Years ago my Dad and I joked about making custom Bibles like Orange County Choppers makes custom motorcycles. We would use only quality materials and, at least back then, we knew Hebrew and Greek well enough to translate the whole Bible. I’m sure we could do the same now but we’ve gotten a bit rusty.

The proposed goal would be to take orders for custom Bibles which would include verbiage, social/cultural context, as well as questions about what kind of Scriptures you would like in the Bible. If you would like a vernacular derived from the Urban Dictionary, we could do that for you. If you would rather your Bible be in Irish Brogue or the slang of the Blue Ridge Mountains, we could do that too.

If you think the Bible should include the Apocrypha, consider it done. If you think miracles are untenable, consider them omitted. If there are passages of Scripture that you think belong in the Bible or ought to be omitted from the Bible based on your interpretation of the textual evidence found in the apparatus, we would make those adjustments for you. Then you could have a Bible that you really understand; one that fits your definition of sufficient reliability like a glove. No compromises.

And except for the “omission of miracles” option I’m sure most NT academics would consider our custom Bible products to be “sufficiently reliable” texts for leading one to salvation in Christ and to a certain degree of Christian growth and sanctification. So there should be little overall pushback from those who disagree with us.

Of course we find this whole idea of custom Bibles to be abhorrent and so the whole idea was in jest and ultimately in parody of our interlocutors.

In all seriousness though, when I was in Greek class we were encouraged to come up with our own translations and if we wished we could translate the whole NT and make that our NT. Which should be no shocker to anyone. Well known Bible software suites allow the user to do just that. In fact, the CBGM computer tools are geared and made available to preachers and laypersons alike to start such custom work based on the several deliverances of their respective minds. Regarding the CBGM, Wasserman and Gurry write,

“In our experience, scholars, students, pastors, and translators want to know why a part of their Greek New Testament is now different. They naturally want to understand what the change means and why they are being made. They also want to know how they can use the new method in their own work, but they have struggled to understand it.”

Wasserman and Gurry, A New Approach to Textual Criticism, 14.

And yet, as I have been observing lately, this is perfectly in line with Expressive Individualism and the rise and triumph of the modern self so masterfully examined and explained by Carl Trueman in his book by the same name. Consider this quote as Trueman delineates the transition in the West from mimetic/structured culture to poietic/performance culture,

“…institutions cease to be places for the formation of individuals via their schooling in the various practices and disciplines that allow them to take their place in society. Instead, they become platforms for performance, where individuals are allowed to be their authentic selves precisely because they are able to give expression to who they are ‘inside.'”

Trueman, Rise and Triumph, 49.

This is the position of the academic evangelical mind regarding the versions issue. – If you can, make your own so long as it is sufficiently reliable. The best Bible is the one that makes sense to you, they say. There are many good Bibles out there; read the one you like, it is said. And now, given the CBGM, preachers and laymen are encouraged to come to their own conclusions regarding the data. The Traditional Text argued by Burgon is out. The Ecclesiastical Text as argued by Letis is also out, so is the Confessional Text as argued by Riddle. A standard sacred text is also out. Why?

Because the mimetic world, the world of intrinsic meaning and intrinsic order has been/is being replaced with the poietic world which “sees the world [or Bible translation] as so much raw material [or manuscript evidence] out of which meaning and purpose can be created by the individual [custom Bibles via your own translations or that of a select committee]” [39].

We may be closer to Orange County Bibles than we originally thought.

So why is it that so many reject the Standard Sacred Text position? What is it about the argument in general that demands intelligent well-meaning Christians reject its major points?

I’m quite certain that it is not the fact that we are arguing for a text as we do for the Standard Sacred Text position. Most of our opponents and interlocutors attest to the fact that the Scriptures as they belong to the Church are in written propositions and that the collection of those propositions is called the canon. This can’t be where the hang-up is.

I’m also quite certain that few in the CT/MVO side would demur on the point that the Scriptures, the Bible of the Church is sacred book. Most, I would say, agree that the Bible is come down to us from God via the inspiration. As a result, the book and its words are sacred. That is, they are holy or separate from other words, being God’s words. Hence the traditional moniker, Holy Bible. Again, I do not believe this to be the hang-up between our positions.

It seems to me that there is little friction between us and the Mark Ward’s, James White’s, and Elijah Hixon’s of the world on the points of the Church having a sacred text. The rub comes with the adjective “standard”, is it not? But why?

Assuming that any attempt to characterize the Bible has theological implications, then adding an adjective, a modifier to “sacred text” would be a theological addition. Here’s the formula: “The Scripture is a ________ sacred text.” So we could have, The Scripture is a sufficiently reliable sacred text, or The Scripture is a false sacred text, or The Scripture is a true sacred text. All of these examples have theological implications depending on the word immediately prior to “sacred text”. “Standard” is no different.

If someone would say that the Scripture is a false sacred text, then most Christians would resist that conclusion and that on the basis of the Scripture itself. We here at StandardSacredText.com ask, Does sound exegetical teaching from Scripture prohibit us from appending “standard” to our sacred text? Would such an action be properly understood as false doctrine? If so, we would love to see this robust thoroughgoing exegetical and theological truth.

But some might say, It is not enough to hold to a position simply because the Bible does not prohibit it. You must have positive argumentation from Scripture for why you do what you do. Fair enough, but first let me reiterate, to this point there is no prohibition in Scripture which teaches that we ought not treat our Bible as the standard sacred text, especially when the vast majority of both sides already agree that our Bible is a sacred text.

In brief, our arguments in favor of a standard sacred text are: First, there is no Scripture which compels the believer to hold to multiple versions of the Bible or to consider the NT in a constant state of revision. As such, the CT/MVO Christians must also provide positive argumentation from Scripture for their position if they would have us do the same if they intend their argument to withstand their own critiques. Such an appraisal is not and is not forthcoming, thus there is a theological vacuum and theology abhors a vacuum.

Second, and in reply, there is one God, one Father, one Son, one Spirit, one Church, one way to salvation, one heaven, one hell, one Apostle’s Doctrine, one Creation, one creative word, one faith, one baptism, one Lord, one Kingdom, one Gospel, one inspired autograph of each book of the Bible, the Church is one body, Christ is the one head, one Bride, one Bridegroom, one end of all Creation (i.e., God’s glory), one Eschaton, and one eternal state and on and on.

From the one Tree of Life and the one Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and the one family in the one Garden of Eden to the one city of the New Jerusalem whose builder and maker is the one God it seems to us that the whole of the Christian faith from beginning to end, soup to nuts, points the Christian to a robust Theology of One. By induction alone it is rational to claim one Bible and one alone.

Theologically speaking and beyond the scope of mere inference, if the Scripture is the source of the Theology of One, for the Christian, it stands to reason that God’s word be a member included in the Theology of One. And if this is the case, as we believe it is, then Christians ought to believe God’s word is one, really and concretely. And if it is truly one then neither rival nor counterfeit can be its equal. Such a thing we call, standard. Thus we have little issue declaring that our Bible as God’s word is the standard sacred text for the believing community.

The other side of course would have difficulty arguing for multiple ways to heaven or multiple Brides for the Bridegroom or a sufficiently reliable God or a sufficiently reliable inspired autograph. But I leave these ponderings to those on the other side of the aisle.

Today I chose a random selection of Scripture by opening my Westminster Reference Bible (KJV) and without looking, pointed at a verse and then chose the nine verses after that. My finger landed on Acts 7:1, so let’s compare Acts 7:1-10 in the KJV with the same passage as it occurs in the ESV

First, I think it is important to note the striking similarity between the two texts. They are so identical or similar in so many places that it is hard to wonder why the ESV is even necessary. Before the mud starts flying just consider for a moment that the KJV has been on the ecclesiastical scene for over 400 years while the ESV was published in the early 2000’s. If our passage above is indicative of the overall progress of the modern version movement it appears that said movement has add nothing or nearly nothing to the “sufficient reliability” of the Bible.

Second, there are some peculiar differences but I’m not going to make the claim that they affect major doctrine right now. I’m going to make a more modest claim that the differences between these two texts do and will precipitate changes in how we interpret the text in light of the rest of the Bible going forward. But before we look at those hermeneutical issues consider a peculiarity in verse 2.

Both the UBS 4th Rev and the TR have “Andres adelphoi kai pateres” (Men, brethren, and fathers). As you can see in verse 2, the KJV translates it as such, but the ESV wholly omits “Men” from the translation. While for many it is hard to understand why the omission of “Men” would affect the doctrine of Salvation, there is an equally potent question to ask, Did God given Andres by inspiration? If He did, and it appears both the CT and the TR attest to that fact, then the omission of such a seemingly small or insignificant word is not merely the omission of a human word but an omission of God’s divinely ordained authoritative word. And why? Why was the word omitted? Was it because of a mistake in translation, an accident or was it intentional? If the latter than an unique divinely ordained word given by the Creator of the universe as an act of revelation to fallen creatures was intentionally omitted at the behest and will of some finite man or group of men. How is that not doctrinally significant and of the highest order?

Regarding the hermeneutical elements, consider the following pairings from the texts above where the first is the KJV and the second is the ESV: country vs. land, not so much as to set his foot on vs. not even a foot’s length, seed vs. offspring, in a strange land vs. in a land belonging to others, serve vs. worship, begat vs. became a father, moved with envy vs. jealous, and in the sight of vs. before.

There is much to observe here but for now let’s focus on three of the above: seed vs. offspring, moved with envy vs. jealous, and in the sight of vs. before. Concerning the first, it is easy to see why folks would think seed and offspring mean the same thing, but the connotations of these two words differ greatly. While trees reproduce after their own kind we don’t often refer to seedlings as the offspring of the tree. The word is most often reserved for the progeny of animals and men.

Seed on the other hand is used as a metaphor and metaphors are often flattened in the new translations and often to something merely technical and even mechanical. It can be seen in our third example above (i.e., in the sight of vs. before) and also in the pairing “not so much as to set his foot on” vs. “not even a foot’s length” where the metaphor was reduced to a literal measurement. What is more, seed is hermeneutically proximate to man as a creature of dust, made from the dirt of the earth. In this way, in a metaphorical way, man’s existence, reproduction, and progeny bears significant similarity to that of the earth’s existence, reproduction, and progeny. All are of the dust and all shall return to dust again, says the Preacher in Ecclesiastes.

So where offspring is generally related to the progeny of animals and man, seed interrelates and interpenetrates notions of man’s origins as being made of the dust, and his role as Kingdom steward of the earth as well as harkening back to Adam the first man from the dust from whose seed all men of earth have come. Which is the right word, seed or offspring, is not my point. My point is that there is significant hermeneutical difference between the two words thus the immediate interpretation of the text and the interpretation of the canon as a whole has shifted depending on your translation, and this shift is meaningful especially if measured across a thousand years.

Our second pairing is “moved with envy” vs. “jealous”. This one is far more potent than the first in that no where in Scripture is God said to be envious, indeed it is a work of the flesh in that love does not envy according to I Corinthians 13:4. Jealousy on the other hand is something God manifests regularly: Ex. 20:5; 34:14; Deut. 4:25; 5:9; 6:15 among others. Furthermore, Paul is said to manifest a godly jealousy in 2 Cor. 11:2. My point is that envy is always wrong while true jealously, that expressed by God and Paul, is not. In this sense envy and jealousy are not synonymous either morally or in meaning.

Again, I’m not making the argument here as to which is the correct translation, but it is worth noting that the latter rendering would have immediate or at least oblique bearing on the doctrine of God which again is a significant hermeneutical difference between the two words (i.e., envy and jealousy) thus the immediate interpretation of the text and the interpretation of the canon as a whole has shifted depending on your translation, and this shift is meaningful especially if measured across a thousand years.

Our final pairing (i.e., in the sight of vs. before) is also a flattening of a metaphor on the part of the ESV as if more technical language is somehow automatically more precise. Here the KJV rendering (in the sight of) is proximate to all the passages of Scripture which employ the metaphor of God shining His countenance upon the faithful, or not turning His face away from the faithful, or God not looking upon sin, and even Christ’s plea on the cross, My God My God why have you forsaken me. Being in the sight of someone is being before their face. You have their countenance, it is said. “Before” is merely a preposition denoting more prior or in front of, but one may be in front of a king while the king turns his back on that one. In this case, being “before” the king while his back is turned on you is not a position of delight but a position of shame.

In conclusion, after choosing a random passage of Scripture we have a blatant omission of the inspired word, “Andres“, followed by a series of pairings between the two versions which gives rise to interesting hermeneutical differences, flattening, and interpretive shifts if left to float in the ecclesiastical ether. We could do this same exercise a thousand times and the results would be the same or nearly the same. Thus to claim that two different versions mean the same thing is simply false both in the immediate context and the interpreted meaning of the canon as a whole. Indeed in these few words we have the omission of an inspired word, a difference is moral meaning, and a loss of substance and precision because of the flattening of metaphors.

Below is a recent discussion I had on Facebook regarding the meaning and use of “sufficient reliability” as applied to Holy Scripture. I have changed my interlocutors name and made some minor edits to make the conversation more readable.

James –  I think “sufficient” is absolutely necessary for any form of bibliology that recognizes that the Lord’s sheep know his voice in translations and even defective ones. Since no two extensive Greek manuscripts of the NT are identical then it also applies prior to printing to the original. And since no two editions of the printed Greek text are identical (including the multiple various editions of the Textus Receptus) it also applies after the invention and inception of the use of printing for the GNT. 

Sufficiency in the end is not decided by us, but rather by God.

Me – We clearly diverge on the use of the term, sufficient reliability. I don’t intend to change anyone’s mind on a FB post, but I think it might be good to lay out a few elementary observations which serve to make me reticent to use the term. If you could point me to a book which would address these observations, please share. 

>The phrase, ”sufficiency is absolutely necessary”, though primary to your argument, is unsubstantiated and ungrounded under the current text critical position. It is merely assumed without any meaningful exegetical, theological, philosophical, or historical grounding. If it is substantiated it is largely done so on the grounds that other ancient books [e.g., the Iliad] are considered reliable therefore the NT is reliable having more and older manuscripts. I find this argument to fail on multiple fronts as to explanatory scope, explanatory force, and normative ethical grounds. 

> The Lord’s sheep know his voice – Indeed, but it must be His voice and not the voice of a man. Sufficiently reliable texts necessarily infer the presence of man’s voice In the Greek NT. Man’s voice is being pawned off as the Shepherd’s voice which seems irresponsible at the very least. God’s people do hear God’s voice so long as it is indeed the words of God and not men.

>manuscripts of the NT are not identical – Agreed, but there is no pervading phenomena throughout the history of the Church where Christians at Time 1 doubted their present Bible. They may have doubted a prior iteration like the Bishops vs the KJV or a competing iteration like the Latin Vulgate vs. the Hebrew/Greek apographa. But you will find no robust Pre-Enlightenment statement of Christian doctrine claiming things even close to ”It’s in the text or apparatus” or “Inerrancy is merely in the doctrinae and not the verba.” In sum, “sufficient reliability” regarding Bibliology seems to me to be a novel invention indicative of modern expressive individualism.

>Sufficiency in the end is not decided by us, but rather by God – Agreed, but again the modern textual critic has no substantive grounding to show what God means by ”sufficient”. Rather, the entire use of the term is predicated almost exclusively on evidential groundings concluding in abduction, the weakest form of logical inference. From such an evidential approach, God is metaphysically extravagant which is best shown in the fact that Bart Ehrman can make an equally compelling case for the “sufficient reliability” of the NT without ever invoking God. Ultimately, the evangelical text critic’s invocation of God unnecessarily multiplies metaphysical entities [Ockham’s Razor] which goes a long way in explaining why many Christian text-critics bracket their Christian precommitments [e.g. TR priority based on the fact that Church used it for so long]. There is no need for Christian precommitments to determine the sufficient reliability of the NT. As such there is nothing distinctively Christian about “sufficient reliability.” Muslims could say the same about their text or Mormons about theirs.

Again, these are a few quite elementary observations which make “sufficient reliability” an unwarranted Christian belief for me. I’m not looking to fight. I’m only trying to offer a glimpse into why I diverge from you on the use of the term. Again, if there is a scholarly source which addresses these concerns I would be very open to giving it a read. Thanks.

James – But you do believe it and express it in your own work. It is the explanation you yourself give for how come people are converted by proclamation based on the ESV, or worse the NIV, or maybe even a lot worse again (think of those millions globally who have been brought to a saving knowledge of God through versions much like the Good News Bible…). Most of the stuff in your response above is by the by. We both agree God has spoken, he has spoken ultimately in his Son, but he spoke by the prophets and apostles, His voice is heard when his word is preached, and that is true also if translation as well as the original tongues. You and I both know this happens even with translations at which we both would turn up our noses somewhat, or even textual bases we’d query. The difference between us lies on the location of the norm to which sufficient similarity applies.

Me – C’mon, you‘ve read enough of my stuff. People don’t need Bibles to be converted. A lost soul only needs a small mutilate fragment of Scripture to come to saving knowledge. To say someone can be converted out of a text is simply not an argument showing, proving, inferring that that text is a Bible or the Bible. 

Of course my arguments are considered “by and by” from your perspective; we’re in disagreement.

After finishing Carl Trueman’s The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self it is hard not to see profound similarities with the rise and triumph of modern textual criticism. They seem to be cut from the same cloth in so many crucial ways.

Though you and I experience a consensus on major theological issues I believe the differences between us on how we reached that consensus as a believing community and how we ought to reach that consensus lies more precisely in differences in position on authority, epistemology, and methodology.

Again, if there is some scholarly article/book out there that offers robust epistemological, exegetical, and theological grounding for sufficient reliability as the standard for what counts as God’s word, then I’d be more ready to acquiesce. I certainly don’t enjoy holding to a minority academic position, but enjoyment is an insufficient grounds to cease the pursuit of truth. Such a course belongs to cowards and those with weakness of will. 

I’m told over and over that I am one of the few Ph.D.’s that hold to pre-critical Bibliology and that there are so many Ph.D.‘s in opposition to my position. I would think then that there would be myriads of scholarly pages explaining from a distinctly Christian perspective that the Reformation Protestants had it wrong on Bibliology. Like, where did they screw up in their exegesis when debating Catholic Apologists like Bellarmine and Stapleton? Where’s that gaff in logic committed by Turretin in defense of the apographs as the originals? No such treatment is even attempted. Two weeks ago I watched James White read Turretin on the DL about 1 John 5:7 and then launch exclusively de facto objections to Turretin’s observations akin to “We now know that 1 John 5:7 isn’t original therefore Turretin’s wrong.” And as someone who opposes White’s position am I supposed to respond with something like, “Brilliant! That James White, pulling out another insightful and penetrating observation!”? /sigh Where are the de jure arguments from the cadre of Ph.D. scholars who oppose pre-critical Bibliology? I digress…

Thanks for giving me a portion of your day. I leave the last word to you.

James – You know full well that there’s an asymmetry here that I’m more than ready to own. You’ve invested far more time, energy and even cold hard cash in thinking through and articulating your position (via your PhD) than I have. However, when I point out that your own argument (which came out once more in the response above: NB “A lost soul only needs a small mutilate fragement of Scripture to come to saving knowledge”) undermines your attempt to isolate the TR, but underwrites virtually all forms of the text known to us as being the word of God – individual mms, the pre-TR, the TR, the Colines, the Complentusian, the Tregelles, the W-H, the NA, SBL, THGNT etc etc… (let alone the versions) your response is tho throw the kitchen sink at the response (now including Trueman’s “Rise”) but not really get back to the issue. If people hear God’s voice in these multitudinous texts then which one (if any) is “the text”. Your answer is that there is enough (i.e. sufficiency) similarity to the TR even in mutulated texts. My answer is there is sufficient similarity to the autograph – that I don’t have to know. It’s the Lord’s choice to use whatever text. Not only does he “know his own” people but I would suggest his own text. Another way of articulating this is the image from Van Til highlighted by Brash (who is now Bash-ed) of the submerged bridge.

N.B. – I very much appreciated this interaction with James, but it seems at this point that his primary standard for determining whether a Bible is God’s word is whether or not someone can be saved out of it. But the word of God is written to Christians and is spiritual discerned. Paul tells us to leave off the rudimentary principles of the Gospel and move on to perfection/completeness [Hebrews 6:1]. The vast majority of Scripture exists to lead the Christian onto perfection. To limit the criteria for what counts as Scripture to whether someone can receive Christ through its words is to by implication throw the door open to the omission of the entire Bible with the exception of the Romans Road.

I appreciate James’ focus on evangelism and the text of Scripture but it seems he has yet to move beyond the rudimentary principles of the Gospel and onto perfection. But why should he think he could move on to perfection or completeness if he hasn’t a perfect or complete text of Scripture? The product can only be as perfect as the source. Indeed, it does seem that Christians have little desire to move on to perfection or completeness. Rather they desire to move onto sufficiently reliable Christianity in accordance with their sufficiently reliable Scriptures.

Recently I had an email exchange with someone working their way through the version debate and the merits or demerits of the Standard Sacred Text position. My interlocutors position was that NT writers and NT accounts quote from the Septuagint/ LXX and also seem to paraphrase passages from the OT therefore the Bible can remain inerrant even if we choose words that are not exactly God’s words. My response to him is the following:

Yes, this is an old approach to issues of inerrancy and infallibility. The point that the NT penmen led by the Holy Spirit might have used the LXX or paraphrased OT texts as a defense for inerrancy may not be as robust as many think it is. In large part because it ignores the fact that it is the Holy Spirit bearing these men along as they quoted from the LXX or paraphrased the OT. As such, every word was inspired by God both in the original giving of the OT and in the paraphrase as it appears in the NT. Certainly the Holy Spirit can “paraphrase” His own words because they are His words. We on the other hand cannot paraphrase His words. There is no place in Scripture where the Christian is commanded to or encouraged to paraphrase God’s words or use words different than those God has chosen. But there are plenty of places where the prophet is commanded to say, “Thus saith the Lord…” 

In fact, the idea that a prophet would hear God and then be like, “Well I think my version sounds better and furthermore, I think it means the same thing” seems ridiculous and if true, is an act of will-worship or idolatry. In sum, the issue with the “Jesus used the LXX” or “Paul paraphrased the OT” is to almost entirely sideline the fact that the words of Scripture are God’s words and God can quote the LXX and paraphrase His prior words and when He does, those specific words become just as inspired and authoritative as the words upon which the LXX/paraphrase is based. We can certainly paraphrase our own words or the words of another man because they are for all intents and purposes our equals. God on the other hand is infinitely above us and we infinitely below Him in being, wisdom, and holiness and as such we have no moral ground upon which to paraphrase His words and then claim that paraphrase equals God’s words. We must know and believe His words and His only.

I liken it to the time when Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, offered strange fire before God. It was certainly fire and fire that could burn. It definitely would burn incense or the flesh of an animal. It was being offered by priests, the sons of Aaron, the rightful offerers. It was being offered in the tabernacle, the appropriate place for such an offering. It appears that Aaron’s sons intended to carry out God’s ordained priestly duties, so their hearts seemed to be in the right place. There is no indication that they thought their sacrifice to be anything other than pleasing to God. And yet after all that, God kills those two young men with divine fire and commanded that Aaron not uncover his head in mourning because his sons simply as a practical matter got fire from the wrong place.

God gave specific instructions about where to get correct fire and a kind of paraphrase on the part of two men led them to believe that fire from the brazen altar and fire from somewhere else were the same kind of fire and they had plenty of reason to believe that as I mentioned above. But in the end God struck those men down in a fashion similar to that of Sodom and Gomorrah. The same goes for Uzzah trying to steady the Ark on the cart when the cart hit a pothole. God struck Uzzah dead. Then there is the example of Eve who added “neither shall ye touch it” to God’s command not to eat of the tree. This was her paraphrase and it led to the fall of all of humanity. Then there was Cain’s paraphrase that God accepted fruits from the field rather than a blood sacrifice which ultimately led to the first murder. Examples abound throughout Scripture that man is in no place to paraphrase God’s word or to assert some other words which God has not said and then claim those words to be God’s words (e.g., every false prophet). 

In the end I find this argument only superficially Scriptural and largely at odds with the biblical narrative from the OT to the NT about God’s relationship to His own words vs. man’s relationship to God’s words. 

That said, I know we can only believe the things we think are true and you are working your way through these things. I hope the above can be a help to you. May the Lord continue to grant you wisdom and grace that the Spirit of God may guide you into all truth.

Blessings, 

PWVK