Encouragement or Collapse: The Enlightenment Project is Struggling in Major Sectors

Over the past couple weeks or so it has come to my attention that serious shifts in the Enlightenment project have necessarily come to the fore. Consider the following:

1.) Biological Evolution and specifically Darwin’s theory of evolution has come under fire in recent days. First, there was Darwin’s theory, then came the Modern Synthesis of the 1930’s, and now there is a call for the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis where it is now argued that heredity is passed on through more than one’s genes. You can find out more on the topic here and here.

2.) With the advent of the Hubble Space Telescope we were able to see things and come to subsequent conclusions about the size and nature of the universe. Now with the James Webb Space Telescope the very nature of the universe and its age have come under new scrutiny by the academy. Physicist Eric Lerner wrote,

“To everyone who sees them, the new James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) images of the cosmos are beautifully awe-inspiring. But to most professional astronomers and cosmologists, they are also extremely surprising—not at all what was predicted by theory. In the flood of technical astronomical papers published online since July 12, the authors report again and again that the images show surprisingly many galaxies, galaxies that are surprisingly smooth, surprisingly small and surprisingly old. Lots of surprises, and not necessarily pleasant ones. One paper’s title begins with the candid exclamation: “Panic!

ERIC J. LERNER, “THE BIG BANG DIDN’T HAPPEN” AT IAI.TV (AUGUST 11, 2022)

What this will lead to is uncertain but more evidence has not led to greater confidence in current theories regarding evolutionary biology and cosmology. In fact, new evidence may call for some radical changes in methods and conclusions. On a side note, it is unclear why more textual evidence somehow guarantees greater confidence in current understandings of the content of the NT text unless the evidence is just more of the same. In which case, if we are already confident I guess we get super confidence when more evidence of the same conclusion crops up?

While we are on the topic of shifting paradigms we have mentioned time and again how the goalposts seem to have moved in the text-critical world as well and particularly on the point of the aim of textual critics. Where before the aim was to restore the originals of the New Testament through collection, collation, and weighing the quality of a given manuscript. Now we have changed to the more nebulous “initial text” which for some means “the original” and for other it means “the text which immediately underlies the manuscript tradition we currently have.” In other words, some believe “initial text” means “the original” while other do not.

This of course is the definition of equivocation. I was once told by an evangelical textual critic that “initial text” is used so that text-critics of any stripe [i.e., Christian or non-Christian] could converse on the discipline of textual criticism. So trained professionals have chosen to use a term but they all don’t agree as to what that word means. This of course goes a long way in explaining why the Critical Text and Multiple Version Only evangelicals can simultaneously insist from behind the pulpit after reading the Bible, “Based on God’s inspired inerrant word your sins are forgiven” while at the same time insist that said Bible is neither inspired [because only the originals were inspired] nor inerrant [because that Bible has printed in it the story of the woman caught in adultery, and maybe the long ending of Mark, among others].

My point is that we are seeing significant shifts in places where the mid-19th century failed humanity and the Church and not merely in ways that we academically wrong. Recasting man as a mere animal and a part of vast ancient universe removing God from the scenario as First Cause and Final Cause fit quite nicely with removing the Holy Spirit as the First and Final Cause of biblical preservation. I have a sense that once these storms settle these same scholars will cling like rats to wreckage.

In other words, apart from the grace of God don’t expect a Copernican Revolution.

So I’ve Been Asked to Debate James White

I was approached via email yesterday afternoon by Chris Arnzen of Iron Sharpens Iron Radio and to my surprise was asked if I wanted to debate James White on the topic of Confessional Bibliology. I was surprised why a second stringer was asked rather than Dr. Riddle. Not sure what’s up with that. Anyway, I appreciate the opportunity to present Confessional Bibliology to any and all who would listen.

As it stands, I told Chris I would be interested and the dates he gave me were from September 21-24.

Right now we are in the preliminary stages. The debate question has yet to be put forth and agreed upon, the same goes for the format.

So let the preparation begin.

To our readership, if there is any material you think would be germane to this debate please comment below.

Blessings.

N.B. – On a separate note, Tommy Wasserman stopped by the blog and left the following comment regarding a post I wrote a couple days ago,

“If you want to read more along the same lines I can recommend my ‘Scribal Alterations and the Reception of Jesus in Early Manuscripts of the Gospels.’ Pages 305–27 in The Reception of Jesus in the First Three Centuries. Vol.2. Edited by Jens Schröter and Christine Jacobi. Edinburgh: T&T Clark/Bloomsbury, 2019.

By the way, I work at Ansgar høyskole.
Best wishes with your ‘bibliology'”

So Help Me God

Before a witness takes the stand in a criminal case it used to be, and in some place it still is the case that the witness raises his right hand, put his left hand on the Bible, and swears “to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help me God.”

Setting aside the discussion on the morality of taking an oath, why are the witnesses instructed to take this oath in this way? The point is that we as humans forget, we misconstrue data, we assume, we doubt ourselves and our senses and so it is often the case that our perception or accounting of things can be skewed. As such we invoke the name of God to help us tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

And is this not what we here at StandardSacredText.com ask of our Critical Text interlocutors. Do we not ask them to show us the Scripture, the whole Scripture, and nothing but the Scripture? That is, we ask to be shown the whole Scripture without inclusion of man’s uninspired and fallible forgetfulness, misconstruals, assumptions, and doubts.

But they can’t. They never have. Instead, they employ some trick of rhetorical flourish and say, “Well, the originals and the originals alone were the Scripture, the whole Scripture, and nothing but the Scripture.” But what about the Bible today? Is it the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible?

These days, you would be hard pressed to get a scholar steeped in textual criticism to admit that every Greek word in the book of Hebrews is the word that appeared in the original of Hebrews. The same difficulty of admission from such a scholar would manifest for every book of the New Testament. Indeed, for some in my experience, it is difficult to get a textual critic to admit that any one word of the Greek New Testament IS the word that was present in the original/autograph.

In short, the modern evangelical scholarly opinion is that the Greek New Testament we currently possess is not the word of God, the whole word of God, and nothing but the word of God of the New Testament. If this is the case or is at least in the neighborhood of said case, then swearing on the Bible to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth seems ridiculous and hypocritical. The Bible upon which you put your hand is not believed by most evangelicals to be the whole Scripture and nothing but the Scripture.

What is worse, they believe God has not preserved the whole Scripture and nothing but the Scripture in that Bible upon which you put your hand and so the swearer is asking for help from a God who hasn’t even preserved His own words to the point of that Bible being His words, all of His words, and nothing but His words.

It stands to reason that if God hasn’t kept His words, all His words, and nothing but His words for us here and now why would you think God would help you tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? If God can’t keep His own words straight in the telling of divine revelation here and now, then why ask Him to keep yours in the telling of events here and now?

“So help me God” only matters if God has preserved His words, all His words, and nothing but His words in the book we call the Holy Scriptures. That’s where God testifies. I mean, they are called the Old and New Testaments. And if He can’t preserve His own words for His own witness testimony, then one wonders if He can preserve our witness testimony.

On the other hand, if God has preserved all of His words in the Scriptures and we believe those Scriptures to be the book upon which we place our hand, then our belief in God’s helping us to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is grounded in the fact that God has already done so with His telling of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth and so we can have full confidence in His ability to helps us tell the truth.

And why are we encouraged to believe God will preserve the truth of events in our mind and mouth as we take the witness stand? Because He has preserved the truths of divine revelation in the pages of the Bible upon which our hand rests when we take the oath. If that Bible with the help of God is not telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, there is no hope your accounting of events will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth even with the help of God.

Tommy Wasserman Uses Kid Gloves When Dealing With Bart Ehrman

This week I was over at EvangelicalTextualCriticism.Blogspot.com to read a brief abstract about the possible later dating of Sinaiticus and a call for radio-carbon dating of said manuscript. It was a short article and so I wandered down into the comments and there I found the patient and measured responses of Tommy Wasserman, a professor at the Norwegian School or Leadership and Theology. Responses like,

“Alexander, there is no scholarly controversy over the authenticity of Codex Sinaiticus. There is a bunch of TR/KJV-onlyists who make all sorts of ridiculous claims about the codex (most of them cannot read Greek and have little or no experience working with manuscripts), but that is another pseudo-scholarly debate. Thus, that is not the reason why we need radio-carbon dating.”

And

“No Alexander, there are no scholars who deny the authenticity of Sinaiticus. I have not seen any serious peer reviewed publication on that matter. Have a nice day.”

Straight and to the point. Dogmatic and that without apology. I can appreciate that. But when Wasserman deals with Ehrman it is a different story. See, the KJV-Only folks get one treatment and scholars get another, but for Wasserman he inverts the rhetoric of Jesus Christ that is the kind and gentle treatment of the lay-people and harsher treatment of the religious or scholarly leadership. As we will see, when it comes to Ehrman, Wasserman thumps his scholarly chest and then backs down with hand outstretched like a defeated chimp. Observe.

Wasserman wrote a paper called “Misquoting Manuscripts? The Orthodox Corruption of the Scripture Revisited.” His aim is to address 17 passages where corruptions were introduced into the text by Christians in order to squelch early adoptionistic Christological heresies. In this paper Wasserman sets out to “demonstrate that Ehrman’s interpretation of the textual evidence in these passages is seriously defective” and “that often there are other, more plausible explanations for the textual variation” than Ehrman proposes. [1]

“Demonstrate” is a bold claim. In academic work you don’t usually say you are going to demonstrate something unless you have an open-and-shut clear-cut case. Otherwise you use words like “attempt to demonstrate” or “argue” or “present for your consideration”. So Wasserman sets the academic bar high for himself here. I applaud that. This is him pounding his scholarly chest, but can he meet his own standard?

Wasserman admits on page 326 that “The fact that scribes did alter the text of the New Testament for dogmatic reasons seems to be accepted by most scholars today. However, there are considerably different opinions as to the degree to which this phenomenon has affected the textual transmission.” [2] “Opinion” here is used intentionally and as such will feature several times in Wasserman’s evaluation.

Wasserman writes concerning Ehrman’s interpretation of evidence in John 6:42: “In my opinion, this is another instance of when Ehrman overinterprets textual minutiae.” [3] I love this rebuttal because it’s so gutless. Wasserman said he would “demonstrate” Ehrman’s interpretation was seriously defective, but in the end can only say that in his opinion Ehrman overinterpreted the textual minutiae to a degree Wasserman is uncomfortable.

Wasserman makes the same play two pages later when he writes regarding Ehrman’s interpretation of the evidence regarding Luke 3:22, “In my opinion, however, Ehrman exaggerates the weight of the evidence in favor of it.” [4] Again, in Wasserman’s opinion Ehrman seems to go to far for Wasserman’s text-critical tastes.

Two pages later Wasserman is at it again when he writes, “In my opinion, it is important in this case, where harmonization can go in both directions, to pay attention to Hort’s famous dictum, ‘knowledge of documents should precede final judgement on readings.'” [5] That’s all fine and good but apparently Ehrman is of a different opinion. So much for demonstrating Ehrman’s serious interpretive defects on this point.

Wasserman’s careful hedging continues when he writes, “Ehrman thinks ὁ γεννηθεὶς refers to Christ, and that the two variant readings represent attempts to avoid this adoptionistic interpretation. The UBS committee, on the other hand, thinks that both variants arose, not because of theological considerations, but because of an ‘ambiguity of reference intended by the words ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ’ which prompted scribes to clarify the meaning.” [6] So we have two opinions, each has their position but neither decisively prevail. In other words, Ehrman has his opinion on the evidence and the UBS committee has theirs.

Wasserman writes the immediately above only to insert yet another opinion about the same passage, “In light of the very slim support, it is reasonable that the new Editio Critica Maior (ECM) has abandoned the reading previously printed in NA27, i.e., the same reading that Ehrman thinks is original. The UBS committee apparently did not realize how weak the support was for this variant, partly because they, like Ehrman, did not consider how it relates to the previous variation unit.” [7]

Wasserman continues to opine and here on John 1:18, “Furthermore, the variation between μονογενὴς Θεὸς and ὁ μονογενὴς Θεὸς is, in my opinion, significant for the overall evaluation of the passage.” [8] Now who’s “overinterpreting textual minutiae” and “exaggerating the weight of the evidence”? I mean, who gets to make that call? If Wasserman is going to accuse Ehrman of such scholarly missteps what is to keep Ehrman from doing the same thus precipitating a stalemate of opinions? And how is this supposed to “demonstrate Ehrman’s seriously defective interpretation”?

When we get to the end of the paper Wasserman writes, “If the criteria are found to be in conflict, which is often the case, the textual critic has to decide when to give greater consideration to one criterion and less to another.” [9] I love this. Basically, Wasserman has spilled 25 pages of ink only to say that criteria often are in conflict and it’s up to the text-critic what to give greater consideration to. Translation, Wasserman ended up putting “greater consideration” on some things while Ehrman put “greater consideration” on others. Who’s right? “Who knows, this is just my informed opinion”, Wasserman would say.

As for Wasserman’s thesis that he was going to “demonstrate” Ehrman’s interpretation to be “seriously defective”, Wasserman’s last words in the paper are, “Indeed, this close examination of a significant number of passages has confirmed the judgment of Gordon Fee who in a review of Ehrman’s work points out that, “too often [Ehrman] turns mere possibility into probability, and probability into certainty, where other equally viable reasons for corruption exist.” [10]

Did everyone catch that last line – “…other equally viable reasons for corruption exist”? This is the defeated chimp part. Wasserman has not “demonstrated” Ehrman’s seriously defective interpretation, he has merely demonstrated that there are other “equally viable” defective interpretations. Wasserman’s opinion of the evidence is that Ehrman’s opinion is an equally viable reason along with his own equally viable reason for corruption among other equally viable reasons for corruption. Does that sound like Wasserman is demonstrating that Ehrman’s opinion on the evidence is seriously defective? No, I don’t think it does.

It is important to note as well that as long as it is an opinion which Wasserman regards as “scholarly” then it gets the kid glove treatment. Ehrman and his work is never called ridiculous, silly [i.e., non-serious], and pseudo-scholarship. If it is a concerned or well-informed layman, then you get Wasserman’s boxing gloves or no gloves at all. Perhaps Wasserman should consider saying something like, “In my opinion, Sinaiticus’ dating is spot on” instead of being so dogmatic. Nope. Apparently he needs to take the opportunity to perpetuate the divide between the scholar and the lay-people.

Kind of like the government forgiving the debt of the “scholar” and leaving the lay-people with the bill. Anyone else seeing the pattern here? It goes something like, “If you’re not a NT textual critic shut up about Sinaiticus and pay my bills.”

We at StandardSacredText.com on the other hand have continued here on the blog and in print to defend the authoritative working of the Holy Spirit through His words in the hearts and minds of His people [the HVAC techs, plumbers, and stay-at-home moms], and through them the word of God is recognized and accepted by faith without the consent of text-critics and academia.

If you want to continue to perpetuate Wassermania, then stay in the Critical Text camp. If you want to return to historic Bibliology grounded in exegesis, then perhaps it’s time you switch to Confessional Bibliology and the robust exegetical and theological grounding it provides. The choice is up to you.

____________________________________________________________________________

[1] Wasserman, Misquoting Manuscripts? , 328.

[2] Wasserman, Misquoting Manuscripts? , 326.

[3] Wasserman, Misquoting Manuscripts? , 333.

[4] Wasserman, Misquoting Manuscripts? , 335.

[5] Wasserman, Misquoting Manuscripts? , 337.

[6] Wasserman, Misquoting Manuscripts? , 338.

[7[ Wasserman, Misquoting Manuscripts? , 339.

[8] Wasserman, Misquoting Manuscripts? , 343.

[9] Wasserman, Misquoting Manuscripts? , 350. [Italics: Mine]

[10] Wasserman, Misquoting Manuscripts? , 350.

The Providence of God in Preserving Scripture

Here is an excellent blog post from Purely Presbyterian on the role of Divine Providence in the preservation of Holy Scripture. Enjoy. (Reblogged with permission)

Paul J. Barth's avatarPurely Presbyterian

providential-preservation-bible

We have written previously onThe Preservation ofScripturethat God has kepthis written word pure for the Church through all ages in the Hebrew and Greek faithful copies (apographa). We continue in this post by precisely explaining how he did so “by hissingular care and providence.” First we will briefly discuss the nature of providence, then distinguish between general providence and special providence, and conclude with how this relates to the preservation of Scripture.

Providence is Teleological

“God’s works of providence are his most holy, wise, and powerful preserving, and governing all his creatures; ordering them, and all their actions, to his own glory (Ps. 145:17; Ps. 104:24; Isa. 28:29; Heb. 1:3; Ps. 103:19; Matt. 10:29-31; Gen. 45:7; Rom. 11:36; Isa. 63:14)”

Westminster Larger Catechism Question 18.

God executes his decrees in his works of creation and providence. Creation is God giving all things their nature…

View original post 1,743 more words

A Recent FB Discussion That Ends with Questioning the Content of the Canon

Usually when an episode of the Textual Confidence Collective drops the Facebook groups I am apart of start to light up with all kinds of comment traffic. This last Monday was no different. I was late to this one tread but I thought I would employ the method I proposed in yesterday’s post. What follows is the result of using that method. Laugh and tremble.

Jim: Though wouldn’t it be true (on your account) that someone can genuinely come to know truly the LORD (albeit in an appropriately creaturely way) even if they couldn’t give reasons for why the LORD used a particular edition of the scriptures?

Wouldn’t it also be true (on your account) that the LORD can and does use (to your mind) less pure instances of the publication of the word (imperfect transmission of the truly sacred standard text / imperfect translation of it) in order to bring people to a genuine knowledge of Him?

You do have an explanation of the saving work of God in the cases of many who have been brought to faith despite the poverty (as you see it) of the channels.

So that there is a word and that word is used as means by the Spirit is sufficient, regardless of prior or even ex post facto rationalisation about the nature of the word.

Peter Jr: Good to hear from you. Here is the extent of Scriptural sufficiency necessary for salvation:

“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;” – Romans 3:23

“And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” – Acts 16:31

The rest of the Bible can be “omitted” and the person reading these two verses can be saved.

Sufficient reliability of a text for salvation is a Church-destroying low standard for preservation.

Question to you: Let’s move from the aggregates to the whole. Can you show me a whole Greek NT or English Bible that you tell the Church is [not contains] the inspired infallible word of God? In the digital age, the name and a picture of that Bible will suffice to answer my question.

Blessings.

Jim: Your KJV to start with, my ESV, and my friend’s Bag-ong Maayong Balita Biblia.

Peter Jr: If it’s fine with you we will go with your ESV. Your Bible [the ESV] includes the story of the woman caught in adultery, albeit in brackets. Is your Bible in this place the inspired infallible word of God?

Jim: In the same way as your KJV is the word of God, i.e. to the extent they respectively faithfully transmit the word of God.

(Just in case viewers get confused I regularly use the NASB, ESV, NIV and others when it comes to English bibles and have less frequently in recent years but still nonetheless used the KJV even in preaching, I do tend to use the older MT+TR based Y Bibl when reading in Welsh, and any of a number of Cebuano translations that I read badly as I’m still learning – I just picked the ESV because there was one near by)

Peter Jr: You didn’t answer the question. Again, Is your Bible in this place the inspired infallible word of God?

Jim: Maybe you mean I didn’t answer it in the way you would have liked me to have answered it.

But let’s keep the the discussion rolling.

Yes.

Peter Jr: If yes, then can we both agree that the presence of brackets in your Bible at John 7:53-8:11 cast doubt on the passage in question?

Jim: While I believe the scriptures are the word of God on the basis of the work of God’s Spirit in and with the word, in my case I would have to say that I have a moral certainty that the pericope of the adulteress is not original to John’s writing of his gospel, is not part of the canonical scriptures, and does not share the relevant properties of the word of God.

Peter Jr: You agree then that you believe your Bible to contain the uninspired fallible words of men i.e., the story of the woman caught in adultery?

Jim: Yes my physical copy of the ESV, which is one of a number of Bibles I use in a number of languages, has printed within its covers some text that I do not believe constitute part of the canonical scriptures.

In this I’m experiencing a phenomenon common to many believers through the ages.

(Sorry for the pedantic “one of a number…” but I do want those onlookers who might be silly enough to be still listening to me going on that I don’t share with you a virtually exclusive relationship to one translation of the Bible in English)

Peter Jr: Thank you for the conversation and clarity.

1.) The admission that your ESV “has printed within its covers some text that I do not believe constitute part of the canonical scriptures” indicates that you believe the ESV you read is some amalgamation of men’s words and God’s words, and yet you still call the whole book “God’s word.” Sometime I would enjoy hearing your exegetical defense of “‘God’s word’ means an amalgamation of men’s fallible words and God’s infallible words.” You know, something like, “Thus saith the Lord, er…uh I mean thus saith the Lord and also a little bit of my own non-inspired fallible opinion.”

2.) For everyone else reading this, Jim has clearly stated that his English Bible(s) is at best a mixture of human ideas and divine ideas. I’d be interested to see how many of you agree. If you do, could you do Jim and I a favor [and this is especially for the Textual Confidence Collective], “Like” Jim’s post just above mine here as a sign that you too believe that your Bible [whatever version or Greek text that may be] “has printed within its covers some text that you do not believe constitutes part of the canonical scriptures.”

_______________________________________________________________________________

And there you have it folks. Show’s over. Apparently this is the definition of “textual confidence” and an expression of Christian orthodox Bibliology in the 21st century. No less than two of the TCC was present to this discussion and yet neither of them said a word to rebut the existence and carefree admission of known noncanonical words in the body of the scriptural canon.

A Seminarian’s Musings

Considering, 1. the evident inconsistencies of the critical position as demonstrated by rebuttals on this blog, and 2. the willingness of the grad students and others to identify with the critical position, 3. the unwillingness to make course corrections when confronted with sound theological and philosophical arguments, and 4. the lengths one must go to rationalize the critical position and still claim to be orthodox, what is the critic methodology’s appeal to the student?

Based on the recent lecture series, it appears that acceptance of this position was not so much something that appealed to the student but something they were compelled to accept, a compelling they were willing to accept at a high personal cost. But is an idea and method so manifestly unstable worthy of engendering such a compulsion? The answer must be no. Truth is so compelling as to engender faith but doubt and uncertainty is undeserving of such compulsion and indeed does the opposite breeding skepticism and distrust. While expressing a common sense of compulsion to accept modern text critical methods, it seems that a liberal graduate course of study would militate against such unfounded dogmatism. Against an unstable method, and the healthy critical spirit that grad school should instill, it seems that the willingness to push against these benefits was learned from undergrad and grad school mentors and readings. Something about their education swayed them and moved their wills to adopt this critical methodology, their willingness engendered by myopic and monolithic lectures leaving the critic with only one unanswerable conclusion – pre-critical Bibliology is indefensible.

Why this should happen is unclear. Again, it seems conspicuous that the impact of professors upon students has both good and bad results, but either way, it is for the student to mark his or her own path, keep his head up and eyes open through the minefield that is higher education. Numbers 6, 7 and 9 of “13 Things to Remember When You Do Your Undergraduate or Graduate Work” are,

6. A professor can be just as full of nonsense as anyone else. The degree makes them informed, not wise.

7. Good students are critical thinkers and would never go along with a lecture simply because it was given by a Ph.D.

9.Take the good and filter out the bad. Professors and institutions have varying skill sets and capabilities. Not everyone you study under is worth your time. Use the institution to accomplish what you want out of it.

To allow your will to be moved against the reason of historic Christian orthodox theology based on sectarian, one-sided lectures falls to the student to correct. Adversarial environments serve the student best in that his argumentation and writing is vigorously and critically analyzed, thus capable of enduring future scrutiny. Familiar learning environments demonstrate less critical analysis giving the student a false sense of accomplishments that his or her work can withstand public examination.

Which brings us to no. 3 and the seeming unwillingness to make course corrections considering sound arguments to the contrary. On this point, the issue of diminishing returns takes precedent over a robust evaluation of the evidence. Too much of one’s academic and professional life has been invested in the course direction to make a change. Books have been published and lectures given. There may be the false perception that it’s too late to change course. Afterall, truth is not necessary for each day of life to unfold; guiding principles are sufficient, but at the end of life, such contradictions will haunt the conscientious scholar, especially when considering the possible damage done to a brother, family member, or the Church at-large. Allow me to include an anecdotal event.

I was called by a prominent religious leader in national circles to meet for lunch. I was a young pastor and he a seasoned academic and ecclesiastical operator. I soon learned that the reason for the meeting was for me to “absolve” him for the wrongs he had done to a previous pastor of the church. When young he spoke harshly, ridiculing the theological positions of the pastor, especially six-day creation, and the pastor’s emphasis on the King James Bible. Now very old, and the offended pastor in heaven, this religious leader wanted some resolution to the many unkind things he had done ostracizing a faithful minister of the word. I sat in the restaurant listening to the pathetic pleadings of an old man, one who decided the religious/political atmosphere, who decided who was politically accepted and who was not, wanting to make things right with me, the wrong person. I told him he was talking to the wrong pastor and that these were things he should have confessed and settled with the one he ridiculed and repressed, and to settle these things with the Lord. He said he had but it was apparent his conscience would give him no peace. You see, when he should have made things right, he couldn’t without being ridiculed himself. In the moments it was too high a personal price to pay. What he did to maintain his status in the past plagued him as he approached death’s door. He is now in glory, and by the grace of God, all has been made right. The point of my story is to say that a very influential Christian man, an educated leader of men, when considering leaving this world, was haunted by his unwillingness to make course corrections for perceived temporary gain and personal, political, institutional, ecclesiastical, and monetary advantage. What people think of us is of little consequence when considering standing in the presence of our Lord.

No. 4 is perhaps the most irresponsible bordering on Orwellian double-speak. It is impossible to say the Bible can be tampered with without Christianity being tampered with because the Bible is the fountain from which all theological streams flow. If the readings of Scripture are uncertain or changed, then so is the theology exegeted from it. No. 4 is wishful thinking on the part of the critic from which one of two trajectories will develop. 1. The critical methodology will be rejected for the failure it is. 2. The critic will double-down on the failed system and, like so many others throughout history, abandon any pretext of orthodoxy.

A Revolution in Dispute and Discussion

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 The Want of a Horseshoe Nail

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.

God’s Covenantal Word

When we speak of the text of Scripture and specifically the TR/KJV, we are talking about the Bible, the viva vox Dei in the original language and vernacular. This is an exegetically based, theological assessment based on grammatical and syntactical application of the three “selfs” – that Scripture is self-attesting, self-authenticating, (autopistos) and self-interpreting. Because the Bible, the written text is the “living voice of God” it is the covenant or bond-in-blood with mankind breathed out by God the Father, superintended by the Spirit, and ratified by the shed blood of His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. The theocentricity of Scripture is described in Exodus 24:3 and referred to in Hebrews 9:10. Ex. 24:3, “And Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the Lord hath said will we do.” [Also see verse 24:7]. Heb. 9:19, “For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.”

In this passage the author of Hebrews [presumably the Apostle Paul] under inspiration writes that the בּרית beriyt or διαθήκη diathēkēthe, “covenant” or “compact” was that which God had “enjoined,” ἐνετείλατο, eneteilato or “commanded.” As Barnes comments, “When a compact is made between parties, one does not ‘enjoin’ or ‘command’ the other, but it is a mutual ‘agreement.’ It is not a transaction between equals, or an ‘agreement;’ it is a solemn ‘arrangement’ on the part of God which he proposes to mankind, and which he enjoins them to embrace; which they are not indeed at liberty to disregard.”

The Scripture, both Old and New Testaments, or Covenants, are commanded by God to “embrace,’ and men, “not at liberty to disregard.” Moses writes that the smallest element of this God-enjoined covenant to be believed and not disregarded are the words of the Lord, to which Israel responds, “All the words which the Lord hath said will we do.”

God does indeed command adherence to the covenant never losing His right to enjoin or command. This fundamental truth of the Christian faith is that which the modern Evangelical text critic rejects. Modern textual criticism exists apart from God’s providentially preserved, covenantal command. Significant overlap remains between the critic’s science project and the words of the Old and New Covenant after passing through the critic’s anthropological sieve, but rather than “refining” the words of the covenant, the autonomous sieve compromises the whole. While calling this science project the “Holy Scripture,” it only stands as such at the behest of the critic. When has the Church ever heard or read where the critic appealed to the blood of Christ as the ratification of God’s eternal plan to redeem the lost known as the Old and New Testaments or Covenants? Indeed, such language is forbidden based on a self-imposed sense of scholarly objectivity. Furthermore, the critics failure to give the Church assurance that they are reading the word of God has put the Church in what has become a normative, bewildering quandary.

And thus, two lines of authority contend for prominence in the American and English-speaking Church. The covenantal line, sealed with the blood of Jesus Christ through which God asserts Himself as the final Authority, and, the anthropological line, where the suzerain/vassal arrangement between the Redeemer and the redeemed is turned upside down by those who like all men are appointed once to die, and after that the judgment.

The place to begin a resolution to this unnatural ecclesiastical and “theological” bifurcation would be to agree that it is “universally true that sin never has been, and never will be forgiven, except in connection with, and in virtue of the shedding of blood and that there is not the slightest evidence that any man has ever been pardoned except through the blood shed for the remission of sins.” Following pre-critical categories, it is impossible to speak of God’s word without speaking of His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, and his redeeming work on Calvary. This is the well-spring of the Scripture from which the reading, understanding, and analysis of Scripture must flow. See 1 Peter 1:18-19, “Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:” Col. 1:14, “In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:” Rev. 1:5, “And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood.”

The truth of the vicarious, bloody, penal, sacrificial death of Christ applied by the Spirit informs a penitent, begging-for-forgiveness listener to that which God is saying to them in His word and it is in this doxological sphere as God is praised for sending His Son that the writing of theology is birthed.

From the quotes provided by Dr. Van Kleeck, the critical side has made the relinquishing of theological precommitments a foundational element of textual discussion. But for the saint, who by God’s grace realizes what he has been saved from, what Christ’s bloody death did, and the undeserved blessings in this life and the next, such an omission is impossible.