Tag: TR

All Scripture is Profitable, Except When It’s Not

The Young, Textless, and ReformedLeave a comment

Introduction

It is easy to look at the textual discussion from afar and fail to see the relevance. If this is just about a few textual variants and the difference between “thee” and “you”, what is even the point? I want to zoom out for a second, away from all of the text-critical jargon, and make application to the heart of the issue. At its very foundation, the Protestant faith is founded upon the belief that God has spoken and acted in time. There are two realities that testify to this fact – that people believe that a man named Jesus Christ lived, died, and rose again two thousand years after the fact, and the Holy Scriptures. While the reality of a Christian church is an important reality to note, without the Holy Scriptures, Christianity was just a cultural phenomenon that got way out of hand.The Scriptures provide the foundation, the purpose, and the reality that the Triune God has spoken and acted in the specific way He did. When the Scriptures are undermined, popular mythology and false narratives run wild, as we have seen in the modern period with Walter Bauer, Bart Erhman, and Robert Price, and Richard Carrier.  

Even more pertinent to this discussion than the opinions of apostate men and atheists is how the undermining of God’s Word has affected the believing church. It is important to recognize that a low view of the Scriptures has given permission for the unbeliever to stand over God’s Word in judgement, and it is even more important to recognize how this has impacted the people that the Bible was given to – God’s covenant people. The Bible expresses very clearly that “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God” and is given to the people of God for the purpose of making men wise unto salvation and “that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim. 3:15-16). When the people of God do not trust that “all Scripture” is powerful to do this, the church deteriorates and adds its own standards into the traditions and practices of the Christian religion. Personal words of knowledge are given more credence than the Scriptures, new perspectives on Paul’s theology are taught in seminaries, and the critical theory of James Cone is paraded through the seminary and academy. While it is disheartening to see the antagonistic efforts of secular scholars as they tinker with the Bible, it should be even more disheartening that the majority of the Christian church simply does not trust every word of God. This kind of distrust in God’s Word is prolific, and is made apparent in the fact that even seminaries are training men not to build doctrinal statements upon contested passages or verses that contain unique vocabulary. 

The Inconsistency of the Modern Hermeneutic 

The modern interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16 is that all Scripture is profitable, unless it contains a variant, or it contains unique vocabulary. This is fundamentally a skeptical perspective on the Word of God, and it has had great consequences in the church. Christians are commanded to approach the Bible with faith (John 10:27), not apprehension. Further, this kind of perspective is completely in opposition to historic orthodox protestant belief, who built entire doctrines on contested passages and unique vocabulary. They felt confident and even obligated to do so because they truly believed in God’s Word as sufficient and authoritative. To demonstrate this fact, the Reformed doctrine of Scripture, inspiration, is founded on a word that Paul probably made up, and only occurs once in the Bible – θεόπνευστος (Inspired, God breathed). A brief survey of the Reformed confessions reveals a multitude of verses that are actually removed from modern Bibles, or delegated to brackets and footnotes. This speaks to a more foundational problem within the Christian church today. 

The people of God believe, in opposition to the historic view of the Scriptures, that the authority of God’s Word rests in the subject, not the object. In other words, God’s Word is only authoritative in so far as a person declares it to be authoritative. When a Christian declares that doctrine should not be built upon a contested passage, they are implicitly accepting that they get to determine what is authoritative in Scripture. In adopting this hermeneutic principle, the Christian has lost all right to contest the various heterodox interpretations of Scripture that have inundated the church. The Christian has no contest with Richard Carrier, Bart Ehrman, or Robert Price, because they are simply employing the same interpretive principle as the Christian who only wants to build doctrine on non-contested passages. The only difference is the scope and origin of passages which are considered contested. Underneath the differences is the same exact principle. Since the authority of the Bible has been shifted from the object to the subject, and the subject is not omniscient,  it is impossible to make a meaningful claim about the object that doesn’t amount to a personal opinion. 

The Bible explicitly condemns this kind of hermeneutic in 2 Peter 1:20-21, “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” This passage vests the authority of the Scriptures in the movements of the Holy Ghost, in the Scriptures themselves. Those same Scriptures declare that “all Scripture” has been inspired by God, and should be used in all matters of faith and practice. If a Christian wishes to contest, let’s just say, the claim that David raped Bathsheba, they must first assume that there is indeed a correct interpretation, and the proper meaning of that passage is not dependent upon the subject. Any and all refutations of this strange understanding of David and Bathsheba are presupposing the objective authority of the Word of God. So while one can say that since that passage is lacking any meaningful variants and thus true interpretation can be done, the foundational hermeneutic principle assumes the authority of a different hermeneutic principle.

The Greatest Inconsistency of the Modern Church 


Herein lies the greatest inconsistency in the modern church, and the reason that heterodoxy has become orthodoxy in the modern period. The modern doctrine of Scripture does not recognize the self-authenticating, objective authority of the Word of God. Certain people may give lip service to an authoritative standard in the Scriptures, but the actual theology underneath it cannot provide the kind of authority that is being claimed. In the modern view of Scripture, the Word of God is only considered authoritative in so far as the subject can determine that it is authoritative. In doing this, the Christian church has actually given allowance to not only the unbeliever, but also the believer to impose their subjective authority upon the text. If you have ever heard somebody say, “Well I just interpret that differently”, you have experienced the fruit of this modern perspective. The Word of God is demonstrably not the final authority, the principia, of the people of God in the vast majority of churches today. 

Those that consider themselves Reformed might be nodding their heads and saying “amen!”, but the chances are extremely high that you, as a Reformed believer, are guilty of the same exact thing as the unbeliever and liberal mainstream evangelical. If this is your hermeneutic standard, it is more than likely that the only thing keeping you from heading the direction of the rest of the church is the tradition you hold to, which then becomes your ultimate standard. Praise God for the faithful men who came before us and established such traditions.

Before explaining this, I want to reemphasize the two opposite views on the Holy Scriptures. The first is that the Word of God is self-authenticating (αὐτόπιστος). The Word of God is authoritative in itself, because it is the product of God speaking in time (Deus dixit). God, in His singular care and providence, kept the Scriptures pure in all ages. The object which is Scripture, stands over the subject, the human, as a judge, because God has spoken. This is the foundation that one appeals to when they claim that the Scriptures are the principia for all truth claims and so on. The Scripture does not become Scripture based on the evaluation of an individual, the Scriptures are the Scriptures regardless of what the subject thinks. 

The second view is that the Word of God is authoritative insofar as the subject judges it to be authoritative. God has spoken, but the subject must determine what it is that God has spoken by way of higher and lower criticism. There is no consistent standard that can be applied to authenticate God’s Word, no ultimate standard, so the Bible only really exists subjectively. Not only are translations of God’s Word different, two people reading the same version of God’s Word experience differing levels of authority depending on how much authority the subject has vested in it. Even in the most conservative circles of protestant Christianity, believers only accept the Bible as authoritative in so far as the evidence and opinions of scholars declare it to be trustworthy. In this view it is perfectly acceptable to determine that Luke 23:34 is not God’s Word, or is God’s Word, as the authority of that passage is dependent upon the judgement of the individual. The object, the Scriptures, only have authority in so far as the subject, the human, has approved of its authority. Any one passage of Scripture is not authoritative in itself, it becomes authoritative based on subjective evaluation. There may be a great number of passages that are given authority without much contest based on some external standard, but there is nothing within this methodology that prevents even the least contested passages from being called into question (See Ehrman, Price, Carrier). A passage like John 3:16 is just as safe as any other contested passage, because John 3:16 is only given authority by virtue of the subject. 

The Practical Difference Between the Two Views

The obvious practical difference between the two views is that one is truly consistent in saying that the Scriptures are the principia, and the other is not. Many Christians insert a false dilemma into the conversation by asserting that any and all text-critical work invalidates the self-authenticating nature of the Scriptures, or that no text-critical efforts invalidate the self-authenticating nature of the Scriptures. This is due to a poor evaluation of different text-critical standards. All throughout time Christians have been used by God as a means of ensuring that the authoritative Word of God is preserved through copying of manuscripts, collating and editing those manuscripts into printed editions, and translating those editions into every common language. The important question to ask then, is “How did God manage to accomplish the preservation of the Scriptures without allowing for the subjective opinions of man to soil its authority?” It is not the correct understanding to say that all text-critical efforts are equal and to then reject the self-authenticating nature of the Scriptures because “text-criticism” has been done. It is in this dilemma that many are swayed to unfaithful understandings of the text of Holy Scripture. They say that since text-criticism has been done, the Bible needs to be given authority by text-critical efforts, therefore the Bible must be authoritative by virtue of those text-critical efforts. 

Yet all text-critical efforts are not equal, and any text-critical methodology that assumes that the Bible is given authority by virtue of a text-critical effort is an unfaithful effort at the start. In the modern period, these efforts have been driven by the theology that God’s Word is not authoritative in itself, it becomes authoritative by virtue of some external process. As a result, the doctrine of Scripture has evolved and adapted to the theology of modern textual scholarship. The neo-orthodox say that the Word of God becomes Scripture when the believer experiences it by the power of the Holy Spirit, and those that advocate for the modern critical text say that the Word of God becomes Scripture when a scholar or individual evaluates it highly enough. That is the bedrock for the canon-within-a-canon model,introduced first by Kurt Aland, which says that the books of the Bible may be set in stone, but the readings within those books are not. 

In order for Christians to be consistent in claiming that the Word of God is truly authoritative, they must reject all methods that require constant, ongoing, everchanging standards to evaluate the authenticity of various Biblical texts. It is inconsistent to say that a text could be authoritative today, but not tomorrow. This is exactly the argument that is made when one denies Luke 23:38 or Mark 16:9-20. The authenticity of a passage is liable to change based on the popular opinions of those judging the text. In order to continue supporting such a view, a serious effort to conflate the methods of text-criticism throughout time with the modern methods is required. In doing so, one must first deny the reality that historical text-critical efforts stand at odds with the modern methods, and secondly deny that God’s Word has ever been authoritative in itself. That is to say, that the Word of God has always been authoritative by virtue of something else. There is no problem in this view with rejecting the Reformation era text, as that text platform was authoritative for a time, but is no longer authoritative in the modern period. All meaningful apologetics are completely forfeited by adopting this view. All fundamental truth claims based on the Word of God are given up. In an attempt to justify the modern effort, the whole authority of the Scriptures has been surrendered.   

Conclusion

The textual discussion is far more important than discussing which variants are correct or whether or it is allowable for a Reformed Christian to adopt the modern critical text or the TR. At the core of this conversation is a battle for the authority of God’s Word. Is the Word of God self-authenticating, as the Reformed believed, or is it only authoritative by virtue of some other process, as the modern eclectic view posits? If it is the case that the Scriptures are only authoritative by virtue of some external method, which method is best? Which standard does the church trust to give authority to the Scriptures? The popular opinion today is split between Münster, Cambridge, and various scholars and apologists. The modern view of Scripture does not allow for any one person to have a Bible. Everybody has a different Bible depending on the authority they trust. The number of bibles is infinite, and the massive amount of confusion in the Christian church today is evidence of that. In using the modern standard of subjective authentication of God’s Word, Christians are essentially guaranteeing that the Church will continue to evolve and conform to the world as time passes.

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.

Textual Methodologies & Transmission Narratives

The Young, Textless, and ReformedLeave a comment

Introduction

In this article, I describe the three distinct categories that exist within the context of the textual discussion. These categories are Textual Methodology, Text Platform, and Translation. A failure to properly recognize these categories as distinct will inevitably result in a worthless conversation wherein one person boldly enters a thread and declares everybody but himself a KJV Onlyist. It is high time that this sort of behavior is escorted out of the confines of Christian dialogue. It is important to recognize that every single Christian has a Textual Methodology, whether they know it or not. A person who utilizes the terminology “KJV Onlyist” for everybody who doesn’t read a modern Bible reveals a lot about the insecurity of their own position. Not a single person approaches the text with a blank slate, and when one fails to acknowledge his tradition, it is extremely likely that that person is blind to his tradition. Never before has blindness been so routinely praised than it has in the modern period. 

The first category that exists within the textual conversation is what I call Textual Methodology. Within the umbrella of this category is the doctrine of Scripture, which includes inspiration, preservation, and transmission history of the text of the New Testament. Every single person who reads, believes in, or comments on the Bible has a doctrine of Scripture. There are two common views of Textual Methodology and transmission narratives that exist today within Reformed Orthodoxy that I will discuss in this article. 

Contending Textual Methodologies and Transmission Histories

Within the context of conservative protestant orthodoxy, there are two major textual methodologies and transmission narratives worth commenting on. These are not the only positions, but the positions that represent Modern Reasoned Eclecticism (NA/UBS) and the Confessional Text (TR).  The first transmission narrative is not built upon a doctrine of inspiration and preservation, but starts from an empirical standpoint. Christians who adopt this narrative then must craft their doctrine of inspiration and preservation around the narrative of modern scholarship retroactively. The Christian articulation of inspiration and preservation within modern textual scholarship says that the original autographs of the New Testament were immediately inspired, but that as time passed, and scribes foolishly copied those autographs, the Scriptures became so corrupt that the people of God no longer had an authentic Bible in their possession. All of the important doctrines were still contained within the Bible, but the actual Bible itself had become hopelessly mutilated. All of the original readings should technically be somewhere within the manuscript tradition, but the people of God have not known what those original readings were for most of the history of the church, and still do not know. Since the goal of the Scriptures is to make men wise unto salvation, the only real doctrines that must be preserved are the “important” ones. 

This corruption most likely occurred sometime around the fourth century, and from the fifth century on, the people of God utilized a text that was heavily edited and smoothed out by scribes. The Orthodox corruption of the Scriptures resulted in the intentional embellishment of Christ’s divinity (expansion of piety), addition of a multitude of passages (Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8:11, John 5:4, Rom. 16:24, etc.), and corrections to the original grammar which was initially choppy and harsh (less harmonious readings). Since the church was chiefly culpable in corrupting the Scriptures, their commentary and opinions on the manuscripts should not be trusted, as they were prone to side with readings that corresponded with the orthodox dogmas which developed since the Christian church came onto the scene. As a result of this understanding of the transmission history of the New Testament manuscripts, the only manuscripts with any real value are the ones that existed prior to this orthodox corruption. Due to this great effort of orthodox tampering, the only manuscripts with any value are the ones that predate this global contamination.

Manuscripts which meet the criteria for this story of transmission are the ones that contain short, choppy, and grammatically harsh readings and do not share a pregeneaological coherence (% similarity in the variants) with the majority of manuscripts.The goal of textual scholarship then is to reconstruct the hypothetical archetype of the manuscripts which predates the orthodox corruption. Since the earliest complete manuscripts date back to the 4th century, that is the farthest back this reconstruction effort can go without too much speculation. So at best, this view will result in a bible that represents the manuscripts which reflect the above criteria and transmission history. The goal is not to find the original text, but rather find the original testimonies of the historical event of the incarnation.There are some within this camp that believe a reconstruction of the Initial Text might as well be as good as original, but the brunt of the highly influential scholars agree that this conclusion is unwarranted with the available data.  

The second major understanding of the transmission history of the New Testament is less popular, but is represented by the views set forth within the 17th century Confessional standards. Many people anachronistically say that the Reformation and Post-Reformation Divines adopted, or would have adopted, the first narrative (Such as TurretinFan and those like him), but I have yet to see that demonstrated in any way whatsoever. The doctrine of the framers of the confessions say that the original autographs of the New Testament were immediately inspired, and that the inspired readings were passed along within the manuscript tradition and kept pure in all ages. Due to the covenantal purpose of the Scriptures, namely that they are the means God has ordained to make men wise unto salvation, the preservation of God’s Word is intimately tied to God’s purpose of having a people unto Himself. The Scriptures are self-authenticating (αυτοπιστος), which means that within the Scriptures themselves there are markers which allow men to receive the readings which are authentic in every single age. Not only are all of the important doctrines preserved, but the very words themselves are preserved and recognizable by the internal criteria set forth in Scripture. There was never a point at any time in history where the Scriptures were so hopelessly corrupted that the global church did not know which copies were authentic, or of high quality. There certainly were manuscripts which were created by unfaithful men and heretics, but those manuscripts were never copied or used much by the vast majority of churches in the Christian world. 

That is not to say that one manuscript came down through the manuscript tradition perfect. There were thousands of scribal errors which affected every manuscript in one way or another. Yet, due to the covenantal nature of the Scriptures and God’s singular care and providence in keeping them pure, there was never a time where these scribal errors and corruptions were so prevalent that the people of God did not know which reading was true or false. Any major or minor corruption could be easily identified by comparing one manuscript to a manuscript of great quality, as defined by the theologians and reception of the manuscript by the people of God. In every generation, there were manuscripts, codices, and translations of these original texts which were esteemed highly by the people of God and used for all matters of faith and practice. That does not mean that literally every believer in history had access to these authentic copies personally, but that these authentic copies were transmitted through faithful churches and were generally available to the people of God that attended these faithful churches. It is important not to impose modern standards of availability of literature onto a culture that was limited by hand copying written texts. 

In the 16th century, new technology (printing press) was implemented in this transmission process which allowed for a wider distribution of Biblical texts. This changed everything. For the first time, Bibles were made available to a wider audience, and the people of God had a greater amount of access to the Biblical texts than ever before in history. The people of God utilized this technology to create printed editions of the approved copies that had been passed down through the manuscript tradition in every age. With the advent of this new technology, hand written copies of the New Testament were retired to libraries and museums, and the printed text of the Word of God became the new standard for the church. This, alongside of the protestant Reformation, allowed translations to be made from these printed editions and distributed to the people of God in their mother tongue without harassment or persecution from the Roman Catholic church. In the Post-Reformation period, all commentaries, theological works, and translations were made from these printed texts.  

Conclusion

The two narratives detailed above represent the different narratives presented by Modern Reasoned Eclecticism and the Confessional Text position, respectively. In adopting the Modern Critical Methodology, one must also adopt the transmission narrative that goes with it. This conversation is far more complex than a debate over whether the ESV is better than the KJV. Everybody that has formed an opinion on the text of the New Testament has a doctrine of inspiration and preservation, and a transmission narrative to go with it. The unfortunate reality is that Christians have been instructed to unthinkingly avoid these foundational conversations. What is worse, is that there is a great effort to convince people that the modern critical axioms are historically Reformed. 

It should be apparent, that the pressing conversation in the textual discussion is not whether or not the KJV is bad, it is whether or not one can defend a Scriptural doctrine of inspiration and preservation with various articulations of the modern transmission narrative. The chief concern should be whether or not one’s doctrine of inspiration and preservation comports with Scripture. The secondary concern should be whether or not one’s transmission narrative comports with the reality that God has preserved His Word. The rest of the conversation flows from these realities. To the Christian who insists on continuing to make this conversation about the KJV and KJV Onlyism, I challenge you to inspect your Textual Methodology first before deciding to berate other Christians for reading a Bible you don’t like. It may be possible that many Christians have not counted the cost of adopting the modern theories, methodologies, and texts prior to throwing their weight around in the conversation. 

Textual Methodology, Text Platforms, and Translation

The Young, Textless, and Reformed2 Comments

Introduction

The conversation of textual criticism, which is properly called textual scholarship, has made its way to popular forums, Facebook threads, and even churches. Perhaps this has been the case for some time, but it seems that there has been a major uptick in people who have expressed interest in the topic. Oftentimes terminology muddles the conversation, so the goal of this article is to provide proper category distinctions that will hopefully bring more clarity at a popular level. Due to popular level podcasts, articles, and books, the average onlooker of the conversation has been taught to conflate the various categories within the conversation. A great example of this is the constant confusion between translation methodology and text-critical methodology. Despite common thought, the focus of this conversation is not primarily concerned with which Bible translation one uses. That is simply the practical implementation of one’s viewpoint on the topic. At a basic level, this conversation can be simplified into the three categories which are 1) textual methodology, 2) text platform, and 3) translation. 

Textual Methodology, Text Platforms, and Translations

The methodology one chooses is directly related to the doctrine of Scripture, namely inspiration and preservation. At its foundational level, a person’s understanding of the nature of Scripture drives all other opinions regarding the matter. The two competing thoughts right now are whether Scripture has been generally or partially preserved, or particularly preserved. This methodology flows into which underlying texts one believes to be the “best” or “original”. It can be helpful to discuss the differences between text platforms, but ultimately the conversation comes down to how one answers the question, “Has the Bible been preserved or not?” The final category is simply the practical implementation of the first two categories, and results in which Bible one reads. The major methodologies are modern reasoned eclecticism, equitable eclecticism, majority text or Byzantine priority, and the Confessional Text position (Traditional Text, Ecclesiastical Text, etc.). Each of these methodologies have their own canons and systems which are distinct from each other. The final category, translation, is not technically a text-critical category, but at a popular level, it inevitably comes up.

Translation methodology in itself is partially related to the first two categories, because all translations must make employ of a base text, sometimes called a “text platform”. That base text is chosen based on theological and methodological reasons. At its foundations, however, translation is simply taking a text from one language to another. That means that a translation can use an extremely accurate original text, and still be of poor quality, depending on the translation committee’s methodology and knowledge of both the original text and target language. That is why many who believe that the Modern Critical Text is the best can still reject the NLT or NIV as a sound translation in place for the ESV or NASB. 

Many popular level discussions simplify the conversation to “KJV Onlyists” vs. the rest of the world, but that simply does not work if one wants to engage charitably in the conversation. There is a depth of nuance that contributes to the discussion, and many people read the KJV for reasons completely independent of their understanding of textual scholarship. The same can be said for people who read the ESV, NASB, NIV, or any other translation for that matter. If I were to ask somebody which translation they read, and they responded, “I only read the ESV. It’s the translation that scholars trust, and it’s easy for me to understand”, would it be fair for me to call them an “ESV Onlyist”? Even if somebody had an informed opinion on textual methodology and decided to only read the ESV as a result of that, would it be fair for me to call that person an “ESV Onlyist”? No, it wouldn’t. Is it fair for somebody in one of the other methodological camps to call somebody who defends the modern critical text a “Modern Critical Text Onlyist”? Again, no it wouldn’t. Titles like these only serve to add unnecessary hostility, division, and confusion into the conversation.

It is especially important to understand these category distinctions, considering a great effort has been made to intentionally conflate them for one reason or another. Unfortunately, it seems to be the case that due to popular level presentations on the topic, the vast majority of Christians have actually been instructed to make these conflations. This is evidenced in the fact that most people, including some scholars, do not know the difference between a majority text position and a confessional text position, or that the KJV and ESV are translated from different text platforms. Popular level literature has actually instructed Christians to define anybody who doesn’t read a modern Bible as a “KJV Onlyist”, even those who don’t read the KJV. At a popular level, Christians do not understand the difference between textual methodology and translation methodology, or even understand the methodologies being employed to produce the Nestle-Aland/UBS printed texts that modern Bibles are translated from. For most Christians, the conversation has been framed as “KJV Onlyism” vs. the “correct view”. 

Conclusion

The kind of argumentation employed to defend the texts produced by modern reasoned eclecticism often introduces a terrible amount of confusion into the conversation that disallows for any sort of meaningful discussion. My goal in writing this article is to provide clarity by offering some important category distinctions. The first category is textual methodology, which is based upon an individual’s doctrines of inspiration and preservation. The second category is text platform, which is selected based on an individual’s textual methodology. The final category is translation methodology, which is the practical implementation of the first two categories. By allowing for these category distinctions, a productive conversation should be possible.    

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? 

Count the Cost, Christian

The Young, Textless, and ReformedLeave a comment

A Sea of Doubt

A component of critical thinking that has unfortunately been lost in the modern period is the ability to analyze the cost of making an argument. Few stop to consider what else must be true if the claim they are making is true. An argument does not exist in a vacuum, it is the product of a system. Claims regarding the Holy Scriptures are often made in this fashion, as though one can adopt a postmodern view of the Scriptures without any impact to the historical doctrines of inspiration and preservation. When one wades into the shallows of an ocean at low tide, he might find that all is right – the water is cool, the current easy, and he feels safe with his feet  planted in the soft sand. But every tide has an ebb and flow, and no ocean at low tide ever stays shallow for long. Lying beyond the safety of the shore is an undertow and the deep murky depths, and while one can see his feet in the shallows, with each ebb and flow the water darkens until he feels his feet leave that soft sand. 

Making an argument without counting the cost and considering the ends  is the same as venturing into the ocean at low tide and believing that it will stay safe and traversable. Underneath every shallow argument is a tide of consequences that will eventually rip the feet out from under those who make them. Such is the case when it comes to the textual discussion. Many arguments seem to work until the tide shifts and carries with it the children playing in the shallows. Nobody truly knows how deep the ocean is until they are separated from the shore. Under every argument is an ocean, and ignoring the tide for the sake of winning an argument only puts those carelessly playing in the sand in danger. And when the tide rises, it should surprise no one when yellow boats inscribed with the names “SS Barth” and “SS Bultmann” come to rescue the floundering children. 

Counting the Cost of Playing in the Low Tide

There are some important, practical realities to consider before saying “I want to know what Paul wrote!” The first question that one must ask is, “What method am I using to determine what Paul wrote?” One must take careful inventory of the state of the ground underfoot. Countless Christians have firmly planted their feet on the ground of modern textual scholarship without performing this analysis. They have not counted the cost. So when somebody standing on such ground rejects, let’s say, Mark 16:9-20, they do so without understanding why they are doing it, or where that rejection leads. 

So let’s examine the ground upon which this argument stands. The argument begins with manuscript evidence. Particularly, three manuscripts. Two of these manuscripts are said to have been created in the fourth century, and the other in the middle period. It then goes on to explain why these manuscripts are more valuable than the more than 1,000 manuscripts available that have the ending in it. It argues that these manuscripts are the best because they are the oldest surviving manuscripts. In the shallows of the low tide, this argument seems good enough, but what lies beneath the surface? 

First, like every argument for the modern critical text, it starts from an evidentiary standpoint. Even if the person making the argument has faith, the substance of the argument itself is one that is agnostic to the belief system of the one making it. That of course is the appeal. Yet, underneath this argument lies a deeper, more foundational starting point. In order to make this kind of argument, one first has to start with the assumption that an element outside of the Bible has the authority to authenticate this reading or that. The authority of the Bible rests on external validation. That is to say that the Bible has no authority in and of itself. It only becomes authoritative when an external element determines it to be so. Further down, this argument makes another assumption, that an empirical standard has the ability to make such a determination. This is not the case, however. Even the earliest manuscripts are still hundreds of years after the authorial event of the New Testament. And since the originals are lost, there is no way to actually prove that Mark 16:9-20 was or wasn’t there in the original manuscript according the modern critical standard. There is nothing to test the hypothesis against. 

So the standard that is being used is not capable of determining originality one way or another. At the deepest level of this argument lies the most fundamental starting point. If the longer ending of Mark is not original, then the people of God had the wrong Bible for over a thousand years, as almost every single manuscript containing Mark 16 has the passage, and the commentaries and quotations of the passage span from the Ancient fathers through the post Reformation period. That is to say, that the Bible was not preserved, and the people of God picked the wrong Bible, copied the wrong Bible, and used the wrong Bible. Thus, from this perspective, God may have inspired the original manuscripts, but the people of God never knew what exactly He inspired. One can assert originality from this perspective, but the argument from evidence is completely agnostic to religious views of inspiration and preservation. 

At its very core, modern textual criticism is completely agnostic, even hostile to opinions of faith. So when one makes a completely evidential claim to the authority of a given passage of Scripture, he is doing so from an agnostic starting point. The modern critical method does not care about religious feelings. When somebody adopts this starting point, they hand over the ability to make any sort of claim of divine authorship, because the Author has no authority within this system. This is what lies beyond the shallow tidewaters in the murky depths. All modern text-critical arguments begin with assuming that the Bible requires external validation and then adopts a method that cannot validate that argument in any meaningful way. Don’t believe me? Find a modern critical scholar who has “found the original”. As to whether or not the shifting modern text is speaking divinely to somebody, that remains in the mind of the subject, the person reading that text. The Bible is not divine because it is the Word of God, it becomes the Word of God by way of external examination or internal subjective experience. In and of itself, the Bible is simply a man made product that might be close to the original. 

The Shallows at High Tide

Isn’t there another option? Is it possible that God chose to preserve His Word imperfectly? Isn’t it possible that God never desired to give His Word to His people completely, or with absolute certainty? This is the argument made by people who are standing on the shore, watching the scholars play in the water. They are only comfortable making the arguments from evidence because they haven’t felt the crushing weight of the ocean bend them in half. They haven’t seen the tops of their feet disappear as the tide rolled in, or felt the darkness of the water reach up to them from the ocean floor. They haven’t considered the breadth of the deep. Or maybe they have, and haven’t realized they are drowning yet. They only know the shape of the ocean from afar, and that is why they are comfortable trusting the opinions of those in the water who say, “The ocean is deep, but not that deep. I wouldn’t go in if I were you. Just take my word for it.” The Christians on the warm sand see the crowd of heads nodding in agreement, and carry on as usual. Yet everybody bobbing in that water knows that there is a 300 foot gap between their science and the ocean floor, and the honest ones will say that they haven’t seen the bottom and never will. They look over to the yellow life boats called “SS Barth” and “SS Bultmann”  and “SS Vatican” and are grateful that those boats will save any Christian who decides to wander in as deep as they have. 

Count the Cost, Christian

The modern critical methodology cannot offer certainty, and it does not claim to offer certainty. It ends where it starts and starts where it ends. It can only do as much as its principles allow, and its principles cannot be applied to manuscripts it does not have. So does the modern critical text proponent have any right to claim whether or not the longer ending of Mark is original or an orthodox corruption? No, they don’t. That would require stretching the data farther than it is able to go on its own, which many do, betraying the ground they stand on. 

Count the cost, Christian. Does the Bible need to be authenticated externally, or is the Bible self-authenticating? If the Bible is not authentic in and of itself, are you willing to pay the price that comes with it? There is a reason the Reformers rallied around Sola Scriptura. They had paid the price of for too long. They had seen the logical end of a Bible imbued with papal authority. If you’re so committed to a Bible that requires external authentication, tell me, who would you have authenticate it? Are you willing to go down the road to Rome in the name of “Reformation”?

There is another path that avoids the water altogether. Ignore those who say that believing in God’s perfectly preserved Word is “Pious and sanctimonious”. That is not the voice of your shepherd. There is a better path, one that is well traveled, far away from the ocean of uncertainty. It does not start with evidence, but the fact that God has spoken. It does not rely on popular opinion and the machinations of scholars. The Word of God is an authority in itself. Hurry to the shore, out of the water, and onto the beaten path. The Word of God has not been lost. It does not need to be reconstructed. We know what Paul said because God preserved it. Receive the text that the fathers of your faith received and declare, “Thy word is truth”. 

Further Reading

Two Different Texts

The Young, Textless, and Reformed2 Comments

Introduction

In my articles, I frequently comment that the Modern Critical Text and the Traditional Text represent two different forms of the text of the New Testament. Some disagree, and use this website to demonstrate that they are not that different. The site is helpful as a comparative tool between the ESV and KJV, though it is not technically a comparison of the Critical Text and Traditional Text. First, it is a comparison of translations, which means it is not comparing Greek texts, but translations of those texts. So while it gives the reader a general idea of the differences, translational choices may obscure the actual differences between the two underlying texts. Second, it does not fully compare the Critical Text and the Traditional Text as it includes comparisons of passages in a way that downplays the differences. An example would be that the comparative tool includes the Pericope Adulterae in the Critical Text, as well as excludes the Longer Ending of Mark in both texts. This gives the average reader the impression that there are really no differences. A full comparison would include the verses in the TR up to verse 20 in Mark, and exclude John 7:53-8:11 from the Critical Text. I would expect that the tool would include these differences, as well as clarify that it is a comparison between two translations and not between the TR and CT. 

Are We Discussing Two Different Text Forms?

The exclusion of certain verses for comparison highlights an important fact: in order to say that the Modern Critical Text and Traditional Text are essentially the same, one must ignore or downplay the fact that they are not the same in certain important places. It is because of these important places that there is disagreement at all. If the differences were that minor, we would be having a conversation over translation methodology and that’s about as deep as it would go. That is not to say that somebody cannot be saved by reading a Bible translated from the Modern Critical Text, but a careful examination of the two underlying texts reveals that they are different. One can argue how significant these differences are, but the fact remains, there are differences which distinguish the two texts. 

That being said, from a certain perspective, modern Bibles and traditional Bibles are both Bibles. They both contain the 66 books of the Old and New Testament, and they mostly contain the same content. Thus the important conversation should be centered around two topics – the difference between underlying texts and translation methodology. In creating a comparison tool that is supposed to compare the TR and the CT, and then using translations of these texts as a point of comparison, the two categories of text and translation are blended. It is interesting to say that the two texts are essentially the same, because if that were the case I’m not sure anybody would be seriously having this discussion at all. It is because  these two texts are so different that there is even a conversation. The existence of these two opposing positions on the text of the New Testament refutes the idea that the texts are the same. 

I am not saying that sound doctrine cannot be taught from a modern Bible such as the ESV or NASB, just that the underlying texts of modern Bibles are different than that of traditional Bibles such as the KJV. Many sound Biblical teachers employ modern Bibles in their ministry and are not heretics. The problem is that the standard for judging a Bible has been set at “can sound doctrine be taught from it?” If this was the standard, we would have to throw out every Bible, because false doctrine is readily taught from all translations. This standard is somewhat arbitrary and obfuscates the point of the discussion entirely. An orthodox understanding of the Trinity can be brought out of the New World Translation (in fact this is a great apologetic tool), but that doesn’t mean that Protestants should read the New World Bible. Thus, the standard of, “Can all the doctrines be proved from this translation?” is not a meaningful standard for determining the quality of a text or translation. Thus the conversation is rightfully seated in discussing the authenticity of the underlying texts used for translation.      

Two Different Text Forms

If the Modern Critical Text and Traditional Text were really as similar as is claimed, then there would be no discussion at all. It would be as simple as answering the question, “which Bible is the best translation of the Greek?” It would simply be a conversation over vocabulary choices and whether or not formal (KJV, NASB, ESV) or dynamic (NIV) equivalence is better. In admitting that there is indeed a difference, the conversation of determining how significant those differences are can take place in a productive manner. That being said, what about these two texts makes them “two different text forms?”

The primary difference has to do with the actual Greek manuscripts, not a difference between the translational choices of the KJV and ESV. The Modern Critical Text in its popular printed form (NA/UBS) is based largely on Codex Vaticanus, a fourth century Uncial Manuscript which is stored at the Vatican. All of the major differences can generally be found within this manuscript or Codex Sinaiticus. These are the two manuscripts referred to in modern Bibles as “earliest and best”. The Vatican Codex was first made use of in text critical efforts when Desidarius Erasmus consulted it in his production of his Greek and Latin New Testaments. Erasmus rejected the readings, however, claiming that they seemed to be back translations of corrupted Latin versional readings rather than being copied from a Greek manuscript. Frederick Nolan, a 19th century theologian and linguist, writes this regarding Erasmus and the Vatican Codex.

“With respect to Manuscripts, it is indisputable that he [Erasmus] was acquainted with every variety which is known to us; having distributed them into two principal classes, one of which corresponds with the Complutensian edition, the other with the Vatican manuscript. And he has specified the positive grounds on which he received the one and rejected the other” (Nolan, Frederick.  An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, or Received Text of the New Testament. 413, 414). 

Nolan also says regarding the Vatican Codex, ““The affinity existing between the Vatican manuscript and the Vulgate is so striking, as to have induced Dr. Bentley and M. Westein to class them together” (Ibid. 61).  

The first major use of this manuscript in the modern period was by Westcott and Hort, who primarily employed Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as a base text to produce their Greek New Testament in 1881. This is the text that the American Standard Version was translated from, which eventually gave birth to the Revised Standard Version and finally the English Standard Version. These manuscripts would eventually be classified as Alexandrian, based on the region in Egypt where they are thought to have originated (though recent scholarship has revisited this idea). Out of the close to 6,000 manuscripts available today, these Alexandrian manuscripts represent less than fifty. The vast majority of manuscripts represent a different text form, traditionally called the Byzantine Text Platform. The Textus Receptus follows the Byzantine text more closely than the Alexandrian text. So while one might make a case that the Alexandrian and Byzantine Texts are similar enough to both be considered a form of the Bible, these texts are distinct enough to be identified as separate classes of manuscripts, and thus different forms of Bibles. 

Even if one were to make a case that the Alexandrian Texts and Byzantine Texts were “close enough”, two major points of comparison stands between them that sets them apart entirely – the Longer Ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20) and The Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53-8:11). That is a total of 23 verses that are simply missing from the Alexandrian texts in two places that are present in the Byzantine texts. Even if one believes the modern claim that the Alexandrian texts are “earliest and best”, it does not follow to say that these are the same text form. These texts also exclude John 5:4, Romans 16:24, and others. Total, there are enough texts different to exceed the number of verses in the entire book of Jude. If these are so similar, I do not see a reason that the Alexandrian texts have been classed in a different category than the majority of manuscripts. 

Conclusion

The goal of this article is to support the claim that the Modern Critical Text and the Traditional Text are indeed two forms of the New Testament. They may both be considered a New Testament, but they certainly are not the same New Testament. The Modern Critical Text does not include an appearance account in all four Gospels, and is missing a number of verses when compared to the majority of manuscripts. Additionally, the Modern Critical Text represents a handful of manuscripts which were produced around the third and fourth centuries, and do not appear to be copied after that point in time. 

There are two major schools of thought as to what these Alexandrian Texts are to the greater manuscript tradition. In the Modern Critical school of thought, they are the earliest texts that the rest of the manuscripts evolved from. In the Confessional Text school of thought, they are an aberrant text stream that was not copied past the fourth century. These two forms may have spawned at the beginning of the same river, but by the third and fourth century they split and headed in different directions. The Alexandrian split seems to have met its end shortly after that split, if the thousands of manuscripts available today are any indication. That is why focusing on translational differences between the KJV and ESV is not the primary concern for those who reject modern Bibles. If the Alexandrian form of the text is truly an aberrant stream, then the Modern Critical Text is not truly the “earliest and best”, it is a strange blip which disappeared as quickly as it appeared. Hopefully this sheds light on why those in the Confessional Text camp do not read modern Bibles. Translation methodology certainly has a role in the discussion, but a primary reason for siding with traditional Bibles has to do with the rejection of the texts modern Bibles use in translation. 

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.

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.