During my Master's program, one of my course-requirements included the preparation of a short paper on the subject of the King James Only dispute. Specifically, my assignment was to interact with the works of James White (The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?) and D. A. Carson (The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism). That paper is reproduced here.
Introduction
Christians have long maintained that the Bible is the Word of God. Thus an acquaintance with the Bible's contents is integral to knowing and serving Him. This being the case, it is surely a blessing that the Scriptures are (in the Western world, at least) so easily accessible. In fact, numerous versions of the Bible are available, from quite literal translations to looser paraphrases.[1]
Thankfully, the vast majority of English translations fairly represent the Greek and Hebrew (and a small number of Aramaic) manuscripts from which they are derived. Indeed, textual criticism has gone a long way in providing trustworthy modern translations.
Unfortunately, though, the sheer number of Bible versions has stirred a measure of controversy. The debate centers on the precise location of God's Word. If God has spoken, it seems impossible to accept translations that are something less than identical. Some would argue, therefore, that it makes sense for God to have preserved a single deposit of inspired truth. Such are the sentiments of a group of individuals that can be broadly labeled King James Only advocates.
Though a number of people hold to some form of King James Onlyism, many evangelicals strongly disagree with the King James Only position. Indeed, a number of biblical scholars and apologists have taken this view to task. Among these are James White and D. A. Carson. This paper will briefly interact with the thoughts of these (and, to a lesser extent, other) men as propounded in their respective works.[2] As a result, a number of broad principles will be brought to bear on this sometimes divisive issue.
The Origin and Preservation of the Bible
While the Scriptures were inspired by God, those who eventually copied them were not. Early on, mistakes crept into the NT text.[3] Occasionally these were deliberate. Most often they were the result of human error.[4] As time went by, more and more copies of manuscripts were made. Soon we had copies of copies and so forth.[5] Eventually, manuscripts could be broadly grouped according to textual types or families. "Basically, a text-type or text-family refers to a grouping of manuscripts that share common readings or characteristics that distinguish them from other text types."[6] Though the peculiarities of a given text are not always easy to classify, these categories are somewhat helpful in sorting through the many NT manuscripts.
Of course, all of this talk about textual variants raises questions about the manner in which God has preserved His Word. King James advocates believe preservation comes via the King James Bible. After all, one would expect God to preserve one version, not many. This view is hardly tenable, however, for the plain fact remains that God has preserved a variety of texts. Thus the divine message is embedded within the many manuscripts.
While identifying the best manuscripts is no simple task, it is helpful (and encouraging) to consider that manuscript variants do not normally disappear. In other words, the original readings of the NT are likely to have been preserved, for once a variant reading appears in a manuscript, it doesn't simply go away. It gets copied and ends up in other manuscripts. . . . The tenacity of the New Testament, while forcing us to deal with textual variants, also provides us with the assurance that our work is not in vain. One of those variant readings is the original. We are called to invest our energies in discovering which one it is.[7]
Determining God's Words: Textual Criticism
The study and analysis of ancient manuscripts is called textual criticism. This can be further divided into two types, lower criticism and higher criticism. Lower criticism involves the study of manuscripts of the Bible, those written in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, as well as ancient translations into other languages like Latin, Sahidic or Coptic. Its goal is to reproduce the original text of the Bible from this vast wealth of information.[8]
Higher criticism, however, is less concerned about the manuscripts than the process by which the Bible came into its present form. Because it is highly subjective, higher criticism is prone to speculation and the whims of the interpreter. Lower criticism, on the other hand, is a valid instrument for determining the biblical text.[9]
Ironically, Erasmus, who gave us the Greek text (later known as the Textus Receptus) which undergirds the King James Bible, "used the very same methods of textual-critical study that modern scholars use."[10] Yet many King James only advocates decry similar methodology among those responsible for the newer translations.
The Genesis of the King James Bible
The King James Bible did not appear one day from heaven.Rather it was the culmination of a series of important historical events.[11] During the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries there was an interest in returning to the ancient writings. In fact a popular motto among thinkers of that day was the Latin phrase ad fontes, meaning "To the source!" "These men did not want to hear about the opinions of men passed down through the centuries. They wanted to go directly to the sources, directly to the ancient documents, so that they could learn for themselves."[12] For centuries, the Latin Bible, i.e., the Vulgate, was the accepted translation of the Church. But now there was a concern to examine the original languages. This eventually led the humanist-scholar, Erasmus, to publish the entire Greek New Testament (A.D. 1516).
It was Erasmus, and later Stephanus and Beza, who was responsible for the Greek text utilized by the King James translators in 1611.[13] Years after the publication of the King James Bible, the preface of the Elzevir brother's second Greek edition contained the words, "the received text," hence the term Textus Receptus.[14]
Noteworthy to this discussion is the fact that the King James Version and the Greek texts from which it was derived admit discrepancies. That is, there is no perfect Greek text, nor an infallible translation. In every case, scholars seek to piece together the original (i.e., by means of textual criticism) from the available manuscripts.
The King James Version is a monument to those who labored to bring it into existence. Of this there can be no question. But as we have seen, it was a human process, and as in all human life and endeavor, it did not partake of infallibility.[15]
Types of King James Advocates
Due to the popularity of the King James Bible, it is not surprising that some have become staunch advocates of this tried and true translation. Still, it is not always easy to characterize the King James advocate. Some prefer the King James Bible for stylistic reasons alone. Others of a more radical bent claim inspiration for the Received Text or the King James Version itself. Unfortunately, some of those who hold such views have made these matters a cause for disunity among brothers. As White laments, "That sharing in the gospel of Christ can be disrupted by such an issue should cause anyone a moment's reflection, and more than passing concern."[16]
King James Only Arguments
A number of arguments have been put forth in defense of King James Onlyism. Among these are the following: (1) Modern translations make compromises when it comes to doctrinal matters. (2) The Greek text underlying the King James Version (i.e., the Textus Receptus) is superior. (3) We can't be certain of what God says unless we possess a single translation (and/or Greek text); that is, discrepancies among versions prove that one is correct and the others false. These can be briefly examined in order.
First, the accusation that modern versions compromise the truth is clearly fallacious. If the modern translations were part of some grand conspiracy to excise biblical doctrine, it is strange that these give full support to orthodox beliefs. Indeed, comments White, "Some KJV advocates are surprised to note that the KJV does not do as well as some modern versions when it comes to providing clear, understandable translations of the key, central passages in the New Testament that testify to the full deity of Jesus Christ."[17]
The argument for the Textus Receptus is a bit more complex. Let it suffice to say that most conservative scholars prefer an "eclectic" approach to the manuscripts, "in that each reading is examined on its own merits and no absolutely overriding rule is used to artificially decide each variant."[18]
Furthermore, the Byzantine text-type, which formed the basis for the King James Version, is lacking in the earliest manuscripts. Instead, the Bible of the early centuries of the Church resembled a more ancient, that is an Alexandrian text-type.[19] This doesn't mean that textual critics automatically favor older readings. But such manuscripts certainly ought to be given due consideration in the quest to uncover the original.
Finally, the desire for absolute certainty when it comes to textual matters, while understandable, is not realistic. History has left us with numerous extant manuscripts. These not only differ from each other, but none are flawless representations of the autographs. Even the King James is not without imperfection. For example, "a dozen or so readings in the KJV find no support in any Greek manuscript whatsoever."[20]
Problems with the King James and King James Onlyism
King James defenders are often critical of those who choose other Bible translations. Yet the King James Bible itself is fraught with a number of difficulties. For one, the King James Version is not as uniform and simplified a translation as its more radical adherents would like to believe. Indeed the Textus Receptus——a Byzantine type text that is often given high priority by King James defenders——is a collation of various textual readings.[21] Therefore, "to claim a particular text-type is inerrant is meaningless because a text-type is established by comparing manuscripts, grouping those with most features in common, and accepting the most probable readings."[22]
Next, the King James Bible is based on a number of relatively late manuscripts, none earlier than the tenth century. To arbitrarily assert that older texts (e.g., Alexandrian) are inferior surely begs the question. A more balanced approach would be to give appropriate weight to a variety of manuscript families and to then decide (based on internal and external criteria) which best reflects the original.[23] As mentioned above, this allows for both confidence and progress. Confidence results from a realization of the overall continuity between the many variants when it comes to major doctrine, while progress (and humility) is facilitated through diligent research. At any rate, the King James Only mentality only works to impede spiritual and intellectual integrity.
Finally, there is something to be said concerning the archaic language of the King James Bible. At times, its antiquated terminology has been a stumbling block to modern readers/hearers. Not only are certain words outdated (e.g., thou, ye), but some terms actually mean something entirely different today than they did when originally penned (e.g., prevent in 1 Thessalonians 4:15). Indeed, if one sure sign of a good translation is that it successfully relates the ancient text to contemporary people, the King James Version is swiftly becoming an inadequate vehicle of communication.
Conclusion
Throughout their respective works, James White and D. A. Carson do a masterful job addressing the King James Only topic. In the end, they leave the reader with a basic understanding of the textual issues, a clear response to the faulty logic of King James Onlyism, and a sound defense of the Bible's reliability.
Of course, some might be tempted to make the relative complexity of the textual critic's work a reason for skepticism. But Carson notes:
NOTES:
1. For a fairly recent review of some of the more popular translations, see Lewis Foster, Selecting a Translation of the Bible (Cincinnati, OH: Standard Publishing, 1978, 1983).
2. James White, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?
3. Though much could be said about Old Testament textual matters, here the primary emphasis will be upon the New Testament.
4. Carson, 21-24.
5. See F. F. Bruce, "Transmission and Translation of the Bible" in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Vol. 1, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: The Zondervan Publishing House, 1979), 39-57.
6. White, 42.
7. Ibid., 48. This isn't meant to imply that every copy of a manuscript contains all the words of that manuscript. The point, rather, is that when multiple copies are made of a given text, somewhere within the copies is found the words of the original. Textual criticism seeks to extract the original by sifting through these copies.
8. Ibid., 27-28
9. For a nice review of textual variants and some of the principles by which manuscripts are evaluated, see Arthur G. Patzia, The Making of the New Testament: Origin, Collection, Text and Canon (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995), 137-149.
10. White, 58.
11. Carson, 33-37.
12. White, 13-14.
13. It is worth mentioning that the King James Bible has undergone numerous revisions (e.g., 1612, 1613, 1616, 1629, 1638, 1769), with most modern versions following the 1769 edition. Ibid., 77-82.
14. See Allan A. MacRae and Robert C. Newman, Facts on The Textus Receptus and The King James Version (Anaheim, CA: Foundation Press, 1975).
15. White, 82.
16. Ibid., 5.
17. Ibid., 196.
18. Ibid., 151.
19. Ibid., 152-154.
20. Carson, 69.
21. "To keep a correct perspective it is important to note that the TR is not exactly the same as the Byzantine tradition. The Byzantine text-type is found in several thousand witnesses, while the TR did not refer to one hundredth of that evidence." ibid., 37.
22. Ibid., 72.
23. For an excellent overview of textual principles, see David Alan Black, New Testament Textual Criticism: A Concise Guide (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994), 32-36.
24. Carson, 24.
King James Only?: An Analysis of a Divisive Issue
Introduction
Christians have long maintained that the Bible is the Word of God. Thus an acquaintance with the Bible's contents is integral to knowing and serving Him. This being the case, it is surely a blessing that the Scriptures are (in the Western world, at least) so easily accessible. In fact, numerous versions of the Bible are available, from quite literal translations to looser paraphrases.[1]
Thankfully, the vast majority of English translations fairly represent the Greek and Hebrew (and a small number of Aramaic) manuscripts from which they are derived. Indeed, textual criticism has gone a long way in providing trustworthy modern translations.
Unfortunately, though, the sheer number of Bible versions has stirred a measure of controversy. The debate centers on the precise location of God's Word. If God has spoken, it seems impossible to accept translations that are something less than identical. Some would argue, therefore, that it makes sense for God to have preserved a single deposit of inspired truth. Such are the sentiments of a group of individuals that can be broadly labeled King James Only advocates.
Though a number of people hold to some form of King James Onlyism, many evangelicals strongly disagree with the King James Only position. Indeed, a number of biblical scholars and apologists have taken this view to task. Among these are James White and D. A. Carson. This paper will briefly interact with the thoughts of these (and, to a lesser extent, other) men as propounded in their respective works.[2] As a result, a number of broad principles will be brought to bear on this sometimes divisive issue.
The Origin and Preservation of the Bible
While the Scriptures were inspired by God, those who eventually copied them were not. Early on, mistakes crept into the NT text.[3] Occasionally these were deliberate. Most often they were the result of human error.[4] As time went by, more and more copies of manuscripts were made. Soon we had copies of copies and so forth.[5] Eventually, manuscripts could be broadly grouped according to textual types or families. "Basically, a text-type or text-family refers to a grouping of manuscripts that share common readings or characteristics that distinguish them from other text types."[6] Though the peculiarities of a given text are not always easy to classify, these categories are somewhat helpful in sorting through the many NT manuscripts.
Of course, all of this talk about textual variants raises questions about the manner in which God has preserved His Word. King James advocates believe preservation comes via the King James Bible. After all, one would expect God to preserve one version, not many. This view is hardly tenable, however, for the plain fact remains that God has preserved a variety of texts. Thus the divine message is embedded within the many manuscripts.
While identifying the best manuscripts is no simple task, it is helpful (and encouraging) to consider that manuscript variants do not normally disappear. In other words, the original readings of the NT are likely to have been preserved, for once a variant reading appears in a manuscript, it doesn't simply go away. It gets copied and ends up in other manuscripts. . . . The tenacity of the New Testament, while forcing us to deal with textual variants, also provides us with the assurance that our work is not in vain. One of those variant readings is the original. We are called to invest our energies in discovering which one it is.[7]
Determining God's Words: Textual Criticism
The study and analysis of ancient manuscripts is called textual criticism. This can be further divided into two types, lower criticism and higher criticism. Lower criticism involves the study of manuscripts of the Bible, those written in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, as well as ancient translations into other languages like Latin, Sahidic or Coptic. Its goal is to reproduce the original text of the Bible from this vast wealth of information.[8]
Higher criticism, however, is less concerned about the manuscripts than the process by which the Bible came into its present form. Because it is highly subjective, higher criticism is prone to speculation and the whims of the interpreter. Lower criticism, on the other hand, is a valid instrument for determining the biblical text.[9]
Ironically, Erasmus, who gave us the Greek text (later known as the Textus Receptus) which undergirds the King James Bible, "used the very same methods of textual-critical study that modern scholars use."[10] Yet many King James only advocates decry similar methodology among those responsible for the newer translations.
The Genesis of the King James Bible
The King James Bible did not appear one day from heaven.Rather it was the culmination of a series of important historical events.[11] During the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries there was an interest in returning to the ancient writings. In fact a popular motto among thinkers of that day was the Latin phrase ad fontes, meaning "To the source!" "These men did not want to hear about the opinions of men passed down through the centuries. They wanted to go directly to the sources, directly to the ancient documents, so that they could learn for themselves."[12] For centuries, the Latin Bible, i.e., the Vulgate, was the accepted translation of the Church. But now there was a concern to examine the original languages. This eventually led the humanist-scholar, Erasmus, to publish the entire Greek New Testament (A.D. 1516).
It was Erasmus, and later Stephanus and Beza, who was responsible for the Greek text utilized by the King James translators in 1611.[13] Years after the publication of the King James Bible, the preface of the Elzevir brother's second Greek edition contained the words, "the received text," hence the term Textus Receptus.[14]
Noteworthy to this discussion is the fact that the King James Version and the Greek texts from which it was derived admit discrepancies. That is, there is no perfect Greek text, nor an infallible translation. In every case, scholars seek to piece together the original (i.e., by means of textual criticism) from the available manuscripts.
The King James Version is a monument to those who labored to bring it into existence. Of this there can be no question. But as we have seen, it was a human process, and as in all human life and endeavor, it did not partake of infallibility.[15]
Types of King James Advocates
Due to the popularity of the King James Bible, it is not surprising that some have become staunch advocates of this tried and true translation. Still, it is not always easy to characterize the King James advocate. Some prefer the King James Bible for stylistic reasons alone. Others of a more radical bent claim inspiration for the Received Text or the King James Version itself. Unfortunately, some of those who hold such views have made these matters a cause for disunity among brothers. As White laments, "That sharing in the gospel of Christ can be disrupted by such an issue should cause anyone a moment's reflection, and more than passing concern."[16]
King James Only Arguments
A number of arguments have been put forth in defense of King James Onlyism. Among these are the following: (1) Modern translations make compromises when it comes to doctrinal matters. (2) The Greek text underlying the King James Version (i.e., the Textus Receptus) is superior. (3) We can't be certain of what God says unless we possess a single translation (and/or Greek text); that is, discrepancies among versions prove that one is correct and the others false. These can be briefly examined in order.
First, the accusation that modern versions compromise the truth is clearly fallacious. If the modern translations were part of some grand conspiracy to excise biblical doctrine, it is strange that these give full support to orthodox beliefs. Indeed, comments White, "Some KJV advocates are surprised to note that the KJV does not do as well as some modern versions when it comes to providing clear, understandable translations of the key, central passages in the New Testament that testify to the full deity of Jesus Christ."[17]
The argument for the Textus Receptus is a bit more complex. Let it suffice to say that most conservative scholars prefer an "eclectic" approach to the manuscripts, "in that each reading is examined on its own merits and no absolutely overriding rule is used to artificially decide each variant."[18]
Furthermore, the Byzantine text-type, which formed the basis for the King James Version, is lacking in the earliest manuscripts. Instead, the Bible of the early centuries of the Church resembled a more ancient, that is an Alexandrian text-type.[19] This doesn't mean that textual critics automatically favor older readings. But such manuscripts certainly ought to be given due consideration in the quest to uncover the original.
Finally, the desire for absolute certainty when it comes to textual matters, while understandable, is not realistic. History has left us with numerous extant manuscripts. These not only differ from each other, but none are flawless representations of the autographs. Even the King James is not without imperfection. For example, "a dozen or so readings in the KJV find no support in any Greek manuscript whatsoever."[20]
Problems with the King James and King James Onlyism
King James defenders are often critical of those who choose other Bible translations. Yet the King James Bible itself is fraught with a number of difficulties. For one, the King James Version is not as uniform and simplified a translation as its more radical adherents would like to believe. Indeed the Textus Receptus——a Byzantine type text that is often given high priority by King James defenders——is a collation of various textual readings.[21] Therefore, "to claim a particular text-type is inerrant is meaningless because a text-type is established by comparing manuscripts, grouping those with most features in common, and accepting the most probable readings."[22]
Next, the King James Bible is based on a number of relatively late manuscripts, none earlier than the tenth century. To arbitrarily assert that older texts (e.g., Alexandrian) are inferior surely begs the question. A more balanced approach would be to give appropriate weight to a variety of manuscript families and to then decide (based on internal and external criteria) which best reflects the original.[23] As mentioned above, this allows for both confidence and progress. Confidence results from a realization of the overall continuity between the many variants when it comes to major doctrine, while progress (and humility) is facilitated through diligent research. At any rate, the King James Only mentality only works to impede spiritual and intellectual integrity.
Finally, there is something to be said concerning the archaic language of the King James Bible. At times, its antiquated terminology has been a stumbling block to modern readers/hearers. Not only are certain words outdated (e.g., thou, ye), but some terms actually mean something entirely different today than they did when originally penned (e.g., prevent in 1 Thessalonians 4:15). Indeed, if one sure sign of a good translation is that it successfully relates the ancient text to contemporary people, the King James Version is swiftly becoming an inadequate vehicle of communication.
Conclusion
Throughout their respective works, James White and D. A. Carson do a masterful job addressing the King James Only topic. In the end, they leave the reader with a basic understanding of the textual issues, a clear response to the faulty logic of King James Onlyism, and a sound defense of the Bible's reliability.
Of course, some might be tempted to make the relative complexity of the textual critic's work a reason for skepticism. But Carson notes:
There is no need for such rigorous pessimism. The vast majority of the manuscript errors have to do with details of orthography, word order, and the like. Moreover, many of the theologically significant variants can be sorted out quite easily by comparing manuscript with manuscript. The result . . . is a certain word from God.[24]Not skirting the issues, both writers build assurance in the biblical text, while simultaneously challenging the reader to employ sound textual critical methods.
NOTES:
1. For a fairly recent review of some of the more popular translations, see Lewis Foster, Selecting a Translation of the Bible (Cincinnati, OH: Standard Publishing, 1978, 1983).
2. James White, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?
3. Though much could be said about Old Testament textual matters, here the primary emphasis will be upon the New Testament.
4. Carson, 21-24.
5. See F. F. Bruce, "Transmission and Translation of the Bible" in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Vol. 1, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: The Zondervan Publishing House, 1979), 39-57.
6. White, 42.
7. Ibid., 48. This isn't meant to imply that every copy of a manuscript contains all the words of that manuscript. The point, rather, is that when multiple copies are made of a given text, somewhere within the copies is found the words of the original. Textual criticism seeks to extract the original by sifting through these copies.
8. Ibid., 27-28
9. For a nice review of textual variants and some of the principles by which manuscripts are evaluated, see Arthur G. Patzia, The Making of the New Testament: Origin, Collection, Text and Canon (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995), 137-149.
10. White, 58.
11. Carson, 33-37.
12. White, 13-14.
13. It is worth mentioning that the King James Bible has undergone numerous revisions (e.g., 1612, 1613, 1616, 1629, 1638, 1769), with most modern versions following the 1769 edition. Ibid., 77-82.
14. See Allan A. MacRae and Robert C. Newman, Facts on The Textus Receptus and The King James Version (Anaheim, CA: Foundation Press, 1975).
15. White, 82.
16. Ibid., 5.
17. Ibid., 196.
18. Ibid., 151.
19. Ibid., 152-154.
20. Carson, 69.
21. "To keep a correct perspective it is important to note that the TR is not exactly the same as the Byzantine tradition. The Byzantine text-type is found in several thousand witnesses, while the TR did not refer to one hundredth of that evidence." ibid., 37.
22. Ibid., 72.
23. For an excellent overview of textual principles, see David Alan Black, New Testament Textual Criticism: A Concise Guide (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994), 32-36.
24. Carson, 24.
7 comments:
It's called supernatural preservation by the Holy Spirit, pilgrim. Not by 'text scholars' and 'higher critics.'
You have a discernment problem. If you can read White and consider his books a 'masterful job' you need to step back and question whether your really have discernment for these matters.
The Traditional Text vs. the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts. 'Scholars' love the later because it allows them to dictate to God what God is saying. A Christian, though, humbles himself to the Word of God and knows that God has preserved His Word and didn't need wet little spiritualists of the 19th century to determine what the Word of God is.
Hmm, God certainly does not require scholars to accomplish His will; that much is clear. However, in the great majority of the cases, He operates through human agency in accomplishing His purposes. Any text, be it traditional or Alexandrian, comes to us through human instrumentality. That is, God uses human beings to write, copy, and preserve His Word. Some of these human beings are scholars, while many are not. The Spirit uses people, circumstances, etc. to unfold His plan.
To say that the Alexandrian manuscripts are corrupt is not really helpful, for all manuscripts contain some measure of "corruption." For instance, even the King James Bible has undergone various revisions. In fact those who helped to create it had to utilize and choose from among the manuscripts present at that time. None of these manuscripts differed in what I would call a significant way from the others. There are, though, numerous minor discrepancies. Along these lines, the original manuscripts of the Bible are written mostly in Hebrew and Greek. Does this mean that only those who possess the original manuscripts or are able to read these languages have access to God’s mind in Scripture? Of course not. God could have done this way, but He has not. Apparently, from His perspective, this messy way of doing things (i.e., thinking, wondering, comparing manuscripts) is how He has decided to work in the world, at least most of the time.
The point is this: There is no pristine text in the modern, enlightenment-driven sense. Rather, God has chosen to preserve His Word in and through a variety of manuscripts, some older and some newer. This is why I think an eclectic approach works best in trying to decipher the data we possess.
As far as scholars are concerned, some of these are indeed motivated by anti-Christian presuppositions. Others, however, are godly individuals, who are called by God to use their minds to reach the minds of others. Thus, it isn’t fair to place them all in the same category.
What is a Christian? A Christian is a person who, among other things, is connected by faith in Christ to the one true God. He or she is a follower of Jesus. You are correct in saying that one chief trait of believers is (or ought to be) humility. My question is this: When you use labels in a rather harsh and simplistic manner, when you assume that your version of genuine spirituality is somehow superior to that of other sincere followers of Jesus, when you treat with contempt those whose only motive is to think through the issues related to the preservation of the canon, when you call into question the motives of people–are you embodying this this trait?
God did not drop His Word from heaven in some well-protected golden box, protected from the typical course of human history. He surely could have done this, but instead He chose to leave us with a myriad of manuscripts, which more than adequately provide a window into the heart and purpose of God. He could have protected His Word in some artificial way but instead chose to preserve it through (and sometimes in spite of) the daily circumstances of human existence. In many ways--as others have pointed out--this resembles the manner in which the living Word (Jesus) interacted with the world. Jesus was not preserved in a jar somewhere, waiting to be admired. In fact He so closely rubbed up against the world that some thought He had indeed corrupted Himself. But Jesus didn't define purity and perfection (both of which aptly describe Him) by distancing Himself from the world. Rather, He maintained and shined forth His perfections within it. Similarly, Scripture exists in the world and is somehow amazingly preserved and activated despite the complexity of life in God's world.
This is all true until you come to the 19th century and adoption by scholars of the Alexandrian manuscripts put together by, basically, atheists. This is a break. The deletions, the changes in wording regarding the divinity of Jesus, etc., the corruptions are not just different from the KJV and underlying manuscripts, but they are different from the line of manuscripts, the traditional text, that culminated in, not just the KJV, but all the great and godly Reformation translations that changed the world. And that traditional text was always in the possession of God's remnant even in the darkest times of antichristian power.
Because this subject affords so many rabbit trails for scholars who love sophistry more than truth, and who love to dictate to God's Word more than they love to engage and receive from God's Word humbly these scholars are very loathe to give up their toy.
Finally, you say: "God did not drop His Word from heaven in some well-protected golden box" In a real way I believe He did. I believe in supernatural preservation. I also believe a regenerated Christian will know the real thing from a corrupted version of it. In my pre-Christian days this subject matter would come up regarding the Homeric epics. Great, inspired works that have mysterious authorship. I could see then that these works were shepherded into time by 'higher influences' or forces, if you will. Including the final form they attained at the hands of 'editors.' No human editor had a hand in their final form in terms of meaning and inspiration and form and what not. No human is capable of that. The same with the Bible. Yet humans *can* corrupt the Bible, and delete and change wordings, and the atheistic, of whatever degree, *love* doing that.
No, when talking of scholars, an Erasmus was not in the same category as a Westcott and Hort. Anyone who can't see that, who can't see how the Holy Spirit works in these matters, will of course 'buy' the corrupt manuscripts as being equal with the traditional text which is the Word of God, and will easily and blithely say things such as "well, decisions were made by scholars regarding the traditional text" etc., etc., as if the two things are equal. As if, for instance, the time of the canon coming into final form in the early centuries of the first millenium of this era is the same process that gave us the 19th century scholars and their *newly discovered* *better* manuscripts. A regenrated Christian has the ability to discern the truth in such things, and the 19th century scholars and their manuscripts stink. Stink to high heaven.
The great and godly Reformation translations, as you state it, are not duplicates of each other. Thus, they differ on various (though, I would say) minor points. Still, they contain what God wants us to know. Also, there is no single traditional text, that is, a single, agreed-upon, manuscript; rather, there are manuscript families or types, and some Christians favor certain families over others.
The question is whether the Alexandrian texts preserve the truth of the gospel. While there are disagreements on points, the basic message is there. As to the deity of Christ, that is clearly emphasized in the Alexandrian manuscripts. Sometimes, in fact, the older texts are clearer on this subject. For instance, John 1:18 says Jesus is “the only begotten God,” which some would argue is actually a stronger affirmation of Jesus’ deity than the traditional “only begotten Son.” Likewise, Titus 2:13 reads “our great God and Savior,” which is a clear reference to Jesus’ status as God-man. Examples could be multiplied.
Of course part of the argument here concerns our orthodox priorities. Which comes first, our theology or our best reading of the text? Since I favor an eclectic approach, I can see the strengths of both views. That is, God reveals the truth about Himself, and so we should expect that His Word would agree with what God has said. However, given the practical reality that we are historically situated on the other side of the earthly ministry of Jesus, and given that most of us don’t have direct revelations from God to clarify these matters, we are in many ways dependent on our reading of the text. That is, the text determines our theology, and not the other way around. So, to say that a text is misleading or heretical is to assume either that God has spoken in some extra-textual context (direct revelation, etc.) or that the said text is inferior because it fails to coincide with some other preferred text. This view is common, for there are many who claim that the traditional texts are superior to the Alexandrian texts. Why? Well, because the Alexandrian texts (supposedly) fail to support some particular doctrine such as the deity of Christ. But, I would ask, how do you know that such-and-such a doctrine is the standard by which we measure these things? Answer: Because these texts, the traditional ones, support the deity of Christ. This, however, is a type of circular argument. It’s the equivalent of saying this:
Q - Which texts are superior?
A - The traditional ones.
Q - Why are they superior?
A - Because they teach the deity of Christ?
Q - Okay, but how do you know that the deity of Christ is such an important measuring stick?
A - Because the traditional texts say so.
Let’s be clear. The Alexandrian texts do support the deity of Christ. In fact, as I’ve said, they are clearer in some places than their traditional counterparts. My point, simply, is that the only way that you know what truth and error are, the only way to distinguish orthodoxy from heresy, is by going to the texts. And it is at this point that we must inquire as to what the various texts say. Any view of these things requires that we compare manuscripts. That being the case, we must be open to any texts that accurately reflect the originals.
On a related note, it is important to ask what creates doctrinal clarity in the first place. This, I would say, is more than the function of isolated words like Theos (God). Words, then, are best understood and most useful when seen within the larger framework of a larger passage. Thus, context becomes one of the primary forces in determining what a text says or what a doctrine should entail. When you approach an Alexandrian reading, what do you find? Answer: Jesus, the miracle worker, Messiah. Jesus, the forgiver of sins. Jesus, the eternal God become man. Jesus, the dying and rising Lord. Again, I am not trying to minimize the use of words, for sometimes technical terms do help clarify what a passage is saying. All I’m saying is that any fair reading of an Alexandrian text type would lead you to the same doctrinal conclusions as a traditional text would. More importantly, it can–by God’s grace–lead the reader to the God described within its pages.
It’s not always the remnant who preserve the truth, although they certainly play a role. Often, in fact, it is the so-called faithful who receive the greatest rebuke from God. This happened on a number of occasions in the old economy, but the best example comes from Jesus. Jesus seemed to specialize in opposing which group? The conservatives, the “faithful,” the ones who best upheld orthodoxy (at least, this is what they would have told you). I think we have to be careful that we don’t take our eyes off of God and place them on people, however well-meaning. The lesson from the Pharisees is that those of us today who believe the truth are liable to self-confidence (and that in the name [but not with the heart?] of God).
Obviously, some bad things happened during the 19th century. Liberal presuppositions came to dominate in some circles, and a naturalistic framework became popular. There have always been good and bad people in every era. But the validity of a text is not dependent on the group that possesses it. Indeed, some of the so-called remnant did come to see the benefits of an eclectic approach, which includes a willingness to consider the benefits of a more ancient text. One of the potential benefits, of course, is that a given Alexandrian manuscript might be superior (though not always) to a traditional text by virtue of the fact that it is closer to the originals; thus, less corruption would have crept into the text.
All believers have to rely, at some level, on scholars, be they truth seekers or deceivers. The only reason anyone possess a translation today, the only reason we have access to the Bible, is because scholars went before us, paving our way. Every major version comes to us (by God’s grace) via scholars–those who translate, transliterate, compare and contrast manuscript readings, etc. This is not a sinister thing. Rather, it is one way God uses to convey the truth to future generations. While sophistry is always a factor, it is not the only one. Indeed, we must inquire as what makes one person a truth-seeker/teller and another an arrogant sophist. Scholars can be humble, thank God, and some (not all) of those who claim to be “listening humbly to God” can actually be led astray. Again, it’s not always easy to distinguish between those who are helping and those who are hindering the work of God. All I know for sure–and which I am liable to–is that it has often been the case that the self-proclaimed defenders of the truth are the very ones who run the greatest risk of error and hypocrisy. Again, the general history of the nation of Israel, the common hypocrisy that permeated so much of Judaism by the first century, the fact that most of the Jews–God’s chosen people–turned their backs on their Messiah, the stunning reality that many whom the Lord will judge come from among those who say “Lord, Lord, did we not . . . defend the truth, follow the rules of orthodoxy, etc.”–all of these things are reason enough to realize that truth is not some finely tuned and easily detailed commodity. Rather, it will depend on whether or not we actually trust in and follow the Messiah. He can be found in any manuscript family, and He likewise can be missed no matter what our textual preferences (or lack there of).
I agree that in one sense God dropped His Word from heaven. The marvel of this, however, is that He did not by-pass the typical order of human events. Human authors were guided into the truth, and what they gave us was God’s Word. Then, human copyists copied these originals, made copies of copies, etc. Eventually, translations took place so that people who spoke different languages could read and hear God’s Word. Though I do not doubt that God was at work throughout these processes, I also admit that minor errors crept into all of the texts. This is how it goes with human beings, even godly human beings. Still, without violating the human process, God preserved the truth. God’s ability to preserve does not usually by-pass the natural so much at works through it. Thus, even corrupt individuals (and we are all corrupt at some level) can be used by God to preserve his Word.
As an aside, there is nothing magical or mysterious about the words of the Bible. Hebrew and Greek are human languages. Indeed, the koine Greek of the New Testament is the common Greek of that day. What makes this message astounding is not only that it has been preserved in various manuscripts but that the message itself is astounding . That God found a way to rescue us, to love us, to make us His friends–this is what makes the message unique and intriguing. All of the major manuscript families preserve this for us. While I sometimes wonder about God’s choice here, I am struck by His ability to cause such beauty to arise from such a, shall we say, “sloppy” environment.
I’m not sure that Erasmus’ theology is something that all believers would like to endorse. This is not to say that He was a heretic (although, some might place him in that category) but that he is not automatically given a higher status than others. Again, it’s a common theme for God to choose “the foolish things.” This does not diminish Erasmus’ labors, by any means. Neither, however, does it negate the efforts of those who are not religious. As an aside, it is also important to recognize that Westcott and Hort did not create the Alexandrian text type. They simply interacted with it, for better or worse.
I’m not sure what criteria you use in delineating the Spirit led from those who are not. As I’ve said, we cannot escape the scholars entirely. And we have no divinely given rules for discovering which ones are accurate. There are “bad guys” in every age.
One thing I’m pretty sure about, though, is that the church is much better off looking in the mirror (as James would put it) than it is placing everyone into false teacher categories. Some of the latter cannot be avoided, and I am not denouncing our duty to point out error. This being said, we must not allow our categorizations of who constitutes the acceptable or unacceptable to dominate our thinking.
Also, the fact is that not everyone can see the truth with perfect clarity, which is why these arguments ensue in the first place. The big stuff is sufficiently clear, but not everything else is. Concerning regenration, that is an act of God, an invisible working of God on the human soul that produces spiritual life. Spiritual life is something that is best observed not so much in an official doctrinal stance, as important as that can be, but in the fruit produced in a person’s life. The key to identifying spiritual life is not located in which manuscripts one chooses but in which life one follows. Those who are humble, loving, joyful, etc. are the ones who give visible evidence of an invisible work of their Creator.
The Bible is under attack from all sides. Satan knows it tells the truth about him, the victory that Jesus had at the cross, and what will happen in the future. As such, Satan has and still is making every attempt to destroy the Word of God. What better way to do this, than to change the meaning of the Bible over time with different bible versions; each version as it comes along claiming it is the truth and the most accurate of all the versions up until that point.
The line must be drawn where we say, "If the King James Bible was good enough for 400 years, then it is still good enough for me." For by it men and women have been saved and the knowledge of God imparted unto them. When new bible versions come along, they always take something away that is never replaced, only to be lost forever. If you believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, then stand up for it. Take a stand and speak out against these new bible versions. An objection often raised against the "King James Only Crowd" is that people learn something from the other (modern) versions, too, and that some even get saved: but I dare say that this occurs in spite of these errant versions, not because of them!
The Authorized Version of 1611, or, in other words, the King James Bible, stands alone in its uniqueness, integrity, and fidelity to the truthfulness of God’s Word. Among reasons why this writer holds this conviction is because of the great harm done not only to the Word of God, but the detriment wrought in the local church in its public worship, and, of course, because of the confusion created in countless group and individual Bible studies. After all, it could be said: How do you think your professor would think or feel if all of his students used different textbooks in his class?! In our case, God is our Great Professor! He alone is the one true God, who has walked among us upon this earth and left us the living and enduring legacy of His Word and His Spirit. Until He comes, Amen.
[url=http://vtyupdr.com]KgPiPTSnBBWpYn[/url] , GySvCAZ , http://iluubcb.com
Post a Comment