Tag: god

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.

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.