But What of the Words That Agree w/ the Original?

As we continue our discussion regarding those things in which both we and our interlocutors agree, we come now to the agreement that no two Greek manuscripts agree at every point. Put simply, they are all different. Usually our interlocutors follow this observation up with something like, “See, God did not preserve every jot and tittle.” Which of course is ridiculous as are similar conclusions like, “Given the evidence, Jesus could not have literally meant letters and parts of letters will be preserved.”

A point of nuance which our interlocutors seem to either miss or ignore is that the promise to literally preserve every jot and tittle of God’s word does not mean that every jot and tittle will be between two covers or in a single book at all times. Certainly this was the case at Jesus’s time in that the canon was only the Old Testament at His time while simultaneously the elements necessary for the inspired Gospels were being played out at the very moment Jesus declared that not one jot or one tittle will pass from the law. The point, that the Old Testament was not between two covers until perhaps Ezra’s time and the New Testament was not between two covers at the end of the first century.

But the lack of being between two covers does not somehow militate or render effete Jesus’ promise that every jot and tittle would be preserved. That said, it is fair to ask, “Ok, so then how do we know that the words that are between to covers are indeed the words of God and not men?” Good question.

As we have discussed in our last two installments on this topic, a second observation is that the emphasis on the originals has for us always fallen to individual words and only recently fallen to the editors of the ECM. The Standard Sacred Text position argues for every word in our TR/KJV being the word of God properly construed. And so it is a reasonable question not to ask, “Is some manuscript X the original words of God”, but to ask, “Which words in manuscript X agree with the Original?” And what proposals do we have as means to determine which words are original to the autograph?

On the one hand, the prevailing modern evangelical text-critical approach is to claim that the oldest reading is best reading, the hardest reading is the best reading, and the shortest reading the best reading.

On the other hand, the Standard Sacred Text position maintains that the Spirit of God speaks in the words of God to the people of God and in those words the people of God hear the voice of their Shepherd and they receive those words by faith as the words of God and not of men.

As you can see we and our interlocutors propose vastly different methods for determining which words are God’s words and which words are not. Thiers is predominantly if not exclusively naturalistic, relative, and transcendentless. Ours is predominantly supernatural, absolute, and transcendent. What is more, we can account for the use of textual criticism, in fact we encourage it, but we do so within the bounds of exegesis and orthodox Christian theology. Our interlocutors on the other hand can and do largely ignore the bounds of sound exegesis and orthodox Christian theology and such despising will not/does not affect their method at all.

As such, the Standard Sacred Text position has greater explanatory scope and force than the prevailing modern evangelical position. We can account for the role and use of textual criticism while simultaneously putting forth an argument that is predominantly supernatural, absolute, and transcendent. Our opponent got the text-critical part down but they wholly lack, or quite nearly to it, any exegetical and theological grounding for their position.

Our method demands Christian pre-commitments, and their method can do just as well without Christian pre-commitments. Our method is distinctively Christian and their method is distinctively not Christian.

So while we agree with our interlocutors on the evidence that no two Greek manuscripts agree; we disagree obviously and sharply on how we are to treat that evidence.

Re-associating the Doctrine of Scripture and the Consolidation of MVOism

(Portions of this post draw on the material of “A Post-critical Ecclesiastical Case Study.”)

Dr. Jackson “declares that the ‘defective’ old faith is inferior to the new faith which is a ‘scientific faith’ and a ‘twentieth century faith’ through which ‘this world will become the kingdom of our Lord and his Christ.’”

“Scientific faith” as a parallel to “twentieth century faith” and a contrast to “old faith” is taken subjectively. “Scientific” is another kind of faith foreign to the Scripture. By analogy, science would be the authority from which this kind of faith is derived. This is not some kind of undefined faith in the scientific method, but a new kind of faith motivated by science. With the “old faith,” faith came by hearing the Scripture, but with the deconstruction of the Bible, the source of faith is now science. “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of scientists,” (read textual critics). It is scientific faith. Science now imparts faith to believe that science is the solution to that which plagues man.

As seen in a prior post, (“A Post-critical Ecclesiastical Case Study”) scientific faith is utopian. Scientific faith is inclusive; everyone will be in heaven. Scientific faith is kinder, the idea of shedding blood is repulsive and therefore symbolic. The idea that man is sinful is resolved by evolution and the rejection of the literal rending of the first three chapters of Genesis. Divinity resided in Christ just as it does in every man. God is seen about us in the goodness of man and the beauty of nature. And scientific faith is empathetic teaching the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. On every front, the results of scientific faith demonstrate a kinder, gentler world than that offered by the old Scripture and the old faith. The new Scripture reflects this new scientific faith, the solution to man’s problems, its radically historic interpretation essential to maintaining this “positive” movement forward.

When fundamental and evangelical groups separated from this ecclesiastical modernism in the early 20th century, they acted much like the Reformers separating from Rome. The Reformers kept infant baptism and the fundamentalists and evangelicals kept the modernist Bible. (See Fundamentalism’s Folly? Fundamentalist leaders boasted that they have never held to the KJV and were always critical text men). It was too much to say that Jesus was a mere man but not too much to say that the Bible was reconstructed according to the same historic, scientific principles. Contemporary MVOism is simply the historic evolution of early 20th century modernism’s scientifically formulated Scripture, and its current usage is historically consistent with Evangelical and Fundamentalist leaders of the past.

Which brings us to two key determinative issues. The issue of sufficiency and the issue of eschatological vision. As a matter of sufficiency, it would seem clear that if Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism have survived for over a century without maintaining the details of Reformation era Protestant orthodox bibliology, that the scientifically constructed Bible is sufficient for the Church and its mission. (The successes of Fundamentalism are more appropriately assigned to use of the KJV in the church. Though scorned by those in leadership, the rank and file held the KJV as the word of God in English.)

The other issue is eschatological vision. If one’s view of the future is one of continuous moral and spiritual normalcy, then a sufficient Scripture has proven itself to be enough and will remain so. There is no perceived need for a correction or return to pre-critical categories. Scientific categories, though not as nuanced as pre-critical formulas, are sufficient.

If, however, your eschatological vision sees the world in a spiritually deteriorating condition, then the claim to sufficiency is false. Sufficiency was just another word for degrees of increasing spiritual and ecclesiastical decline that over time revealed its true nature. A pivotal moment in church history vividly demonstrating this spiritual and ecclesiastical decline can be marked from the inability of the church to gain an ecclesiastical consensus and ascendency in social-political issues the most prominent being the 1973 legalization of abortion. This acquiescence manifested an internal indifference already present in the church. And to this day, the church acts ambivalently toward the killing of the unborn. This apathy may stem from a misguided interpretation of Romans 13, but the fact that there has been relative silence from the pulpits of America indicates the decline of virtue and spiritual strength.

Nonetheless, to make a compelling case for a return to the pre-critical Protestant orthodox theology and understanding of the Scripture, an apologetic must be made showing the claim for sufficiency to be a façade for spiritual and moral deterioration, and an eschatological vision of ecclesiastical and cultural decline. Otherwise, it appears that the KJV position is simply making too much out of little. If these two factors are considered uncritically, an argument can be made for “scientific faith” or a scientific kind of faith to create a Scripture sufficient for the Church and a normative future where that Scriptural sufficiency will remain sufficient and therefore in no need of correction. Sufficiency and apathy are coordinating affects. This is the worldview which cradles MVOism.

How then does one begin to challenge the sufficiency of this scientific faith when dealing only with the issue of Scripture? Already disassociated from modernist theological formulas cited above, how can the outlier of a historical critical reconstruction of Scripture be rejoined with a robust orthodox Theology, Christology, Soteriology, Anthropology and Ecclesiology?

The first step toward association must be passive. The content of MVO versions must be allowed to penetrate the spirit of sufficiency. Sufficiency will not accept active changes but sufficiency, because it is sufficient provides the platform for passive spiritual growth. One of my best friends was saved out of a Rheims-Douay Roman Catholic Bible because John 3:16 reads almost, if not word for word, the same as the KJV. After reading the passage he wondered why his priest had never showed him that passage. Indeed, before looking it up himself, he argued with me that the verse was not in the Bible at all. He was happy with his Bible, it was sufficient, until he read more of it. And so it is with the new versions. Reading through the ESV, et al each year, cross referencing noticed themes, asking for the illumination of the Holy Spirit while reading. The study of a sufficient Scripture will guide the saint and the Church in a manner spoken of by the Apostle Paul in his epistle to the church in Philippi, “That ye may approve things that are excellent; that he may be sincere and without offense till the day of Christ.”

The second step toward associating the doctrine of Scripture with the larger body of Christian Theology, also passive, is the willingness to hear the internal testimony of the Spirit through the words of Multiple Versions. 1 Cor. 2:13 says, “Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but that the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual with spiritual.” The Holy Spirit can use a sufficient Bible to allow the believer to “Grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”

The third passive step is to prayerfully meditate upon how the sufficient Scripture interacts with and is part of the larger body of Christian theology. What does the sufficient Bible tell us about the role of the Holy Spirit, the living Word and the written word, et al.

Internalizing, listening, meditating – all passive aspects of interacting with a sufficient Bible are steps toward freeing the doctrine of Scripture from its present post-critical isolation to its consolidation with the larger body of Christian theology.

Blessings!

Preservation and Collation: The Version Debate (Part 3)

In this episode of Warrior Theology Podcast Dr.’s Van Kleeck discuss preservation and collation as central elements within the version debate. As with all meaningful discussions, it is necessary to enumerate and properly define the terms in question so that the conversation can carry on in a helpful and fruitful path. To that end we give you part three of our treatment of the version debate.

A Post-Critical Ecclesiastical Case Study

Fountain Street Church, Grand Rapids, MI

In March of 1956, a succinct history of the First Baptist Church in Grand Rapids was published by Baptist Testimony Publishers, Inc. The 32-page booklet entitled The Tragic Fall of the First Baptist Church provides selections from sermons made by the pastors of the church describing First Baptist’s slide into apostasy to what we now know as Fountain Street Church.

Beginning the history of the First Baptist Church we read of Deacon J. C. Buchanan who was baptized in the Grand River in 1842 and was for 60 years a member of Fountain Street Baptist Church. Concerning the early days of the church he wrote,

“No soft-sided Baptist floated into us in those days. Only muscular Christianity could endure the strain; but the elect came one by one, sometimes two at a time, which was very encouraging.  Sometimes we listened to a sermon by one of our numbers. And then we had sound doctrine to Captain Davies had a library of Presbyterian sermons.” (Taken from the 25th Anniversary folder.)

Jumping ahead 64 years we read of the collapse of the church having adopted post-critical methods and a modernist philosophy. “It is very significant that on July 1, 1906 (Dr. Randall’s final year as the pastor of the Fountain Street Baptist Church), former pastor John L. Jackson was invited back to speak to the now modernist controlled church. Jackson’s sermon entitled, ‘The Old Faith and the New’ (misusing I Cor. 13:11 as a text) reveals his complete rejection of Bible truth which he once apparently propagated and his open espousal of modernism. The sermon was published by the church’s so-called ‘Class in Applied Christianity,’ of which the following is a quotation:”

“Whether for better or for worse, most of us have passed away from our childhood’s thoughts and opinions. We do not see the world as we once did. Our Bible, our God, our church, our duty are not to us what they once were.”

[Jackson readily admitted that post-critical ideology prevalent in the early 1900’s was the catalyst for a wholly reconstructed notion of Christianity.]

Jackson made the following comparisons:

“It may be worth our while to indicate, in a brief way, what are the different points of view, of the old and the new faith, concerning the fundamental doctrines of Christianity.” 

The New View of the Bible Versus the Old:

“By the old faith the Scriptures were regarded as one book, with one author, God… The new view sees that there is much in the book that is not for us, for our age … We believe these scriptures were inspired… We do not believe they are infallible…. Their inspiration was not different in kind, but doubtless in degree, from that of good men to whom God has spoken in all ages.”

The New View of God Versus the Old:

“The old faith saw God afar off in the heavens, sitting in majesty and splendor upon his throne. The new faith sees him in the flower and the grass, in the prattle of the little child, in mother’s love, in the hero’s noble deed, in the inspired poem, in the new science, in the old philosophy, most of all, in the lofty aspirations and the kind deeds of the common people whom we meet day by day. All that is beautiful and noble in our world is the spirit of God filling the earth with his glory.”

The New View of Jesus Versus the Old:

“With the clearer conception of God comes also the better understanding of Jesus. The old faith robbed Jesus of his humanity…. The new faith is saving Jesus to us as a brother and friend as well as a Savior. We see him to be human – not part human and part divine as we once thought – but altogether human – a man like ourselves. He was altogether human. Was he not then divine?  Yes! Because humanity perfected is divine.”

The New View of Salvation Versus the Old:

“The new view of faith cannot believe that Christ made a bargain with God that for the shedding of so much blood the Father would forgive a sinful world…. We cannot think that the mere physical blood of Christ had in it any more virtue than the blood of any other man. The blood in itself has no power to save. The word is a mere figure of speech and stands for life…. It was a new view to man of the love and mercy of God.”

The New View of Man Versus the Old:

“This new faith also gives a new vision of man and his destiny…. We see truth in the old tradition of a sinless Adam and a fall when we interpret the story in the light of evolution. The fall then as an incident on the onward path of the human up to the divine.”

The New View of the Church and the Old:

“Finally the new faith gives us a new Church with a new mission and a new message. We can make room in the heavenly mansions for the pagan, Socrates, and for the heathen, Gautama.  We cannot see how God can righteously condemn a heathen for not believing in a Christ of whom he has never heard. We need not have anxiety about our own salvation if we have grown interested in helping and blessing other people.”

            “In closing, Dr. Jackson asks the question, ‘Is the new faith better than the old?’ and answers it by saying that, ‘only those who have lived in both realms of thought can answer that question.’ He declares that the ‘defective’ old faith is inferior to the new faith which is a ‘scientific faith’ and a ‘twentieth century faith’ through which ‘this world will become the kingdom of our Lord and his Christ.’ Thus Dr. Jackson turned his back on the Bible to which he once pledged loyalty and to the Christ which he once presented as man’s only salvation. The “new faith” had taken the place of the old in the Fountain Street Baptist Church and Dr. Jackson’s view replaced the great principles articulated by Pastor Isaac Butterfield on a Baptist Church and its mission.”

[The ramifications of post-critical methods and philosophy were not limited to the historical critical method for reconstructing Scripture. Separating inspiration from the Church and replacing inspiration with reason and science was the principal change, but only one of many changes made to Protestant orthodoxy. A historical critical, fallible, Scripture gives the church a panentheistic God, a human Christ, a bloodless atonement where Christ is merely our example, the acceptance of Darwinian evolution, and universal salvation. The ecclesiastical transition between the old faith and the new faith was called modernism.

While readily accepting that the evangelical interlocutors, as Dr. Van Kleeck calls them, do not accept Jackson’s modernistic theological and ecclesiastical conclusions, asking why “The New View of the Bible Versus the Old” is accepted is a valid inquiry. If the adverse theological and ecclesiological ramifications of post-critical philosophy is rejected, why not also reject the adverse effect the historical critical method had on the Protestant sacred text, the KJV? How is one of the several adverse changes that brought the spiritual ruin of a one-time thriving Baptist Church been preserved and argued for as theologically and ecclesiastically normative. This inconsistency, so far, has not been answered. Are we witnessing, to use Dr. Jackson’s term, “scientific faith” to replace the “defective” old faith in the promises of God?]

Copies, Copies Everywhere

Having established certain points of agreement between our position and that of the opposition here and here, we turn now to a discussion of the following:

“Given the absence of the original documents all that we have at our disposal are copies. Indeed, in most cases we have copies of copies or copies of copies of copies etc.

https://standardsacredtext.com/2022/04/01/places-where-we-agree-with-our-opposing-interlocutors-part-1/

I think we can also agree that these copies were not the product of immediate inspiration. That is, each copy was not a product of the Holy Spirit bearing along the copyist in doing his work of copying. Rather, the copying came about by mere secondary causes. The faithful copyist produced a copy which was relatively consistent with his exemplar and to the degree of competence he possessed in the field of scribal copying. As a result, errors crept into the copies.

On this point our interlocutors would like to make a fine distinction between errors and variants. They often maintain that a variant like Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς [Jesus Christ] vs. Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς [Christ Jesus] is not an error but a variant. To this we respond that if God gave Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς in the Greek then God intended not just the words and meaning but even the order of the words. The original written at the hand of Paul had an original order and our opponents have offered no meaningful argument to expunge word order from the act of inspiration. As such, and seeing that the burden of proof rests upon them to prove word order is exempt from the act of inspiration, it seems that variants of this type are properly understood as errors when construed in light of divine inspiration.

So then, drawing on yesterday’s post, the emphasis falls not to whole document but to the words contained in those documents. On this point I am happy to see that the editors of the ECM and practitioners of the CBGM are finally coming around to the idea that it is the individual words that matter and not manuscript families or neutral texts though much of that stench still remains on these scholars.

***WE INTERRUPT THIS PROGRAM TO BRING YOU A SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT***

The emphasis for our position has always been on the words, indeed our emphasis on the words has been deemed radical by some. It is our side that has vehemently argued not only for the preservation of every word but the preservation of every letter and even piece of letter. At this point I wanted to share an anecdote from yesterday. I was speaking with a pastor who does not hold to the Standard Sacred Text position nor does he read from the KJV. Furthermore, he did not know that I hold the TR and KJV by argument and conviction. In this environment he made the comment, now being 52 years old, that in his estimation the deliverances of modern evangelical textual criticism seem to make Bibles more and more like the TR/KJV tradition as the years pass. He started with making some observations about the RSV and then to the NIV and the finally concluding with the ESV only to note that these iterations have become more like the TR/KJV tradition and not less. This pastor’s observations are of course not pie in the sky.

We know now that the editors of the ECM have found a renewed appreciation for the Byzantine text-form in recent years and the Byzantine text-form makes up the greater bulk of the Greek which underlies the KJV. We also know that while the Critical Text demands that the long ending in Mark be removed and that the story of the woman caught in adultery be removed, these text still remain in the Bible. For over a hundred years the Critical Text crowd as decried the inclusion of these passages in the modern versions and yet they remain even amidst the protest. The modern versions are bending toward the Traditional Text, the Ecclesiastical Text, the Confessional Text. The reason behind this is unclear. There are gracious, realist, and non-gracious interpretations of this bending phenomenon which we will have to leave for another time.

***WE NOW RETURN YOU TO YOUR REGULARLY SCHEDULE PROGRAMMING***

Seeing that it is the words of the copies that matter and not necessarily the document as a whole, then the mechanism whereby we are to identify the original must be aimed not at whole documents but at whole words and parts of words. The editors of the ECM are finally starting to do this and they think they can do it with the help and speed of computers as in the formulation of the CBGM. Modern textual scholars have combined their relative genius with the artificial “genius” of computing speed. Which is to say that they are looking beyond man to machines in order to divine the original words of the New Testament.

We of course have no problem with using computers to do the work of textual criticism. The discipline itself is subjective and it remains subjective with or without computers. I suppose we should congratulate modern textual criticism for finally making it to the Information Age. But we have repeatedly asked that they look not beyond man to machine but to look beyond man to God in the person of the Holy Spirit in order to make determinations about what is or is not the New Testament.

The main difference between us and our interlocutors on this point is that while modern textual critics have turned their attention to computers as their new hope in finding the original words, we in accordance with our Reformation era forefathers have looked beyond the terrestrial and have compelled our interlocutors to consider that it is the Spirit of God that teaches us which words are God’s word and that the Christian receives these words as God’s words by the divine gift of faith. We continue to affirm the transcendent as the answer to which words are God’s words and they continue to mire themselves in the transcendentless.

To this day our modern evangelical text-critics turn to lifeless machines to help answer their textual questions while we here at Standard Sacred Text clearly and explicitly enjoin upon them to turn to the Source of all that is good, true, and beautiful in answering their textual questions. If you think my comparison here to be too simplistic then please by all means provide six or so recent scholarly sources that make a robust argument for the exegetical and theological grounding of modern textual criticism and its use of the CBGM. You know, help fill in the gaps for me. Between six sources you should be able to easily conjure up 200 or so double-spaced pages of scholarly material. Then after the material is presented we’ll see if and to what degree it can withstand scrutiny. Furthermore, be prepared to have this new material comport with Wasserman and Gurry’s A New Approach or else be ready to deny their work as cogent or authoritative.

In the mean time it is either scholars with their computers that are going to locate the original inspired infallible words of the New Testament or it is going to be the Spirit of God working through the people of God in receiving the original inspired infallible words of God by faith. We demur on the former and heartily embrace the latter.

The Story of a Man from Another Country

There once was a man from another country and everything he said was true. He was incapable of falsehood or deception on any level of communication. Throughout the course of his life, everything he said, whether people liked it or not, was true. So others could also know the truth, he wrote the truth that he spoke in a book (2 Cor. 3:17) so after he returned to his home, others could read what he said. Everything in the book was true, but just like when he spoke the truth, some people did not like his writing any more than they liked his speech. The truth was not important to these people, so they neglected his book of truth and sometimes changed the words to suit themselves. Knowing that other men were adding falsehoods to and erasing words from his book the man from another country returned to the country to keep the book of truth free from errors.

When he returned to protect the book of truth, he made himself invisible to the men he once lived among. No one could see him. He also made himself everywhere at once so he could be wherever his written word was. Throughout the years after writing the book of truth the man from another country watched over his writing assuring every generation that they had a copy of the book of truth.

The men of the country could not understand how the book of truth had survived since the man from another country spoke and wrote the words so long ago. It seemed impossible to them because they did not know that the invisible and omnipresent man from another country had been watching over his book all the time. As their most precious possession, the people who loved the truth had been living their lives by the book of truth since it was first spoken and written.

The biggest problem in the country of men was their disagreement about the nature of truth. One prominent man asked, “What is truth?” They could not accept the truth spoken and written by the man from another country; they envied the authority of his truth. Their solution was to speak and write in the most prestigious and authoritative manner and call that speaking and writing “true.” “Perhaps other men will envy our writings the way we envy the writings of the man from another country,” they mused. But this kind of writing was a very difficult task for several reasons. There were not many prestigious and authoritative country writers to begin with. And then, after a few short years, they passed away. Generation after generation the speakers and writers passed, their writings forgotten, only to be replaced by many other men from the same country who spoke and wrote their “truths.” Above all, the greater issue was that they had no one to watch over their writings. The always-changing “truth” of the many generations of speakers and writers had no one to watch over their expression of “truth” or to standardize it as “the truth” and so the speaking and writing of “truth” had no end.

From the time of the man from another country there has been a struggle between the “truths” of many speakings and writings of the prestigious and authoritative country men and the one-time speaking and writing of the man from another country who only spoke and wrote only what was true. No end of this struggle is in sight, but the people that love truth and love the book of truth dwell in peace and safely knowing that the invisible speaker and writer of the truth is watching over their book.

In the book of truth, the man from another country wrote that he is coming back to the country to live with those that love truth and live their lives by the book of truth. Then the people who love the book of truth will learn how the invisible hand of the man from another country watched over the book of truth for so many years.

Is the Meaning of Original, Original?

Continuing our treatment of the places where we agree with out opposing interlocutors, we now come to certain crucial nuances between our two positions. To reiterate, we agree

“that the original documents written at the hand of Moses or David or Paul or John have been lost to the attrition of time and use.”

https://standardsacredtext.com/2022/04/01/places-where-we-agree-with-our-opposing-interlocutors-part-1/

But on the point of “original” there are several nuances which deserve attention. Those nuances are as follows:

Our position is that “original” means and only means the collection of words in specific first century documents written by the inspired writer [e.g., Moses, David, Paul etc.] at a specific time in that writer’s life and by the immediate bearing along of that writer by the Holy Spirit in writing those words. In other words, the only originals are the collection of words which the original penmen wrote in a document by the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Our opponents maintain several different understandings of “original” and it is these nuances that we desire to get ironed out both here on the blog and in person if necessary.

1.) “Original” can merely mean first in the order of textual being. The original in this context is simply the first and progenitor of all other copies that follow. There is no need to employ criteria such as inspiration or the bearing along of the Holy Spirit to define “original” in this regard. If you pay careful attention to the argument of our interlocutors you will find that this is a widely used definition for “original” in evangelical and non-evangelical circles.

2.) “Original” in the mouth of someone like Bart Ehrman takes many forms. It may be the original message as it appeared in the mind of the penman which then took approximate shape on the page as he wrote down the words. It may be the first of all the copies that follow. It may be a corrected version of the first written document, kind of like what a second draft is to a first.

3.) “Original” may not refer to a specific document at all. We see this inferred in language surrounding the meaning and discussion of “jot and title.” Many prominent evangelical textual scholar assert that jot and tittle cannot mean the preservation of the original letters and parts of letters in a single document. Rather, the meaning is hyperbolic having to do with original meaning and not original words. Admittedly, for some, defining jot and tittle in terms of meaning may be oblique to the overall definition of “original.” Still, the point remains that the emphasis of original falls primarily on meaning and not on the inspired original words.

4.) There is a movement among the world’s leading textual critics to abandon the search for and reconstruction of the original words of the first documents which underlie the received books of the New Testament. Which is to say, not only has the general definition of “original” lost most if not all of its definitional supernatural elements, it is now thought to be wholly lost in document and word unless of course a Qumran-level discovery were to happen in our lifetime.

One caveat: Consider for a moment the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. Doesn’t that clearly and concisely claim that the originals were indeed perfect and inspired? Indeed, it does. But note that the worth of the originals for the present day Church in this regard hangs quite heavily on the idea that the original documents are lost. Do they mean that God’s original words are lost? To admit as much has deep and negative theological implications for most evangelicals, so I don’t think they mean we lost God’s original words when they say the originals are lost.

So what then is the emphasis on this point of the originals being lost according to the Chicago Statement? The emphasis falls to a treatment of the originals as merely the first and progenitor of all subsequent copies, as a mere historical artifact. Put another way, the insistence upon the lostness of the originals in this way, especially within the context of modern textual criticism, implicitly defines the originals in terms of mere beginnings while simultaneously diminishing the supernatural characteristics of the Originals.

I am guilty of doing this very thing, but it seems to me that it is the words which make the Original the Original and no right-thinking Christian is going to say that any of the original words are lost. Does it not seem to be the case that without the original words written on a specific piece of ancient paper that paper could never be the Original. Thus when we say the originals are lost to the wastes of time and use we are speaking of mere paper upon which the original words are written. But nothing, not even the perishable paper upon which the original words of Scripture are written can render the Original lost.

Thus we have two kinds of lost originals. We have lost historical artifacts which contain the original inspired words of God and we have the question of whether or not any of the original, as to words, has been lost. Put simply we have lost original artifacts but no lost original words. It is because of this truth that Protestant Scholastics could speak of their canonical Greek apographa [i.e., copy] as the original. It was called Original not because it was the artifact written at the hand of John or Paul. It was called Original because their canonical Greek apographa was believed to be the Original as to words. And it is in this latter sense the Church has not lost the Original to the wastes of time and use.

For some you may think that we are splitting hairs, but that of course is the point of offering a nuance – a subtle difference in meaning. For others I hope that you can see the difference between our definition and the standard Critical Text/Multiple Versions Only definitions. As such, on the point of “original” these are some of the places we would like to carry on the discussion. We invite you to join us or to invite us to join you.

Preservation, Preaching, and Evangelism

On this Lord’s Day morning, we briefly consider the relationship between Scripture’s preservation, preaching and evangelism in Andrew Willet’s 1611 commentary on Romans. Under the heading “Places of confutation,” he engages in discussions with those who stand opposed to major Christian doctrines. The first controversy was “Against those which think it is against the nature of the New Testament to be committed to writing.” Willet has those with a “fanatical spirit” in mind, those who held that the writing of the law in one’s heart and through the Spirit (Jer. 32:33; 2 Cor. 3:3) make a written testament unnecessary. To this Willet replies that the writing of the Scriptures was given by the direct command of God (Rev. 14:13), “and St. Paul saith, that all Scripture is given by inspiration:  2 Tim. 3:6,”[1] and that “[T]he Spirit of God then moved them to put in writing these holy books of the New Testament; which are part of the Scripture.”[2] Reinforcing his answer, Willet writes,

“It followeth not because the Lord writeth the Gospel in our hearts by his Spirit, that therefore it is not to be written: for by the writing thereof which is preached and read, faith is wrought in the heart by the operation of the Spirit: As the Apostle saith, Rom. 10:17, that faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word.”[3]

Willet concludes his discussion by summarizing the three primary reasons the word of God was committed to writing: “1. Both in respect to that age present, for the preventing and stay of heresies, which might be more strongly resisted and gainsaid, by an evident and extant rule of faith; 2. In regard of those Churches, to whom the Apostles preached not by lively voice, it was necessary that they should have some perfect direction in writing; 3. And that the ages also to come might have a rule of their faith.”[4]

Blessings!

[1] HR, p. 5.  Read 3:16.

[2] HR, p. 5.

[3] HR, p. 5.

[4] HR, p. 5.

Places Where We Agree: The Need For Nuance (Part 2)

NUANCE

Noun

1. a subtle difference in or shade of meaning, expression or sound.

We don’t live in a world of nuance. We live in a world of extremes. Political punditry on the evening news boils down to “Those conservatives are bigots” or “Those liberals are insane.” You have to either be for Ukraine or against Ukraine, and anyone who tries to offer nuance in the situation is a Putin groupie and is calling for WW3. There is nothing we can learn from our opponents. They have no point. They have no case. They are totally, utterly, and completely wrong. The same goes for many religious discussions.

All people who disagree with the Gospel must be enemies. They can’t be in need of help. They can’t be lost. They can’t be intellectually poor or merely have gaps in their understanding. They must be enemies. And all who try to construe them as anything other than enemies are soft, naïve, and/or ecumenical. Pick your pejorative. The rule of the day is to never give your opposing interlocutor any credit, and if you must, do it more as a slight or in a backhanded way. It’s easier this way and there is no sign that things are going to change in the near future. So what are we to do?

Well, demonize our opponents, of course…

Nah, not for me. If we want to change the world through belief in what the Scripture says about God, Christ, and the word itself, then we are going to have to do some “opening and alleging” just like Paul did in Acts 17. That is going to include a host of nuances and those nuances are going to include places of agreement between us and our opponents.

And what makes our opponents our opponents? It is their arguments, primarily. We find their arguments to oppose ours and so we call those who propound arguments opposed to our own to be our opponents. Of course this is the similar situation in war time as well. It is not so much the man that is our opponent but the fact that that man is trying to kill us. It is his leaden “arguments” which we oppose and thus we return similar and, Lord willing, more accurate leaden arguments.

So just like yesterday’s post, here are some places where we agree with our opposition.

1.) We agree that God the Holy Spirit inspired the word of God via the inspired penmen of the autographic text.

2.) We agree that the Bible should be publicly preached in public worship.

3.) We believe that people of all languages should be able to read the Bible in their own language and that such a reading be profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness.

4.) We believe that the word of God in these vernacular languages is powerful enough to engender faith in the human soul and thus lead that soul to salvation in Christ.

5.) Furthermore, given #4, we here at StandardSacredText.com believe in agreement with our opposition that it is possible to be saved out of other versions of the Bible beside the KJV so long as that version contains the substantia doctrinae of the original language.

6.) Given #5, we also agree with our opposition that the Bible has been given to Christ’s bride for more than the work of salvation. It has also been given for all things that pertain to life and godliness [i.e., sanctification].

7.) We are in agreement with our opposition that the revealed word of God has come down to us today in different forms, iterations, and refinements.

8.) We are in agreement with out opponents that the KJV as a form, iteration, and refinement of the revealed word of God in English has served the English-speaking Church and Western society as a whole in unparalleled ways since 1611.

9.) We are in agreement with our opposition that the issue of what counts as the New Testament or what counts as the word of God are interesting questions and are worthy of focused effort aimed at offering solutions to those questions.

With the five common places from yesterday and the nine common places immediately above there seems to be significant common ground between our two positions. But then come the nuances, and it should be those nuances on which we focus our energies. In keeping with this doctrine, the following weeks’ posts will center on illuminating these nuances, these subtle but meaningful differences between the Standard Sacred Text position and the Critical Text/Multiple Versions Only position.

Dean John William Burgon on 2nd-5th Century Testimony to Mark 16:9-20

Codex Alexandrinus. 5th c

“II. That, at some period subsequent to the time of the Evangelist, certain copies of S. Mark’s Gospel suffered that mutilation in respect of their last Twelve Verses of which we meet with no trace whatever, no record of any sort, until the beginning of the fourth century.And the facts which now meet us on the very threshold, are in manner conclusive; for if Papias and Justin Martyr [AD 150] do not refer to, yet certainly Irenaeus [AD 185] and Hippolytus [AD 190-227] distinctly quote Six out of Twelve suspected Verses, –which are also met with in the two oldest Syriac Versions, as well as in the old Latin Translation. Now the latest of these authorities is earlier by a full a hundred years than the earliest record that the verses in question were ever absent from the ancient MSS. t the eighth Council of Carthage, (as Cyprian relates,) [AD 256] Vincentius a Thiberi, one of the eighty-seven African Bishops were assembled, quoted the 17th verse in the presence of the Council.

Nor is this all. Besides the Gothic and Egyptian versions in the ivth century; besides Ambrose, Cyril of Alexandria, Jerome, and Augustine in the vth, to say nothing of Codices A and C; –the Lectionary of the Church universal, probably from the second century of our era, is found to bestow its solemn and emphatic sanction on every one of thee Twelve Verses. They are met with in every MS. of the Gospels in existence, uncial and cursive, — except two; they are found in every Version; and they are contained besides in every known Lectionary, where they are appointed to be read at Easter and on Ascension Day.”

The overwhelming early evidence in Church history for the Mark 16:6-20 prior to the 4th century MSS Sinaiticus and Vaticanus speaks to the passage’s authenticity. If it was present before the 4th century, its absence in two manuscripts cannot erase the prior evidence of the passage’s inclusion at the end of Mark’s Gospel. Nevertheless, this failed reasoning lingers in modern Evangelical textual criticism and prompted the infamous note after Mark 16:8, “The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.” The two witnesses are Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus against conclusive testimony for the passage before and after the 4th century. As if plucking the two MSS out of the entire manuscript tradition the modern Church was brought to question the authenticity of these verses. One deeply sorrowful but reliable report was that a faithful churchman, trusting his pastor not to lead him astray, after being told that the verses were spurious took a black, felt-tipped marker and drew a black “X” across the nine verses, crossing then out. Burgon was not making a dogmatic assessment. The manuscript evidence does not support the exclusion of the passage. Stalin said “Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.” For modern textual critics, “The manuscript decides nothing. Those who adjudicate the manuscript decide everything.”

John W. Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark (Erlanger, KY: Faith and Facts Press, nd, 1871), 328-329.

Codex A: Alexandrinus, 5th century

Codex C: Ephraemi Rescriptus, 5th century