Tag: god

Introduction

The most difficult bridge to gap with participants in this discussion is convincing them that this is more than just textual science. I have always emphasized this on my blog, that this is topic is deeply theological. In the tradition of my spiritual forefathers, all loci of study must not only be theological, but also practical. We do not needlessly debate the quantity of angels that can dance on the pin of a needle. One of the greatest errors of many Modern Critical Text advocates is to partition this part of the discussion into science and faith. Often, the discussion is made to seem like the textual scholars are doing hard science which is then handed over to Christians for interpretation and application. This is why many advocates of the modern text do not understand when those in the TR camp begin the debate with theological foundations rather than text critical ones. As a result of the “scientification” of the text in its creation, the same sterile techniques seem to have been transferred into the handling of the Word.

Mishandling of the Text Through Atomization

Perhaps it is the case that these things are not connected, but it is true that modern methods of textual scholarship have arrived hand in hand with modern exegesis and hermeneutics in the seminaries. This is why, in my opinion, modern reformed and reformed adjacent preaching is dry and difficult to understand. It is also often alienating to the layman. The method often taught at seminaries today is called the “historical grammatical” approach. An internet search will tell you this is a “Protestant” method of exegesis, though I would argue that there is nothing historically protestant about it. This method attempts to steer the exegete towards the true meaning of the text by focusing on grammar, syntax, and historical context. At face value, this sounds great, but in it’s application it often falls short. Such is the case with many well-meaning efforts to adapt scholarly methods for the church. I will say, it does do a wonderful job in steering pastors away from sports references or sermons filled to the brim with anecdotes and analogies.

First, I want to point out that this method has a historical critical trojan horse built into it at the outset. While the faithful minister would never think of doing this, a man pulled by the academy might consider “historical context” a license to inject critical perspectives into the text. Historical context, for example, might be a new perspective on Paul, or perhaps applying modern gender theory to the pericope adulterae as we see in Jennifer Knust and Elijah Hixson’s book “To Cast the First Stone.” Even if the exegete does not consider such extreme examples, the method itself opens the door to changing historical perspectives on the text. I will admit, this exegetical error is far more common in the less conservative corners of the Reformed world, but it is present in more benign applications.

What is far more common in conservative circles are exegetical errors produced in the grammatical portion of this method. While it is true that understanding the text properly requires accurate analysis of the grammar and syntax of a text, the way that this is applied is oftentimes harmful to the text. The primary error that many exegetes make is to handle the words of the text outside of the text itself. I remember vaguely in my early Christian years being amazed by a pastor who preached an entire sermon on the Greek word, “The.” I look back on that now, thinking how absurd that is. This of course is the most extreme possible example, but many such cases exist as it pertains to words like love, finished, and so on. This happens when the exegete doesn’t treat Greek and Hebrew like a real language, but a mystical one. I cannot count the number of times I’ve heard a pastor in a Reformed church say something along the lines of, “In English, this word means this, but in Greek, it means THIS THIS.” In almost every case of this happening, the pastor is merely taking a synonym of the Greek word, and emphatically presenting the word to the church as though they don’t understand how synonyms work. One egregious case of this is when John MacArthur famously translated the word, “run” to “glide” and gave the impression that somebody was gliding along the ground.

This kind of exegesis occurs when the exegete fails to understand what language is in the first place, not just Greek or Hebrew. The reality is, most adult Americans read at a 3rd or 4th grade level, so this kind of error is not unsurprising. What must be corrected is the idea that there is magic in the middle of translating one language to another. It is often said that two languages can never be perfectly translated from one to the other. This is true, if we are saying that every word must be translated to an equivalent word in the target language. I recently got into a heated debate with one of my friends who knows Japanese and English. He told me, “It is impossible to translate Japanese into English perfectly.” So I said, “I bet you’re wrong, give me an example.” He brought up a word that had a complex meaning, but he was able to perfectly articulate it into English for me such that I now understood what the word meant. After he described what the word meant, I responded, “See, it can be translated.” What he actually meant was that the word did not map to a single English word, but it definitely could be translated. This is why “word for word” translations use a flawed translation methodology because translation is not simply “word for word.”

This type of realization is obvious to anybody who has actually learned a second language, especially if the language uses conjugations and declensions to change the word into different forms, like Greek. Much of these types of errors occur because seminary students do not study Greek as a language. Seminary students learn just enough vocabulary to use language tools, but could not go to Greece and order a meal. Daniel Street proved this when he tested seminary Greek professors on 10 basic vocabulary words, and they all failed. Seminaries are not teaching Greek as a language, and it is damaging the pulpit. The reality is, the Bible is not written in “ancient Greek,” it is written in a form of Greek that is about as far from modern Greek as King James English is from us today. You can take a Greek New Testament, open it up in Greece, read it out loud, and every single elementary school child will be able to understand what it is saying. They may think you sound funny, but they will understand you.

The point in saying all of that is to say this, the grammatical portion of modern exegetical methods sounds great, but it falls apart if the exegete does not understand Greek as a language, or even language learning in general. I will say this, if the exegete cannot go to Greece and have a conversation with the people there, he is not learned enough to utilize the Greek of the New Testament without falling into unfortunate errors. Believe it or not, you must know a language to engage with that language in literary form. Let me provide an analogy to drive my point home. Imagine you take a Spanish speaker, teach him English for 1-2 years, and then tell him to do advanced literary analysis of Shakespeare in English. That is what our Seminaries do for Greek language studies.

The end result of this method is that pastors, who have less understanding of Greek than a 2nd grader in Greece, are doing grammatical and syntactical analysis in a language they barely understand, and coming away with meanings that are often nonsensical or exactly the same as the English. This is why when pastors appeal to the original languages in a sermon, they often mysticise the text, as if the true meaning cannot be discovered in the English translation. Even more common, is for a pastor to simply say the Greek word (often incorrectly or in a pronunciation that nobody in history would recognize), and then say the definition in English, which their translation has already done for them! They do this because they don’t understand how translation from any language works, and they also do not really know the language they are trying to translate. The effect of hyper focusing on grammar and syntax is that it forces men into language analysis in a language that cannot be learned in 4 semesters. It would be ridiculous to ask such things from somebody learning English as a second language, so why do we impose this upon those pursuing the pulpit?

Unless the exegete actually knows Greek and Hebrew, he should be analyzing the grammar and syntax of the translation he has before him in the language he can understand. I will say, in every single case I have ever heard of a pastor doing Greek or Hebrew analysis from the pulpit, the same meaning could have easily been derived by simply analyzing the text in English and using an English dictionary. Now, I do think it is incredibly important for pastors to learn Greek and Hebrew, but that effort takes more than what your seminary has to offer. What is unfortunate about all of this, is that men who do not know Greek are taught to use Greek in their sermons. The effect is that the average layperson now believes that their translation is inadequate to understand the Word of God. Every Greek word is made to seem as though it has 50 meanings, and only the pastor truly knows what it means. It is, ironically, a modern practice of having secret knowledge, and a chief example of private interpretation. There is a correct way to use the Greek in sermon preparation, but that involves actually knowing the language.

The modern method of exegesis teaches pastors to look at a text in a language they do not know, pull words out of the sentence, look at those words individually, and place them back into the text pregnant with meaning. They then take this meaning and present to the congregation in a sermon, and the people of God are impressed that their pastor used a Greek lexicon or dictionary or language tool. More importantly, the layperson believes that in order to understand the Bible, they must wait for the man of God to tell them what it says, or go back to the Greek themselves.

What does this have to do with the TR?

One of the reasons that people take the TR position is that they see it as a logical consequence of returning to the old paths. While many people turn back to Rome, or perhaps the Eastern Orthodox church, those that wish to stay “reformed” see the TR view as a historical artifact of the Reformation. In many ways, this view is a rejection of modernity that extends beyond the textual debate. Perhaps it is as simple as people being tired with the chronological snobbery of the scholar class. In any case, there is value in doing things the way our spiritual fathers in the faith did them. In my opinion, instead of the historical grammatical approach, the seminaries should be teaching Perkins and Puritan preaching. Instead of teaching diagrams of Greek syntax, seminaries should be teaching students how to exegete the text in their mother tongue. Instead of focusing on two years of Greek vocab and grammar, seminaries should teach students conversational Greek with the eventual goal of mastery.

In any case, I am an advocate for returning to the old paths. We, as Reformed people, have treasures upon treasures in our spiritual heritage. There is no need to reinvent the wheel every decade.

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.