So here what a large encomium and high commendation the Holy Ghost gives of the Scriptures, even such as is given to no other book in the world besides.

1. He commends them in respect of one special property and adjunct, viz. their Holiness. The Holy Scriptures.
2. From their effects, they are able to make us wise unto salvation.
3. From their Authority, Utility, and Perfection, verse 16, 17.

The Holy Scriptures. Tis not simple “holy” but “the holy.” Those eminently holy letters, those sacred Scriptures; the article is emphatic, and therefore the Holy Ghost to distinguish these sacred writings from all profane writings, gives then such adjuncts and epithets as are incompatible to all other writings whatsoever. Now the reason why God would have his word written is this, viz. that it might be kept the better, and be propagated to posterity, and be more easily kept, and vindicated from corruption than revelations could have been, 1 Peter 1:19.

Observe: The word of God is holy Scriptures. This is its proper adjunct and excellency; tis holy, Rom. 1:2. They are perfectly holy in themselves, all other writings are profane further then they draw some holiness from them, which yet is never such, but that their holiness is imperfect.

1. In respect to their Author and principle cause, viz. the most holy God.
2. In respect of the penmen and instrumental cause, they were holy men of God, 2 Peter 1:21.
3.  In respect of their matter; they treat of the holy things of God. They teach nothing that is impure or profane. They teach us holiness in doctrine and practice. They call upon us for self-denial, universal obedience, and teach us to do all things from holy principles, and for holy ends.
4. In respect of their ends and effect, viz. our sanctification, John 17:17, by reading and hearing, and meditation on God’s word, the Holy Ghost doth sanctify us, Psalm 19:8,9. The word of God is not only pure, but purifying, not only clean per se, but effectively a cleaning word.
5. By way of distinction and opposition, they are called Holy to distinguish them not only from human and profane, but also from ecclesiastical writings. They have their grains of allowance, but the holy Scripture is pure and perfect.

1. This must bring us to pure minds to the reading, hearing, and handling of God’s holy word. The word is pure, and therefore calls for a pure frame of Spirit in him that reads it: for as no man can rightly sing David’s Psalms without David’s spirit, so no man can rightly understand the word of God, without the Spirit of God. Carnal, sensual hearts, and such divine works will never agree. A vessel that is full of poison, cannot receive pure water, or if it could the vessel would taint it. Tis not for unclean beasts to come high these sacred fountains, lest they defile them with their feet.
2. Take heed to profaning the holy Scriptures by playing with them or making jests out of them. It’s a dangerous thing, Ludere cum sacris. See 7 sorts of profaners of the holy Scriptures condemned, in Mr. Trapps True Treasure, Chap. 4 Sec. 1 to 8.
3. Love the Scriptures for their purity. As God is to be loved for his purity, so is his word. Many love it for the history or for the novelty, but a gracious soul loves it for its purity, because it arms him against sin, directs him in God’s ways, enables him for duty, discovers to him the snares of sin and Satan, and so makes him wiser than his enemies.

Thomas Hall. A Practical and Polemical Commentary of Exposition upon the Third and Fourth Chapter of the latter Epistle of Saint Paul to Timothy wherein the Text is explained, some controversies discussed, sundry cases of conscience are cleared, Many common places are succinctly handled, and dicers useful, and seasonable Observations raised (London: Printed by E. Tyler, for John Starkey, at the Miter at the North door of the middle Exchange in Saint Pauls Church-yard, 1658), 267-268.

In a recent interaction I had on the frontier of the digital Wild West an accusation was brought against the Standard Sacred Text position by Dr. Elijah Hixon which stated that TR specific or KJV specific arguments are fine so long as they don’t address the details. But as soon as the details are taken with sufficient seriousness said arguments fall apart in his view. Today I would like to address the fact that we here at StandardSacredText.com do indeed take the ”details” quite seriously but it seems to me that those of Hixon’s persuasion do not. Let’s take a look.

First, Hixon is not entirely clear about what accounts as the “details”. That said I assume he means the textual critical details – the nuanced ins-and-outs of lower textual criticism – things like manuscript families, manuscript types, internal evidence, external evidence, the host of error types that come about by scribal error, conjectural emendation, textual criticism as an art, and perhaps even the greatness and utility of the CBGM.

Second, I acknowledge and admit text critical material should be pursued, examined, and deliberated over. I admit that a form of textual criticism is part of the process that brought us the TR and the TR tradition. That said, there are two details which I would ask Hixon et al to consider – one methodological and the other epistemological.

Methodologically, while we admit textual criticism is part of the process of getting the TR we do not admit that modern textual criticism is the method whereby that process took place. That is, by our lights, there are significant differences between a species of textual criticism proceeding from the Renaissance Humanism of Erasmus or the decidedly Christian approach of William Tyndale and the Modernist/Post-Modernist/Post-Christian textual criticism enjoined upon us at present.

Epistemologically, while we admit textual criticism is part of the process of getting the TR we do not admit that modern textual criticism is the primary impetus or even means whereby the church recognizes/knows the Bible to be the Bible. In fact, modern textual criticism is at best, given the methodological objection above, the handmaid, the maidservant of theology and particularly the church. Textual criticism is slave to the church and particularly the Scripture through the church.

The Scripture is canon and is therefore the rule. The Scripture is rule and textual criticism is ruled by the rule. Do the work, but know that said work is more like the prodigal son tending swine, especially in the context of Post-Modernism, than it is a Saruman-like scholar musing is his white tower. It is indeed the case that textual critical work is the work of a bondslave but you needn’t labor as you do under the presuppositions of Post-Modernism. The primary mode of knowledge that this or that passage is the New Testament/the word of God is the Spirit of God speaking through the word of God to the people of God by faith.

Solomon observes,

“There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, as an error which proceedeth from the ruler: Folly is set in great dignity, and the rich sit in low place. I have seen servants upon horses, and princes walking as servants upon the earth.

Ecclesiastes 10:5-7

We have lived to see this evil in the church. While textual critics, the servants, ride on the horseback in a place of honor; the church, the bride and fellow heir with Christ, are made to walk. In the end, according to Solomon, it is the church’s fault that this is the case. But that is for another post.

Third, the TR position has wrestled with the “details” of textual criticism which is clear by virtue of the fact that the TR has made decisions about trouble passages like the long ending in Mark, the story of the woman caught in adultery, and the longer reading of 1 John 5:7. They are all included. Indeed, decisions were made about every reading in the New Testament. Decisions were made and the details dealt with. There are Greek readings and Old Latin readings which are older than many Greek manuscripts supporting the decisions made by those like Erasmus and the KJV translators.

Admittedly, there are other manuscripts that have come to light since the collation of the TR, but given my second point, who determines if those readings are the New Testament/God’s word? Answer: Not scholars, not the CBGM. The believing community, the church does. So while the Greek underlying the ESV does not have the woman caught in adultery, the ESV does because the believing community calls for it regardless of the scholar’s opinion. Sure, there’s those ominous brackets but the text is in still there. So which side is failing to deal with the details now?

Fourth, if anyone is failing to deal with the details it is the critical-text position. For starters they seem to fail in dealing with the observed details above. After that I encourage you to read the leading material on textual criticism especially among evangelicals to see how much of their argument is anchored in Scripture or Christian theology or a distinctively Christian worldview. You will find that these details, distinctively Christian details are largely absent. There is little more than a nod at very best that it is the Spirit of God through the word of God to the people of God that decides on what is or is not the New Testament/the word of God. In other words, they do not deal with these details. To borrow words from Dr. Hixon, the evangelical text-critical argument stands until it’s called to wrestle with distinctively Christian details.

6. And for this, God (whose care is equal for all successions of men) hath graciously provided, by causing Holy Scriptures to be written, by which he hath derived on every succeeding age the illumination of the former. And for that purpose, endowed the writers not only with that moral fidelity requisite to the truth of history, but with a divine Spirit, proportionable to the great design of fixing an immutable rule of faith and manners. And to give us the fuller security herein, he has chosen no other penmen of the New Testament, than those who were first oral promulgators of our Christian religion, so they have left to us the very same doctrine they taught the Primitive Christians. He that acknowledges them divinely inspired in what they preached, cannot doubt them to be so in what they wrote. So that we may enjoy virtually and effectively what wish of the devout Father, who desired to be Saint Paul’s auditor, for that hears any of the Epistles read, is as really spoken to by Saint Paul, as those who were within the sound of his voice: Thus God who in times past spake at sundry times, and in diverse manners to the prophets, and in the latter days by his son, Heb. 1:1-2, continues still to speak to us by these inspired writers, and what Christ once said to his disciples in relation to their preaching, is no less true of their writings: He that despiseth you, despiseth me, Luke 10:16. All the contempt that is any time flung on these sacred Writings, rebounds higher, and finally devolves on the first Author of those doctrines, whereof these are the registers and transcripts.

Richard Allestree, The Lively Oracles Given to us or The Christian’s Birth-right and Duty, in the custody and use of the Holy Scripture. By the Author of the Whole Duty of Man (At the Theater in Oxford, 1678), 4-5.

            Perhaps the most useful convocation of Evangelicals for the propagation of MVO was by the writing and signing of the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy in 1978. Signed by 300 noted Evangelical leaders, (including James Boice, Norman L. Geisler, John Gerstner, Jay Grimstead, Carl F. H. Henry, Kenneth Kantzer, Harold Lindsell, John Warwick Montgomery, Roger Nicole, J. I. Packer, Robert Preus, Earl Radmacher, Francis Schaeffer, R. C. Sproul, and John Wenham), all advocates of MVO, their endorsement of the statement did much to support the credibility of MVO, something the statement’s drafters, the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, thought was falling into question.

For those less familiar with MVO, personal endorsements are essential to the movement, both for the endorser and that being endorsed. The endorser shows his allegiance to MVO orthodoxy while also lending their notoriety to the credibility of the position. It is not an overstatement to say that the endorser’s entire reputation as a credible scholar hinges on their dedication to MVO orthodoxy. While approving of the aggregate, endorsements by an advocate of MVO gives the sense of “better” without compromising the whole. Because the aesthetics of the version’s content is not decisive, endorsements become determinative within MVO. Through prominent endorsements and subsequently by applying the statement to MVO, each version of the aggregate was considered inerrant, a needed response to the recognized versional dissonance within MVO.

Differences within the aggregate were codified by the statement as variations on the same theme and not errors empowering the position MVO held in the Academy and Church with this statement on p. 13, signed by the 300 Evangelical leaders: “Similarly, no translation is or can be perfect, and all translations are an additional step away from the autograph. Yet the verdict of linguistic science is that English-speaking Christians, at least, are exceedingly well served in these days with a host of excellent translations and have no cause for hesitating to conclude that the true Word of God is within their reach.”

Utilizing historic orthodox categories regarding inspiration, the work of the Holy Spirit, and authority gave the statement the ring of historic theological authenticity. More importantly, with the statement, MVO was codified as the position of the Evangelical believing community, replacing pre-critical theological bibliology that, due to prejudiced irreconcilable errors, were excluded from the statement. But like all organized systems that relate to MVO, the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy, after serving its purpose has slipped into the sphere of forgotten documents.

After the initial fanfare, the statement is rarely spoken of, and when it is mentioned, the statement is more of a novelty than confession-like. The statement smacked of the long-forgotten oversight of a theological standard of a single self-attesting, self-authenticating, and self-interpreting authoritative text and version, the antithesis of MVO. Holding to MVO while agreeing to the statement in the final analysis could not be justified in the mind of the adherent. MVO had too powerful an influence on the conscience to accept the validity of a unified statement. The apparition of the 1978 Chicago Statement on Inerrancy remains in force conceptually though the body of the proposition has long since been buried, because 1978 Chicago Statement on Inerrancy has no actual theological application within MVO.

In a recent discussion I had in the Wild West of Facebook back-and-forth I was told by a couple of my interlocutors that multiple differing manuscripts, multiple differing Greek texts, and multiple differing versions were all the word of God. I found this puzzling and I found it puzzling for the following reasons:

1.) Premise 1: There is only one God.
Premise 2: There is only one voice of God.
Premise 3: There is only one actualized timeline.
Premise 4: When the one God using His one voice in the one actualized timeline spoke inspired words to the penmen of Scripture, one set of inspired words were spoken.
Premise 5: Only those words spoken by the one God using His one voice in the one actualized timeline are God’s words. No more. No less.
Conclusion: Claiming that the TR and the NA28 or version X and version Y are the word of God is indefensible if there are indeed only one set of words. Given this argument, claiming one is the word of God is far more defensible.

2.) Consider the following example, in 1 Kings 22 Ahab calls his prophets or shall we say his false prophets and asks them to prophesy of the coming battle. This is what they say,

“And Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah made him horns of iron: and he said, Thus saith the LORD, With these shalt thou push the Syrians, until thou have consumed them. And all the prophets prophesied so, saying, Go up to Ramothgilead, and prosper: for the LORD shall deliver it into the king’s hand.”

1 Kings 22:11-12

First, these prophets assume themselves to be prophets of God and so they present their prophecy. Second, others i.e., Ahab, assume these men to be prophets of God. Third, the message is brought in the name of the LORD. That is, these prophets are claiming that God said one thing and not another. These prophets are claiming that God said that victory is assured and that defeat is not.

Notice the phrase, “Thus saith the LORD.” These prophets are claiming that what is tantamount in our time as the word of God, Scripture. Furthermore, they are invoking the name of the Covenant Keeping God to make this claim. They are not prophesying in the name of Baal or Moloch but in the name of the living and true God. The God that brought Israel out of the land of Egypt.

As the story goes, contrary to Ahab, Jehoshaphat does not accept the prophecy of these prophets and asks if there are any other prophets of the LORD who have not spoken. Ahab says that there is one, Micaiah, but Ahab hates Micaiah because he does not prophesy ”good things” of Ahab. Still, Micaiah is called and asked to prophesy. Micaiah says,

“And the king said unto him, Micaiah, shall we go against Ramothgilead to battle, or shall we forbear? And he answered him, Go, and prosper: for the LORD shall deliver it into the hand of the king. And the king said unto him, How many times shall I adjure thee that thou tell me nothing but that which is true in the name of the LORD? And he said, I saw all Israel scattered upon the hills, as sheep that have not a shepherd: and the LORD said, These have no master let them return every man to his house in peace.”

1 King 22:15-17

Micaiah believes himself to be a prophet and so he prophesies. Others believe he is a prophet and so he is called by two kings. Micaiah prophesies in the name of the LORD, the name of the covenant keeping God. Yet, Micaiah prophesies a very different prophecy; a prophecy of the death of the king and the scattering of the sheep. In other words, Micaiah prophesies defeat and not victory. Can both the prophecy of Macaiah and that of Zedekiah both be the word of God? It seems the answer is manifestly, no. If that is the case, can a version which has the long ending in Mark and a version which has not the long ending in Mark both be the word of God? Again, at least at that point in the Scripture, it seems the answer is manifestly, no.

3.) Picking up with the example above, there is an additional moral component with saying God said something He didn’t or to say that God didn’t say something when he did. In the case of the Zedekiah, as in all claims that God said this or that, he prophesied that God said something He didn’t say [i.e., there will be victory]. Additionally, Zedekiah also failed to prophesy something that God said [i.e., catastrophic defeat]. As a result, what happens to Zedekiah for this very infraction? The Scripture tells us,

“And Micaiah said, Behold, thou shalt see in that day, when thou shalt go into an inner chamber to hide thyself.”

1 Kings 22:25

Many commentators here observe that Micaiah predicts that when the news returns to the palace that the king is dead in battle, Zedekiah will be on the run for his life because he is a false prophet and his false prophecy contributed to if not directly caused the death of the king. Some commentators argue that Zedekiah’s false prophesy contributes to Jezebel’s slaughter of the prophets of God because so many of them claimed to speak for God, where proven wrong, and therefore were proven to be charlatans. In short, Zedekiah’s false prophecy lead to the threatening of his life and perhaps even the death of many of the prophets of the LORD.

I make this point only to say, that if #2 above holds, then claims in opposition to #2 situate that claimant in the same company of Zedekiah et al. In short, there is great gravity in saying this is Scripture and this is not. If only our modern evangelical textual critics where as the wicked king Ahab on this point. He could at least recognize that Zedekiah’s prophecy and Micaiah’s prophecy cannot be the word of God at the same time and in the same way.

4.) I ask you to consider that there is a significant difference between making claims about what God said or did not say, and making claims about what God meant by what He said. The former postulates two different God’s while the latter reveals different understandings of the same God.

For example, on the one hand, you observe the phenomena of Scripture which teaches that God is sovereign and that man is free. Christian A observes these phenomena and ascribes to Molinism. Christian B observes these same phenomena and ascribes to Arminianism. Christian C does the same and ascribes to Calvinism. Assuming no one is questioning what God has said, at least not knowingly, the dispute here is over what God means not whether God acted or did not act in history via inspired speech.

On the other hand, if you say that God inspired the long ending in Mark but your neighbor says that God did not inspire the long ending in Mark. You hold to a God that acted in time while your neighbor holds to a God that did not act in time in this way. Put another way, it is like one of you believes Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead and one of you believe Jesus did not. This is not the same God. Unlike with Abraham, one of you is not believing what God said therefore your belief is not counted to you as righteousness.

5.) What is the doctrinal gravity of Micaiah and Zedekiah’s words? Could we lose those words from the canon and still have a sufficiently reliable text? It seems for the modern evangelical text critic the answer is, yes. Yet, Micaiah pronounces judgement upon Zedekiah for his “non-doctrinally significant” words. We learn at least two things from this:

One, simply because a word is not regarded by this or that person as doctrinally significant does not mean that said word can be cast aside without significant repercussions to the one casting. According to Scripture and this passage in particular, in addition to the doctrinal significance of a word discussed in the next point, there is also a truth quality [did God say X or did He not], and a moral quality [it is immoral to say you speak for God when you don’t e.g., God said its time for me to get a private jet. Send in your seed money.]. As such, the no-major-doctrine-is-affected-by-errors argument is both shallow and indefensible.

6.) Finally, given #4, it seems there is great doctrinal significance even to the smallest of words. Apart from the fact that many of Christ’s teaching and Paul’s teachings hang on one seemingly insignificant word, and apart from the fact that man is incapable of determining which of God’s words are insignificant as if that is a judgment that could be made, to say that God did not inspire a word like “and” or ”who walk not after the flesh” when He did is very grave business. Admittedly, to say God inspired something which He did not is also grave business, but let’s be clear. The reason why it is grave business is because we are making a claim about what God did in history when we say He inspired reading X or did not inspire reading X. But to imply that He did both when saying, ”There are many good translations” is both grave business and, on its face, indefensible and even the wicked king Ahab knew it.

The notion of Multiple Version Onlyism (hence MVO) arguably began in 1901 with the American Standard Version and has developed unabated until the present day. MVO holds to the uncritical, inclusive approval of the aggregate content of every English version since 1901 as God’s Word in English. MVO includes both formal and dynamic equivalency including paraphrases, idiosyncratic translations such as the New Revised Standard Version’s inclusion of Psalm 151, and niche interpretations based on feminist readings, for example. The sole exclusion to this aggregate is the King James Version.

Initially, MVO accepted all renderings as equally valid because it was held that no substantive doctrinal differences existed in the aggregate: all renderings were simply variations of the same theme. Choice of preferred bible versions could only be aesthetic. But with the proliferation of bible versions, the sheer number of various renderings brought every reading into question until no one knew for sure what the bible was saying.

Questions about the bible are responded to according to a scale from most unlikely to most likely correct but not in terms of infallibility. With the addition of each successive translation, what was first conceived to make a “better” translation, instead exacerbated the growing epistemological malaise by expanding the translational perspectives and options within the aggregate. Subsequent translations were not seen as “better” or replacements of previous editions as was the case with the historic development of the King James Version from Tyndale onward but were simply added to the dissonance of previously printed versions.

At this juncture in MVO transitioned the bible from being a sacred text to the research of academics. The viva vox dei, “living voice of God,” was replaced with a seat in a Ph.D. course on history, linguistics, and theology. The professors in this case are the versions, which as witnesses to their authors, the scholars, is open to the same critical inquiry common in Ph.D. courses. Answers and conclusions are not asserted right or wrong but are decided by whatever the student deems most valid. Critical thinking minds take and leave what they hear from which they formulate their own ideas and systems. And so it is with MVO functioning within a personal and ecclesiastical context. The subject, the MVO adherent, the final authority, ultimately determines what in the MVO aggregate is consistent with their own ideas and systems. The most skilled in MVO produce their own translation.

In 1998 Peter Van Kleeck, Sr. published a monograph entitled Fundamentalism’s Folly? A Bible Version Debate Case Study in response to a symposium entitled The Bible Version Debate: The Perspective of Central Baptist Theological Seminary released by Central Baptist Seminary in Minneapolis, MN, 1997. Of particular interest was the finding that the leaders of Fundamentalism were always multiple version only advocates.

For many years the printed lecture that became Fundamentalism’s Folly? has been out of print but now an expanded revision of the 1998 edition is again available on Amazon in both paperback and Kindle formats. The following is a short excerpt from the printed lecture.

“The sectarian aspect of this work is identified when the interpretation of Central Seminary’s historical perspective is done only by nineteenth- and twentieth century fundamentalists.^[1] This emphasis begs the question of whether Central Seminary’s fundamentalists forefathers were disconnected from the history of interpretation and exegesis on the capital doctrine of providential preservation. Would these forefathers have supported the claim that no verse of Scripture argues for providential preservation against the ecclesiastical history of the sacred text and subsequent versions?

                If such support were forthcoming, it would be correct to say the Central Seminary is consistent with sectarian Fundamentalism but is isolated from the exegetically informed churchly tradition. This sectarian fundamentalist break with orthodoxy becomes more evident when advocates of providential preservation must depart from Fundamentalism for a truly historical defense of Reformation Bible traditions and particularly the continuing worth of the King James Version. For instance, Dr. Donald Waite, a fundamentalist depends on the Anglican John William Burgon for his polemic. Dr. Edward F. Hills, a Presbyterian, provides a covenantal, erudite defense of Scripture’s providential preservation. Dr. Theodore Letis, a Lutheran, likewise presents a sound and compelling argument. A Princeton-trained Baptist, Dr. David Otis Fuller, was also abandoned by his fundamentalist brothers for his defense of the King James Version. Dr. Larry D. Pettegrew is apparently correct when he writes that one is “actually less of a fundamentalist” if he holds to the King James Version.^[2] The question, then, is whether to be identified with Central Seminary’s form of sectarian Fundamentalism on this point is commendable.

                Among sectarian fundamentalists there is an earnest if not perplexing desire to maintain sound doctrine. This tension is due to the struggle that ensues between maintaining the tenets of the faith while also arguing for a fluid source of exegesis. An uncritical assessment of this tension is made early by Dr. Douglas R. McLachlan, who writes, “We believe there is merit in investigating and probing the abundance of available manuscripts evidence which is accessible to the serious student. The we can preach and teach with the authority of a true biblicist, speaking God’s absolute truth accurately, passionately and relevantly into the hearts and minds of our post-modern world.”^[3] If we can speak “God’s absolute truth,” one might contemplate how this is to be done when distinguishing between two divergent readings of Hebrews 2:16, “For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham” (King James Version) and “For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but he does give aid to the seed of Abraham” (New King James Version). The validity of McLachlan’s assertion is never proven by these essays. The idea of “God’s absolute truth” is spoken of dogmatically, implying that no major doctrine is infringed upon, but clearly McLachlan’s words do little to resolve the doctrinal tension indicative of this illustration and other similar passages. In keeping with the conclusions drawn by the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century exegetes, apart from exegetical confirmation, McLachlan’s claim to being able to speak “God’s absolute truth” is absurd.

                This essay is not confined to a narrow sectarian scope of history perceived by nineteenth- and twentieth-century fundamentalists, but accesses the writing of leading figures of the historic churchly exegetical tradition to ask, “How can we claim to have developed a satisfactory approach to the Bible version debate if our findings are incompatible with the way God’s people have read the Scriptures throughout the centuries? If what is being said is not consistent with the exegetical tradition, how can we know if it is orthodox?”

---

[1] Grisanti, Bible Version Debate Ibid., 137, 139. The oldest bibliographical resourse cited are those of F. H. A. Scrivener (1874, 1884, 1894); and W. Hort (1888). For noted fundamentalists see 10-12.

[2] Grisanti, Bible Version Debate, 13.

[3] Grisanti, Bible Version Debate, 4; cf. 105 n. 43.