After listening to the Textual Confidence Collective [TCC], I couldn’t help but observe that they did little to move the discussion down the road. They certainly took the opportunity to stump for their side, but as far as answering the pressing questions of authority and certainty, the whole performance fell flat.

It also dawned on me that our interactions with fellow Christians on the point of the text and versions may be far simpler than those of the TCC would like us to believe. In light of that possible, indeed probability, I would like to propose a revolution in the discussion, a revolution with an aim toward simplicity.

First, even though the following proposes a simple and repetitive approach, that does not excuse us from continuing in ardent study of the word of God and of the issues surrounding the text and version discussion. Study hard. We will need it if this revolution works.

Second, I propose that we ask the same questions in the same order, and never to veer from this stated course until our interlocutor’s have clearly answered the questions. There will be a temptation to chase a rabbit trail or to comment on some side comment. Resist those temptations and stick to the question at hand.

I propose the questions and the order to be:
1.) Ask, “Does the English-speaking Church have the whole inspired infallible word of God in her hand, no more no less?
A.) If yes, “Show it to me. Name it.”
B.) If no, shake off the dust of your shoes.
2.) Press your interlocutor into naming one version. If he says he believes the NIV, ESV and CSB are all the inspired infallible word of God then pick one and go to question #3.
3.) Assuming the ESV, ask, “Is the story of the woman caught in adultery [John 7:53-8:11] which is in your Bible the inspired infallible word of God?”
A.) If yes, ask, “Is it morally right before God to put brackets around that passage seeing that it is no different than the rest of God’s word?”
B.) If no, take your interlocutor back to question #1, because he said that the English-speaking Church had the whole inspired infallible word of God in her hand, no more no less. The presence of the woman caught in adultery in the ESV, by the lights of your interlocutor, is an addition of twelve verses.

Conclusion: Your interlocutor does not believe the English-speaking Church has the whole inspired infallible word of God in her hand, no more no less.

This line of questioning yields all kinds of benefits:

1.) It is a simple formula that does not expect extensive seminary training. Anyone can use it.
2.) It is relevant in the English-speaking context in that focuses on a English version as being the whole inspired infallible word of God in her hand, no more no less.
3.) It is possible to use this formula in defense of a Greek text as well [i.e., the TR] with only minor modification.
4.) This series of questions really gets to the crux of why we argue for the Confessional Text or a Standard Sacred Text. A corrupted text is not a preserved text. A corrupted text cannot be a standard sacred text. A corrupted text cannot be the object of faith neither in part nor in the whole.
5.) If we insist on starting our discussion and disputes in this way then we will be able to collate a data set somewhat representative our opponent’s position and particularly the elements of academic teaching making it down to the street level if you will.
6.) When you employ this method or something close to it, we’d love to house screenshots of that interaction here on StandardSacredText.com. Once you take the screenshots or have transcribed a person-to-person conversation you can email them to standardsacredtext@gmail.com and we’ll post the results for others to observe, make analysis, and learn from.

Sound good…sound good? Alright everyone bring it in. 1…2…3…REVOLUTION!

For want of a nail the shoe was lost. 
For want of a shoe the horse was lost. 
For want of a horse the rider was lost. 
For want of a rider the message was lost.
For want of a message the battle was lost. 
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost, 
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

This famous proverb has been used across the centuries to indicate the importance and necessity of small things in the grand picture. We see this truth all around us. That is why kings and generals and Supreme Court justices have quoted or made reference to For Want of a Nail. We know almost intuitively or instinctively that a failure in the small things, in the less regarded things can and does lead to a failure of the whole.

The Ancient Greek knew it. Aristotle writes,

“The reason is that a principle is great rather in power than in extent; hence that which was small at the start turns out a giant at the end.”

Aristotle, “On the Heavens” in The Basic Works of Aristotle (New York: The Modern Library, 2001). Bk. 1, Chap. 5, 271b, p. 404.

Then the inimitable Medieval Scholar, Thomas Aquinas, picks up on the same theme and writes,

“A small error at the outset can lead to great errors in the final conclusions.”

Thomas Aquinas, On Being and Essence, trans. Armand Maurer (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1949), Prologue.

Then the renowned Reformer, Francis Turretin, leverages the same axioms in observing supposed corruptions in the Scriptures when he writes,

“Nor can it be said that these corruptions are only in smaller things which do not affect the foundation of faith. For if once authenticity (authentia) of the Scriptures is taken away (which would result even from the incurable corruption of one passage), how could our faith rest on what remains? And if corruption is admitted in those of lesser importance, why not in others of greater?”

Turretin, Institutes, vol. 1, 71.

If small put potent elements or pieces or words are lost, then the whole kingdom, doctrine, and even Scripture can be lost to us. The Ancient Greeks knew it. The Medievals knew it. The Reformers knew it. We in the modern west know it, but we pretend like we don’t.

And yet, when we here at StandardSacredText.com claim every word of our Bible is and must be the word of God for our Bible to properly be called the word of God we are told that corruption can be admitted of lesser things without jeopardizing the whole. Forgetting the fact that the “lesser things” and the “greater things” are the same kind of thing – inspired Scripture. We are told that small errors at the outset cannot and do not affect major doctrine. We are told that small corruptions here and there are not and cannot turn out to be great corruptions.

My point is, the current evangelical milieu on this point goes against its scholarly heritage all the way back to the Greeks. The no-major-doctrine-is-affected argument and the minor-errors argument are tragic testimonies to the Church’s intellectual homelessness. She has wandered from her Christian and scholarly heritage seeking to make a modern and detached place of her own among the pigs and husks of modern secular scholarship and she does so with the inheritance she received from her scholarly Christian forbearers.

For want of a nail the kingdom was lost and for want of a word the Bible was lost.

Here we have a 90 minute interview of Theodore Letis on KVTT. Dooley does a wonderful job asking penetrating question though it is clear he is not an advocate of Letis’ position. The interview is a model interview even among those who differ. As an aside, Dooley gives Letis an opportunity to be Letis and develop his arguments and position.

It is interesting to note that the Dooley offers nearly identical arguments to those of Mark Ward and the TCC regarding “words hard to be understood” and archaisms but Dooley is not so off the mark to call such words False Friends.

Give it a listen. I hope you enjoy it. Blessings.

The following is Christopher Yetzer’s fourth and final instalment in the treatment of the term “very vulgar” as it is used in the 1611 KJV Preface to the Reader. You can find prior instalments here: First, Second, and Third. Recently, “very vulgar” has been co-opted by opponents of the KJV in order to claim that even the KJV translators would want to see the KJV changed because the KJV is no longer a suitable form of English for the modern day.

Yetzer in this four part series has done a superb job showing that while the translators of the KJV desired to put the word of God into the hand of the ploughman it was not their intent to translate the Bible on the level of the “very vulgar” or very common man. Instead, these translators, like those before them, opted to retain difficult words, ambiguities, and majesty of the Scriptural style. What is more, the translators encouraged their readers to study if they could not understand or to turn to someone who had already studied so that they may better understand.

As Yetzer points out the KJV translators were not alone in this as we see in this fourth instalment. Thus Yetzer concludes, ” I do believe that the translators desired them [i.e., the common English speaker] to know God’s words but I don’t think that they [i.e., the KJV translators] consistently translated it on their level. They expected them to study, ask and learn.”

The following words are those of Yetzer presented without modification. He published this material today [08/18/22] on the Facebook group King James Bible Debate.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Part 4: 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐊𝐉𝐕 𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐝

COMPARED TO OTHER BIBLE PREFACES

First we need to note that the Bishops’ Bible was the only Protestant English Bible previous to the KJV which was translated after the official ending of the Council of Trent. It was however translated before the recognition of the Clementine text. Up to the Council of Trent, the changes by the inquisitors and the Prohibited Books Index, the Catholic Church was less unified in their position regarding translations of the Bible into the vulgar languages. The hardening of their stance had an impact on the methods and words they began to use in their attacks against the “heretics” which in turn would change the tone of the rebuttals used by the Protestants. The Council of Trent had an broad impact on the world, both Catholic and Protestant.

In the prefaces of the previous English Bibles, we are looking to see how intelligible or understandable the preface authors might have considered the words which they used. How did they think the translation would speak to the common man?

Tyndale’s 1526 New Testament preface:

In time to come (if God have appointed us thereunto) we will give it his full shape, and put out if aught be added superfluously, and add to if aught be overseen through negligence, and will enforce to bring to compendiousness that which is now translated at the length, and to give light where it is required, and to seek in certain places more proper English, and with a table to expound the words which are not commonly used and show how the Scripture useth many words which are otherwise understood of the common people, and to help with a declaration where one tongue taketh not another; and will endeavor ourselves, as it were, to seeth it better, and to make it more apt for the weak stomachs; desiring them that are learned and able, to remember their duty, and to help thereunto, and to bestow unto the edifying of Christ’s body (which is the congregation of them that believe) those gifts which they have received of God for the same purpose. (Text from Bible-researcher. Bold added)

In his preface, Tyndale was honest in recognizing the challenges of translating the Scriptures into English. He knew that some of the language used in the Bible would not communicate to the daily lives of the 16th century ploughman. He also knew that some of his terms and phrases would be unclear and in some points completely unintelligible to his readers (Tyndale is said to have created new words such as Passover, scapegoat, etc). That does not mean that he did not want the illiterate to understand the Scriptures, just that he didn’t translate it on their level.

1535 Coverdale preface:

Now will I exhort thee (whosoever thou be that readest scripture) if thou find ought therein that thou understandest not, or that appeareth to be repugnant, give no temeritous nor hasty judgment thereof: but ascribe it to thine own ignorance, not to the scripture, think that thou understandest it not, or that it hath some other meaning, or that it is happly overseen of the interpreters, or wrongly printed. Again, it shall greatly help thee to understand scripture, if thou mark not only what is spoken or written, but of whom, and unto whom, with what words, at what time, where, to what intent, with what circumstance, considering what goeth before, and what followeth after. For there be some things which are done and written, to the intent that we should do likewise: as when Abraham believeth God, is obedient unto his word, and defendeth Lot his kinsman from violent wrong. There be some things also which are written, to the intent that we should eschew such like. As when David lieth with Urias’ wife, and causeth him to be slain. Therefore (I say) when thou readest scripture, be wise and circumspect: and when thou commest to such strange manners of speaking and dark sentences, to such parables and similitudes, to such dreams or visions as are hid from thy understanding, commit them unto God or to the gift of his holy spirit in them that are better learned than thou. (Text from Bible-researcher. Bold added)

Like Tyndale, Coverdale desired people to have access to the Scriptures. He was aware though that within Scripture there were difficult concepts and that the readers may have to search out more intelligent or studied people to gain an understanding of what was written.

Thomas Cranmer’s preface printed in the Great Bible from 1540 onwards:

But still ye will say I can not understand it. What marvel? How shouldest thou understand, if thou wilt not read, nor look upon it? Take the books into thine hands, read the whole story, and that thou understandest, keep it well in memory; that thou understandest not, read it again, and again. If thou can neither so come by it, counsel with some other that is better learned. Go to thy curate and preacher; show thyself to be desirous to know and learn, and I doubt not but God – seeing thy diligence and readiness (if no man else teach thee) – will himself vouchsafe with his holy spirit to illuminate thee, and to open unto thee that which was locked from thee. (Text from Bible-researcher. Bold added)

Cranmer, like the others, desired people to know the Scriptures. He wrote in the preface that he believed they were written by common men to common men, but he also was prepared for the fact that many would not be able to comprehend them. He used the example of the Ethiopian Eunuch who continued to read even though he could not understand. Cranmer believed that if one would simply read like the Eunuch then God would bring a Phillip their way to open their understanding. He did not believe that they were translated at the level which common men would comprehend the entirety of them.

1560 Geneva Bible preface:

Now as we have chiefly observed the sense, and labored always to restore it to all integrity, so have we most reverently kept the propriety of the words, considering that the Apostles who spake and wrote to the Gentiles in the Greek tongue, rather constrained them to the lively phrase of the Hebrew than enterprised far by mollifying their language to speak as the Gentiles did. And for this cause we have in many places reserved the Hebrew phrases, notwithstanding that they may seem somewhat hard in their ears that are not well practiced and also delight in the sweet-sounding phrases of the Holy Scriptures. Yet lest either the simple should be discouraged, or the malicious have any occasion of just cavillation, seeing some translations read after one sort, and some after another, whereas all may serve to good purpose and edification, we have in the margent noted that diversity of speech or reading which may also seem agreeable to the mind of the Holy Ghost and proper for our language with this mark « …. And considering how hard a thing it is to understand the holy Scriptures, and what errors, sects, and heresies grow daily for lack of the true knowledge thereof, and how many are discouraged (as they pretend) because they cannot attain to the true and simple meaning of the same, we have also endeavored both by the diligent reading of the best commentaries, and also by the conference with the godly and learned brethren, to gather brief annotations upon all the hard places, as well for the understanding of such words as are obscure, and for the declaration of the text, as for the application of the same as may most appertain to God’s glory and the edification of his Church. (Text from Bible-researcher. Bold added)

Again the Geneva preface makes it clear that some of the words would not be understood, and they even made an attempt of putting more comprehensive language in the margins.

1568 Bishops’ Bible preface:

Saint Paul willeth thee to have thy senses exercised in them, and not to be a child in thy sense, but in malice. Though many things may be difficult to thee to understand, impute it rather to thy dull hearing and reading, then to think that the scriptures be insuperable, to them which with diligent searching labor to discern the evil from the good. Only search with an humble spirit, ask in continual prayer, seek with purity of life, knock with perpetual perseverance, and cry to that good spirit of Christ the comforter: and surely to every such asker it will be given, such searchers must needs find, to them it will be opened. Christ himself will open the sense of the scriptures, not to the proud, or to the wise of the world, but to the lowly and contrite in heart… Whereupon for frail man (compassed himself with infirmity) it is most reasonable not to be too severe in condemning his brothers knowledge or diligence where he doth err, not of malice, but of simplicity, and specially in handling of these so divine books so profound in sense, so far passing our natural understanding. (Modernized and bold added)

The Bishops’ Bible preface starts with a long encouragement to search the scriptures. And so it is clear that they stand in line with their forerunners: The Bible is to be read by all. But as their predecessors knew, so did they: That it wasn’t translated for the plowboy. We can also see in the preface the accusations against them, “but more cunningly under subtle pretenses, for that as they say, they were so hard to understand, and specially for that they affirm it to be a perilous matter to translate the text of the holy scripture, and therefore it cannot be well translated.” The Catholics were claiming that the Scriptures were too hard to understand for the people and that it was dangerous to translate them. The Anglicans wanted to bring their people to an understanding of the Scriptures and thought it was a blessing to man to read them at their leisure.

So we see by comparing these prefaces that each author desired the scriptures to be know to the common man and in most cases even to the children. But we also see that they knew that the Scriptures were not written on their level nor were they translated on their level. They knew that the words of the Scriptures contained difficult themes from a foreign land and a foreign time which were not common to the plowman.

COMPARED TO THE TRANSLATORS’ WORDS

A bit of background: as the discussions concerning the Apocryphal books and their position carried on, the Protestants began to emphasize that the canonical books had a sort of style to them which would allow true believers to differentiate canonical books from non-canonical. Richard Stock in his book A Stock of Divine Knowledge answers the question “How doth this appeare, that it was written by divine inspiration from God?” with three thoughts: 1. From the doctrine found inside. 2. From the majesty of the style. 3. From the approval of Christ and his Apostles. On his second point he explains, “Whosoever is exercised in reading the Scripture, shall plainly see, that no meer man was ever able to write it of himselfe. The excellencie of the stile is so great, that, as Eusebius reports, they thereby tried the writing of hereticks; if the stile doth not agree to this of the Prophets and Apostles, they are to be rejected. If wee will know all true authority, wee must know it by the stile… so the writings of other men may bee knowne from the Scriptures, on which the holy Ghost hath set such a stile as is not to bee found in all or any the writings of all the world besides.” This is important to understand because some of the translators’ quotes make reference to the style of Scripture and it seems that this is what was intended.

John Stock was not a KJV translator, but his explanation illuminates the words of the previous generation. Here is a more nuanced quote from a KJV translator and possibly two others:

• Second Oxford translator George Abbot, “the matter of the books of Esdras is slight and vaine, without majestie, and unworthy the holy sacred spirit of God.” (The Reasons which Doctour Hill Hath Brought, for the Upholding of Papistry)
• Translator Arthur Lake, “But we hold that which they confesse, that the Word written in the Canonicall books is undoubtedly signed with Thus saith the Lord of Hostes; as for the Apocryphall Scriptures, not only the Fathers, but their owne men have branded them for Bastards, before ever wee challenged them…” (Sermons With some Religious and Divine Meditations.)
• “For it seemeth to me most agreeable to speak to God, as neere as we can, in the same language he speakes to us, which is the sanctified language of the Bible.” – Daniel Featley (Ancilla Pietatis: Or, The Hand-Maid to private Devotion)

Now let’s look at what some of the translators said concerning the intelligibility of Scripture. Some quotes will be pointing out the style and nature of Scripture as something different then common language while others are commenting on the difficulty interpreting the sense of the Scriptures.

• “We hold, that God hath given the gift of Interpretation to some (as Saint Paul affirms) and they are such to whom God (as he saith) hath revealed it by his Spirit, that is, a natural man cannot Interpret them aright; nor yet the vulgar or common sort…” – Lancelot Andrewes (The Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine at Large)
• “If the words be arranged in this manner, the statement will be more majestic.” – Andrew Downes (recorded during translating by John Bois) (Translating for King James)
• “that we alwaies keepe the maiestie of the sacred word of God, and not give other men occasion, to thinke unfitly and unreverently of so high a mysterie,” – George Abbot (An Exposition upon the prophet Ionah)
• “This man here is he which before was called the rich-man, rich not in a vulgar sense, but in the language of the Holy Ghost, who by Rich understandeth Noble.” – Arthur Lake (A Sermon Preached At Farneham On St. Iames His Day)
• “…for the Bible is our Divinitie Grammar, according to which all our lessons ought to bee parsed and construed. And if yee meete with a difficult place, repaire to Gods Usher the Priest, whose lippes should preserve knowledge: Demand of your pastor, as the Disciples of Christ here; What manner of parable is this?” – John Bois (An Exposition of the Dominical Epistles)
• “And for this purpose did Moses and the Prophets, Christ and his Apostles, and the Fathers of the Primitive Church commend unto the people the reading of the Scriptures. But we advise them to leave unto the learned, at least to learne of them to understand those things that are vailed; and soberly to edifie their pietie with these things which they shall find there unvailed, or laid before their faces.” – Arthur Lake (Sermons With some Religious and Divine Meditations)
• “The name of ADAM is not to be understood vulgarly, but as the Holy Ghost useth it, and so it comprehends both sexes: so we read Gen. 1. GOD created ADAM, male and female made he them;” – Arthur Lake (Sermons With some Religious and Divine Meditations)
• “God, in calling Him Lord; for that word must not be understood but according to the style of Scripture,” – Arthur Lake (Ten Sermons)
• “Unregenerate hearts are termed in holy Bible stonie hearts;” – John Bois (The Workes of Iohn Boys)
• “This dutie belongs not only to the Clergie, but also to the Laitie, yea to the most ignorant. For albeit every one cannot be learned in the writings of the Prophets and Apostles, which are the great Bible: yet, that he may take heed of false teachers, he must understand the plaine principles of his Catechisme, which, as one saith, is the little Bible.” – John Bois (The Workes of Iohn Boys)
• “…so the word that now doth plenteously dwell among you, may dwell plenteously in you. Plenteously] Reade, heare, meditate, with all attention exactly, with all intention devoutly, with all diligence throughly…This one word, plenteously, confutes plenteously, first, ignorant people, who cannot: secondly, negligent people, who will not reade and heare…” – John Bois (An Exposition of the Dominical Epistles)
• “The word of God is committed to the keeping of the Church, and this word is seed, and milke, and strong meat, Heb. 5.14. The Church then as a mother brings forth children to God by the ministerie of the word, and after they be borne feeds them with milke flowing from her owne two brests, which are the Scriptures of the two Testaments.” – John Bois (The Workes of Iohn Boys)
• “Some things in the writings of S. Paul are hard to be understood: This Epistle containing the chiefe mysteries of all divinity, so difficult as any: this Scripture more dark than other parts of this Epistle: whether we consider the matter, or the words. It is a tract of eternall glory which is not fully revealed unto us here, but shall be shewed upon us hereafter: and it hath a phrase or two not used else-where throughout the whole Bible:” – John Bois (The Workes of Iohn Boys)
• “What a good speech is that of Irenaeus. Some things in the Scriptures (by Gods prouidence) are hard to be comprehended in this life, Vt semper quidem Deus doceat, homo autem semper discat quae sunt à Deo? That God might haue alwayes somewhat to teach vs, and that man might haue to learne alwaies those things that are of God?” – Miles Smith (Sermons)
• “And another, Circumcise the fore-skin of your hearts, &c. Neither doe the Scriptures only vse to speake thus, but ordinary wise men also, whether they were in the Church or out of the Church.” – Miles Smith (Sermons)
• “Doe ye looke, (I speake to the vnlearned,) that as Bees brought honey into Platoes mouth, as they fable; and as Timotheus had Cities and Castles cast into his lap when he was asleepe, as they painted him; so knowledge and the resolution of hard doubts, and the vnderstanding of darke places of Scripture will be breathed vpon you, without once opening of your mouthes, or asking a question?… And our Prophet in my Text, would not haue a man to trust too much to his owne wit or perspicacy, but that he should aske of others.” – Miles Smith (Sermons)
• “These be demonstrative proofes, that there is more in this word, then mans wit can imagine, that not by sword or compulsion, but onely by speaking and hearing, perhaps this day it creepeth, to morrow it flyeth aloft, and sheweth his head with the mightiest.” – George Abbot (An Exposition upon the Prophet Ionah)
• “There are many demonstrative proofes of the unmatchable excellencie, and incomparable rarity of the volumes of the Bible, although the dazeled eyes of some know not how to behold them.” – George Abbot (An Exposition upon the Prophet Ionah)

Often in their sermons and writings they will mention a phrase similar to “as the Scripture speakes” (See Arthur Lake’s sermons, William Barlow’s The Sermon preached at Paules Crosse and John Bois’ An Exposition of the Dominical Epistles)

COMPARED TO THE TEXT ITSELF.

Lancelot Andrewes was one of the most important translators. He was director of the first Westminster company of translators which worked on the portion of the Bible from Genesis through 2 Kings. He may have had more impact on that portion of text than any of the other members as in November 1604 he wrote to a Mr. Hartwell saying, “this afternoon is our translation time, and most of our company are negligent”(Two Answers to Cardinal Perron, and Other Miscellaneous Works of Lancelot Andrewes. It should be noted that Andrewes was possibly one of the only unmarried men in his company). In several writings Andrewes taught that rather than make the Scriptures as clear as possible they should actually be translated into the broadest sense permitted, “It were good in translations, that the interpreter would observe this rule, to let the words stand in as large and broad a sense as they will bear, for so if need by they may be restrained by other places;”(The Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine at Large) and “for my part I wish no word ever narrowed by a translation, asmuch as might be, left in the latitude of the Originall tongue…The best way is, where there are two, to take in both: So we shall be sure, to leave out neither.”(Ninety-Six Sermons) This appears scattered throughout the text. Genesis 3:6 is a good example.

Genesis 3:6

• Bishops’ Bible: …and gaue also vnto her husbande beyng with her, and he dyd eate.
• KJV 1611: …and gaue also vnto her husband with her, and hee did eate.

Here we can see that the KJV reads more like the more vague Geneva text which permits Adam to have either been present at the moment Eve ate or to have been given the fruit when he was finally present with her. The following verse presents the same situation.

Genesis 11:28

• Bishops’ Bible: And Haran dyed in the presence of his father Tarah…
• KJV 1611: And Haran died, before his father Terah…

In Genesis 11:28 it is unclear if Haran died in the presence of his father or simply during his life. The Hebrew is “on the face”. The KJV translators took a more vague approach and copied the Geneva text. Andrewes’ theory of translation passes on to other books in the KJV besides the ones he specifically worked on. Here is an example from the book of Psalms (also see the example from 1 Samuel 24:3 given above above).

Psalms 12:7

• Bishops’ Bible: [Wherfore] thou wylt kepe the godly, O God…
• KJV 1611: Thou shalt keep them, O LORD…

Every one of these three examples follows the Geneva and the intent is less immediately clear to the reader.

Besides the places where the translators made the Biblical text slightly less understandable by making it more vague, there are other places where (despite Miles Smith’s words) the KJV continued to use some complex theological terms such as propitiation and technical terms such as presbytery (also see Ephod, Proselyte etc.).

1 John 2:2

• Geneva Bible: And he is the reconciliation for our sinnes:
• Bishops’ Bible: And he is ye attonement for our sinnes:
• KJV 1611: And he is the propitiation for our sinnes:

1 Timothy 4:14

• Geneva Bible: …with the laying on of the hands of the companie of the Eldership.
• Bishops’ Bible: …with the laying on of handes by the auctoritie of the eldership.
• KJV 1611: …with the laying on of the hands of the Presbyterie.

Earlier in this study we noted William Sclater’s complaint just a few years after the printing of the 1611, but we won’t repeat it here. Other contemporary witnesses would include the preface to the 1645 English annotations, “the people complained, that they could not see into the sense of the Scripture, so well as they formerly did, by the Geneva Bibles, because their spectacles of Annotations were not fitted to the understanding of the new Text, nor any other supplyed in their stead.” and A Complete Concordance to the Bible of the Last Translation says, “if in their reading the Bible they fall upon some perplexed sentence and obscure place, let them according to the direction of S. Austin, seek for other parallel texts or places of Scripture, in which the same matter is set down more plainly and evidently…so the Scripture is best expounded by Scripture. But if they cannot meet with any parallel sentence, let them then single out that word or words, the ambiguity wherof causes obscurity in the sentence. This word or words let them search in their Concordance, and observe in each place where they reade it, the severall significations therof, and among them let them make choise of that which upon due examination they finde best agreeth with the analogie of faith, the scope of the place, and circumstances of the text.” John Selden, a friend of several translators, who said, “There is no Book so translated as the Bible for the purpose. If I translate a French Book into English, I turn it into English Phrase, not into French English [Il fait froid] I say ‘tis cold, not, it makes cold, but the Bible is rather translated into English Words, than into English Phrase. The Hebraisms are kept, and the Phrase of that Language is kept: As for Example [He uncovered her Shame] which is well enough, so long as Scholars have to do with it; but when it comes among the Common People, Lord, what Gear do they make of it!” (Table-Talk Thanks to Timothy Berg for recently pointing this out.)

Modern scholars have agreed with the sentiments expressed by the translators and the early contemporary sources. Bible Scholar Edward Hills has said, “…the English of the King James Version is not the English of the early seventeenth century. To be exact, it is not a type of English that was ever spoken anywhere. It is Biblical English…” (As quoted in Biblical English by Phil Stringer) Donald Brake describes that, “By 1611, the ambiguous you (singular and plural) instead of thou (singular) and ye (plural) was virtually the norm; thus, the KJV translators were compelled to employ forms that were already archaic,” and that the translators “were very conservative and retained the fading use of many words…”(A Monarch’s Majestic Translation) KJV scholar David Norton defends some of the ambiguity in the text by saying, “Equally what may appear bad through incomprehensibility or sheer ugliness often comes from its earnest fidelity to the originals.”(A Short History) Robert Alter commenting on the Hebrew text says, “the Bible itself does not generally exhibit the clarity to which its modern translators aspire: the Hebrew writers reveled in the proliferation of meanings, the cultivation of ambiguities, the playing of one sense of a term against another, and this richness is erased in the deceptive antiseptic clarity of the modern versions…” (The Art of Bible Translation).

In conclusion to the 4 parts of this research: The phrase “very vulgar” from the preface was most likely in reference to word units and even at that a bit of publicity which the translators did not universally apply. The text of the KJV was not entirely understandable to the most illiterate at the time it was published. I do believe that the translators desired them to know God’s words but I don’t think that they consistently translated it on their level. They expected them to study, ask and learn.

_______________________________________________________________________________

As many of you know my Ph.D. is in Christian Apologetics. I love Christian Apologetics. I love meeting people where they are and helping them see the person, power, and work of Jesus Christ. I will talk to anyone at any time about their worldview, it’s explanatory force and scope, and whether their worldview stacks up against the Christian worldview. The only thing that can make the apologetic experience better is a hot cup of coffee to facilitate long discussions into the night and a slice of blueberry or pecan pie to keep the carbs flowin’.

So I asked myself this morning whether Confessional Bibliology is a better apologetic, a better defense of Scripture on the world’s stage when compared to the modern evangelical textual approach. To make the comparison I watched the following debate between James White and Adnan Rashid which took place in 2013.

This debate is actually a double-header. The first part of the debate [linked above] concerns whether the NT was reliably transmitted. The second part of the debate [not shown] concerns whether the Quran was reliably transmitted. My interest was to see how James White a noted debater, self-proclaimed Presuppositionalist, Reformed Baptist minister, published author, graduate with an unaccredited Ph.D., and staunch supporter of textual reconstruction would employ Christian Apologetics in defense of the Christian Scriptures.

I take James White’s approach to be representative of the standard Christian apologetic offered in defense of the Christian Scriptures, and after giving it a careful hearing I find White’s apologetic and those like it to be largely bereft of spiritual life and good sense. Allow me a few observations.

1.) White, who boldly claims the banner of Presuppositionalist, no where, not once quotes Scripture to defend his position i.e., no spiritual life. He make exactly zero attempts to being his argument from a position of belief in the Triune God and the authority of Scripture. White’s apologetic on this point is wholly secular in his approach. He sought to meet Rashid on the common ground of textual evidence. White never once made an theological argument to support his position nor did he attempt a theological rebuttal of Rashid’s position. All was evidence. Evidence was king. To this day, White retains the Presuppositionalist moniker but on the subject of textual transmission is an Evidentialist to the core.

2.) Because White is an Evidentialist on this point of Bibliology, it should be no wonder that time and time again in the debate his main authoritative referent was “scholars”, and if not “scholars” then “editors”. Perhaps his greatest use of this authoritative referent was when he asserted that free transmission is to be preferred to controlled transmission of a text. No where is this established. It is largely asserted. What is more, the theologically interesting question of immediate inspiration and whether it was transmitted freely or in a controlled way seems to have bearing on what scholar’s say is best. It seems that the standard Pre-Critical understanding of “immediate inspiration” being dictation would call into question whether “scholars” believe free transmission is preferred to controlled transmission and that in an ultimate sense.

3.) At no point did White confirm any of the words of the New Testament as being THE words of the Original. Rather, it seemed that his emphasis lay on the presence of the Original words being in the manuscript tradition. Which words White believed to be the Original words of Mark or John was unclear. White’s argument then seems to be something like, “Yes, the NT was transmitted reliably…somewhere and we’re pretty sure we have it now.” Such a NT cannot be grounds for life giving faith and as such is bereft of spiritual life and good sense regarding the nature of Christian faith.

Confessional Bibliology on the other hand would treat the whole interaction with Adman Rashid from a wholly different perspective, a theological perspective. The evidence would only come in to play a secondary role. My argument would go something like this.

Positive 1: The Triune God has promised to preserve His words in the mouth of His people [Isa. 59:21; Psalm 12:6-7] and that preservation extends to the very letters and parts of letters [Matt. 5:18]. Now this does not mean that every person always had every word between two covers, but it does mean that God has kept every word and kept each word pure from corruption.

Positive 2: Because God has promised to preserve ever letter of His revealed word I am compelled by Scripture to believe this about the Scriptures in my hand and I can believe this because God cannot lie nor can He tempt any man to lie therefore what God says is true and I must believe it.

Negative 1: The Quran states in Surahs [chapters] 3:54, 7:99, 8:30, 10:21, 13:42 that Allah is a deceiver indeed the “best deceiver”. Seeing this is the case, based on the teaching of the Quran how can a Muslim know that the Quran itself is not in part or in whole a revelation of Allah’s power to deceive? How can a Muslim know that the text of the Quran had been reliably transmitted when the original may be a deception meant to engender absolute trust in Allah even to the exclusion of the Quran.
Objection: Because Allah is the source of truth the Quran must be truth.
Response: Because Allah is the best deceiver your objection may be evidence that Allah has done exactly the thing He is best at – deceiving. You may be believing a lie.

Negative 2: Muhammad, the supposed greatest of prophets, allowed for lying as recorded in the Hadith. Observe, narrated by Jabir bin ‘Abdullah: Allah’s Apostle said, “Who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?” Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, “O Allah’s Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?” The Prophet said, “Yes,” Muhammad bin Maslama said, “Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Ka’b). “The Prophet said, “You may say it.” (Sahih Bukhari, Book #59, Hadith #369)

Conclusion: Both Allah the Great Deceiver and his prophet Muhammad are in the business of telling lies, how much more the men who came after Allah’s prophet? The point being that reliability of Quranic transmission is compromised from the beginning.

If a Muslim where to question the manuscript tradition and the myriad of variants, I would acknowledge the variants but conclude that it was not the Church Fathers [as the TCC seems to assert] nor is it the scholarship of the academy that assembled the Canon for us or decided what words were God’s and what were were not. Rather I would assert a interpenetration of the Spirit of God working through the words of God in the people of God who received those words by faith. Followed by an argument from the sanctifying work of the Spirit in the hearts and minds of the average believer to recognize the words of God all while quoting from John 3 regarding the movement of the Spirit.

Should the Muslim question the trustworthiness of the Christian community I would admit that we are all sinners per Romans 3:23, share the Gospel with the Muslim, and then point out that while we are all sinners the Spirit has indeed moved His people throughout time to more sanctifying belief in doctrines like the Trinity, the hypostatic union of Christ, and the deity of Christ. So also the Holy Spirit does the same in moving His people to accept the words of God as the words of God.

Thus ends the lesson.

So while White and the TCC are all hung up on manuscripts and evidence and subjective judgments of oldest and best all while lacking any distinctively Christian argumentation and worldview, the Confessional Bibliology position can and does regularly employ Scripture to makes it arguments, lean heavily on orthodox Pre-Enlightenment theology, all while presupposing and expressing a distinctively Christian perspective and worldview in our argumentation and rebuttals.

If you want to do Christian Apologetics right it’s time to abandon modern evangelical text-critical approach and embrace the robust historic Christian apologetic of Confessional Bibliology.

In the most recent episode of the Textual Confidence Collective [TCC] much hay was made about the ongoing enterprise of textual criticism in the history of the Church. In my opinion they did not go back far enough to the inception of textual criticism with the words, “Yeah, hath God said?” brought to us by the Father of Lies himself. Satan is arguably the greatest of textual critics.

He existed before any of the manuscripts we have. He could have been at any of the writing and copying of those manuscripts. He knows which readings are the oldest and he knows in what manuscripts those readings occur. He knows which readings are identical to the original. He knows of manuscripts which were old and accurate which were lost to the wastes of time and use. Conversely, so does God. God knows all these things as well.

The point is that knowing these things is not enough to be faithful and accurate, honest and reliable with these truths. All evidence, to be impactful on the human mind, must be interpreted. Satan will deceive and destroy and God will illumine and enliven. Then there are the rest of us in between who by comparison are fumblers and bumblers even with all our Ph.D.’s. In short, if you are not Satan and you are not God, then you are going to need God in the person of the Holy Spirit through His words in His people to show you, to show the Church what is or is not the words of God. All other methods are merely the Three Stooges at their best.

But that is not the point of today’s post.

The question before us is what came first – the text or textual criticism? The question is important because the answer will tell us something of the nature of belief God enjoined upon the people of God at the writing of His inspired and infallible words. When all is said and done we will get to ask the question, Does God expect a different kind of belief and faith from us today than He did at the first writing of the Scriptures? So let us examine the question for a moment.

1.) It seems quite impossible to perform textual criticism if there is not yet a text to test, criticize, and correct. Therefore it stands to reason that the text came first followed by at some point the criticism of that text.

2.) When was the Scriptural text first written? Well, in the OT it was probably Job and in the NT is was probably 1 Corinthians. Say we had the original of Job or of 1 Corinthians “hot off the presses” as it were. We were the first to touch and hold the actual documents as they were handed down from the immediately inspired writer. How are we to respond?

3.) It seems that we ought to believe the words of Job and of 1 Corinthians to be the very words of God down to the literal actual jot and tittle. And that while we may have subjective misgivings of belief those misgivings would be wrong/sinful in that they are not in submission to the real and immediate revelation of God in our hands, the thus saith the Lord.

4.) What is more, both Job and 1 Corinthians being the word of God in every jot and tittle would therefore have faith producing power in every jot and tittle. That is, at no place in those documents would there be a mixture of human words or uncertain words or merely sufficiently reliable words with the actual and immediate words of God. All the words would be completely God’s words and therefore capable of producing faith in the heart of the Christian.

5.) As a result, it stands to reason that these Christians holding these original documents would be morally duty-bound to accept every word as the revealed words of God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth. Indeed, they would be called to defend those words should a charlatan or heretic come along to besmirch large sections or even a word here or there. In sum, the Christian would believe and know that every word in their possession was the words of God down to the jot and tittle and anyone who tried to change those words must be met with a defense, a Christian Apologetic Bibliology of sorts.

6.) Fast-forward to the 19th century or even today. The TCC tells us that there are places in Scripture concerning which they are uncertain. Dan Wallace says that if we had the original words of Job and 1 Corinthians in front of us today there would be no way we could know that was the fact. The editors of the ECM have seen an increase in doubtful passages in the General Epistles by ~33% and in Acts by ~100%. How are Christians to take this?

7.) Are Christians supposed to be like the Christians who held the original words of God in their hand or are they to be different kinds of Christians because of different kinds of beliefs and knowing? Christians today are told by evangelical leaders in the Church and academy that they may not rightfully believe like the Christians who first received the originals. We are told to be more epistemically humble and accept that God, that’s right, God gave us the Bible in its current certain/uncertain state. So when we compare the believers who had the originals with believers now we find that our beliefs are very different, indeed contradictory. Consider the following,

The right column passes as orthodox Christian teaching these days, but if we were to look back on our believing brothers and sisters who had the original Matthew or original Genesis in their hand we would not call them to probably of beliefs, measures of uncertainty, and perished jots and tittles. No, we would enjoin upon them full faith and confidence in every word of that manuscript, and perhaps even defend those words with our lives if someone were to try to destroy or change those words.

Hopefully you can see that the right column is very different from the left column. The beliefs held between the two columns are very different and not by degree, but by a shift in species.

It seems to me that the TCC and broader evangelical world would have two types of belief among the faithful depending on how proximate one is to the originals. If the originals are in your hand then believe every word with all your heart. If the originals are not in your hand then believe with a measure of uncertainty and doubt.

We here are StandardSacredText.com do not call for two types of belief depending on one’s proximity to the originals. We believe in one type of belief and that is to believe what the Bible says about itself. As such we believe as those who held the originals in their hand, because we believe we hold the originals in our hand. We believe every jot and tittle is present in our hand and we believe with certainty, not because we can be certain in ourselves but because we believe the certain testimony of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

In sum, we hold a continuity of belief with those who held the originals in their hands. The TCC and their ilk hold to a different and diverging belief; one which demands a probable faith or doubtful certainty or doubting Christian belief for all faith comes by hearing the word of God and there is not a single word the TCC can say is the word of God without a doubt. Therefore, by their lights, because the source is probable so must our faith be.

Remember, kids. No major doctrine is at stake.