1 John 5:7, the 1514 Complutension Polyglot, and its Detractors

Turning again to Francis Antony Knittel, New Criticisms on the Celebrated Text, 1 John 5:7, and the Translators Preface written by William Evanson we receive a glimpse into late 18th criticism of the Textus Receptus’ inclusion of 1 John 5:7. Note that in Evanson’s estimation, the attack upon the reading was driven by heterodox theological presuppositions. We pick up the reading on page 17 of the Translator’s Preface.

“Nor, when we leave Manuscript evidence to examine that of the Printed Editions of the Greek New Testament, will that conclusion be invalidated; but, on the contrary, most power fully corroborated. First in honor, as in place, stands that stupendous and magnificent monument, the Complutension Polyglot of Ximenes, which contains the “Princeps” Edition of the Greek Testament.[1] Every Princeps Edition is prima-facie evidence of the Readings in con temporary or antecedent Manuscripts. The Complutensian reads 1 John V. 7.: therefore that verse stood in the Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament then existing and consulted by the Editors. Those Greek Manuscripts, we are assured by the Editors, were the most ancient, and the most valuable which could then be procured from the best public or private Collections in the world. The munificent Patron and Projector of that Work spared no expense or toil, and employed the ablest Scholars and Critics of the day in its completion. Its authority was held equivalent to that of the most authentic and ancient Greek Manuscripts then extant (as even Michaelis admits). It was referred to as the ultimate appeal from every subsequent Printed Edition; and it remained in the undisputed possession of that preeminence, throughout all Christendom, for nearly one hundred and fifty years, during the brightest days of the Reformation.”

The “first assailant” of the authenticity of 1 John 5:7 was Johann Semler. Evanson continues,

“Its first assailant was the celebrated Wetstein; whose charges were repeated by the learned Sender  [eminent Critics no doubt, but, as we can fully prove, unsafe and most suspicious witnesses in the point at issue,] and upon their sole authority, upon their unsupported and peremptory dicta, have all subsequent opponents of the disputed verse impeached, not only the genuineness of that verse in the Complutensian New Testament, but the character of the whole Polyglott.

Now, if it be remembered, that both Wetstein and Semler ground their accusations almost solely upon motives which they invent, and impute to the Editors of the Complutensian, we are perfectly justified, not in fabricating and imputing any sinister intentions to these two Critics, but in stating their avowed religious tenets— tenets of such a nature, as, in ordinary cases, engender not only a suspicion of sinister motives, but of invalidity in those deductions which such persons choose to draw, in favour of their peculiar opinions.

Whoever has impartially examined Wetstein’s Annotations on the New Testament will be con vinced that the Learned Annotator did not believe in the Proper Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. Indeed, he was openly charged with Socinianism; a charge which he could neither palliate nor deny. He was fully aware, that so long as the verse 1 John V. 7. remained an integral part of God’s Holy Word, no ingenuity of criticism could argue away the Consubstantiality of the Father and the Son. Great then was his anxiety, and incalculable the toil and pains which he encountered, to destroy, if possible, the reputation of that Princeps Edition in which that verse was inserted. Where History or argument fails, he has recourse to sneer and sarcasm. Let any one read the subjoined Notes, and say whether I am not justified in impeaching Wetstein as an unsound witness in this cause. Biased and hostile as he shews himself, against the foundation-truth of Christianity, his testimony cannot be received without suspicion: it must be scrupulously weighed; and the result will be found to be captious, superficial criticism, insidious and un founded calumnies, upon the munificent Promoter and the learned and honest Editors of the noblest Biblical Undertaking in the world. Semler, who repeated these accusations, with many additional effusions of his own spleen, in his Reprint of Wetstein’s Prolegomena (1764-8), was an avowed supporter of Pelagianism. He denied the divine inspiration of the Scriptures. He was, if not the originator, certainly the great promoter of that Infidel system so fashionable amongst the modern Neologians or Rationalists of Germany: I mean the Accommodation Theory,[2] according to which Revelation is to be judged of, not by the evidences of its divine origin, but by its supposed utility. It is notorious, that at the time when he repeated Wetstein’s accusations against the Complutensian, he had never seen that Polyglott:[3] but he knew that it contained the disputed verse 1 John V. 7, and he was therefore determined to crush it altogether. Unquestionably he possessed gigantic intellectual powers, immense erudition, and unparalleled industry. But he has been encountered by a formidable antagonist, the celebrated Goezen,[4] of Hamburg who has thoroughly exposed the shallowness of his pretensions as a Critic of that great Work, demolished the whole fabric of his baseless invectives, and consigned him, and his prototype, Wetstein, to the pity of every impartial Theologian and genuine believer in the doctrines of Christianity.

Wetstein and Semler are, in fact, the only authorities appealed to by the depreciators of the Complutensian. Their unsupported assertions have been assumed as axioms; their sophisms, as mathematical demonstration. Their hypothesis respecting especially the Greek New Testament in that Polyglott, is, that ” the Editors formed the Greek on the Vulgate.” This hypothesis, unsubstantiated by even a shadow of proof, has been repeated by Protestants, in the face of unanswerable evidence to the contrary:[5] and, curious to say, it’s very opposite is maintained by a celebrated Roman-Catholic critic, Richard Simon, (Hist. Critiq. p. 516,) who asserts that the Complutensian Editors corrected the Vulgate Latin of the New Testament by the Original Greek Text!”

Note Evanson’s observation writing, “He was, if not the originator, certainly the great promoter of that Infidel system so fashionable amongst the modern Neologians or Rationalists of Germany: I mean the Accommodation Theory, according to which Revelation is to be judged of, not by the evidences of its divine origin, but by its supposed utility. ” This dichotomy continues to today. Either the Scripture is God’s word by “evidences of its divine origin,” that is, Scripture is self-authenticating (autopiston), self-attesting, ands self-interpreting, or it is judged by its “supposed utility,” or by some external criteria.

Francis Antony Knittel, New Criticisms on the Celebrated Text, 1 John 5:7, translated by William Alleyn Evanson (London: C. and J. Rivington, St. Paul’s Church-yard, J Hatchard and Son, Piccadilly, 1829, 1785), Translators Preface, xvii-xxiii.

            [1] The Greek New Testament was first printed in the Complutensian Polyglott, and finished in the year 1514; though the entire Work was not completed until 1517, nor the Papal Privilegium obtained until 1520. Erasmus’s First Edition was printed in 1517.

            [2] For a fuller account of Semler, see Rev. H. J. Rose’s Four Ser mons on the State of the Protestant Religion in Germany : (a most valuable and interesting Work,) p. 45 et seq. First Edition.

            [3] This appears, from his Note on Erasmus’s Annotation already quoted. He there observes: “Since Erasmus has here noticed all the Variations between the Complutensian and the Codex Britannicus, yet without expressly stating that the former has epi thV ghV where the latter reads en th gn, he must have committed a mistake a few lines before, and been thinking of the Greek instead of the Latin in terra, which is much more correct than en th gh. Now, from what we learn in other Works, of the order of the words in the Complutensian New Testament, it is certain that the latter actually printed en th gh.” Every one knows, that the reading in the Complutensian is en thV ghV : therefore, Semler either deliberately falsifies, or never saw the Work which he criticizes. (See Goezen’s Vertheidigung &c. p.78.)

            [4] Goezen’s Works on this subject are enumerated in Knittel’s Note, p. 95. I am engaged in preparing a Translation of them for the press; and am encouraged to hope, they will prove a valuable accession to our Biblical Literature.

            [5] Goezen has collected nearly 1000 Variations between the Complutensian Greek New Testament and the Latin Vulgate; and these not trivial or insignificant, but the majority most important: in many, the sense of the Readings in the Complutensian is directly opposite to that in the Vulgate. (See Ausfuhrtichere Vertheidigung, pp. 276—506.)

Expressive Individualism and Multiple Version Only-ism (Part 1)

I am about half way through Carl Trueman’s brilliant work, The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self. Trueman weaves together a beautiful intellectual tapestry by tying together the ideas of men like Charles Taylor, Jean-Joques Rousseau, Percy Bysshe Shelly, Fredrick Nietzsche, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud. Trueman’s aim in gathering such a distinguished group of brilliant societal mavericks is to offer an explanation as to why there is such an emphasis on the individual qua individual in the West. Or to answer questions like, “What accounts for the murder of children on demand in the act of abortion or of the irrational compulsion that all people recognize a man as a woman because that is how he identifies at that moment?”

If I could boil down Trueman’s answer to the above question into one term that term is “Expressive Individualism”. Expressive Individualism is defined as

“a way of thinking or a worldview whereby individuals believe their dignity and personhood depend on casting off any and all relationships and traditions—including religion—that get in the way of their deepest and most authentic selves.”

https://www.9marks.org/article/expressive-individualism-embodied-telos-and-how-to-be-an-anti-winfrey/

Trueman puts meat on these definitional bones when he writes,

“In the world of expressive individualism, however, the truth of emotions is found not in their conformity to God’s revelation but in the sincerity of their expression.”

https://www.9marks.org/article/expressive-individualism-and-the-church/?msclkid=3a34393eab7311ec8e961703f2d91759

The question we have asked over and over here at StandardSacredText.com is whether the Multiple Version Only position is in “conformity to God’s revelation.” We have argued that one sacred text comports quite easily with one God, one faith, one Spirit, one Savior, one Gospel etc. But the MVO crowd have yet to provide any argument to show their “conformity to God’s revelation.” In fact, the response that we most often get is, “Read the Bible that makes sense to you.” If the Bible is Canon or the Rule which rules over us and we can read whatever Rule makes sense to us [so long as our academic overlords deem it a Bible], then why can’t we be what makes sense to us? In other words, if we can pick the Rule we can pick how we are ruled.

Note that the hallmark of this sense/emotion is that it be “sincere,” not that it can be defended from Scripture and not that it makes any rational sense. All that matters is that you hold to multiple versions with sincerity and that is enough for your position to resist all objections.

I have often asked myself why so many people, from back-woodsy college professors to elite Ivy League divinity school professors, could not resist attacking KJV adherents. Why the disdain? Why the derision? Why the contempt? The MVO position is the prevailing position in the Western Church. The MVO position is the prevailing position in the colleges, seminaries, and divinity schools. They have had a run of the place for the last 150 years. How is it that the Traditional Text position or the Ecclesiastical Text position or the Confessional Text position could be a threat to such a monopolous goliath?

An Expressive Individualist would have us think of him as an actor on a stage in a play that is all about him. When he gets up on stage we are all supposed to accept the character that he chooses to be today. If we do not, then in his mind, we hate who he is because who he is is who he chooses to be in that moment. As such, when we say that you many not choose the Rule, but that the Rule chooses you by the leading of the Spirit of God through the word of God, our interlocutors are immediately incensed. And not because we are rejecting some detached academic argument but because we are rejecting their Expressive Individualism. Each day they get up on stage and choose to be ruled by the Rule they choose and to reject their choice is to reject them because they are what they choose to be ruled by.

In sum, if which Bible you read is a matter of choice then which gender you are is also a matter of choice. If accepting special revelation [i.e., which Bible version] is a matter of preference then accepting natural revelation [i.e., which gender] is a matter of preference. You may say, “Well now you’ve gone too far! Choosing your Bible version and choosing your gender are miles apart.” No, they are not.

The Bible is the rule of all faith and practice. The Bible tells us what a man is and what a woman is. The Bible is the primary source of Christian knowledge on what counts as a man and what counts as a woman. Therefore, to say, I can choose my Bible is to infer that you can choose your own gender because you have already allowed yourself to choose the authority upon which your definition of gender primarily rests as a Christian.

If you get to choose the rule book you get to choose how the game is played. If you get to choose the rules about what makes a man, a man [i.e., you get to choose the Bible you want to read], then you are necessarily choosing how that game is played [i.e., you are choosing what makes a man, a man]. In the end, you have chosen the Rule. The Rule has not chosen you.

We are going to hang out here a bit. If you have any feedback on this line of reasoning I would appreciate it. I’ll see if I can get ahold of Dr. Trueman and ask him questions along these lines as well. Blessings.

See Part Two Here and Part Three Here

The Trinitarian Bible Society Textus Receptus

We here at StandardSacredText.com are often asked, “Which TR do you think is standard Greek NT?” Our reply is, “The book pictured above, the Trinitarian Bible Society Textus Receptus.”

Often the response we get from our opposing interlocutors is that the TBS TR is that the it is “back translated” from the KJV. This is a rather banal and uncharitable way of putting it. The short of it is that Scrivener took Beza’s 1598 and amended it based on the textual choices accepted by the King James Version translators.

That is, Scrivener took a look at the translation choices made by the KJV translators and extrapolated from the translation the Greek readings the KJV translators decided to translate into the English. He then made adjustments to Beza’s edition of the TR, thus making another edition of the TR.

Now before you cry foul, consider the widely accepted and lauded method of the critical text position. When formulating the N/A 28, UBS 5th, or the ECM there are a range of readings that could be included in the Greek text. The editors take a look at the evidence for a specific reading and from that evidence put one reading in the body of the text and the rest in the apparatus or in a kind of textual footnote at the bottom of the page. There is nothing inherently wrong in examining the evidence and coming to a conclusion about which reading should be in the text and which should be relegated to a textual footnote. On this we can agree.

[As an aside, error enters the scenario when these editors tell the Church that the reading in the body of the text IS the New Testament. Greek NT editors have neither the power nor the authority to make such a claim. Only the people of God through the leading of the Spirit of God through the word of God accepted by faith can deem this or that the New Testament.]

Back to the point, all Scrivener did is use the KJV as a guide to identify the original readings chosen by the KJV translators to be translated and then put those readings in Beza’s 1589 Greek NT while relegating others to the textual footnotes, so to speak. So, where the average modern evangelical text critic employs the evidence of the manuscript tradition, Scrivener employed the evidence via the KJV translators choices regarding a specific original reading as manifest in the KJV translation. He then made changes to Beza’s 1589 Greek NT based on that textual evidence.

So how different is Beza’s 1589 TR and Scrivener’s TR? The total places is ~126 places in the whole NT. You can find a helpful list at this website. Here are a couple examples of such differences:

1.) Matthew 1:23 – Beza [they] vs Scrivener [you]
2.) Matthew 20:15 – Beza [Or is] vs Scrivener [Is]
3.) Mark 16:14 – Beza [But afterward] vs. Scrivener [Afterward]
4.) Mark 16:20 – Beza [omitted: Amen] vs. Scrivener [Amen]
5.) Luke 7:45 – Beza [she] vs. Scrivener [I]

To be clear, the readings on the right are representative of the readings the KJV translators chose from among the manuscript witnesses. And as you can see from these examples and our Critical Text interlocutors should readily admit, the differences between Beza and Scrivener are relatively minor and do not “affect any major doctrine.”

In sum, the TBS TR is an edition of the TR which bears witness to the original language textual choices of the KJV translators. It is not that Scrivener made changes to Beza’s TR so that there would be a Greek NT to finally underly the KJV. No, Scrivener made changes to Beza’s TR in order to reflect the original language textual choices of the KJV translators and specifically those readings that were different from Beza’s choices.

Then by the grace of the everlasting God, and unbeknownst to the KJV translators, their textual choices and the English translation born from those readings ended up being accepted by the people of God by the leading of the Spirit through the words of God accepted by faith and as such that translation is and has been the standard sacred text of the English-speaking believing community for over 400 years.

Francis Antony Knittel, 1785: A Reprimand of Scholar-pleasing Pastors

In his defense of 1 John 5:7 and the necessity of teaching the Doctrine of the Trinity for the spiritual well-being of Christianity, Knittel strikes upon a practical issue of pastors who violate their consciences by not preaching what they know to be the word of God for fear of scholarly censorship. The same critical pressures of the “tone of the day in which we live” for Knittel in the late 18th century are the same “tone” in 2022. Knittel writes,

But we are further told, that men of the newest and most refined taste in the Pastoral science lay it down as a  general rule of prudence, that “no Preacher should bring forward passages of Scripture in public worship, whose authenticity or interpretation are considered dubious, or even objectionable.” May I ask, By whom considered so? Is it by the Clergyman himself, who performs divine worship ? In this case, I have already stated my opinion. But suppose it is not the officiating Minister, but others, persons of distinction and influence, who give the tone to the age in which we live; whom the hearer, being a literary man knows (aye, and as stars of the first magnitude), through the means of his circulating library;—passages whose value is depreciated by such connoisseurs are to him destitute of effect; he smiles when he hears them from the pulpit; secretly laments his good Pastor’s ignorance of modern literature; takes a pinch of snuff; and, not to appear idle, turns over the leaves of his Hymn-book!

So then, this is the reason why the Preacher must suppress Scriptural proofs against his own conviction; and neglect them in his public discourses, the moment he happens to hear that men of celebrity have questioned, or actually rejected them! An admirable principle, forsooth! I should but insult your understanding, my Reverend Brethren, were I to utter another syllable in confutation of such a principle. Blessed be God! I know (and so do you) many distinguished individuals, but who are also real scholars and honest men (for celebrity too has its rabble)—men I say, who, though differing in opinion with me, and many of my Brother Clergymen, as regards this and some other passages of the Bible, would most sincerely, and as Christians, regret that we should suffer their celebrity to render us blind and faithless to our own convictions. But these are not the influential persons whom the Pastoralist, I allude to, intends. No; his are Gentlemen of a different caliber. Had this teacher of prudence been kind enough to name the parties whom he idolizes, we should more clearly understand what the good man properly means towards us poor Clergymen! His “distinguished individuals ” would soon stop our mouths, on all the truths peculiar to Christianity; because they are unwilling to discover that faith which we confess, in any passage of Scripture; but are skillful enough, either to reject all such passages as spurious, or interpret them as suits their own views. But in short, if ever a Clergy man suffers himself to be influenced by the spirit of the age, I see no further need he has of the Bible, conscience, learning, or common sense! No! Brethren, No! If we seek merely to please men, then are we not the servants of Christ!

Francis Antony Knittel,, New Criticisms on the Celebrated Text, 1 John 5:7, translated by William Alleyn Evanson (London: C. and J. Rivington, St. Paul’s Church-yard, J Hatchard and Son, Piccadilly, 1829, 1785), 111-113

The Version Debate (Part 1)

Finally, after about 10 or so hours of setup we finally come to the part in Warrior Theology Podcast where we begin to broach the topic of the version debate. It is important to note that our aim in this episode is to bring 10 hours worth of argument to bear on the question of versions and which version of the Bible is the word of of God for the English-speaking Church. The version question is not the beginning but nearing the end of a robust argument for orthodox Bibliology.

1,362 / 783,137 = 0.00174

Mark Ward’s main argument against the use of the KJV is that it contains False Friends. In making this argument Dr. Ward chose 50 of these so called False Friends and explained why he thought they were False Friends. In this video right around the 3:30-4:00 mark Ward explains that he and one of his students took to counting all the occurrences of these 50 False Friends in the KJV. All told they counted 1,362 words which by their lights deserve to be called False Friends.

There are 783,137 total words in the KJV. Thus the total percentage of False Friends in the KJV is 0.174% or less than two tenths of a percent of the words in the KJV are False Friends.

So, by Ward’s own count, we ought to abandon the KJV because two tenths of a percent of the words of the KJV maybe words we think we understand but don’t [i.e., are False Friends].

For perspective, say you live in this house.

This house currently costs $1,875,000. 0.174% of $1,875,000 is $3,262.50. Mark Ward would have you get rid of this house because there are $3,262.50 worth of things about this house that you think you understand but don’t. He would tell you this house is not safe and that this house is not good enough for you. Furthermore, he would exhort you not to call this one house your home but to sell this one and purchase several other houses. And once you bought these several houses be sure to call them all equally home. Furthermore, anyone who is a One Home-Onlyist should be held in derision because all the people in the know say we need to have many houses and many homes but definitely move out of the one above because…False Friends.

So is it time to move and buy more houses or are you staying in your 4 Bed, 6 Bath, 6,700 sqft home with 28ft ceilings on 20 acres of land?

Lucas Trelcatius, Jr., 1604, and a High View of Holy Scripture

Lucas Trelcatius, Jr., is a Dutch Reformed theologian of the early orthodox era. Succeeding his father, Lucas Trelcatius, Sr., he served as professor extraordinarius at Leiden from 1602 until his death in 1607. This pericope is taken from a volume published in 1610, three years after his death by John Gawen who translated Trelcatius’ Latin text into English.

Published in 1604, the 1st year of King James Version translation process, Trelcatius’ writings illuminates the high view of Scripture contemporary with the translation work. This short passage, a polemic against one of Rome’s finest apologists, Bellarmine, demonstrates the theological precommitments of that era that guided the King James Bible translators. The following is drawn from Book 1, Chapter 2 of A Brief Institution of the Common Places of Sacred Divinitie.

Of the Word of God

The same we thus define: It is a holy instrument concerning the truth, necessary to salvation, faithfully and perfectly written in the Canonical books by the Prophets and Apostles, as the Secretaries of God for the healthful instruction of the Church.

We call it an instrument both in respect of the Covenant, whereof God would have an Instrument to be made, and by a renewed contract publicly to be registered, as also in relation to another thing, as in the proper use and office thereof, because the holy Scripture is not for it self, but as the manner of Instruments is for another thing, the authority, perfection, perspicuousness, and use of this Instrument shall be made evident by a methodical resolution of the causes.

The Cause Efficient of the Scripture is God the Father in the Son by the Spirit, for the same hath the Father layed [oft]en to the Church by the word Enun[sia]tive, by the words of grace and power generally and specially, ordinarily and extraordinarily, the Son hath both ways confirmed it in the New Testament, the Holy Ghost sealeth the same in the hearts of the faithful by the word inwardly testifying, or by an inward testimony, the Scripture then is divine by original, and by the things thereof, both essential and natural, as also assumed.  

By Original, because every knowledge of truth is from the first truth, whereof the Scripture is the instrumental badge, and as it were a sharpened image: hence it is, that God both immediately with his own finger wrote the Decalogue in Tables, and mediately by his servants as his Notaries and public penmen commanded the whole compacted body of holy Scripture with every part thereof to be written….

Further, this authority is two ways considered, first in it self, secondly, in respect to us: the authority of the Scripture in its self is divine, if we consider the cause, subject and certainty of doctrine.

The Cause, because the authority of the Scripture is as great as of the holy Ghost who indicted both the matter and words thereof, and whose Prophets and Apostles were only amanuenses, penmen.

The Subject, for whereas there is wont to be a double respect to testimonies concerning the authority of a thing from the power and efficacy of him that witnesseth, the other from the nature and property of the Instrument, the Scripture, in respect of the things whereof it is an Instrument, hath an exceeding great and infallible authority.

The certainty of doctrine which the Scripture hath by God by Virtue, Verity and Complement: by Virtue, because he hath confirmed the same both at all times with his Spirit, and at convenient time with his works of grace and power: by Verity, because it containeth the whole truth communicable in it self both alone and perfectly: by Complement, because as in substance, so also in event all things are most certain, and most true in the Scripture.

Lucas Trelcatius, A Brief Institution of the Common Places of Sacred Divinitie wherein the Truth of every place proved, and the sophisms of Bellarmine are reproved, translated by John Gawen (London: Imprinted by T. P. for Francis Burton, dwelling in Pauls Church-yard, and the sign of the Green Dragon, 1610), 12-16

Yet Another Place Where MVOism Fails: Ockham’s Razor

“Entities are not to be multiplied without necessity.”

William of Ockham

Ockham’s famous dictum gives us another occasion to demonstrate how Multiple Version Onlyism is not only out of touch with historic Christian doctrine but it is also out of touch with reasonable argumentation in general. As we have pointed out time and again, MVO’s seem woefully dependent on almost exclusive abductive reasoning. Their arguments regularly violate the Law of Non-Contradiction, and, as we will see in a moment, scholarly MVO advocates make it a cornerstone of their position to violate Ockham’s Razor.

Ockham’s Razor was postulated as early as Aristotle Posterior Analytics, but this philosophical razor bears it name by way of William of Ockham, a 14th century friar. Though Ockham offers different formulations of the razor his most popular rendition is quoted above, translated from the Latin. To put a little meat on the bones, the purpose of Ockham’s Razor is to be parsimonious [i.e., stingy] regarding the number of things [i.e., points to your argument, parts of your machine, beings in reality etc.] you admit in the explanation of a given thing or phenomenon. Unless necessity dictates, do not multiply entities/things when few would due to explain X. Put another way, the simplest answer which accounts for all relevant phenomena is the best answer.

My experience with Ockham’s Razor comes from my Ph.D. work in moral philosophy which served as the bulk of my class work. In the context of moral philosophy, Christians are often accused of lacking parsimony or violating Ockham’s Razor for including God in our ethics. Atheists believe they can account for objective morality without the entity called God. As such, according to the atheist, when Christians invoke God as the ground of morality they have unnecessarily multiplied entities in asserting the entity called God as the ground of morality. But of course, Ockham’s Razor can be used in any branch of philosophy or science. Here we employ it in the question of how many English version entities must necessarily exist to account for the Hebrew and Greek originals? How many versions it is going to take to account for the Hebrew and Greek originals at one time, for one people speaking one language. How many…1, 2, 3?

A very parsimonious owl.

Well, it is readily received by most Christians that the number is at least one – one version for one people group speaking one language. This of course is where we stand in arguing for a standard sacred text. But for the MVO advocate the question now is, recalling Ockham’s Razor regarding necessity, “Is it necessary at this time that we have more than one version for one people group speaking one language?” If the answer is, yes, then the burden of proof rests with the MVO crowd and they have presented no such argument for the necessity of multiple versions at the same time for one people group speaking one language. As such the scholarly proponents of the MVO position show themselves to be generally unreasonable…again, and we haven’t even discussed exegesis, theology, or the manuscript evidence yet.

On the flip side, if the answer is, no, then the current and continued multiplication of versions of the Bible is a violation of Ockham’s Razor and ignores an important use of the Razor in the scientific method. Regarding the latter Ockham’s Razor is regularly used across the hard sciences to decide between two theories. Each theory’s force and scope depends on the number of entities it takes to explain the phenomena in question. Theories which account for the data but multiply entities beyond necessity are often accused of “extravagance” – a technical term meaning the excessive multiplication of entities in an attempt to account for some phenomenon.

For example, on the one hand, it sufficient to claim that humans built the Egyptian pyramids. On the other hand, we would violate Ockham’s Razor, unnecessarily multiply entities if we asserted that man + aliens built the Egyptian pyramids. Both account for the data but the later is extravagant because multiplies entities and that without necessity.

Until scholarly MVO advocates can offer a robust accounting for the necessary multiplication of entities call “English versions”, the current MVO position is indeed extravagant in the technical sense. That said, there is a simpler non-extravagant way of answering the question, “How many versions it is going to take to account for the Hebrew and Greek originals at one time, for one people speaking one language?” The answer is, One version, and that one we call the standard sacred text.

The Arc of Christian Theology Is Long and Bends Toward a Standard Sacred Text

Generally speaking the doctrines of the Christian faith can be sorted into ten main categories: Theology Proper, Christology, Pneumatology, Bibliology, Anthropology, Hamartiology, Soteriology, Ecclesiology, Angelology, and Eschatology. It seems from these ten doctrines that the case for a standard sacred text is evidently and substantively manifest.

Given the advent of the tower of Babel we know that not all people speak and read the same language. So with this caveat in the place, it seems unnecessary to argue for a standard sacred text for all people, at least at this time in human history. That said, where the Christian religion is present, and where the above Christian theology is sufficiently present, it stand to reason that those Christians in that place given their sufficiently robust Christian theology would bend toward a standard sacred text.

Consider the following:

1.) Theology Proper or the Doctrine of God – The is one Holy God and therefore one standard sacred Revealer whose revelation is consistent with His oneness. Therefore, it is rational to conclude that what God reveals is standard and sacred. If what He reveals is in a book, His revelation is not only standard and sacred, but it is also text.

2.) Christology or the Doctrine of Christ – There is one mediator between God and man. There is one Messiah. There is one fullest and final revelation of the Father. That one is Jesus Christ. Therefore, it stands to reason that there is one standard sacred revelation of Christ to us.

3.) Pneumatology or the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit – There is one creative and indwelling Holy Spirit. There is only one Holy Spirit who indwells believers. There is only one Holy Spirit that carried holy men as they spoke. Therefore, it stands to reason that this unique Holy Spirit gave a singular standard sacred autographic text.

4.) Bibliology or the Doctrine of Scripture – We here at StandardSacredText.com have offered philosophical, exegetical, and theological arguments showing the warranted and rational nature of holding to the belief that God has given the English-speaking Church as standard sacred text.

5.) Anthropology or the Doctrine of Man – Only man is created in the image of God and only man can be redeemed by the shed blood of Christ and only man can come to know this truth unto salvation and only this truth can come through Scripture and only that which is from the one Triune God can count as Scripture. Therefore, it is reasonable that there be one standards sacred text for the English-speaking church.

6.) Hamartiology or the Doctrine of Sin – Only the one Triune God can determine what is or is not sin. God through the standard sacred text of the ten commandments determined what is sin and what is not. As such, Paul professes that until he had known the law he had not known sin. So the one Triune God is the giver of the only written moral code to give humanity the only true measure of morality. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the only true measure of morality be a standard sacred measure and that that measure be found in a canonical – the rule, read, and standard – text.

7.) Soteriology or the Doctrine of Salvation – There is only one way to Heaven and there is only sacrifice which can secure that salvation – Jesus death on the cross for your sins. There is only one place to find the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ effectual set forth as the means of our salvation and that place is in the words of the Triune God. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that the place from which we learn of our salvation be a standard sacred place and that that place be in a text.

8.) Ecclesiology or the Doctrine of the Church – There is only one Bride of Christ and that Bride is the Church or community of blood-bought Christians throughout all time. There is one God, one Christ, and one sacred religion. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that that religion rest on one standard sacred foundation, and seeing that faith comes by hearing the word of God, that foundation is Christ a revealed through the standard sacred text called the word of God.

9.) Angelology or the Doctrine of Angels – It follows from the Lord’s Prayer, “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven,” that God’s will is perfectly done in heaven. Furthermore, the law was received by the disposition of angels [Acts 7:53]. Seeing that God is one and that His will is one then all the words of God which Israel received by the disposition of angels must also be one. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the reception of the word via the disposition of angels, who obey God perfectly, is the reception of one standard sacred word.

10.) Eschatology or the Doctrine of Last Thing – I already dealt with that yesterday with this post.

Even if you don’t grant me a standard sacred text by inductive inference, though I think you should, it seems that you must grant me abductive inference. For what other perspective of the Bible can account for a standard sacred God, a standard sacred word, a standard sacred message, a standard sacred moral code, a standard sacred Savior, a standard sacred Faith, a standard sacred work of the Holy Spirit, a standard sacred revelation of the divine will of God, and a standard sacred eschatological version of Christ’s teaching than an standard sacred text?

Indeed, the arc of Christian theology is long and it bends toward a standard sacred text.

The Social Experiment of Novel Bibles

The usurpation of pre-critical orthodoxy by theological nihilism, or the milieu created in the failed textual critical attempt to reconstruct the autographa, has not only corrupted sound doctrine but good behavior as well. Christian theology and virtue, drawn from the King James Bible, are ideally synonymous and practically the philanthropy of Christianity is evident in America and around the world. Personal autonomy engendered by post-critical theology and modern bible texts, infer that believing in a sort of autonomous individualistic utopia, based on the ability to control the shape of that traditionally held as highest source of authority, the Bible, is superior to pre-critical orthodoxy and historic Biblical benevolence.

The primary thing attacked was the source of all American and specifically ecclesiastical formal structure, the King James Bible. For the theological nihilistic scholarly oligarchy, (a small group of scholars that know more about religion and culture than anyone else) the KJB is considered the source of patriarchalism, sexism, homophobia, failed social justice, etc., and every societal evil. Everyone is “free” of these traditional sins to do as they please as long as formal structure that fomented them is marginalized or outright rejected. Thus, for everyone to be “free” of the Bible’s confining, conscience afflicting teaching, it had to be replaced with “bibles” whose existence was consistent with party orthodoxy. These bibles serve a religious purpose whose authority is granted by the party, and as such, everything traditionally considered sinful was erased and replaced by the laws of the party oligarchy. Once the transition from sell-contained Scriptural Authority to party-rendered authority was complete, the new bible served as a utilitarian party tool to impose party morality.

For instance, the idea that a wife is to submit to her husband as the head of the family as traditionally asserted in the King James Bible, for the modern mind, must be eradicated and replaced with a socialistic, egalitarian family structure. The accentuation of sphere sovereignty or indeed any kind of sovereignty is considered an antiquated relic of a cruel patriarchal society as taught in the King James Bible. If the novel versions mandated the same moral demands, why then have the publishers and advocates of the new versions stringently focused on separating the King James Bible from the new bibles by showing the King James Bible’s unreliability due to supposed conspicuous shortcomings and failures. Because morality was bound to obedience to the King James Bible, with the discrediting of the King James Bible came the discrediting of traditional morality.

The quintessential axiom of post-critical theology is that epistemology precedes ontology or what we know about something creates the reality of it. Those following the discussions on Standard Sacred Text clearly note that objections to the Protestant Orthodox claims are done merely by assertion, not from a theological or often even philosophical grounding, because the brute assertion is held to be authoritative. If an epistemological claim is made, as baseless as it may be, the words expressed make reality what it is. Thinking and saying are the creators of reality. So, if the party says women can be ordained for the ministry that proclamation creates the category of ordained women ministers. If the party says such and such is the bible, then it is the bible. To the old-school congregant, the interpretation in support of party orthodoxy may seem precarious, but for the true believer in party orthodoxy the passage cannot be interpreted any other way than the way he/she is told to interpret it. The party is the unquestionable lawgiver. Indeed, appeal to any other Authority than party orthodoxy is met with the most harsh and unpleasant responses.

What adherents of this “liberating” heterodoxy are blind to or willingly embrace, is that they have given over the most noble parts of themselves to serve as slaves to the post-critical theology of the party oligarchs. Once this path is taken there is no turning back without the harshest repercussions. Rather than rejoicing with those who have forsaken a life of sin and ruin, the blood-washed followers of Christ are of all people detested for rejecting party orthodoxy and for embracing a pre-critical, “back-woodsy” orthodox structure for their lives in the King James Bible, the traditional source of morality in the American culture. The structure of the traditional home must be replaced with autonomous party allegiance. Remember, the antiquated structure of the traditional home in American culture came from the King James Bible, not the ASV, NASV, NIV, ESV, etc. Even if one pusillanimously would claim that the new versions are “better rendered” than the King James Version, the impugning of the English exemplar, the KJB, likewise impugns the successive version either for its continuity with the exemplar, or, for its discontinuity, both comparisons leaving culture with no moral base whatsoever. After all, what gives anyone the right to say that the murder of the unborn is wrong, but not only wrong, but a sin against a Holy God? Remember, the one thing we learned during 2 years of Covid is that killing the unborn is essential. Church attendance is not essential but abortion on demand is.

Post-critical theology advocated from post-critical bibles declaring the theology of false egalitarianism has enslaved the malleable mind, and the acceptance of new bibles is the instigation and manifestation of that cultural enslavement.