Tag: TR

The Most Dangerous View of the Holy Scriptures

The Young, Textless, and Reformed3 Comments

Introduction

Quite often in the textual discussion, it is boldly proclaimed that “our earliest and best manuscripts” are Alexandrian. Yet, this statement introduces confusion at the start. It introduces confusion due to the fact that there are sound objections as to whether it is even appropriate to use such a term as “Alexandrian” when describing the “earliest and best manuscripts”, as though they were a text family or text type. This is because there doesn’t seem to be an “Alexandrian” text type, only a handful of manuscripts that have historically been called Alexandrian. This is due to the more precise methods being employed, which allow quantitative analysis to be done in the variant units of these manuscripts. The result of this analysis has demonstrated that the manuscripts called Alexandrian do not meet the threshold of agreement to be considered a textual family. Tommy Wasserman explains this shift in thought. 

“Although the theory of text types still prevails in current text-critical practice, some scholars have recently called to abandon the concept altogether in light of new computer-assisted methods for determining manuscript relationships in a more exact way. To be sure, there is already a consensus that the various geographic locations traditionally assigned to the text types are incorrect and misleading” (Wasserman, http://bibleodyssey.org/en/places/related-articles/alexandrian-text). 

Thus, the only place the name “Alexandrian” might occupy in this discussion is one of historical significance or possibly to serve in identifying the handful of manuscripts that bear the markers of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, which disagree heavily among themselves, as the Munster Method has demonstrated (65% agreement between 01 and 03  in the places examined in the gospels/26.4% to the Majority text http://intf.uni-muenster.de/TT_PP/Cluster4.php). So in using the terminology of “Alexandrian”, one is already introducing confusion into the conversation that represents an era of textual scholarship that is on its way out. Regardless of whether or not it is appropriate to use the term “Alexandrian”, it may be granted that it is a helpful descriptor for the sake of discussion, since the modern critical text in the most current UBS/NA platform generally agrees with it in at least two of these manuscripts (03 at 87.9% and 01 at 84.9%) in the places examined (See Gurry & Wasserman, 46). 

The bottom line is this – the new methods that are currently being employed (CBGM/Munster Method) are still ongoing, and will be ongoing until at least 2032. So any arguments made on behalf of the critical text are liable to shift as the effort continues and new data comes to light. As a result of this developing effort, any attempt to defend such texts is operating from an incomplete data set, based on the methods that are being defended. Given that the general instability of the modern critical text is granted, at least until the Editio critica maior (ECM) is completed, know that the conversation itself is likely to change over the next 12 years. In the meantime, it seems that the most productive conversation to have is that which discusses the validity of the method itself, since the dataset is admittedly incomplete.

Is the Munster Method Able to Demonstrate the Claim that the “Alexandrian” Manuscripts Are Earliest and Best?

The answer is no. The reason I say this is due to the method being employed. I have worked as an IT professional for 8 years, specifically in data analysis and database development, which gives me a unique perspective on the CBGM. An examination of the Munster Method (CBGM) will show that the method is insufficient to arrive at any conclusion on which text is earliest. While the method itself is actually quite brilliant , its limitations prevent it from providing any sort of absolute conclusion on which text is earliest, or original, or best. There are several flaws that should be examined, if those that support the current effort want to properly understand the method they are defending. 

  1. In its current form, it does not factor in versional or patristic data (or texts as they have been preserved in artwork for that matter)
  2. It can only perform analysis on the manuscripts that are extant, or surviving (so the thousands of manuscripts destroyed in the Diocletian persecution, or WWI and WWII can never be examined, for example)    
  3. The method is still vulnerable to the opinions and theories of men, which may or may not be faithful to the Word of God

So the weaknesses of the method are threefold – it does not account for all the data currently available, and it will never have the whole dataset. Even when the work is finished, the analysis will still need to be interpreted by fallible scholars. It’s biggest flaw, however, is that the analysis is being performed on a fraction of the dataset. Not only are defenders of the modern critical text defending an incomplete dataset, as the work is still ongoing, the end product of the work itself is operating from an incomplete dataset. So to defend this method is to defend the conclusions of men on the analysis of an incomplete dataset of an incomplete dataset. The scope of the conclusions this method will produce will be limited to the manuscripts that we have today. And since there is an overwhelming bias in the scholarly world on one subset of those manuscripts, it is more than likely that the conclusions drawn on the analysis will look very similar, if not the same, as the conclusions drawn by the previous era of textual scholarship (represented by Metzger and Hort). And even if these biases are crushed by the data analysis, the conclusions will be admittedly incomplete because the data is incomplete. Further, quantitative analysis will never be free of the biases of those who handle the data. Dr. Peter Gurry comments on one weakness in the method in his book A New Approach to Textual Criticism. 

“The significance of the selectivity of our evidence means that our textual flow diagrams and the global stemma do not give us a picture of exactly what happened” (113). 

Further, the method itself is not immune to error. Dr. Gurry comments that, “There are still cases where contamination can go undetected in the CBGM, with the result that proper ancestor-descendant relationships are inverted” (115). That is to say, that after all the computer analysis is done, the scholars making textual decisions can still make incorrect conclusions on which text is earliest, selecting a later reading as earliest. In the current iteration of the Munster Method, there are already many places where, rather than selecting a potentially incorrect reading, the text is marked to indicate that the evidence is equally strong for two readings. These places are indicated by a diamond in the apparatus of the current edition of the Nestle-Aland text produced in 2012. There are 19 of these in 1 and 2 Peter alone (See NA28). That is 19 places in just two books of the Bible where the Munster Method has not produced a definitive conclusion on the data. That means that even when the work is complete, there will be thousands of different conclusions drawn on which texts should be taken in a multitude of places. This is already the case in the modern camp without application of the CBGM, a great example is Luke 23:34, where certain defenders of the modern critical text have arrived at alternative conclusions on the originality of this verse.   

There is one vitally important observation that must be noted when it comes to the current effort of textual scholarship. The current text-critical effort, while the most sophisticated to date, is incapable of determining the earliest reading due to the limitations of the data and also in the methodology. A definitive analysis simply cannot be performed on an incomplete dataset. And even if the dataset was complete, no dataset is immune to the opinions of flawed men and women.  

An Additional Problem Facing the Munster Method

There is one more glaring issue that the Munster Method cannot resolve. There is no way to demonstrate that the oldest surviving manuscripts represent the general form of the text during the time period they are alleged to have been created (3rd – 4th century). An important component of quantitative analysis is securing a data set that is generally representative of the whole population of data. This may be fine in statistical analysis on a general population, but the precision of the effort at hand is not aiming at a generic form of precision, because the Word of God is being discussed, which is said to be perfectly preserved by God. That means that the sample of data being analyzed must be representative of the whole. The reality is, that the modern method is really doing an analysis on the earliest manuscripts, which do not represent the whole, against the whole of the dataset.

It is generally accepted among modern scholarship that the Alexandrian manuscripts represent the text form that the whole church used in the third and fourth century. This is made evident when people say things like, “The church wasn’t even aware of this text until the 1500’s!” or “This is the text they had at Nicea!” Yet such claims are woefully lacking any sort of proof, and in fact, the opposite can be demonstrated to be true. If it can be demonstrated that the dataset is inadequate as it pertains to the whole of the manuscript tradition, or that the dataset is incomplete, then the conclusions drawn from the analysis can never be said to be absolutely conclusive. There are two points I will examine to demonstrate the inadequacy of the dataset and methodology of the CBGM, which disallows it from being a final authority in its application to the original form of the New Testament.

First, I will examine the claim that the manuscripts generally known as Alexandrian were the only texts available to the church during the third and fourth centuries. This is a premise that must be proved in order to demonstrate that the conclusions of the CBGM represent the original text of the New Testament. In order to make such a claim, one has to adopt the narrative that the later manuscripts which are represented in the Byzantine tradition were a development, an evolution, of the New Testament text. The later manuscripts which became the majority were the product of scribal mischief and the revisionist meddling of the orthodox church, and not a separate tradition that goes back to the time of the Apostles. This narrative requires the admission that the Alexandrian texts evolved so heavily that by the Middle period, the Alexandrian text had transformed into an entirely different Bible, with a number of smoothed out readings and even additions of entire passages and verses into the text which were received by the church as canonical! Since this cannot be supported by any real understanding of preservation, the claim has to be made that the true text evolved and the original remains somewhere in the texts that existed prior to the scandalous revision effort of Christians throughout the ages. This is why there is such a fascination surrounding the Alexandrian texts, and a determination by some to “prove” them to be original (which is impossible, as I have discussed).

That being said, can it be demonstrated that these Alexandrian manuscripts were the only texts available to the church during the time of Nicea? The simple answer is no, and the evidence clearly shows that this is not the case at all. First, the number of examples of patristic quotations of Byzantine readings demonstrate the existence of other forms of the text of the New Testament which were contemporary to the Alexandrian manuscripts. One can point to Origen as the champion of the Alexandrian text, but Origen wasn’t exactly a bastion of orthodoxy, and I would hesitate to draw any conclusions other than the fact that after him, the church essentially woke up and found itself entirely Arian or some other form of heterodoxy as it pertained to Christ and the Trinity. Second, the existence of Byzantine readings in the papyri demonstrate the existence of other forms of the text of the New Testament which were contemporary to the Alexandrian manuscripts. Finally, Codex Vaticanus, one of the chief exemplars of the Alexandrian texts, is proof that other forms of the text existed at the time of their creation. This is chiefly demonstrated in the fact that there is a space the size of 11 verses at the end of Mark where a text should be. This space completely interrupts the otherwise uniform format of the codex which indicates that the scribes were aware that the Gospel of Mark did not end at, “And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.” They were either instructed to exclude the text, or did not have a better copy as an exemplar which included the text. In any case, they were certainly aware of other manuscripts that had the verses in question, which points to the existence of other manuscripts contemporary to Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Some reject this analysis of the blank space at the end of Mark as it applies to Sinaiticus (Which also has a blank space), but offer additional reasons why this is the case nonetheless, see this article for more. James Snapp notes that “the existence of P45 and the Old Latin version(s), and the non-Alexandrian character of early patristic quotations, supports the idea that the Alexandrian Text had competition, even in Egypt.” Therefore it is absurd to claim that every manuscript circulating at the time looked the same as these two exemplars, especially considering the evidence that other text forms certainly existed.

Second, I will examine the claim that the Alexandrian manuscripts represent the earliest form of the text of the New Testament. It can easily be demonstrated that these manuscripts do not represent all of their contemporary manuscripts, but that is irrelevant if they truly are the earliest. Yet the current methodology has absolutely no right to claim that it is capable of proving such an assertion. Since the dataset does not include the other manuscripts that clearly existed alongside the Alexandrian manuscripts, one simply cannot draw any conclusions regarding the supremacy of those texts. One must jump from the espoused method to conjecture and storytelling to do so. Those defending the modern text often boldly claim that fires, persecution, and war destroyed a great deal of manuscripts. That is exactly true, and needs to be considered when making claims regarding the manuscripts that survived, and clearly were not copied any further. One has to seriously ponder why, in the midst of the mass destruction of Bibles, the Alexandrian manuscripts were considered so unimportant that they weren’t used in the propagation of the New Testament, despite the clear need for such an effort. Further, these manuscripts are so heavily corrected by various scribes it is clear that they weren’t considered authentic in any meaningful way. 

Even if the Alexandrian manuscripts represent the “earliest and best”, there is absolutely no way of determining this to be true due to the simple fact that the dataset from that time period is so sparse. In fact, the dataset from this period only represents a text form that is aberrant, quantitatively speaking. It is evident that other forms of the text existed, and despite the fact that they no longer are surviving, the form of those texts survive in the manuscript tradition as a whole. The fact remains, there are no contemporary data points to even compare the Alexandrian manuscripts against to demonstrate this to be true. Further, there are not enough second century data points to compare the third and fourth century manuscripts against to demonstrate that the Alexandrian manuscripts represent any manuscript earlier than when they were created. It is just as likely, if not more likely, that these manuscripts were created as an anomaly in the manuscript tradition. The fact remains that the current methods simply are not sufficient to operate on data that isn’t available.  This relegates any form of analysis to the realm of story telling, which exists in the theories of modern scholars (expansion of piety, scribal smoothing, etc.) 

Conclusion

Regardless of which side one takes in the textual discussion, the fact remains that the critiques of the modern methodology as it exists in the CBGM are extremely valid. The method is primarily empirical in its form, and empirical analysis is ultimately limited by the data available. Since the data that is available is not complete outside of a massive 1st and 2nd century manuscript find, the method itself will forever be insufficient to provide a complete analysis. The product of the CBGM can never be applied honestly to the whole of the manuscript tradition. Even if we find 2,000 2nd century manuscripts, there will still be no way of validating that those manuscripts represent all of the text forms that existed during that time . As a result, the end product will simply provide an analysis of an incomplete dataset. It should not surprise anybody when the conclusions drawn from this dataset in 2032 simply look like the conclusions drawn by the textual scholarship of the past 200 years. This being the case, the conversation will be forced into the theological realm. If the modern methods cannot prove any one text to be authorial or original, those who wish to adhere to that text will ultimately be forced to make an argument from faith. This is already being done by those who downplay the significance of the 200 year gap in the manuscript tradition from the first to third centuries and say that the initial text is synonymous with the original text. 

The fact remains that ultimately those who believe the Holy Scriptures to be the divinely inspired word of God will still have to make an argument from faith at the end of the process. Based on the limitations of the Munster Method (CBGM), I don’t see any reason for resting my faith on an analysis of an incomplete dataset which is more than likely going to lean on the side of secular scholarship when it is all said and done. This is potentially the most dangerous position on the text of Scripture ever presented in the history of the world. This position is so dangerous because it says that God has preserved His Word in the manuscripts, but the method being used cannot ever determine which words He preserved.

The analysis performed on an incomplete dataset will be hailed as the authentic word(s) of God, and the conclusions of scholars will rule over the people of God. It is possible that there will be no room for other opinions in the debate, because the debate will be “settled”. And the settled debate will arrive at the conclusion of, “well, we did our best with what we have but we are still unsure what the original text said, based on our methods”. This effectively means that one can believe that God has preserved His Word, and at the same time not have any idea what Word He preserved. The adoption of such conclusions will inevitably result in the most prolific apostasy the church has ever seen. This is why it is so important for Christians to return to the old paths of the Reformation and post-Reformation, which affirmed the Scriptural truth that the Word of God is αυτοπιστος, self-authenticating. It is dishonest to say that the Reformed doctrine of preservation is “dangerous” without any evidence of this, especially considering the modern method is demonstrably harmful.  

Is the Confessional Text Position Mythical, Anachronistic, Anti-Reformed, and Ahistoric?

The Young, Textless, and Reformed5 Comments

Introduction

A major problem with the textual discussion as it pertains to which Greek and Hebrew text Reformed Christians accept as authentic, is that many people who have strong opinions regarding the matter have not consulted Reformed sources regarding the text. This extends beyond the textual issue with modern “Reformed” Christians who claim the title but are not confessional, do not observe the Sabbath, make a two-fold distinction of the law, adopt strange interpretations of Romans 7, consider internet forums equivalent with the pulpit, and so on. This problem stems from the understanding that Reformed Christianity simply means Calvinism. Calvinism is one component of Reformed faith, but it is only one part of it. It is more appropriate to say that the defining distinctive of Reformed Theology is Covenant Theology and confessionalism, which helps form a robust understanding of the Holy Scriptures, the Church and the means of grace, the role of ministers, experiential preaching, and eschatology. 

A modern trend that extends into every area of Theology is the practice of defining Reformed Christianity however one likes, without consulting the source literature of Reformed Theologians. I do not say this to be a “gatekeeper” of who is and isn’t Reformed, but to simply point out that Reformed faith and practice points back to the 16th and 17th centuries, and that a basic definition for the term “Reformed” is easily attainable. Modern interpretations of Reformed Christianity, which are prolific, completely neglect the importance of confessionalism and the Theology of those who framed the confessions (WCF, LBCF, Savoy, Triple Knowledge). That is why the discussion of baptism and ecclesiology is so heated, as it pertains directly to the development of the particular baptists and independents over and against the common view of the Reformed at the time. Whether or not Reformed Presbyterians wish to acknowledge the Reformed title of the independents and particular Baptists is a conversation for another time. As it relates to the textual discussion, important Reformed sources include John Owen, Francis Turretin, John Calvin, John Gill, RL Dabney, Thomas Watson, Richard Capel, and the rest of the English Puritans. In this article, I will be handling the claim that the Confessional Text position is mythical, Anachronistic, Not Reformed, and Ahistoric by interacting with Francis Turretin. 

Mythical, Anachronistic, Not Reformed, and Ahistoric? 

So when one claims that the Confessional Text position is mythical, anachronistic, not Reformed, and ahistoric, it stands to reason that these claims should be inspected. There are many claims made by those who adhere to the Modern Critical Text that simply do not comport with reality when it comes to Reformation and Post-Reformation theology. For example, the claim made by apologist James White that the Confessional Text position does not believe in variants. Yet this is a claim made by nobody within the Confessional Text camp. Francis Turretin says this regarding the difference between a “corruption” and a variant.

“A corruption differs from a variant reading. We acknowledge that many variant readings occur both in the Old and New Testaments arising from a comparison of different manuscripts, but we deny corruption (at least corruption that is universal)…It is quite a different thing to speak of their success or of entire universal corruption. This we deny, both on account of the providence of God, who would not permit them to carry out their intention, and on account of the diligence of the orthodox fathers, who having in their possession various manuscripts preserved them free from corruptions” (Turretin, Vol. I, 111,112).

So this claim, which is agreed upon by all of the Reformed during the post-Reformation, is that while “corruption” as it is defined by modern scholars existed, yet the corruptions were not so total that they could not be corrected by simple manuscript comparison (73). So when asked to “prove” that this was the perspective of the Reformed, one simply needs to point to the Reformed Theologians of the time to demonstrate that this was the common opinion held by most, if not all of those within the realm of orthodoxy. It is rather ignorant to claim that those in the Confessional Text camp do not believe in variants, when the source literature for the position readily interacts with these variants. It is not that we do not believe in variants, we simply disagree as to which readings should be considered authentic. For example, Turretin comments on the Reformed opinion of the three most discussed variants today. 

“There is no truth in the assertion that the Hebrew edition of the Old Testament and the Greek edition of the New Testament are said to be mutilated; nor can the arguments used by our opponents prove it. Not the history of the adulteress (Jn. 8:1-11), for although it is lacking in the Syriac version, it is found in all the Greek manuscripts. Not 1 Jn. 5:7, for although some formerly called it into question and heretics now do, yet all the Greek copies have it, as Sixtus Senesis acknowledges: “they have been the words of never-doubted truth, and contained in all the Greek copies from the very times of the apostles”. Not Mk. 16 which may have been wanting in several copies in the time of Jerome (as he asserts); but now it occurs in all, even in the Syriac version, and is clearly necessary to complete the history of the resurrection of Christ” (115). 

While it is plainly obvious that Turretin accepted these readings as authentic (which “proves” that this was the common opinion), a more interesting fact noted by Turretin is that these readings were present in “all the Greek manuscripts”. Now we know that there were certainly manuscripts that did not have these readings, so what did Turretin mean by this? When the Reformed referred to the manuscripts and editions, they were discussing the authentic copies, which is a distinction that has been lost in modern textual scholarship. Turretin comments on this distinction,

“…the autographs and also the accurate and faithful copies may be the standard of all other copies of the same writing and of its translations. If anything is found in them different from the authentic writings… it is unworthy of the name authentic and should be discarded as spurious and adulterated, the discordance itself being a sufficient reason for its rejection” (113).

This commentary demonstrates that the Reformed view rejected manuscripts bearing the qualities of that of Codex Vaticanus, for example. Turretin also reveals something that is often overlooked by those in the modern critical text camp – that the authentic copies were those that contained the pericope adulterae (John 7:53-8:11), the comma johanneum (1 John 5:7), and the longer ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20). A brief glance at Calvin’s commentary will show that he too adopted these readings. In fact, if one were to examine the writings and commentary of John Gill, RL Dabney, Matthew Henry, and any of the Reformed for that matter, one would find that they too all adopted these readings! So when the claim is made that the Greek Text of the Reformation was not accepted by anybody, one has to ask, “Can you give an example of somebody within the Reformed tradition who didn’t accept these readings by the end of the 16th century?”    

The claim that the Reformation Text was received is not made because the 1633 Elzevir edition says, “This is the text received by all” . It is made because it was the text received by all, in the general sense of the word. The claim is overwhelmingly shown to be true by the wealth of commentaries, theological works, and of course the Bibles produced during that era that all accept the form of the text as it exists in the Traditional Text. The statement in the introduction to the Scrivener TR and 1633 Elzevir TR is simply is commenting on the reality that there was little dispute as to what the authentic Scriptures were heading out of the Reformation period by the Orthodox. 

Mythical, Anachronistic, Not Reformed, and Ahistoric

After interacting with the Theologians of the Reformation and post-Reformation period such as James Usher, Thomas Watson, John Calvin, Matthew Henry, RL Dabney, John Gill, Francis Turretin, and literally anybody else, it is astounding that such claims can be made that this perspective of Scripture is somehow not Reformed, or mythical, or anachronistic, or ahistoric. This claim is often made by severing the opinions of Stephanus and Beza from the rest of the Reformers, as though they were the “church”. Turretin clears away this confusion when he says, 

“The question is not Are the sources so pure that no fault has crept into the many sacred manuscripts, either through the waste of time, the carelessness of copyists or the malice of the Jews or of heretics? For this is acknowledged on both sides and the various readings which Beza and Robert Stephanus have carefully observed in the Greek ( and the Jews in the Hebrew) clearly prove it. Rather the question is have the original texts (or the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts) been so corrupted either by copyists through carelessness (or by the Jews and heretics through malice) that they can no longer be regarded as the judge of controversies and the rule to which all the versions must be applied? The papists affirm, we deny it” (106).  

The fact that those who attack the Reformation Text by way of Erasmus is quite curious indeed, considering this quotation by Turretin, who does not even mention him. Yet the opinion of the Reformed was that the work of Stephanus and Beza was successful, and the theology built upon their work all throughout the post-Reformation clearly demonstrates that even if Erasmus was an anti-trinitarian, humanist-papist, the Reformed did not consider his blunders or work the final authority or problematic. In other words, Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza do not comprise the “church” that is so commonly referred to by the Confessional Text camp – the commentators, theologians, pastors, and translations which everybody read do. When it is said that the “church” received the text of the Reformation, it is not meant that a council was held, or the pope declared, but rather that the text was overwhelmingly adopted by all, as evidenced in quite literally all of the Reformed theological works and commentaries produced in the post-Reformation, not to mention the obvious reality that this was the text used and defended by the framers of the 17th century confessions. Hence the name, Confessional Text. 

So it does not hold that this view is mythical, anachronistic, not Reformed, or ahistoric. In fact, an interaction with the Theological works of the Reformation and Post-Reformation demonstrate this to be exactly the opposite of that. The claim that the Reformers would adopt the modern critical perspective is curious, considering they heavily critiqued the opponents who rejected the variants still in question today, and the manuscripts that contain them. Despite the common misconception that this is a view that requires putting one’s head in the sand to variants, they did deal with the evidence. The claim made by those in the Confessional Text camp is not to defend the TR blindly, as is often claimed. We do not start with the TR, we start with the reality that God has spoken (Deus dixit). We stand on the historical understanding of the Holy Scriptures, that it was received and not created or reconstructed. There is not a methodology to “reproduce” the TR because God did not fail in preserving His Bible. The assumption in the demand for the Confessional Text advocates to “produce a methodology” assumes the total corruption of the Scriptures in its premise. Let me explain. 

  1. There is no final form of the modern critical text, it is an ongoing, incomplete process 
  2. There is wide disagreement within the modern critical text as to which variants be accepted or rejected, which further demonstrates the instability of such a text
  3. This being the case, the current effort of reconstructing the initial text has not been completed yet (even if some believe it can be completed)
  4. Considering the reality that the effort of constructing the modern critical text is ongoing, the plain reality is that they admit we live in a time where the final text has not been reconstructed as of the time of writing this article
  5. Thus, in demanding a methodology to reproduce the TR, it assumes that there is no final form of the text, and are thus demanding that we step onto the epistemological starting point assumed by modern textual scholarship to “prove” that our text can be reconstructed

So the demand in itself misunderstands the Confessional Text position in its premise. In adopting the assumption of the question, we would have to adopt the view that there is no final form of the text, which is why it is a strange challenge that no one need answer, as we believe that God has already delivered His Word in every age, which is, as I’ve demonstrated, the view of the Reformed in history. The modern critical text comports with the modern views of general and partial preservation, but it does not comport with the confessional language of “pure in all ages” (WCF 1.8). The effort of the textual scholarship done during the Reformation does not stand against this position, as it is the position of those writing during the time of that textual effort. It is in fact anachronistic to claim that the Reformers believed in a text that needed to be reconstructed, as that was a view held by none of the Reformed at the time that the Reformation era text was being collated and edited. If it is the case that any of the Reformed held to the modern view of the text, I have yet to see it demonstrated by anybody outside of Jan Krans’ strange attempt to say that Erasmus was operating from the modern perspective similar to Metzger. 

Conclusion

The beautiful reality of adhering to the Confessional Text position is that it is not new in the slightest. While the name is new, as some have needlessly pointed out, the underlying position is not. The need for the new name arose only because it is the most descriptive of the position over and against the modern perspective. It is entirely appropriate for Reformed men and women to adhere to this understanding of the text of the Holy Scriptures, as it aligns with the theology of the Reformers and post-Reformation divines. It specifically aligns with the Westminster Confession of Faith, as demonstrated by the various theological writings of those who were present at the Westminster Assembly, who penned chapter one and paragraph eight of the confession. For an in depth analysis of the interpretation of this passage, see Garnet Howard Milne’s work, “Has the Bible Been Kept Pure?”. For overwhelming support that this position is not anachronistic, mythical, ahistoric, and not Reformed, literally pick up any of the Reformation and post-Reformation writings on the topic. I recommend James Usher, Thomas Watson, Francis Turretin, John Calvin, John Gill, and RL Dabney. It is strange and unusual that one would claim that this view is not Reformed, as it is the literal theology and text of the Reformers and post-Reformers, whose tradition we look back to for our understanding of Reformed Theology. 

An honest handling of the topic would include a recognition that the confession was reinterpreted by A.A. Hodge and B.B. Warfield, which led to the development of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. It is completely fine if a believer does not subscribe to a confession, or the confessional view of the Scriptures because being Reformed does not determine one’s salvation, however the distinction between the views is necessary. One might even disagree with the Reformers on their perspective, which again, is fine. It is completely bizarre however, when the claim is made that this was not the view of the Reformers, or that this view is not Reformed. If one wants to say that this is an area that the Reformed needed to grow out of, that is fine, but it is necessary to accept that it is in fact a position that modern Reformed Christians have grown out of. In order to fairly represent the discussion, it is important to admit that the modern doctrine of the Holy Scriptures has evolved from the time of the Post-Reformation, and that there are Reformed believers who do not think this evolution was necessary, myself being one of them. Those like me, who do not wish to adopt the modern view, adhere to the view of the framers of the Confession and their contemporaries, which is why the name “Confessional Text” is entirely appropriate and accurately describes the position. 

The Divine Original and the Initial Text

The Young, Textless, and Reformed5 Comments

“At the most demanding level, I believe that we still await a truly critical edition of the New Testament…Each new discovery made the old critical apparatuses ever more out of date, and, even more worryingly, cast doubt on the quality of existing critical texts…The Nestle-Aland edition is a fine tool, and one could not imagine being without it. But it is a stopgap, awaiting the completion of the Editio critica maior… We begin to see that, great as the achievements of previous editors were, they were working with partial and arbitrarily selected materials which led to theories of the text and its history which were themselves partial, and thus almost bound to be mistaken. ” – David C. Parker, Textual Scholarship and the Making of the New Testament, 105-114

Introduction

The current and most advanced effort of New Testament textual scholarship is in progress as I write this article. By New Testament textual scholarship I mean what is commonly referred to as “Textual Criticism”, though the latter name may be inadequate to describe the breadth of the ongoing effort. In order to understand what the “modern critical text” is, it is important to understand that the various printed editions (NA28, UBS5, THGNT, etc.) of the Greek New Testament are just one facet of the work. There is no one “modern critical text”. The effort of textual scholars creating editions of the Greek New Testament is just the practical implementation of that work. So when I speak of “Modern Textual Criticism” on this blog, I am not exclusively referring to the work of creating printed editions of the Greek New Testament, but rather the larger effort as a whole. Within the umbrella of New Testament Scholarship, there is a wide array of projects being pursued and the creation of printed Greek texts just a part of that work. Simply reducing the conversation to printed editions when discussing modern textual scholarship neglects those researching New Testament texts in art, history, commentaries, and of course, the major effort of Modern Textual Scholarship – the Editio critica maior. 

The reason I say that the effort of those producing editions of the Greek New Testament is just a part of the work is not to be dismissive. Rather, it is an attempt to 1) accurately describe the scope of the work and 2) highlight the importance of the work that will impact all future printed editions of the Greek New Testament. Recently, I have noticed that there is a discussion over what it means for textual scholars to searching for the original. In this article, I will briefly address what is called the Editio critica maior as well as comment on the various uses of the word “original” as it pertains to the New Testament text.

The ECM and the Initial Text

The Editio critica maior (ECM) is as DC Parker describes it, “The narrative of the history of the [New Testament] text” (Parker, 128). In a more tangible sense, it is the largest collection of New Testament data ever compiled (and is still being created). It contains a critical text, a critical apparatus, and provides the editor’s justification for the methodology and conclusions (Parker, 112). It is being used in its incomplete form now in printed editions of the Greek New Testament, and will most likely be the standard by the time it is completed around 2032. Despite the tremendous advance in New Testament data the ECM will provide, it is still not a definitive text, it is a data set that represents the available data which does not go back to the time of the Apostles. Parker makes it clear that, “A critical edition is not a reconstruction of an authorial text. It is a reconstruction of the oldest recoverable text, the Initial Text” (122). Parker is not alone in his conclusions regarding the current effort of textual scholarship, though some do stand in opposition to him. One of the most controversial claims that I have made is that “No scholar is trying to find the original”, and Dr. Peter Gurry has taken me to task to clarify what I mean by that. In all fairness, it is probably not fair to make such a sweeping statement without clarification. Dr. Gurry has been quite charitable and pointed me to many valuable resources, which I hope to use accurately. There are in fact many scholars who believe that the initial text might as well be the authorial text, though they do seem to be in the minority depending on how “initial text” is defined.

Dr. Gurry argues that this convolution is due to widespread disagreement on the use of the term “initial text”, or even its misuse. Many mean by “initial text” the earliest text available in the extant manuscript tradition, which is how Parker employs the term. Yet its original definition by Gerd Mink goes beyond how it is commonly employed. Mink defined the term to refer to the hypothetical archetype of the earliest extant manuscript tradition. This effectively puts the initial text earlier in the transmission history than the oldest surviving manuscripts. With this definition, it is more reasonable to believe that the initial text and the authorial text are much closer to each other than the authorial text is to let’s say, Vaticanus. In this regard, Mink and Parker stand in opposition to one another. 

Based on the limitations of such methods employed by CBGM, I agree with Parker’s conclusions on the practical understanding of the initial text over the idealistic definition offered originally by Mink. While Mink’s assumption is that the initial text is a hypothesis for the authorial text, there does not seem to be a good reason for believing this with a high degree of certainty. That is the point of contention between myself and Dr. Gurry – I believe the Scriptures set forth the standard of certainty (Mat. 5:28;24:35), and that anything less than certain leads to having no text at all. And since the ECM itself declares that, “Apart from the fact that a reconstruction cannot achieve the same degree of certainty at each variant passage, this does not mean that a reconstruction of the authorial text is possible in each case. Moreover, it does mean that any reconstructed text can claim to be absolutely identical with the authorial text” (30), there will always be somewhat of a gray area between the authorial text and the initial text – even if that gray area is believed to be inconsequential by some. 

In any case, it is in fact a matter of nuance as to whether or not textual scholars are trying to find the authorial or original text. If by “original” it is meant the hypothetical initial text, than I am defining “original” differently and some textual scholars are indeed trying to find the “original” as they define it. If by initial text it is meant the “earliest form of the extant text” than the original is not being discussed at all. In both definitions of the initial text, the way “original” is being defined is different than is being discussed on this forum. By original I mean “the text that the Holy Spirit inspired”, down to the word, as defined by the Reformation and Post Reformation divines. The Puritan John Owen says this, “the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament [which] were immediately and entirely given out by God himself … [are] by his good and merciful providential dispensation … preserved unto us entire in the original languages.” (Works, 16, pp.351,352)

So it seems that it is a matter of disagreement in how “original” is being defined. In the sense that the theological definition of the word “original” is employed, there are no scholars trying to find the original. When it is framed in this light, the discussion becomes a theological and exegetical discussion as to what the Scriptures say about the doctrine of inspiration and preservation and what “original” means, not a discussion of how the evidence is interpreted. A major focus of this blog is to demonstrate that the discussion of Textual Scholarship should be framed from a theological starting point, not a historical critical one. I have already received the critique by some that since I do not have a PhD in the area of textual scholarship, I do not have the right to speak on this issue. While I understand the nature of this argument, my understanding of the Scriptures is that they are sufficient to speak on matters of faith and practice (2 Tim. 3:16). This is most certainly one of those areas, though I can understand if somebody wishes to exit out of the article at this point based on my lack of credentials. 

The Pursuit of the Divine Initial Text 

The reality is, that the methods being employed to construct the ECM do not offer the degree of certainty that the theological giants of the past had in the Holy Scriptures. Thomas Watson says this, “We may know the Scripture to be the Word of God by its miraculous preservation in all ages … Nor has the church of God, in all revolutions and changes, kept the Scripture that it should not be lost only, but that it should not be depraved. The letter of Scripture has been preserved, without any corruption, in the original tongue.” (Body of Divinity, 19). It is clear that the methods being employed simply cannot ever produce this level of certainty. So regardless of whether or not some may believe that the Initial text, as defined by Mink, represents the authorial text – it can never be said with absolute certainty that this is true using the methodology itself. 

The problem is a matter of methodology, not a matter of interpretation. Thus my critique is not of those who believe the initial text represents the authorial text, it is of the methodology used to arrive at such conclusions. Parker agrees with my understanding of the Munster Method (CBGM), though I disagree with his view of the text vehemently. “I say again that the user who treats the text of James in the Editio critica maior as identical to a letter written several hundred years before the oldest extant manuscript was copied has made a serious methodological error” (Parker, 122). Regardless of Parker’s opinion, those who believe that the initial text represents the authorial text will take the same data as Parker and come to the opposite conclusion as him.

While Parker’s conclusion, and thus my conclusion, might be considered inflammatory by some, an examination of the method demonstrates that it is simply a cold truth regarding the methodology. The Munster Method (CBGM) itself can never prove that it has produced an original text, in any sense of the word, that recreates exactly what Paul wrote. The text that Paul wrote might be considered as a highly likely original reading, but scholars might delegate it to the apparatus due to the limitations of the methodology and data used for analysis. It is the interpretations of scholars that will ultimately come along and conclude which version(s) of the initial text represents the authorial text. So in a very real sense, the interpreters’ theology of preservation and inspiration, along with other suppositions, is being applied retroactively to the work done by the methods being employed, and the flawed decisions of men are the final authority over which texts are considered “original”.

This shifts the authority of the Holy Scriptures from the object to the subject. Because the authority lies in the subject, and the subject is not omniscient, it is not only likely, but inevitable that a legitimately original reading is rejected for some other reading that is determined “earliest and best” by a scholar. It does not matter how earnest a particular scholar is in saying that “I want what Paul wrote!”, the fact remains that the methodology does not allow for that desire to actualize in any meaningful way. The final authority will always rest on the determinations of scholars and their theological suppositions. At the end of the day, the modern textual scholar must employ faith in believing that they have chosen God’s Word correctly. This is part of the reason why the historical doctrine of the Scriptures as self-authenticating is held by those in the Confessional Text camp. A return back to the 16th century is most necessary, for both practical and theological reasons. The authority of the Scriptures does not rest in the determinations of men, but the providential work of God. This is the fundamental difference between those in the modern camp and those in the Confessional camp, which is why I continue to press theologically on the issue and not evidentially.  

Conclusion

I have taken some time to demonstrate the nuance in the discussion of what “original” means. Historically, as I have shown by quotations of those at the Westminster Assembly, the word “original” meant the words penned by the prophets and apostles. In the modern period, scholars prefer the term “initial text”, and the definition of that term is debated. To some, the initial text is the hypothetical archetype that all texts flowed from, and to others, it is the text that represents the earliest extant form of the New Testament texts. In all three cases, three different things are being discussed. Thus, using the definition provided by the framers of the 17th century confessions, I do say confidently that there are no scholars in pursuit of the original as defined by the Reformed in mainstream New Testament textual scholarship. Therefore it is especially appropriate that the view of the text of Scripture presented and defended here on this blog be called “The Confessional Text”, as it not only represents a physical form of the text, but also a distinct theological foundation with specific definitions of terms that have evolved in the modern period. 

Many scholars have attempted to reinterpret Francis Turretin and James Usher and others to fit the modern definitions of “original”, “preserved”, “kept pure”, and so forth, but the fact remains that these theologians did indeed mean what they said plainly. It is simply more accurate to say that the modern view of the text of Holy Scripture is different than the view presented by the Westminster Divines and their contemporaries. In recognizing this difference, I believe it possible to have a fruitful discussion on the theological differences underpinning each position. The modern method is to many hidden in a black box, and as it becomes more developed, will come into plain sight by all. When this time comes, the Reformed must be prepared to stand on the truth that the Scriptures are self-authenticating. 

“The marvelous preservation of the Scriptures [demonstrates this]. Though none in time be so ancient, nor none so much impugned; yet God hath still by his providence preserved them, and every part of them” (James Usher. Body of Divinity, 8).

The Septuagint and the Received Text

The Young, Textless, and Reformed4 Comments

Introduction

Recently, I encountered the view that the Hebrew masoretic text of the Old Testament was not inspired. Some say that it was a wicked, corrupted, invention of Christ hating Jews. Others simply deny the authenticity or preservation of the Hebrew text in favor of the Septuagint. This is not some niche corner of the internet either. This is a popular opinion, even among the Reformed. First, it must be stated that the argument needs clarification at its beginning, as there is not one “Septuagint”, there are Septuagints. There is not one Greek Old Testament, there are many versions and editions. Further, the Dead Sea Scrolls do not contain an entire Old Testament, so it is not adequate to appeal to them as a complete authority.

While that may not cause those who adhere to this position to reconsider, it is an important observation nonetheless. In any case, it should be understood why the people of God should start with the Hebrew Old Testament texts over the Septuagint or any other version. It is important then to examine the foundation and logical end of these claims according to the standard of Scripture and to see the implications of such a belief. First, I will examine the Scriptural testimony to itself in regard to its sufficiency and purpose, source and method, and scope and promise. Second, I will present several affirmations for and against considering translations as immediately inspired . Third, I will comment on the nature of citations of external sources in the New Testament text. 

Sufficiency and Purpose

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, 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 Timothy 3:16-17 KJV

The first standard set forth in the Holy Scriptures is that all Scripture is given by way of inspiration by God and is sufficient for all matters of faith and practice, “That the man of God may be perfect”. From this text, there are several important claims regarding Scripture:

1. That all Scripture is inspired, not just some 

2. That all Scripture is sufficient, not just the important parts 

3. That Scripture alone is the means that God has given to the people of God for all matters of faith and practice 

The method of inspiration is debated as to how exactly God inspired the text, yet this much is clear: 

1. In the Old Testament, God used means of prophets, dreams, visions, Christophanies and Theophanies, and angelic messengers to deliver His Word to His people

2. In the New Testament, God used means of apostolic writers to deliver His Word to His people

The method of inspiration of the Scriptures is often called “verbal plenary”, and it is typically nuanced in such a way that God used the unique authors and their vocabulary and experiences to inspire the words of the New Testament Scriptures. There are various ways of describing the nature of this inspiration, some much too liberal for conservative belief, but I will save that for another article. In the meantime, please refer to this article: https://purelypresbyterian.com/2016/10/13/the-apostles-and-prophets-secretaries-of-the-holy-ghost/

Source and Method 

“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.”

2 Peter 1:21 KJV

The second standard set forth in the Holy Scriptures is that Scripture was delivered through “holy men of God”. This was done specifically, as Hebrews 1:1 says, “by the prophets” in the Old Testament, and in these last days, “by his Son”. The language of the people of God in the Old Testament was Hebrew, and in certain places, Aramaic. These comprise the “Hebrew Scriptures”. The language that the New Testament was written in, as attested to by every generation of orthodox believers until the modern period, was Greek. Thus, it should be universally accepted that the documents that were immediately inspired were those written in these languages. This is affirmed by both the 17th century confessions as well as the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. Most conservative Christians accept at least one of these as a valid creedal statement on Scripture.

Scope and Promise 

“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.”

Matthew 5:18 KJV

The third standard set forth in the Holy Scriptures is that not “one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled”. In this text, Jesus is declaring that “the truth of the law, and every part of it, is secure, and that nothing so durable is to be found in the whole frame of the world” (Calvin, Commentary Mat. 5:18). This directly applies to the Old Testament as the covenantal document given to the people of God of old, and necessarily applies to the New Testament as it is the covenantal document given to the people of God in the last days. The Westminster Divines affirmed the usage of this passage as speaking authoritatively to the perfect preservation of God’s Word (1.8). 

“The authority of Scripture has always been recognized in the Christian church. Jesus and the apostles believed in the OT as the Word of God and attributed divine authority to it. The Christian church was born and raised under [the influence of] the authority of the Scripture. What the apostles wrote must be accepted as though Christ himself had written it, said Augustine. And in Calvin’s commentary on 2 Timothy 3:16, he states that we owe Scripture the same reverence we owe to God. Up until the 18th century, that authority of Scripture was firmly established in all the churches and among all Christians.”

Herman Bavinck. Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 1, 455.

The Nature of Translations

Are translations of the original languages as authoritative in so far as they represent the immediately inspired text? We affirm. Are translations themselves immediately inspired? We affirm against. There is a severe error among the people of God today which says that not only can a translation be immediately inspired, but certain translations are indeed immediately inspired – even when they disagree with the immediately inspired text.

Yet, the Scriptures are clear that “God spake” through the prophets and the apostolic witnesses, not scribes, translators, or text-critics. The argument that a translation is immediately inspired is in fact the argument that Ruckmanites employ to affirm the inerrancy of the Authorized Version. They claim that God supernaturally worked in the translators of the King James Version and inspired anew the text of Holy Scripture into an English translation. The main application of this heinous error is found equally among the Ruckmanites and those that affirm that the various Greek translations of the Old Testament, commonly called “the Septuagint” (LXX), is the immediately inspired text of the Old Testament. 

First, let us examine the claim that the Septuagint is the immediately inspired Word of God in the Old Testament. The first premise that must be agreed upon, is that the text of the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew (and in certain places Aramaic). This must be affirmed due to the fact that at the time of the inspiration of the Old Testament, the Greek language either did not exist, or in later times existed in a form entirely foreign to that of the Septuagint. Thus, by affirming the reality that the Old Testament could not have been originally penned in Greek, we affirm that the Greek text of the Old Testament cannot be the immediately inspired text. Additionally, the language of the people of God of old was not Greek, but Hebrew. So by both accounts, the immediately  inspired text of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew (and in places Aramaic). 

Second, let us examine the implications to the doctrine of inspiration, should the Septuagint be accepted as the immediately inspired Word of God in the Old Testament. The first assertion that I will examine is that a translation can be accepted as the immediately  inspired Word of God. If this is the case, then one must deny the method of inspiration employed by God as attested to in the Scriptures (2 Peter 1:21; Hebrews 1:1). The authority of inspiration then is shifted to those who have translated the original text into vulgar tongues of the nations. Granting this premise, there is no reason to affirm against any vulgar translation being accepted as the immediately inspired Word of God, and one has no grounds to affirm against the Ruckmanites, or the Papists for that matter. 

Third, let us examine the implications to the shape of Scripture, should the Septuagint (or any other translation) be accepted as the immediately inspired Word of God in the Old Testament. If a translation can be accepted as immediately inspired, one must first attempt to find a Scriptural standard which informs the people of God which translation should be accepted. The common proof that is given for the Greek Old Testament are the various quotations of the Septuagint by the Apostolic authors. Should it be the case, that any text cited by the Apostolic authors causes the source text to be accepted as Scripture, a serious error arises. By adopting this understanding, one must also accept the writings of the pagan authors Menander and Epimenides as quoted by the Apostle Paul in Acts 17:28, 1 Cor. 15:33, and Titus 1:12. Further, one must also accept the book of Enoch as Scripture (Jude 14). That is not to say that a translation of the original texts is equivalent with pagan authors or apocryphal texts, but that the form of the argument as it pertains to inspiration requires such an admission. If a text is qualified as inspired based on its quotation by the Apostolic authors and not by the source of the revelation which is God, than all cited texts should be considered inspired. In inspiring the text of Holy Scripture, God does not inspire the source texts cited, only the text itself as it exists within the Holy Scriptures. 

Do quotations by the Apostolic writers retroactively inspire a cited text? We affirm against this error. In order to suppose that any text quoted by the Apostles actually inspires the whole of the cited text, or even the portion of text cited, one must accept that the method of inspiration is interrupted. We affirm that the words delivered by the Apostles are inspired, but not the source cited. In this sense, the Septuagint quotations and quotations of other authors are equally uninspired as they exist outside of the New Testament text. Not that the Septuagint in itself is uninspired as it represents the original Hebrew, just that the words themselves were not immediately inspired. In simple terms, a translation is only considered authentic insofar as it represents the inspired text it is translated from. Should this be the case that the standard for inspiration of a text is its use by the Apostolic writers in the New Testament, the canon should be edited to include the aforementioned cited works, as they are inspired. To this we affirm against. 

Further if the Septuagint is accepted as an inspired text apart from the original Hebrew, one would have to accept the various apocrypha contained within that text, including the multiple versions of “Bell and the Dragon”. To accept one book of the Septuagint and not another is to accept the form of the Hebrew Scriptures but not the content. If the argument is made that the Septuagint is only inspired as far as it is cited in the New Testament, then the whole corpus of the Septuagint is to be rejected where it is not cited by the New Testament authors, in which case the argument that the Septuagint is inspired is refuted. In the case that the Septuagint is affirmed as inspired and not immediately inspired, it would need to be demonstrated that the Septuagint is a faithful representation of the immediately inspired text, in which case appealing to the Septuagint is no longer necessary. We affirm that both the shape and content of the Hebrew Scriptures are immediately inspired, and not any part of the form or content of the Septuagint as it exists apart from the text it was translated from.

Understanding the Quotations of Non-Inspired Texts by the Apostolic Authors 

Now that is abundantly clear the implications of holding to such a doctrine that translations and other non-canonical texts can be inspired apart from its representation of the original, let us examine the proper understanding of quotations of non-inspired texts by the Apostolic authors. Though the Apostolic authors employ non-inspired texts, this does not mean that those texts are uninspired as they exist within the Holy Scriptures. We affirm that the use of quotations in the New Testament authors are inspired insofar as they exist within the New Testament. This is due to the New Testament being inspired by God. We affirm against the practice of using New Testament quotations to correct the immediately inspired text, specifically the Hebrew Scriptures. 

We affirm against this for several reasons. The first is that the Greek Old Testament(s) is a translation, and not the immediately inspired text. The second is that the Greek Old Testament and the Hebrew Old Testament are not the same text. It may stand to reason that the New Testament quotations of the Septuagint may be used to correct other versions of the Greek Old Testament, but it does not follow to then say that the Hebrew Text should be corrected by the Greek. This is the same argument employed by the Ruckmanites when they affirm that the Greek and Hebrew should be corrected by the English Bible. The use of the Septuagint by the Ancient Fathers does not authorize the use of the Septuagint in the correction of the text in the authentic copies, just like the use of the ESV in contemporary writings does not authorize the correction of the original text .

The Ancient Fathers did not have Apostolic authority. The third is that though translations are necessary and are the common means that the people of God access the Bible in their mother tongue, translations in themselves are subject to translational obscurities and the equivalency of one word to another may be misunderstood due the semantic evolution of a word or poor translation. This being the case, we affirm against using versional readings to correct any immediately inspired text of the Holy Scriptures. This is not to say that versional readings cannot be consulted to better understand the nature of the evolution of a variant, or to gain confidence in an original reading, but that versional reading should not be held over and above the authentic reading in the original tongues. 

Conclusion

It should now be understood by all the doctrinal foundations for accepting a text as immediately inspired, as well as the doctrinal foundations for rejecting a text as inspired. It is abundantly clear that the only texts that should be considered immediately inspired are the authentic Hebrew Old Testament Scriptures and the authentic Greek New Testament Scriptures. The translations made from these texts are warranted and necessary, though they do not stand above the original texts as a judge or a corrector. To affirm this is to affirm against the Biblical doctrine of inspiration and to reject the authority of God’s revelation to His people. In affirming that versional readings are inspired or of higher authority than the immediately inspired text in the original languages, one must accept that the method of inspiration as detailed in Scripture has failed or is incorrect, and the Word of God not authoritative or preserved. To affirm this is to affirm the same doctrine of inspiration as the Ruckmanites, and against the orthodox doctrine of Scripture as articulated from the beginning. 

Text and Translation

The Young, Textless, and Reformed4 Comments

Introduction

It is easy to read an article or facebook thread on the issue of textual criticism or translation and have trouble understanding what is going on. The conversation is shrouded by specialized terminology and polemics. This is often due to people getting their information from their favorite podcast or YouTube program. Often times, the conversation becomes muddled when it comes to differentiating between the underlying text and the translations made from those texts. There are two important conversations that happen regarding the Bible – the conversation of which New and Old Testament texts should be used for translation, and the conversation of translation methodology and quality. Yet these two distinct topics are constantly conflated and mixed together.

The most common occurrence of this conflation happens when people utilize the term “KJV Onlyist” when discussing the Greek and Hebrew. This argument was made popular first by internet podcast host James White and reiterated in Dr. Andrew Naselli’s critically acclaimed textbook How to Understand and Apply the New Testament. It is almost impossible to have a conversation about which underlying Greek and Hebrew should be used in translation now without being called a “KJV Onlyist” if you are brave enough to affirm against the modern text.

Yet there is an important difference between the text a Bible is translated from and the translation itself. This is easily demonstrated in the fact that people disagree on which modern translation is the best. Some people swear by the NASB because they believe it to be “the most literal translation available”, and others only read the ESV because it is the “most scholarly translation”. Most times, Christians select their Bible based on the translation methodology and the quality of the translation itself. The underlying Greek has nothing to do with it. So it is absolutely possible that somebody prefers the modern Greek texts, but does not prefer any of the modern Bible translations, and reads a traditional Bible based on their preference of translation alone. Yes, it is possible that somebody would prefer a KJV without knowing anything about the underlying textual discussion. 

The Textual Discussion

The conversation of “which Bible is the best” can be separated into two categories, text and translation. The first category has to do with the Biblical languages, which are the Hebrew Old Testament (which includes small portions of Aramaic or Chaldean as the Puritans called it) and the Greek New Testament. Some people have also taken the modern position that the Bible can also be translated from other translations, such as the Greek Old Testament or the Syriac Old Testament. The ESV, NIV, and NASB all do this. This would be akin to creating a fresh Bible out of the ESV. The confessional position states that translations should not be made from versional readings like the Greek Old Testament, but that falls into the category of translation methodology. 

In terms of the first category, which is the text, the conversation has to do with answering the question “which original text should be translated from?” There are a handful of positions when it comes to text. The first can be generically called the modern critical text position. Within this camp, there are an array of different thoughts, so this brief description will obviously not cover every nuance of the conversation. The main thought is that the Greek Testament is best represented in Codex Vaticanus and other texts similar to it. Codex Vaticanus is said to have originated in Alexandria around the fourth century and was published in the 19th century. Codex Vaticanus is stored at the Vatican Library and the first time it was explicitly mentioned was in the Reformation period due to Erasmus consulting some of its readings as a part of his work on his Latin and Greek New Testaments. Erasmus believed that the Vatican codex followed Latin versional readings, and rejected it based on his detestation for the contemporary iteration of the Vulgate he was seeking to correct in his Latin edition. 

The most significant markers of these types of manuscripts are their short, abrupt readings and the absence of the three most discussed variants (John 7:53-8:11; 1 John 5:7; Mark 16:9-20). It also excludes many majority readings such as John 5:4 and Romans 16:24. If you look in a modern Bible, these verses are simply skipped over without renumbering the whole chapter. The Vatican Codex was employed heavily by Westcott and Hort in their Greek New Testament published in 1881 and all modern translations closely follow the readings of this manuscript and those like it. Out of the close to 6,000 manuscripts extant today, Vaticanus represents anywhere from 17 to 30 of them. These manuscripts were formerly called the “Alexandrian Family”, but recent scholarship has moved away from that conclusion due to their lack of coherence with one another. It is more accurate to say that they are cousin manuscripts than a text family. 

In any case, those that hold to the modern critical text position believe that the Bible is best preserved (Read partially or generically preserved) in the readings contained within these manuscripts, and make textual decisions based on prioritizing the Alexandrian texts as better than the majority of the manuscripts available today. There are many nuances within this camp, and some modern critical text advocates adopt some majority readings over Alexandrian readings (Like the Tyndale House Greek New Testament at John 1:18). The Greek New Testament most employed by those in this camp is the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament which is now in its 28th edition. The Nestle-Aland text is the base text used for almost all of the modern Bible translations made today. The modern critical text position also tends to favor Old Testament versional readings like the Greek, Syriac, and the Latin Vulgate over the Masoretic Hebrew text (see ESV 2016 prefatory material for more information). 

The second position is called the majority text position, which also has an array of different thoughts within it. Some scholars, like Wilbur Pickering, take a theological approach within the majority text position, and others take more of an evidential approach. In both cases, the majority text advocates reject the theory that the Alexandrian manuscripts are “earliest and best” and instead start with the readings represented most abundantly in the manuscript tradition (Or even pick one manuscript as the authentic representative). The basic premise of this position is that the readings that are most abundant are the readings that God preserved. Some within this camp do not dogmatically pick the majority reading every time, however. They still make decisions on each variant like one might do within the modern critical text camp based on the extant data available. There are Bible translations made from various collations of the majority text, like the family 35 majority text. Often times, the majority text advocates do not read a Bible that represents their favorite text, though the NKJV and even the KJV are popular within this camp. 

The third position is called the confessional text position (also called the Ecclesiastical text, canonical text, or less preferably TR advocates). This position favors the texts that were employed during the time of the Reformation and confessional period after which are represented by the Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament and the Received Text of the New Testament. While this position typically favors the Authorized Version (KJV), many within this camp read the NKJV, MEV, or GNV, and are open to fresh translations of the texts of the Reformation. Most read the AV simply because they believe the translation methodology employed by the translators is more faithful than the other Bibles available. This position is not so much about translation, but rather about the underlying Biblical texts used for translation. Since the modern Bibles employ a different underlying text, this camp rejects those Bibles because they do not believe they represent the original.

The Greek text preferred by the confessional text position aligns most closely with the majority of manuscripts available today, though it does depart from the majority text in certain places, which makes it a distinct position. This is why this position is often conflated with the majority text position, though they are different from one another. This conflation is made in Dr. Andrew Naselli’s textbook mentioned above. The major difference between this and the modern critical text position, is that this camp believes the work of collating manuscripts was accomplished during the Reformation period. During this time, the process of copying manuscripts evolved from hand copying to printing with the invention of the printing press, and thus the method of copying was formalized and a more concentrated effort of textual criticism was warranted. Since this text was to be massively distributed for the first time in church history, this effort represents a significant phase in the providential preservation of the Word of God. 

A major point of confusion by those who do not adhere to this position, is the fact that the confessional text camp is not trying to find the original Bible, they believe they have it. They are not primarily concerned with supporting every reading with extant manuscript evidence (though they can) because they do not believe this aligns with the Biblical doctrines of inspiration and preservation. The manuscripts do not offer definitive conclusions on the text 400 years removed from the time when they were still being copied in the Reformation period. Modern critical text advocates have trouble understanding the idea that the Bible was never in need of reconstruction, it was received in every generation and massively distributed for the first time in the 1600s. The effort of Reformation era textual criticism was not an effort of reconstruction, like today’s effort, but rather a collation and editing. Simply put, the Reformation era text-critics (not just Erasmus), were collecting faithful copies of the New Testament, and editing them into printed editions. Reformation era scholarship on inspiration and preservation demonstrates that this was the common thought of the day. They believed that the text of the New Testament was available, and with editing into one edition, could be found easily. Commentary by the Westminster Divines and other Puritan scholars affirms this overwhelmingly. Those in the confessional text camp affirm the determinations of these scholars and theologians, and believe that the text used for translation and theology for the next 300 years was the text that the people of God had used since the beginning (While acknowledging aberrant text streams and variants). 

Notice that while translation is connected with the textual discussion, it is not the same discussion at all. Those that are nuanced in the conversation select their Bible translation based on their understanding of the underlying text, but the translations themselves are entirely distinct from the text they are translated from. That is why it is unhelpful and actually detrimental to reduce the conversation of text to a matter of translational preference, as many do today. In fact, labeling somebody a “KJV Onlyist” for preferring the Received Text or Majority text only demonstrates an extreme amount of ignorance on the topic. Conflating the Received Text with the Majority text is even more condemning. The conversation of text can take place without discussing translation at all, though translation often comes up. It has to do with the underlying Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament. 

The Translation Discussion

A translation is simply the product of translating one language to another. In the context of Bible translation, the translations are typically made from the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament (though many modern translations translate from translations in the Old Testament). It is true that people often select the translation they read based on their view of the underlying text, though this is not always the case. That is because translation methodology is an entirely different discussion. A good translation has nothing to do with the text it is translated from. In fact, it is possible to make a horrible translation from a great underlying text, and an accurate translation from a horrible underlying text. A translation simply takes a text from one language into another. 

The conversation of translation can be separated into two categories – translation methodology and the accuracy of the translation itself. Translation methodology is more closely related to the textual discussion due to methodology often being impacted by the translator’s view of the text. For example, the Reformation era translators did not translate from versional or translational readings. They translated from the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament. Modern translation methodology does not strictly translate from the original languages, but often translates from other ancient translations. Somebody could agree that the modern critical text is better, but disagree with the modern translation methodology, and choose to read a traditional Bible because of it. 

In my experience, translation methodology is actually way more significant to people when choosing a Bible than the textual discussion. Most people choose the NASB because it is “the most literal” or the ESV because it is “the most scholarly” or the NIV because it “captures the original intention of the authors”. Most people reject the KJV because they “cannot understand it”. While the textual discussion is extremely important to some people, most Christians choose a Bible based on the translation itself. In fact, most people pick the ESV simply because they enjoy how it reads. 

Translation methodology is actually an extremely important topic that often goes neglected. It is important because most people only have access to a translation, so they have to trust that the translators have faithfully given them God’s Word in their mother tongue. Translation methodology has to do with which texts are being used to translate from, whether the translators are attempting to translate more formally (ESV, KJV, NASB) or dynamically (NIV, MEV), and even the complexity of the vocabulary. Bibles that are translated using formal equivalence (more literal) are often preferred over Bibles that are translated using dynamic equivalence (thought for thought). A simple internet search reveals that when people are selecting a Bible, this is the primary motivating factor for most people when selecting a translation.  

The second category of the translational discussion is the actual accuracy of the translation itself. This has to do with the accuracy of a word actually being translated from one language into another. It is more uncommon for people to choose a translation based on accuracy, but it is a factor that people take into account. People want to know that what they are reading represents the original language. This part of the discussion is another important component that is frequently neglected but it is certainly becoming more central to the translation discussion as the NASB and ESV are beginning to do more interpretation instead of translation in each new edition. A great example is whether or not αδελφοι should be translated as “brothers” or “brothers and sisters”. A literal translation would simply translate the plural form of the word “brother” (αδελφος) into “brothers”, but modern translation methodology has evolved into doing more interpretation than translation. While the usage of the word can include both men and women depending on the context, it literally just means “brothers”. In the case that a translation team decides to translate the word into “brothers and sisters”, the translators are making a decision to include an interpretation of the word in the translation itself. 

While this might seem like an unimportant nuance, translation accuracy is the reason many are decrying the next edition of the NASB. People are not comfortable with the translators interpreting a passage – they simply want the passage translated and the interpretation left to the person reading the text. Due to the trend of modern Bibles doing an increasing amount of interpretation in the translation itself, many people have actually decided not to purchase the newest editions of the ESV, NASB, and NIV. This is another great example of how translation methodology can cause somebody to determine which Bible they read, despite somebody’s understanding of the textual discussion. When I was a modern critical text advocate, I had already considered abandoning modern translations based on the direction that the translation methodologies were going. There are many people who read the KJV and NKJV simply because the modern translations take many liberties in translation. 

Conclusion

The conversation of text and translation is complicated and nuanced. There are a vast array of reasons that one might decide to read a particular translation over another, and the underlying text is only one of those reasons. In many cases, the underlying text is not even the main reason somebody picks one Bible over another. The important thing to recognize is that there are many important differences between text and translation, and some people care more about one than the other. In fact, most people are fine with the differences between the underlying texts used for translation because they believe they have “all the important stuff” no matter which Bible they read. The reality is, that many Christians read the NKJV or KJV based on translation methodology, preference, or familiarity over and above the textual discussion. That is because it does not matter how pure the underlying Greek and Hebrew is, if the translation is not faithful, than people want nothing to do with it. 

Simply calling somebody a “KJV Onlyist” reduces the conversation to polemics and is entirely unhelpful and even detrimental to the discussion. There is a plethora of reasons to reject modern Bibles, tradition is just one of them. It is time that Christians realize that being a “KJV Onlyist” is not the only reason to read a KJV, or the only reason people reject modern Bibles. The fact is that many Christians are becoming disenchanted with the increasing number of revisions to the underlying modern Greek text and the evolving translation methodologies of modern Bibles. People do not want a changing Bible. They want consistency and stability. The direction that modern translations have been heading for decades does not, and cannot offer this. 

There is No Modern Doctrine of Preservation

The Young, Textless, and Reformed12 Comments

Introduction

There is no modern doctrine of preservation, and I’m not sure people have realized it quite yet. What does preserved mean? It means that something has been kept safe from harm, uncorrupted, or maintaining the same form as it was when it was created. In this case, the New Testament corpus is the object that is said to be preserved. This means that in order for the New Testament to be preserved, it had to have stayed the same from the time it was penned and in the collection of faithful copies and collated editions going forward. That does not mean that every copy or collation is faithful to the text that God inspired or preserved, just that original was transmitted faithfully throughout the ages and even to the modern period. The words of the New Testament were not lost. The existence of different text forms and variants does not disqualify the Bible as being preserved. It simply indicates that certain lines of textual transmission were corrupted, and even within faithful manuscripts there were variants introduced into the text. There is no mistake that the manuscript tradition tells a complex story full of many scribal errors and corruptions. 

In order for a text to be preserved in light of textual variants introduced by scribal errors and corruptions, there is one process that could have resulted in the original text being transmitted faithfully into the modern period. This process would have involved correcting scribal errors and corruptions as the manuscripts were copied throughout the ages. This can be observed in surviving manuscripts by the existence of corrections by various scribes, as well as the increased uniformity of texts going into the middle period (though not perfect uniformity). In order to believe that the text of the New Testament has been preserved, one has to say that the effort of the scribes was successful in every generation of copying. If the text has been preserved, one would expect the text to become increasingly uniform over time, as the number of copyists increased along with the number of Christians.

Due to the heavy persecution of Christians in the early church alongside the fragility of stationary, the early manuscript evidence of the New Testament is sparse. All of the extant, early manuscripts generally represent a different text form than what survived later in the textual tradition, and is generally agreed to have originated in one locality. Based on empirical methods, there simply is not enough data to draw any definitive conclusions on the authenticity of surviving manuscripts from the third and fourth century. It would be more definitive if the earliest manuscripts agreed in more places, but even the early surviving witnesses to the New Testament are massively divided. The only thing that the handful of texts surviving from that period can tell us is that there was a unique stream of manuscripts with many idiosyncrasies, generally existing in one locality, that seems to have died off. That means that, if the New Testament is actually preserved, the later manuscripts provide the best insight into what the original text looked like because they are more abundant and uniform.

While this seems straightforward, there are many who disagree with this assessment and believe that the text must be reconstructed. Scholars have doubled down on the theory that the smattering of early surviving manuscripts can be collated to find the original. Secular scholarship has overwhelmingly admitted that the effort of finding the original was a farce. When this effort failed, the more faithful set out to find the hypothetical archetype that the earliest surviving manuscripts were copied from by developing genealogies of each variant. While this is a clever idea, the result will only be a hypothetical possibility. Others have adopted a Byzantine priority or a majority text position, which weighs the vast majority of manuscripts more heavily than the thinly distributed minority which seems to have existed in a bubble for a couple hundred years. In any case, these positions on the text should be viewed in light of a doctrinal position on preservation. This leads to the main focus of this article, that the modern period has no doctrine of preservation. 

Generic and Partial Preservation

Is it a fair assessment to say that there is “no modern view of preservation”? Not in a practical sense, because there are in fact many presentations of preservation offered by various people. But in the technical and formal sense, this statement holds true. This is because while many say that the Bible has been preserved, the actual articulation of the nature of that preservation violates what it means for something to be preserved. Remember the basic definition of what “preserved” means. In its application to the text of the New Testament, it means that there is one stream of text that was preserved in faithful and authentic copies and collations of copies in every generation. Which means, that if the text of the New Testament is truly preserved, the authentic text would have been the text that continued to be copied while copies were still being made up into the 16th and 17th century. 

That means that during the time of the first effort to massively distribute the Bible to people in the 16th and 17th centuries, the authentic text of the New Testament was still being copied. If the early surviving manuscripts were authentic, why weren’t those too being copied? Why do the thousands of surviving manuscripts tell a different story than the early surviving ones? The reason that the first effort of unifying the text did not use texts that looked like the earliest surviving manuscripts is because those manuscripts were not considered to be authentic by the people of God leading up to and during that period. This is further demonstrated by the fact that there are less than a handful of manuscripts copied in the middle period that represent the text form of the earliest surviving manuscripts. The manuscript tradition, along with the textual decisions during the Reformation period, tells a tale that the people of God rejected the texts that are being considered “earliest and best” today. 

So in one sense, yes, people do offer various understandings of the word “preservation” and how that applies to the New Testament text. But in a much more real sense, those presentations do not adequately explain the existence of two text streams, or the ongoing effort of modern scholars to find the original text. Something that is preserved does not need to be reconstructed or found. The Bible is not a mosquito preserved in amber waiting to be dug up by an archeologist. It is not a 1,000 piece puzzle in which we only have 900 pieces, or a 10,000 piece puzzle to which we have 10,100 pieces. It is a 5,624 piece puzzle to which we have all 5,624 pieces. The method of preservation that God used was not encasing the Bible in a cave, or a bucket, or the sand. He used human copyists, which eventually evolved into the printing press, and again with the introduction of digital storage. The Bible has always been available to the people of God, whether in manuscript form, or printed edition, or even a digital copy. 

The modern understanding of preservation is vague and indecisive. It doesn’t actually put forth a meaningful definition of preservation. In a very practical sense, it accepts that the general form of the New Testament has been preserved, with wiggle room for disagreement on certain texts that may or may not be original. The Bible has been preserved in its basic form, to the degree of “great accuracy”. The Bible is partially preserved, and that is the way God designed it to be. The effort of modern textual criticism is to increase the level of “great” in “great accuracy”. The efforts of the Reformation were good, but flawed. So to some degree or another, most people with a modern understanding of preservation accept the Reformation era text as “good enough”, it’s just not the “best”. This reveals a greater issue, which should be picking at the back of your brain. 

The greater issue is that if the efforts of the Reformation era were flawed, than the idea of a preserved text, in the sense that I’ve defined it and the Reformation era theologians defined it, has not ever existed, nor can it ever be attained. The word “preserved” is a gooey, moldable, ever-shifting concept that really does not ever take a solid form. One might say that the Bible was preserved until the fourth century, but we do not know exactly what it looked like, or that the Bible is preserved today, just not precisely. In either case, the word “preservation” requires a qualifier. The Bible is either generically preserved, or it is partially preserved. In either case, the word “preserved” is simply inappropriate for what is being described. Here is a quote from Thomas Watson – a Puritan Divine – that adequately describes the historic definition of preservation:

“The Letter of Scripture hath been preserved without any Corruption in the Original Tongue, The Scriptures were not corrupted before Christ’s Time, for then Christ would never have sent the Jews to the Scriptures; but he sends them to the Scriptures, John 5.39. Search the Scriptures. Christ knew these Sacred Springs were not muddied with Human Fancies”

Thomas Watson, A Body of Practical Divinity (London: Thomas Parkhurst, 1692), 13.

Here is another description of preservation, offered by Westminster Divine Richard Capel:

“Well then, as God committed the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament to the Jewes, and did and doth move their hearts to keep it untainted to this day: So I dare lay it on the same God, that he in his providence is so with the Church of the Gentiles, that they have and do preserve the Greek Text uncorrupt, and clear: As for some scapes by Transcribers, that comes to no more, then to censure a book to be corrupt, because of some scapes in the printing, and ’tis certaine, that what mistake is in one print, is correct in another.”

Capel’s Remains pg. 79-80

The foundation of the doctrine of preservation during the time of the Reformation and post-Reformation is that in the same way that God preserved the Hebrew Scriptures, God preserved the Greek Scriptures. And by preserved, they meant “every jot and tittle” (See WCF ch.1). 

The ironic truth of the modern view of preservation is that it does not even allow for proper textual criticism. If God did not preserve every word, then what is the purpose of contemporary text-critical efforts? We have what we need, and that is all that matters. If the standard is “great accuracy”, then the work is done. There is no need to pursue greater accuracy because there is no standard for what “great accuracy” even means. There is no way to determine which words matter, and which words do not matter. Is it greatly accurate compared to other ancient texts? Is it greatly accurate based on the surviving manuscripts? Because the definition of “preserved” is so vague and arbitrary, there isn’t actually a meaningful standard to aim for. Text critics will never be able to determine when the work is done, because there is no definition of what it means to be done. Will the work be done when the true ending of Mark is found? Or will it be when we discover a new cache of early manuscripts? The efforts of modern textual criticism are planted firmly three feet in mid air because the modern method doesn’t allow for a precise definition of preservation. The fact that the work is still ongoing reveals the reality that scholars are either operating from a place of generic preservation or partial preservation. In both cases, the Bible has not been preserved in any meaningful way. 

Conclusion

There is not a modern doctrine of preservation in a very real sense. When the word is used, it either means generic preservation or partial preservation. In the case that by “preservation” it is actually meant generic preservation, then the work of textual criticism is done, because we have the Bible generically. At that point it is a matter of preference whether or not the woman caught in adultery is or is not Scripture, because the Bible contains all the correct doctrines in both instances. In the case that by “preservation” it is actually mean partial preservation, than the work of textual criticism does not matter, because the preserved Word will never be found. It is a matter of preference whether or not one accepts the ending of Mark as original because we’ll never know with 100% certainty. The former espouses the position that God did not intend to preserve every word, so that is not the goal. The latter says that God didn’t preserve His Word at all, so the goal is simply to get as close to the original as possible. Both positions betray the word preservation. 

When the word “preservation” is taken at face value, it simply means that the whole thing being preserved has not been corrupted, or harmed, or destroyed in any way. It does not mean that every single manuscript, or even one manuscript has been kept without error. It means that in every generation, the original text has survived in the approved manuscripts that the people of God have relied on for all matters of faith and practice. It means that scribal errors were corrected and that manuscripts of poor quality were retired or destroyed. This process was done by hand leading up to the 16th century when the printing press revolutionized how copying was done. That is why the Reformation era textual criticism is unique and set apart from modern textual criticism. It occurred during a time where copying was still being done, and a technological innovation was introduced to that process. The manuscripts that were being used by the people of God were still in circulation, and those manuscripts looked nothing like the modern text. 

A proper definition of preservation stands at odds with the opinion that the Bible is generically preserved, or partially preserved. If this seems like an impossibly strict standard, then it is best to say that you don’t believe that the Bible has been preserved. And if you do believe that the Bible has been preserved, the task is now to determine which text tells the story of a preserved Bible. The duty of the Christian is then to receive that preserved text as God has delivered it.

Yes, Doctrine Is Affected

The Young, Textless, and Reformed4 Comments

Introduction 

Many Christians have become disarmed by the claim that there are no doctrinal differences between the Reformation Era and modern era texts of the New Testament. This may sound comforting, but it does not accurately represent the reality that doctrine is affected, and will continue to be affected as changes are made in further editions of the Greek New Testament. One reason somebody can say that “doctrine is not affected” is because of the centuries of theological work that has been done. People read the modern texts through the lens of the theology of the Reformation text. Sound theology is never done in a bubble, and many fail to recognize how influenced they are by historical theology. 

In fact, it is most often that those who come up with false doctrines are the same that have not studied historical theology. Most, if not all, modern heresies are just reiterations and adaptations of a false doctrine from the past. This makes it near impossible to accurately claim that modern Greek Texts and translations do not impact doctrine, because anybody who is making this sort of determination has been influenced by the theology of the past. It would take a completely blank-slate-human to even conduct such an experiment. It is possible, however, to determine if doctrine has been changed, because of the wealth of theological works that utilized the Reformation era text. There is a point of comparison. There are two major areas that modern translations and Greek texts effect doctrine, the first being the actual doctrine of inspiration, and the second being the doctrines affected by passages that have been deemed “unoriginal” and removed.

The Doctrine of Inspiration Dismantled and Reassembled 

The doctrine of inspiration laid out by the theologians of the Reformation and post-Reformation is that the Bible has been kept pure in all ages. In accepting a modern text, which is a very different text from the text of the Reformation, one has to accept one of two realities. The first is that one must accept a Bible that has been kept in two text streams. This theory requires the belief that there were two Bibles used in the early church, and that one of them fell out of use. The one that fell out of use, of course, is the one the modern text represents and is said to be “earliest and best”. This poses a conundrum to the doctrine of preservation. The first option is that both forms of the text are equally authoritative and there are two Bibles. The second option is that the Alexandrian text is the Bible and the Word of God was corrupt for centuries, only to be recovered in the 19th century. The only way one could arrive to either of these conclusions is to shift the definition of inspiration and preservation. 

In order to hold onto the doctrine of preservation while accepting the modern text, one has to define preservation differently. Rather than God preserving every word, He preserved most of the words. Many will claim that doctrine is not affected by this, but as I stated in the introduction of this article, it is difficult to determine this. It is much easier to demonstrate that doctrine has been affected, rather than proving that is has not. That is because everybody takes their theological system into the text, whether they want to admit it or not. What can be easily demonstrated to be different is modern interpretations of the doctrines of inspiration and preservation. 

There is a difference between every word being preserved and most of the words being preserved. There is a difference between the Westminster and London Baptist Confessions of Faith and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. If the Chicago Statement affirmed the same standard of preservation, they would have utilized certain language such as “pure in all ages” as opposed to the arbitrary standard of “with great accuracy”. The former affirms preservation through time, and the latter affirms that the scope of preservation must be retroactively determined, and only to the degree of “great accuracy”. Many are fine with this reinterpretation of the doctrine of preservation, claiming that the standard of “pure in all ages” is too meticulous. Rather than accepting that these are two different doctrines, many have attempted to reinterpret the confessional language, or even try to prove that the drafters of the confession had the same view as the modern interpretation of preservation. This is demonstrably false. Garnet Howard Milne’s book Has the Bible Been Kept Pure? Handles this quite well. 

It may be the case that the doctrine of preservation as described in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy is more accurate than the Confessional doctrine of preservation, but the fact remains that these are two different standards. So in a very real sense, the rise of the modern texts resulted in a fresh interpretation of the doctrine of preservation. Doctrine has changed in order to accommodate the modern texts. 

Affected Doctrines

I will not make a case for how each update and revision to the text of Scripture has tarnished doctrine. There are many theologians, scholars, and laypersons who have already done as much. Instead, I will focus on how any update to a word, phrase, or an entire passage does affect doctrine by its revision, and supply two examples demonstrating this fact. The first point to note is that doctrines cannot be developed without words. A doctrine is developed from a text. So when that text changes, the doctrine is liable to change as well. A common modern thought is that a doctrine, idea, or message can be preserved without the underlying text itself being preserved. There are many ways to say the same thing, after all. This is demonstrated in the common opinion that “all the important doctrines” are preserved, when dismissing the importance of variants between the Reformation and Modern text. 

The only reason this claim can be made is due to the fact that theological systems are extremely stable in the 21st century. That is not to say that the proponents of these systems are stable, but the systems themselves have been fleshed out extensively in the last four hundred (or more) years. As much as people dislike admitting it, the majority of exegesis done today is done primarily through a theological lens. Much of the time, when somebody says that doctrine is not affected, they are really saying that “My doctrine will not be affected by changes to the text”. This is the case because the changes between the texts should result in doctrinal change due to the significance in difference. So if the change in the text has not resulted in a change in theology, the reason for that is not that the text is saying the same thing, it is because the person is making the text say the same thing based on their theological commitments. 

A perfect example of this is John 1:18. In the modern text, it says that Jesus is “the unique God” or the “only begotten God” or the “only God”. If the modern reading is taken, one must rely on their existing understanding of the trinity to properly ascertain a trinitarian doctrine from this text. The text itself declares the uniqueness of the Son, which is to say that the Son is unique in essence from the Father. This must result in tritheism or social trinitarianism or unitarianism, if a plain reading of the text is allowed. Many speculate that this is the reason for the original corruption of the text from “Only begotten Son” to “only begotten God”  by Valentinus during the second century. At best the modern reading obfuscates the clear trinitarian nature of God, and at worst it clearly articulates anti-trinitarian doctrine. Many theologians, scholars, pastors, and laypersons abuse the hermeneutical principle of letting scripture interpret scripture to justify this corruption, but that principle is only properly applied when a passage is not abundantly clear. In this case, the modern reading is as clear as it gets. In fact, it should be the interpretive lens that all other claims regarding the Son are made in the Bible if the modern reading is correct. It distinctly teaches that the Son of God is unique, not begotten of the Father. By affecting this one place, the rest of the trinitarian passages of Scripture are compromised, which was probably the intention of the person who originally corrupted the text. 

The claim that “doctrine is not affected”  might be true if the difference in variations between the Reformation era text and Modern text were just spelling errors, word order, and other scribal errors. This is not the case. There are countless places where the text is demonstrably different between the two texts in message, vocabulary, and substance (See Hoskier’s work for details). The reason so many Christians are willing to accept these corruptions is because they tend to look at variants from a modern perspective. Today, the Bible is accessible to anybody with the internet. Modern Christians in the west do not know what it is like to not have a complete Bible. So it is anachronistic to look at a variant, as if every Christian throughout the ages had access to the 75 translations and countless books and articles explaining each variant. It is easy to write off the significance of a variant when one has access to 2,000 years of textual scholarship. 

A great example of this is how readily modern Christians pass over the ending of Mark. They take for granted the fact that they have the ending of the Gospel account in Matthew, Luke, and John. If one accepts that Matthew is the first Gospel (which is the historic perspective), the early church also would not have been doctrinally rocked by the ending of Mark being lost as well. Yet, much of modern scholarship has adopted the theory that Mark is the earliest Gospel, and that Matthew and Luke expanded on Mark’s account, embellishing the story and adding in important phrases that clearly demonstrate the divinity of Christ. This culminated in the Gospel of John, which is the most clear expression of the development of Christianity and the divinity of Christ. The story of the Gospels is more aptly a story of how Jesus became God than a true narrative of Jesus’ ministry. 

If this modern theory is the case, and the Alexandrian version of Mark is the “earliest and best”, then the earliest gospel did not have an appearance account. It simply ends with two scared women and the word γαρ in Greek, which occurs nowhere else in Greek literature. If Mark ends at verse 8, than the earliest Christians did not believe in a literal resurrected Christ. The other alternative is that the ending was lost to time or Mark was a poor writer that didn’t know Greek very well (which some assert). The only fact conveyed is that the tomb was empty, and that the women were scared. 

This is the kind of variant that allows Bart Ehrman to have a wildly successful career. Because Christians are willing to throw out the ending of Mark, they give license to men like Walter Bauer and Richard Price who have spun wild tales of the invention of Christianity. Further, if the ending of Mark does not contain an appearance account, then the apostle Paul did not consider Mark to be a gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-11). And if Mark is not a proper gospel, what is it doing in our Bibles? Did the Holy Spirit make a mistake? The only reason Christians need to defend against Bart Erhman is because they opened the door and let him sit at the table. The theory of Alexandrian Priority, the underpinning of “earliest and best”, has given a robe and a ring to agnostic scholars who wish to critique God’s Word. 

Conclusion

It may be the case that I have not convinced anybody that the two texts I cited affect doctrine. It may hold true that John 1:18 and Mark 16:9-20 truly do not affect doctrine. Yet this determination can only be made while standing on the shoulders of the men of old while receiving beatings by Bart Ehrman and co. Christians are standing in the middle of a field being shelled by artillery, plugging their ears and shouting “No doctrine is affected!” Christians have been pacified for too long by these empty assertions while men like Bart Ehrman have built their entire career on the very fact that variants affect the authenticity and doctrines of the Bible. 

Even if a handful of variants do not affect the corpus of the New Testament text and the doctrines contained within, they impact the doctrines of inspiration and preservation by standing in opposition to the text that the people of God have received throughout the ages. In proposing a genuine corruption of the Biblical text (not just a scribal error, but a total corruption), one has to shift the definition of preservation. Preservation cannot be talking about words, but ideas and doctrines (Or words to the degree of “great accuracy”). So as long as the sum total of doctrines are preserved, the Bible can be considered preserved. While this may be practically true due to the wealth of theological works available, it is not true as it pertains to the actual text of the New Testament. The text of the New Testament is a relatively small corpus of literature, and when a small collection is altered, there are grave consequences to the whole ecosystem of the text. 

A single variant can indeed change the message of the Trinity that the Bible puts forth. Another can “prove” that there was no resurrected Christ. The only reason most Christians do not consider the gravity of just two variants is because they assume the system developed from theological works of the past which rely on the texts they reject. If anything, the Christian needs to realize that it does not follow to say that a doctrine can be unaffected if the words the doctrines are built on are affected. Changed words mean changed doctrines. One might be fine with this reality, but it does not bode well with a conservative doctrine of preservation. It is impossible to overstate the importance of the text of the New Testament being preserved in the words, and not just the “original message”. Without the original words, there is no original message. So when discussing variants, the conversation should not be framed in the question, “Well, does it affect doctrine?” The obvious truth is that yes, it does. The real question one should ask is, “Does this affect doctrine enough for me to say something about it?” The obvious truth is that yes, it does. 

A Scripture is a Scripture, No Matter How Small

The Young, Textless, and ReformedLeave a comment

Introduction

Many Christians have had trouble understanding what is meant by the Westminster Confession of Faith and the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith when they say that the Old Testament in Hebrew, and the New Testament in Greek have been “kept pure in all ages” (1.8). It does not mean that the framers of the confessions did not know about textual variants, or that those in the Confessional Text camp believe that the Word of God was transmitted perfectly by one manuscript. What this means is that the doctrine of inspiration and preservation disallows for a total corruption of any one reading in the Holy Scriptures. Certain verses or words have not been “lost to time”. 

Doctrinal standards that do not affirm purity in the transmission history of the New Testament are a direct result of modern definitions of inspiration and preservation. This is a standard that is based on the opinions that scholars have of manuscripts rather than theological suppositions from the Holy Scriptures. Due to the heavy weight assigned to certain manuscripts localized to Egypt in the 3rd and 4th century, and the massive difference between those and the rest of the manuscript tradition, scholars have determined that the text has been corrupted and needs to be repaired. The Reformation era work was inaccurate because those scholars did not understand how valuable the Egyptian manuscripts are. As a result, the doctrine of preservation had to be revisited. Had the modern scholars simply consented to the opinions of Erasmus, John Owen, and Francis Turretin regarding the strange Egyptian manuscripts such as Codex Vaticanus, this shift may have never happened. 

Inspiration and Preservation

As a result of the reevaluation of Egyptian manuscripts as “earliest and best”, Christians had to separate the doctrine of inspiration from the doctrine of preservation. This is done implicitly by those who adhere to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy when they say that the text has been passed down with “great accuracy” as opposed to “pure in all ages”. Because the idiosyncratic text stream had been deemed as good as “original”, the text of the Reformation was declared unfit for duty. This is the difference between the Reformation view and the postmodern view on the doctrine of inspiration as it pertains to the transmission of the New Testament text. In the confessional view, the text of the New Testament was kept pure in every generation of copying, which is to say that the text was never fully corrupt across all of the authentic copies. There was never “two independent streams of text”. There is no doubt that people used the Egyptian manuscripts, but the use of those manuscripts seemed to be localized to one region for a brief period of time. Despite manuscripts having a multitude of copyist errors, and intentional corruption, the original text was always available and transmitted accurately by God’s “singular care and providence”. The postmodern view gave credence to the idea that the scholars of the Reformation simply got it wrong, and the Word of God fell out of use for nearly 1500 years. 

You might ask, “But what does this have to do with inspiration?” The disconnect between inspiration and preservation is a direct result in the reinterpretation of the Westminster Confession by A.A. Hodge and B.B. Warfield. Sure, the originals were inspired, but that does not mean that these originals were perfectly preserved, in the sense that every word is still intact. The Scriptures were transmitted with “great accuracy”, after all. Which is to say that to some arbitrary degree, the Scriptures have been mostly kept pure. Despite this attempt at redefinition, the Scriptural doctrine of inspiration disallows for this separation due to the covenant nature of the New Testament and its purpose. 

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, 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. 3:16-17 KJV). 

In order to maintain a Scriptural understanding of inspiration, one must accept that all Scripture was inspired, and all Scripture is profitable for all matters of faith and practice. This means that there is no such thing as an inspired Scripture that is not profitable for this covenant purpose. This being the case, this disallows for the distinction between “important doctrines” and “not important doctrines” when it comes to inspiration. This is what is being said when people say that “all the important doctrines are preserved”. If all of the important doctrines have been preserved, then the Scriptures that God inspired are again placed under the microscope of men to be deemed fit for profitability to the people of God. So as long as the editors, contributors, and proponents of the approved modern text(s) determine that doctrine is not affected, the Warfieldian standard allows for continued tinkering. The text may be inspired in its originals, but it has not been kept pure in all ages, because the original form of the New Testament has never been attained. This is not the Scriptural standard. 

I am not saying that every doctrine is as important as the next. There are certain doctrines that Christians divide over, and others that they do not divide over. These distinctions are fine to make, unless we are talking about “important doctrines” within the bounds of inspiration. The framing of inspiration in terms of “all the important doctrines” has cleverly shifted the standard of authority for the Holy Scriptures. Rather than the inspired text being the authority, the authority now rests on men and women to determine which are the important doctrines. The Scriptures are no longer self-authenticating. They are self-authenticating insofar as they represent the important doctrines, or some other arbitrary standard of accuracy. 

The modern view of inspiration has allowed Christians to essentially believe that the only people who ever had God’s Word in the original, were the people who had access to the unaltered originals. By the time the first copy was made, the first corruption took place, and the people of God would never have anything more than a Bible that is “close enough” to the original. The people of God will never have the exact wording, but they will have the doctrines. Yet this is not the doctrine put forth in the Scriptures. In 2 Timothy 3:16-17, the text clearly says that all Scripture is given by inspiration, and that all Scripture is profitable. The Bible does not set the bar at verses that pertain to salvation, or some other arbitrary standard. The Scriptures do not put forth the postmodern views of inspiration, where all Scripture means “All the important doctrines”. 

The text of Holy Scripture does not say that inspiration applies to doctrines, it applies to the actual text. If the text is inspired, it has a use for God’s covenant people, even if not equally weighed. The weight of a doctrine does not disqualify it from being preserved. Thus, in order for 2 Timothy 3:16-17 to be true, the text that God inspired must also be kept pure, “That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works”. If a Scripture has been inspired, it must be preserved as well, and not just in the ideas. 

This raises further questions regarding what exactly it means to have a “greatly accurate” Bible. Who gets to say what “great accuracy” means? What percentage of the Bible do we have? It could mean that the people of God have a 95% original Bible, or a 70% original Bible, or even worse. Using the modern text-critical standards, it is impossible to determine to what degree of accuracy a text represents the original. In order to do that, one would need to have the original as a point of comparison. As it stands, the standard of comparison is a cluster of 3rd and 4th century Egyptian manuscripts. So even stating that the Bible has been preserved to a great degree of accuracy is completely arbitrary and unverifiable using modern standards and methods. 

Conclusion

A common misunderstanding of the confessional language of “pure in all ages” is that it means that literally every manuscript has been preserved completely. This has never been the case, and was not the perspective of the framers of the confessions. They did not see the printed editions of the Greek New Testament as a mere representation of the manuscript tradition, they viewed it as the completed effort of collating the authentic copies. Which is why the framers of the confessions, and the theologians of the time, all accepted the Received Text of the Reformation period. 

It also does not mean that handwriting, text size, and document formatting has been preserved perfectly. The preservationist view set forth in the confessions is that the words have been kept pure across the authentic manuscripts. Every manuscript contains scribal errors, this does not affect the doctrinal statements of the Reformation and post-Reformation period because these errors are not so great that the original has not been available in every generation. These great men of old were not ignorant of variants, or even the readings that modernity has deemed “earliest and best”. 

Regardless of the position you take on the Text of Scripture, it should be one that comports with the testimony of Scripture itself. Do the Scriptures present a view that only the important doctrines have been preserved? Or do they say that all Scripture has been preserved? A Scripture is a Scripture, no matter how small. Rather than being swayed by the compelling evidential arguments of men, take the time to see if those arguments can withstand the weight of its own critiques. See if the methodology aligns with Scripture. Start theologically, and then examine the evidence. View the evidence in light of God’s Word, not the other way around. 

Providential Exposure as it Relates to Preservation

The Young, Textless, and Reformed2 Comments

The Theological Method and Preservation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion 

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

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

Partial Preservation & The Confessional Text

The Young, Textless, and Reformed4 Comments

Introduction

To tell the history of the pericope adulterae is to tell the history of the Gospels, and vice versa. (To Cast the First Stone, Wasserman & Knust, 9).

The story of the woman caught in adultery is beloved by many Christians, non-canonical to others, and a fascinating story of transmission of the New Testament Text to scholars. There are even some who consider the story to belong in the Gospel of John despite believing that John did not write the story himself. The current scholarship on the Pericope Adulterae reveals a bigger picture on New Testament text critical studies than twelve verses that make up the story of the woman caught in adultery. This scholarship has in some cases, uncovered the ghost of Schleiermacher, and in other cases exposed the evolutionary perspective that scholars have of the New Testament text. In either case, the perspectives of these positions are by no means historical or orthodox, despite the best intentions of those engaging in the work. 

The Well Intentioned Theology of Partial Preservation

Good works are only such as God hath commanded in His Holy Word, and not such as without the warrant thereof are devised by men out of blind zeal, or upon any pretense of good intentions (LBCF 16.1).

The best of intentions are utterly devoid of any value if the actions of those intentions are not submissive to the Word of God. It does not matter if those engaging in New Testament textual scholarship are nice or even dear brothers in the Lord, if the underlying perspective and work done is antithetical to Scriptural truths. The doctrinal statements of protestant Christianity have, until the modern period, been in agreement on the nature of the Holy Scriptures. They are self-authenticating, and God has preserved them in every age. Any theological position that allows for a total corruption of the text, such that the text of the Bible must be recovered or reconstructed, stands in opposition to the standards laid down by the great heroes of the protestant faith throughout the ages. 

There is a difference between collating the texts that have been received by the people of God in every generation and believing that the text has been lost to time and needs to be reconstructed. The textual scholars of the Reformation did not believe they were trying to find the potentially earliest form of the New Testament (which had become corrupted totally), they were collating the best manuscripts which were in use at the time. This is why it is inexcusable to say that Reformation era textual criticism is the same thing as modern textual criticism. Imagine John Calvin saying something like this:

“Books and the texts they preserve are human products, bound in innumerable ways to the circumstances and communities that produce them. This is also true of the New Testament…Even if the text of the Gospels could be fixed – and, when viewed at the level of object and material artifact, this goal has never been achieved” (15)

This perspective does not just represent the most liberal views of the New Testament text, it is abundantly present amongst conservative camps as well. This is often justified by loose understandings of Organic Inspiration. This is the Theological reality that underpins  scientific approaches to New Testament textual criticism. Now juxtapose the above statement with this quote from John Owen’s The Divine Original. 

“That the laws they made known, the doctrines they delivered, the instructions they gave, the stories they recorded, the promises of Christ, the prophecies of gospel times they gave out and revealed, were not their own, not conceived in their minds, not formed by their reasonings, not retained in their memories from what they heard, not by any means beforehand comprehended by them, (1 Pet. 1:10, 11,) but were all of them immediately from God—there being only a passive concurrence of their rational faculties in their reception, without any such active obedience as by any law they might be obliged unto”

Despite well-intentioned Christian scholars and apologists, there is not a single empirical refutation that can stand against the reality that the original text cannot be found by using scientific methods. One might be bold enough to take a stand on every variant unit in the corpus of the modern critical text, but they will be met by an overwhelming amount of scholars who reject the readings they have chosen by utilizing the same exact methodology. In fact, this is the reason many have rejected the Tyndale House Greek New Testament. Ultimately, even the most conservative Christians in the reasoned eclectic camp must pad their conclusions with “probably”, “might be”, and “could be”. 

To demonstrate this point, see these quotations from Dirk Jongkind’s An Introduction to the Greek New Testament. 

“I have no problems with the notion that God has preserved his Word. On the contrary, I believe he did. But I do not believe that God is under any obligation to preserve every detail of Scripture for us, even though he granted us good access to the text of the New Testament” (90).

“To say that God inspired the words of the New Testament does not mean that God is therefore under an obligation to preserve for us each detail” (23).

Notice that in one breath, Jongkind affirms preservation, and in the next rejects that it has been preserved totally. Scripture has been preserved, just not in every place. It would be more transparent for those who hold to this position to say that “God has preserved most of His Word”. When this theology is applied to the actual text of Scripture, it just aligns with the same exact perspective as those that believe the Word of God is a human product that cannot and has not ever been preserved in its original form. This is because the places where God has not totally preserved His Word just so happen to be the same places that the secular scholarship agrees cannot be determined with absolute certainty. Despite the well meaning efforts of believing textual scholars to hold onto an orthodox view of preservation, they have had to change the meaning of preservation entirely in order to have an empirical argument. Jongkind admits as much that that is what he, and like minded Christians, are doing when they engage in textual criticism.

Therefore, Textus Receptus proponents avoid the historical question, “Is this the text backed up by the best historical evidence? By answering the following theological question in the affirmative: Is this the text given to us by God? (89)

Well-intentioned Christians have to denigrate and attack another Christian position that actually believes in a finished product of God’s Word in order to justify their theological position that the Word of God has only been preserved in parts. If they can demonstrate that there is not a single form of God’s Word that has been preserved, they can justify the work that is being done today. The modern critical position is only appealing when the other positions are mocked, shamed, or otherwise discredited. 

The problem with statements like these, which seem scientific and logical, is that they do not carry the weight that they seem to carry. In the question, “Is the text backed up by the best historical evidence?” there is a monumental assumption that the modern text is backed up by historical evidence. Yet even the evidence that is produced for the various forms of the modern text, the very same scholars who belittle the Textus Receptus admit that their science is not certain or verifiable. This is not a controversial opinion, there is even a symbol in the NA28 apparatus which literally designates when a verse cannot be determined to be original by empirical methods. And in every case where an empirical stand is taken on a textual variant, there is never absolute agreement. At the end of this pursuit, the only thing that has been produced is not a Bible, but bibles. Modern New Testament text critical scholars have not succeeded at the goal of producing a text. 

Preservation

The historical, orthodox understanding of the doctrine of preservation does not allow for partial preservation, or multiple forms of the New Testament text. The word preservation itself means that something remains in its original state, or has been kept safe from harm or corruption. This word has not shifted in meaning over the years – it means the same thing now as it did when it came into English from the latin. If one is to employ the word “preservation” in discussing the Scriptures, than it means to believe that the Scriptures have been retained in their original form since penned in the first century. That is not to say that every manuscript has, or that one manuscript has, just that upon collation of manuscripts, the original form has been retained. In order to say that the Bible has not been preserved in every detail, than the term “partial preservation” or “substantial preservation” should be employed. It is not transparent to claim to espouse a preservationist doctrine of Scripture while also affirming that the Bible has not been preserved. 

The simple doctrine of preservation is that God preserved His Word, and has kept it pure in all ages. This requires affirming that a final product has been available to the people of God in all ages (though there were times where not every Christian had access to a Bible, this is still the case in many countries). If this is the case, the goal of the Christian should be to see which text has been given to the people of God. At this juncture, there are a handful of options – the modern critical texts, the majority texts, and the Received Text. Within the modern critical texts, there are hundreds of Bibles to choose from. Within the majority texts, there are but a few. And within the Received Text camp, there are a dozen or so, most notably the KJV. In any case, the Christian, especially in America, has the luxury to choose which Bible they read in any format imaginable. Choose a translation that is based off of the most faithful methodology, not one that is the most empirically “consistent”. Remember the words of the famous empiricist text critic, D.C. Parker:

“The text is changing. Every time I make an edition of the Greek New Testament, or anybody does, we change the wording. We are maybe trying to get back to the oldest possible form, but paradoxically we are creating a new one…There is never a final form of the text.”

The views of D.C. Parker are not aberrant from the rest of modern textual criticism. He represents the majority view, either explicitly or implicitly. The theology of partial preservation and a changing text has become the orthodoxy of New Testament text-critical scholarship. This theological foundation is being taught as the only methodology in seminaries and from pulpits. My only hope is that Christians will take the time to consider the implications this has on the doctrines of inspiration and preservation. If the goal is to give Christians confidence that they are reading God’s Word, this modern methodology cannot do that.