrew, (which was the native language of the people of God of old,) and the New Testament in Greek, (which, at the time of writing of it was most generally known to the nations,) being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto an interest in the scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore the are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the scriptures, may have hope” (Westminster Confession of Faith, 1.6).

TurretinFan ends by stating that my objective is to move from manuscripts to a single, stable text. This is arguably the strangest assertion he has made in the article, as this is simply what happened in time and space. Is he arguing that the church uses manuscripts today? Do Christians carry around various manuscripts to church? It is already the case that the form of the Bible has moved from manuscripts to printed texts and translations. This is true for both the Critical Text and TR position. The question is not whether we should migrate from manuscripts to printed texts, that has already occurred as a matter of history, not my opinion. The question is what those printed texts represent, and which of those printed texts and translations should be used by the people of God.

Interestingly enough, in his critique of me, TurretinFan has critiqued the nature of his preferred text. If my desire is a single, stable text, and this is the “wrong priority,” then he is really saying that the Critical Text is not a stable text, and “it is a mark of wisdom to revise when we discover errors.” TurretinFan has no basis for determining what an “error” is, however, because his preferred textual methodology cannot say what is an error. His methodology can only determine what is most likely the oldest reading, which is an evaluation that is agnostic to the idea of original or authentic. The concept of error requires the idea of verity or authenticity, which the Critical Text methodology does not claim to provide.

Turretin Vs TurretinFan

So if TurretinFan’s critique of my position is that I am wrong to desire a single, stable text, then it is clear that his position is the opposite. The only history repeating itself is for gainsayers such as TurretinFan to question the authenticity of Scripture, such as 1 John 5:7, Mark 16:9-20, and John 7:53-8:11. Ironically, Turretin himself agrees with me in my doctrine of Scripture.

“By the original texts, we do not mean the autographs written down by the hand of Moses, of the prophets and the apostles, which certainly do not now exist. We mean their apographs which are so called because they set forth to us the word of God in the very words of those who wrote under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit” (Turretin, Francis. Institutes of Elenctic Theology. Volume 1. p. 106). In other words, Turretin rejects the idea that the Bible is inerrant in its autographs, but rather that it was kept pure in all ages via the copies or apographs.

Turretin continues by defining the difference between a textual variant and a corruption, “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)” (Ibid., 111). In other words, Turretin does not agree with the modern critical text idea that there are variants which should be marked with a diamond, indicating corruption.

Turretin finishes by defending the passages that TurretinFan himself rejects, “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” (Bibliotheca sancta [1575], 2:298). Not Mk. 16 which may have been wanted in several copies in the time of Jerome (as he asserts); but now it occurs in all, even in the Syriac version, and is clearly necessary to complete the history of the resurrection of Christ” (Ibid., 115).

Here is the most entertaining conclusion that we can arrive at by actually reading Turretin:

  1. Turretin lots TurretinFan in with the heretics in his rejection of 1 John 5:7
  2. Turretin was aware of the manuscripts TurretinFan prefers (Jerome’s referenced manuscripts)
  3. Turretin details how doctrines are impacted by the removal of passages as found in the Critical Text (the history of the resurrection of Christ)
  4. Turretin rejects the notion of corruption (indeterminate readings, which are found in the ECM)
  5. Turretin rejects the reframing of the WCF by Warfield and the Chicago Statement

In other words, Turretin disagrees with TurretinFan on nearly every point as it pertains to Scripture, both textually and theologically. It is interesting that TurretinFan accuses me of making a Roman Catholic argument. This is a little known fact, but the Textus Receptus was actually the text of the Protestant Reformation. It makes no sense that defending such a text would be considered…Roman Catholic. I suspect the reason for such shoddy and inept argumentation is due to the fact that this is simply a regurgitation of assertions made by James White. Let me remind my reader that assertions are not arguments, and you actually have to explain why a quote supports your argument. This is persuasive writing 101. What we have to recognize is that a community college English 101 professor would send this article by TurretinFan back for revision because he hasn’t made an argument, he’s simply made assertions in between citations.

Conclusion

The greatest condemnation of this article is not it’s poor structure and lack of persuasion, it is the fact that Turretin himself disagrees with TurretinFan so fundamentally that he should really consider changing his moniker. Perhaps he should consider Dr. SpyOptics, the bargain bin version of Dr. Oakley.

Death of Logic

The Young, Textless, and Reformed7 Comments

Welcome to the new year, reader. In 2024, I fully expect that we will find ourselves debating the same arguments and talking points afresh. The reality is that many of the theological controversies prevalent today are already resolved. Consider topics such as soteriology and eschatology. These have been discussed at great length by men much more capable than anybody alive today, yet modern men exhaust themselves, thinking that they have come up with some clever argument. Despite this, Christians will descend upon internet forums to cast their thoughts into the void, regardless of outcome. Such is the nature of debate disconnected from the real world.

Many, if not all, of the popular debates can be resolved by logical rules as simple as the law of noncontradiction or excluded middle. In other words, two things that cannot be true at the same time or one of two things must be true, given the claim requires it. The entire textual discussion can, at the very least, be reframed by evaluating foundational claims by these two laws of thought. For example, if our primary claim is “Scripture exists”, then we can exclude any claim which posits that “Scripture does not exist.” By “exist” we mean here that the Scriptures exist in such a way that we can access and use it. Many modern views of Scripture attempt to redefine the term “exist” to mean that the words are out in the world, somewhere, we just don’t have access to them. Yet, this is an illogical claim, for this view also allows for the possibility that the words are not out there in the world. This is why textual scholars hedge their claims with words such as “possible” and “likely.” In short, if it is “possible” that a text is original, it is also possible that a text is not original. Using this type of language violates the law of noncontradiction if we are trying to defend something which is said to “exist.” Something cannot exist and “possibly exist” at the same time.

Herein lies the nuance which muddles the debate. If you are a Christian, your premise is that Scripture exists, not that it “possibly exists.” This is a requirement for all Scriptural truth claims. We do not say in evangelism that, “It is possible that God so loved the world..” and so on. When we present the Gospel, we do so assuming the premise that the words exist, and that the words we have in front of us are correct. There is not a scenario where a Christian can confidently present the free offer of salvation given that the words on the page could be inauthentic. Yet, if you inspect the average claim of the modern bibliology camp, this is how they argue for Scripture. In one context, they read their Bible, listen to sermons, and debate theology with absolute confidence in the words on the page, and in the text-critical context, they argue with varying degrees of “possibility.” We know that this is not logically valid.

If we investigate what it means for the Bible to “exist,” we find that this concept is captured within the doctrine of preservation. To the traditional camp, the Bible exists because we have always had it, despite attempts at corruption. To the modern camp, the Bible exists insofar as we have it today. The first group has, at the very least, logical consistency because the definition of “Bible” has not changed over the years. The second group has a serious problem because in order to make the claim that the Bible exists, they must change the form of the Bible to mean something different in every age. The Bible, in other words, is more of a concept than an object. This is the primary difference between the two groups, as far as I can tell.

The traditional group sees the Bible as an object with a defined number of words, whereas the modern group sees the Bible as an object with a defined number of ideas. This is the explanatory mechanism the moderns use to describe how the words can be added, removed, or changed, and the thing (Bible) still be the same. According to this model, so as long as the core ideas are preserved, the Bible is preserved. This is a clever formulation, but unfortunately it has no explanatory mechanism. It cannot be demonstrated to be true, which means it is purely conjectural. This is due to the fact that literary ideas are derived from words. A text cannot preserve an idea without words. So if it were the case that a text can change while the ideas remain constant, one would have to actually demonstrate that additions, subtractions, and substitutions do not alter the substance of the text. This of course cannot be demonstrated to be true because any addition, subtraction, or substitution must, by definition, alter the substance of a text. This is how words work. Unless a modernist is willing to make the claim that all omitted portions of text are void of meaning, or all substitutions are merely synonymic, this must be the case. Ultimately, this claim is evaluated true on the simple merit that it has been said out loud.

We see that the textual debate is really a matter of definitions. In order for the modernists to be correct, they must employ a functional definition of “Bible” and “exists” and “preserve” in a different sense than the traditionalists. This is how they use historical writings such as the Westminster Confession to defend their claims. “If by Scripture they mean this, and if by preserved they mean this, then the Scriptures are indeed preserved!” Yet we can all agree that simply changing the definition of words does not win an argument, it simply means that the argument itself is different. This is my main point, the modern position of bibliology is comprised of claims which are substantially different than that of the traditionalists. That is to say, when these two groups collide in debate, they are using different functional definitions of key terms such as “Bible” and “preserved.”

This is important to recognize the next time you engage in a debate over a text such as 1 John 5:7. The textual modernist views his Bible as a collection of concepts and ideas, not a defined collection of texts. That is why a primary argument against the importance of the Comma Johanneum is that “the idea is contained elsewhere.” What I want my reader to understand is that this is actually an argument in support of a different definition of “Bible.” Take time to notice when somebody argues that, “1 John 5:7 isn’t even about the Trinity” or “It wasn’t even quoted at Nicaea in defense of the Trinity.” They are arguing this because in their mind the Bible isn’t defined by the texts contained within it, but the ideas. Yet we have already established that in literature, ideas are derived from words. Thus, adding, removing, or altering the words necessarily adds, removes, or alters the ideas.

Herein lies the primary logical problem with the modernist position on Scripture. In order for the text to mean something in itself, the ideas must be derived from the text. If it is the case that the ideas themselves are preserved apart from the text, then it is the case that the ideas have another preserving mechanism. Let us return to the argument related to the Trinity and 1 John 5:7. One of the chief arguments presented by textual modernists such as James White is that the doctrine of the Trinity can be derived elsewhere. Note the framing demands that the doctrine exists, and it can be found in the text. The doctrine is assumed first, and collected from Scripture as it exists to the modernist. In other words, the doctrine is preserved apart from the text. In this view, the reader brings a fully built out doctrine of the Trinity into Scripture. This is the implied assumption of this argument against the Comma Johanneum.

So we see the foundational logical problems that exist in the current iteration of the textual discussion. The modern side must redefine historical terms in order to fit their view into the Protestant frame. That is why some textual scholars avoid referring to Scripture as “The Bible” and instead opt for “bibles.” This is because at the core of the Critical Text position, the assumption is that “bibles” exist, but “the Bible” hasn’t existed since the first or second century. This is obviously problematic for Christian bibliology. The answer the modernists give is that, “we don’t need the Bible, as long as the ideas are preserved in the bibles.” One of the main problems in the textual discussion is that when a textual modernist employs the term “Bible” or “Scriptures,” they mean, “the bibles.” This demonstrates one of the foundational disconnects in the debate, both sides are using different functional definitions.

This is why the debate will continue into 2024 the same as it has since I have been involved. There are two theologies of the text, two logical foundations, two sets of definitions. My prediction is that 2024 will continue to highlight the differences in the positions with each discovery and evolution of the textual scholars. Happy New year and may the Lord bless you and keep you, reader.

Providential Exposure as it Relates to Preservation

The Young, Textless, and Reformed2 Comments

The Theological Method and Preservation

The Theological Method for determining the text of Scripture heavily relies upon understanding the text that has been received by Christians, which is commonly called “exposure”. The text of Scripture is that which has been exposed to the people of God throughout the ages. John 10:27 says, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me” (KJV). Michael Kruger, in his book Canon Revisited, says this,

“When people’s eyes are opened, they are struck by the divine qualities of Scripture – it’s beauty and efficacy – and recognize and embrace Scripture for what it is, the word of God. They realize that the voice of Scripture is the voice of the Shepherd” (101). 

This might seem like subjectivism, but this is the historic doctrine that has been recognized throughout the ages by the theologians of the faith, most notably John Calvin and Herman Bavinck. This doctrine is not to be confused with the Mormon doctrine of “burning in the bosom”, which has been done by men like James White. Many false doctrines are based on truth, and here the Christian must recognize that God’s Word is the means that He is speaking to His people in these last days, regardless of how that doctrine has been twisted by other systems. 

What distinguishes this doctrine from its Mormon counterpart is that this reception of the Scriptures by the people of God is not purely individualistic. The text of Scripture, as it has been handed down, exists ontologically, not just subjectively. There is a concrete shape of God’s Word that exists, and the people of God have had that Word in every generation. The text of Scripture must primarily be viewed as a covenantal document given to the covenant people of God for their use in all matters of faith and practice (LBCF 1.1). That does not mean that all those professing Christianity throughout the ages have agreed upon what belongs in Scripture, or that every Christian has had access to the whole of Scripture in every generation. In fact, there are a multitude of Christians that do not have access to God’s Word, either by circumstance, or by choice. 

It is important to take note of how the Apostolic church received the text of Holy Scripture to understand the doctrine of exposure as it relates to preservation. In the New Testament, there is never a case where Scripture is said to be a gift delivered to individual people. The Scriptures were always a corporate blessing to the covenant people of God (Acts 15:14; Titus 2:14; 1 Peter 2:9). In the testimony of Scripture itself, we can see that God delivers His Word to the people of God, not individual people of God. So the doctrine of exposure does not crumble due to certain individuals not having a copy of the Bible at all times. If this were the case, the fact that there are Christians who simply do not own a Bible would discredit this doctrine altogether. 

Despite the fact that the Canon is recognized in part by its corporate reception, this doctrine of providential exposure does not rest on ecclesiastical authority, as the papists might claim. There is no one single church which is responsible for giving authority to the text of Holy Scripture. In fact, no church could give authority to the Scriptures, they are authoritative in themselves (αυτοπιστος). Kruger explains this well, “The books received by the church inform our understanding of which books are canonical not because the church is infallible o because it created or constituted the canon, but because the church’s reception of these books is a natural and inevitable outworking of the self-authenticating nature of Scripture” (106).

It must be stated, that Kruger makes the distinction between the canon, and the text of the canon, which is the common thought amongst conservative scholarship. Upon examination of the theological method  however, there does not seem to be good reason to separate the two. If the doctrinal foundation of providential exposure demonstrates the “efficacy of the Shepherd’s voice to call”(106), then it follows that there must be a definitive voice that does the calling. The name of a canonical book is simply not efficacious to call sinners to repentance and faith. Simply listing off the canonical list is not the Gospel call. So the material that is providentially exposed to the people of God must also contain the substance which is effective unto life by the power of the Holy Spirit. God has not just preserved the book sleeves of the Bible, He has also preserved the words within those book sleeves. 

Since the Bible is self-authenticating, Christians cannot look to the totality or purity of its reception to determine which books or texts of the Bible should be received today. That is to say that because the majority of the Christian people do not accept one passage as authentic today, does not mean that it has not been properly received in the past, or that it is not ontologically a part of the canon. A passage of Scripture may not have been accepted as canonical by various groups throughout history, and this has indeed been the case, usually due to theological controversy. 

It is antithetical to the Theological method to say that the Scriptures are self-authenticating, but then also say that people must authenticate those Scriptures by a standard outside of the Scriptures themselves. Either the Scriptures are self-authenticating, or they are not. Which is why evidence are great tools to defend the Scriptures, but those evidences can never authenticate those Scriptures in themselves. It is problematic to say that God’s Word has been preserved, and kept pure in all ages, and then to immediately say that He has done so imperfectly, or has not fully exposed that Word to His people yet. 

The Theological method provides a framework that actually gives more weight to historical thought as opposed to modern thought. It disallows for a perspective that believes that the people of God had lost or added passages of Scripture, and that these texts need to be recovered or removed. It prevents certain theories that the text evolved, or that Christ’s divinity was developed over time. It especially rejects the idea that the original text of the New Testament was choppy, crude, and in places incoherent, and that scribes smoothed out the readings to make the text readable. In fact, it exposes those manuscripts that are choppy and missing parts to be of poor quality by assuming that the Holy Scriptures were inspired by the Holy Spirit rather than invented by ostensibly literate first century Jews. 

There may have been localities that corrupted the text (usually intentionally), but this does not represent the providential preservation that was taking place universally. The vast majority of textual variants are due to Scribal errors, but the significant variants were certainly an effort of revision. A Scribe simply wouldn’t have removed or added 12 verses by accident. A great example is the idiosyncratic Egyptian manuscripts uncovered in the 19th and 20th centuries, which tend to disagree with the general manuscript tradition in important variant units. These manuscripts have been given tremendous weight in the modern period due to shifting views of inspiration and preservation. 

If the Scriptures truly were inspired and preserved, then one should expect that the text did not evolve, or that the closest representative of those originals would be riddled with short, abrupt readings. One would expect that in every stage of copying, Scribal errors would be purged out, and that the true readings would persevere. In fact, this phenomenon can be observed in the vast majority of the extant New Testament manuscripts, which has unfortunately been described as Scribal interference, or smoothing out the text. When the transmission of the New Testament manuscripts are viewed Theologically, an entirely different story is told by the manuscripts which largely disagrees with the modern narrative which favors those choppy manuscripts which existed in one locality of the Christian world. 

The preservation of God’s Word can be demonstrated evidentially, but not without the proper Theological lens. Evidential arguments can be a powerful tool in all disciplines, but they often are not effective in themselves to change anybody’s mind. That is why the Theology of scholars will ultimately determine the manuscripts they deem to be earliest and best. Simply counting manuscripts, or weighing manuscripts, is simply not consistent with the conservative doctrine of preservation. In both cases, these methods attempt to take an external authority, such as manuscript count, or the age of the manuscript, and use that to authenticate the Word of God. Yet both of these are at odds with the doctrinal standard that is laid forth in Scriptures themselves, that the Word of God is self-authenticating. That is why the language of “the text that has been received” is warranted in this conversation, because it recognizes God’s providential preservation and exposure of the ontological canon to the people of God in every age. 

Conclusion 

The doctrine of exposure is often misunderstood as being too similar to the Mormon doctrine of “burning of the bosom” or the papal doctrine which states that Rome has the authority to authenticate the Bible. Despite these abuses of Scripture, the fact remains that the Scriptures are self-authenticating. It is easy to fall back onto empirical approaches, because they seem to be the most logical. Yet these empirical approaches do not do what they claim they can do, and this is becoming increasingly evident with each passing year. The number of Bibles has only increased, and exponentially at that. Modern methodology has not narrowed the text of the New Testament to fewer legitimate readings, but has expanded greatly the number of readings that “could be” original or early. 

The efforts of modern textual scholarship has only increased the uncertainty of the text of the New Testament. This has culminated in the abandonment of the search for the original text of the Bible for the Ausgangstext, or the earliest text scholars can get back to (which is 3rd or 4th century). Practically speaking, this pursuit will simply result in arriving at some hypothetical form of the text that may have existed in Egypt in the third century. Since this seems to be the direction of most current New Testament text-critical scholarship, it seems that it is time to return to the old paths. The Theological method has been expressed by countless Theologians of the Christian faith, and it should not be abandoned for the sake of adopting the modern critical scientific method. The Scriptures should always be handled as self-authenticating, and a shift to this way of thinking would result in a massive change in the direction of modern New Testament scholarship.