In 2018 the inimitable Jordan Peterson was asked by an attendee, “If you had five minutes with Prime Minister Trudeau what would you say to him to help him understand the error of his ways.” After a long pause Peterson offered an answer that I believe is exceedingly relevant to the current discussion/debate surrounding the version controversy.

First, Peterson cautions his listeners against ideological possession. That is, some are so possessed by an idea or a paradigm that it is the idea or paradigm which is speaking and not the person. This takes the form of parroting political party talking points or the bare repetition of what you hear on the news sans critical assessment as if the news is on its face only true. One way to guard against ideological possession says Peterson is to consider the possibility of your idea or paradigm going “spectacularly sideways.” What is the worst possible outcome that your idea could engender? Such a calculation is indicative of epistemic humility and wisdom.

If such a calculation was made by the like of Wescott and Hort or Warfield or Wallace or Gurry it is by no means plain. Even to this day there seems to be little clear apprehension on the part of modern evangelical text critics as they continue to work on and meddle with the Greek New Testament. Is there any prominent place in the modern text critical literature which speaks to the feasible detriment the multiplication of versions would have on the English-speaking believing community? Peterson warns Trudeau of tribalism while we in the church are divided among this Greek text or that text critical method or textual family and that English version or even those other versions to the exclusion of yet others.

The point is, for the last 150 years modern evangelical textual criticism has been so ideologically possessed that they haven’t taken the time to even consider let alone observe what would happen if their idea/paradigm were to go spectacularly sideways. I say “observe” because the Christian’s doubt in the Scripture is observable. In fact is it so the case that William Mounce thought it necessary to write a book entitled, Why I Trust the Bible. And both he and the publisher thought the topic so relevant that the book was published in 2021. Not only have the modern evangelical textual critics not considered the worst possible scenario, they can’t see the worst possible scenario even as it bites them in the face.

Second, Peterson goes on to use the Founding Father’s establishment of government as an example of epistemic humility. They did not assume a utopian society in which wise men would lead and represent courageous and temperate people. They understood that things could go spectacularly sideways, thus they instituted the balance of powers among the three branches of government. Modern evangelical textual criticism shows itself to again be ideologically possessed in that there are no checks and balances enumerated for the text critic. They haven’t the humility to say, “We are men capable of horrible things. As we must be governed by an authority greater than the academy and popular opinion. We must be governed by the Spirit of God through the word of God in the work of textual criticism.” Nope, you get nothing of the sort. In fact, Daniel Wallace rejects this kind of arrangement.

“A theological a priori has no place in textual criticism.”

Daniel B. Wallace, “Challenges in New Testament Textual Criticism for the Twenty-First Century” in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Vol. 52, Iss. 1 (March 2009): 79-100. 51.

In the same article Wallace writes,

“I would question whether it is an epistemologically sound principle to allow one’s presuppositions to dictate his text-critical methodology.”

Daniel B. Wallace, “Challenges in New Testament Textual Criticism for the Twenty-First Century” in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Vol. 52, Iss. 1 (March 2009): 79-100. 93.

While at the same time we here at StandardSacredText.com have made the case repeatedly that the authority to determine what is or is not the New Testament, what is or is not the word of God rests with the Spirit of God through the word of God to the people of God by faith. If there is any sure way to avoid ideological possession it is to be filled with and led by the Holy Spirit who is the Good, the True, and the Beautiful.

Third, Peterson goes on to explain how, what he dubs, wise social scientists go about helping their clients and building structures to improve society. Paramount to a wise social scientist’s perceptual set is the notion that the probability of their plan equaling the expected “positive outcome” to the exclusion of all others is about 0. In fact, the data show that the highest probability is that the proposed plan will kick back and make the situation worse. Consider a situation where a given apparatus is 85% efficient and you want to implement a plan to raise efficiency to 90%, a meager increase of 5%. The probabilities that you make things worse with your plan are far greater than the probabilities of you making things better. As Peterson points out, any fool can decrease the efficiency of a company by 50%, but to increase the efficiency of an already efficient company by 5% is very difficult.

The burning question is, “Has the modern evangelical textual critic increased the ‘efficiency’ of the Bible?” Where there was once a standard sacred text, now there is not. Where there was once a Bible to hand down generation after generation, now there is not. Where once there was once a common ecclesiastical language derived from the Bible, now there is not. In fact, modern evangelical text-critics have so utterly failed in their quest to find the original text of the New Testament in Greek that many text-critics have moved the goalposts to a more modest goal of finding the text which lies immediately behind the manuscripts we currently have. The feasibility of finding the autographs is no longer on the table.

Modern evangelical textual criticism thought itself able to better the text of Scripture which has served the church for over 400 years and thereby better the believing community. In their hubris we lost our language, we lost our tradition, we lost our home, and the proposed replacements are only better relative to the fickle affections of a consumer Christianity. That is consumers of academia, consumers of academic celebrity, and the idolatry of credential. None of the modern evangelical text-critics argue that the reason we need a new Bible is because the Spirit of God is moving through the word of God in the people of God by faith to that end. As such, and until some future time, the accusation of fickle affective Christian consumerism stands.

Finally, Peterson, as a clinical psychologist, invokes the Hippocratic Oath – First, do no harm. The TR/KJV tradition and scholarship associated therewith was exceedingly efficient. So efficient that most critical proponents admit the KJV to be an excellent formal translation. Furthermore, much of their translation accords with the KJV in word and word order. With an exceedingly efficient Original and translation in the balance, the modern evangelical text critic thought himself competent enough to increase said efficiency by a meager amount and they have yet to prove they have accomplished such a feat. If a doctor’s first aim is to do no harm to the body, it seems only obvious that the modern evangelical text-critic should refrain in the same way seeing his subject is the received words of God, being received by Christ’s bride for over four centuries.

Yet, the modern evangelical text-critic’s first response was not, to do no harm. Instead, it was to throw out the TR and start fresh. Not only with a new text but also with a new method. Essential to that method is the wholesale repudiation of orthodox theological a prioris in the work of textual criticism. Then came the insertion of the dogma that the oldest, shortest, and hardest reading was best. Now we have the CBGM. No harm done, right? Except the believing community seems to disagree otherwise why would we constantly need to be reassured that all is well.

Berkhof writes,

“…no one doctrine of religion is changed, not one precept is taken away, not one important fact altered, by the whole of the various readings collectively taken.”

Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 159.

Then Timothy Paul Jones,

“What’s more, it’s almost always possible – through the discipline of known as textual criticism – to compare manuscripts and to discover where and when the changes were made…Most important, none of the differences affect any central elements of the Christian faith.”

Jones, Misquoting Truth, 43-44.

Then Daniel Wallace,

“I would argue that no cardinal doctrine is jeopardized by any viable variant.”

Wallace, Inerrancy and the Text, 2.

And Geisler and Roach,

“While there are changes in the text of Scripture, not all changes are equal in significance. Most of them were trivial, not changing the meaning of the text.”

Geisler and Roach, Inerrancy, 80.

But wait there’s more. Again, Geisler and Roach,

“These kinds of errors are known, but they do not discredit any theological doctrine. Hence, these kinds of scribal changes to not affect the reliability of the New Testament manuscripts in conveying the original message.”

Geisler and Roach, Inerrancy, 80.

And finally for today’s montage Anderson and Widder,

“When we consider that the Bible was transmitted by hand in a harsh climate for thousands of years, we can only marvel that, even though there is variation in the text, most of these variants are insignificant copying errors, and nearly all variants involve no significant doctrinal issue.”

Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 184.

They keep saying it because the believing community does not trust their Bible, and its hard to say if they trust the above scholars either. Modern evangelical text-critics have done harm and they continue to do so. They have not taken the time to assess the feasibility of the plan going spectacularly sideways. They assume that they can better the Bible, but they have not by any objective measure. Nor have they bettered the church by any objective measure. In fact, the church is objectively worse because of the shortsightedness of modern evangelical textual criticism. For that matter the world is objectively worse off and for the same reasons. Indeed, and in this case, “the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light” [Luke 16:8]. If only the modern evangelical textual critic had the circumspection of a deist stoic clinical psychologist from Canada with the last name of Peterson.

But of course, it can’t end there. How does the modern evangelical textual critic amend his ways? Recall C.S. Lewis’ discussion on the most progressive man. He asks, Is the most progressive man the one who continues on an erring road or is the most progressive man the one who recognizes he is on an erring road, turns around, and reclaim the true path. Of course, it is the latter that is the most progressive. How is that done practically?

1.) Recognize the whole modern textual critical enterprise has not delivered on its promises. Said method has not objectively made the Bible or the church better. In fact, the modern textual critical enterprise has made things objectively worse for the Bible and for the church.
2.) Temporarily cease and desist the work of textual criticism. Stop kicking up more and more textual dust. All you are doing is trumping up validation for the existence of your job and most interested parties know it.
3.) Realize the only way to do textual criticism properly is with your orthodox theological precommitments firmly intact.
4.) Realize that the driving force behind moving from one text to another [e.g., from the Geneva to the KJV] is ultimately an act of the Holy Spirit working in His people through the word of God. Textual criticism and the textual critic are merely the maidservants of the church.
5.) Then and only then you may again take up text critical work as bondslave to Christ and His bride – the church – waiting for the moving of the Spirit as He listeth.

I. In a recent interview Peter Gurry and Elijah Hixon were asked about an error in Romans 8:1 and how they would preach that verse given the error. The TR/KJV tradition includes the phrase “who walk not after the flesh” while the CT/MVO position excludes that phrase. Gurry and Hixon suggested that the preacher encountering this passage as he makes his way through the book of Romans should either ignore it or address it after first preparing his people on topics surrounding text critical errors. In the end, both Gurry and Hixon tried to take the teeth out of the dilemma by equating uncertainty regarding a reading of Scripture with uncertainty about some difficult to understand passage of Scripture. What if there is a known error in the text? What is at stake and how are we to handle that known error? Gurry and Hixon’s approach and conclusion on this question is puzzling to say the least and for the following reasons:

1.) Either God in space/time parted the Red Sea or He did not. If He did, we must agree that He did. If He did not, and we say He did, then we have attached God’s name to something He has not attached His name to. This is one of the ways we can take God’s name in vain. False prophets of the Old Testament did this very thing all the time. The False prophet said that God said X, when indeed God did not say that.

In like manner, God in space/time inspired “who walk not after the flesh” of Romans 8:1 or He did not. Hopefully given that immediately above, we understand this dilemma is no minor dilemma to be treated with a simple hand wave and a nod of the head. To treat it as such and saying “No major doctrine is affected” is to grossly misunderstand and/or mischaracterize the state of the case. Assuming Gurry and Hixon recognize the gravity inherent in determining what is or is not the New Testament, it is unclear how they establish warranted belief in favor of including or excluding “who walk not after the flesh” while being in accordance with what God actually did in space/time.

2.) In the broader religious discussion particularly between the major world religions, we understand that on the point of sacred texts the basic locus of dispute is, Did God say that? The Muslims ask it of the Christians and their Testaments and the Christians of the Muslims and their Quran. Indeed, this question is foundational to Satan’s rhetoric when tempting Eve, “Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?” The question, Did God say “who walk not after the flesh” in Romans 8:1 is the same kind, the same species as Satan’s question or those making competing religious claims.

What is more, when a Muslim asks this very question of a Christian, the astute Christian knows that the Muslim is making a play to diminish the Christian’s epistemic foundation for their Christian beliefs. Certainly, that is what the Devil was doing with his rather benign question about fruit bearing trees. But apparently for Gurry and Hixon that is not what is going on when we ask, Did God say “who walk not after the flesh” in Romans 8:1. Unfortunately for us, neither Gurry nor Hixon explain why the Romans 8:1 question is a different species of question from those offered above.

3.) Gurry and Hixon’s attempt to equate a hard-to-understand passage with whether or not a passage is the New Testament is unfortunate. The former is epistemological in nature and the latter is ontological in nature. The former asks, what does this passage of Scripture mean? The latter asks, “Is this Scripture?” Their comparison not even a difference between apples and oranges. The difference is more like “What is the molecular makeup of this apple?” versus “Is this an orange?” In sum, the comparison is unwarranted and as such uncompelling.

4.) Neither Gurry nor Hixon hold to what they call immaculate preservation. This is to say that when Jesus said not one jot or one tittle will pass from the law, He did not mean that literally. He meant that the meaning of the text will not pass. As such, the Bible is allowed to have a certain number and certain kind of error, inclusion, or omission. It is unclear how that certain number is calculated. Gurry and Hixon simply assert it. Still, they don’t run from the idea that certain errors can be meaningful. To this phenomenon they conclude that we are to be humbled before God when God does not keep those words for His bride, because God can do as He pleases and apparently it pleases God to keep His word mostly pure. Gurry and Hixon’s sentiment is summed up when they conclude that God does not owe us the truth as if we, contingent creatures, could somehow compel God to give us truth He has not already given.

Agreed. But it is not the Christian who compels God to give us this or that truth. God compels Himself. God declares that Lazarus rose from the grave. God declares the Red Sea parted. God declares that mana fell from the sky. God declares that not one jot or one tittle will pass from the law until all of the law is fulfilled. Because God has declared these things, He is compelled by His own word that they be true. So why is it that Gurry and Hixon do not believe every jot and tittle of the Bible is preserved? Not having a clear answer from them in the interview I assume it is because their interpretation of the evidence compels them to say what they do. But that is hardly a compelling reason in this context.

What evidence compels them to believe Lazarus rose from the dead? What evidence compels them to believe the Red Sea parted? What evidence compels them to believe that mana fell from the sky? These are all the same species of belief. I assume they believe what they believe about Lazarus, the Red Sea, and mana because the Bible says so despite the evidence, but not so with the source of those beliefs – Scripture. Scripture is the source of beliefs regarding Lazarus, the Red Sea, and mana. The beliefs derived from Scripture enjoy acceptance despite the evidence while the source of those beliefs and beliefs concerning that source seem wholly subject to the evidence at least on the point of whether errors occur in that source of Christian belief – the Scriptures.

II. A Brief Response: While it is often easier to poke holes in the arguments of those with whom you disagree, it is necessary that a replacement be offered to fill the resulting void. To that end, how would we here at StandardSacredText.com answer the question of how to handle a known error in the text?

1.) The idea of “kept pure in all ages” does not necessitate “between two covers in all ages.” This applies especially in the first century where much of the canon was not between two covers but that does not mean any of God’s words had fallen from existence. That is, all the words of Scripture were kept uncorrupted despite the fact that the church in Thessalonica did not have them all.
2.) When Jesus said jot and tittle He meant jot and tittle. Jesus literally meant that not a single letter or even a piece of letter would pass away. Again, Jesus’ promise here does not necessitate that every jot and tittle be between two covers at all times. See the first century church.
3.) How then does the TR/KJV advocate know that every word and every letter of Scripture is present between two covers in the original languages? Because the text claims it to be so as much as the text claims the parting of the Red Sea to be so and the resurrection of Lazarus to be so.
4.) Ok, so what do you do with those Christians in history who were TR/Geneva adherents or TR/Tyndale adherents or Erasmus TR adherents? Their beliefs are no different than any other beliefs in which the church grows in sanctification. The church did not always agree on whether Jesus was of the same or of similar substance as the Father. Some believed one way, and some believed another way. To be orthodox you must now believe that Jesus is the same substance as the Father. The church did not always agree on whether the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father or from the Father and the Son. Some believed one way, and some believed another. To be orthodox you must now believe that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The church did not always agree on whether the Geneva was the word of God in English or the KJV was. Still after 30-40 years the KJV became the standard sacred text of the English-speaking believing community in the place of the Geneva and that for over 400 years.

Was the church of the past wrong? In a qualified sense yes, but also no. Yes, in that we now know through the Spirit guiding His people into all truth that Jesus is of the same substance as the Father. No, in that God’s people were truly seeking the leading of the Spirit and the truth gleaned thereby and sanctification takes time. Sanctification is not instantaneous in this life. The Spirit guiding His church into all truth takes time. Simply because a saint does not understand the innerworkings of election does not make them wrong. They have yet to grown in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. Christian belief in the iterations of TR and those of the KJV tradition over time were growing beliefs, maturing beliefs.

One more example and I’ll be done. When the originals were written they were not all between two covers. So, when 1 Thessalonians was written the church in Thessalonica had the word of God and to say they did was correct. When 2 Thessalonians came along, that did not make the first belief concerning 1 Thessalonians false or heretical. It merely made it incomplete. As books were recognized and united together the church prior to the formal establishment of the canon were not wrong nor were their beliefs in error except insofar as they were incomplete. So how is it that the believing community can believe in multiple iterations of the TR and still claim kept pure in all ages?

In short, the Spirit of God was speaking through the different iterations of the word of God to the people of God by faith and in so doing pointing His people to the next iteration. Thus, the Spirit was doing a simultaneous work of refining the church by pointing her to the next iteration and refining his word by His singular care and providence. Is the Bible due a further refining? That is for the church to decide but she is currently busy trying to figure out if she should ordain women to the ministry or to include critical race theory as part of orthodox theological formulation or to scatter the sheep for a season because, you know, COVID.

In conclusion, Gurry and Hixon seem to be pleasant in disposition and competent in their field but their answers to the known existence of errors in the text seem to me to be sloppy at best. Admittedly there could be more to their position then they had opportunity to present. Perhaps one day we could discuss these things over a cup of coffee and a piece of pie.