Is the Bible less historically reliable than current news?
Is it necessary to identify the form of the text of scripture in the original languages that all prior generations of true Christians have possessed before being able to identify the correct form of the biblical text in our hands in our language today? Also, do you believe this can actually be answered? If so, inductively by history or some other method (e.g. theologically)? If someone claims to be a descendent of Alexander the Great, we would expect to see genealogical records demonstrating this. But can this analogy hold with the bible? Is it necessary to establish a historical record of the textual transmission to validate the bible (i.e. establish it empirically with theories of probability) or could this invalidate the bible (i.e. subordinate it to probabilities and empiricism removing deductive certainty)? Can one move from probability to infallibility? Or can the bible be established presuppositionally?
Textual Criticism
The reason for the existence of the field of New Testament textual criticism is because of the number of the variants among the manuscripts. The best estimates are between 3 to 400,000. (50:16 mark) Bart Ehrman adds, “or more! We do not know for sure because, despite impressive developments in computer technology, no one has yet been able to count them all.” (pg.89 “Misquoting Jesus, The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why”) Scholars who believe they can recover the original readings or at best the earliest form or stage of the text with X degree of probability, will proceed by attempting to establish the genealogy of the manuscripts. In Ehrman’s words, we “must rest content knowing that getting back to the earliest attainable version is the best we can do, whether or not we have reached back to the "original" text. This oldest form of the text is no doubt closely (very closely) related to what the author originally wrote"(pg.72) Of course, there is always the possibility of a new variant manuscript reading discovery which has one word difference which changes the whole meaning of a passage.
To rate manuscripts in order of genealogical importance or priority you must have some methodologies in place. The primary method of dating manuscripts is paleography (meaning ancient writing). A discipline that began sometime around the 1700’s (a long time after the original manuscripts) attributed to Bernard de Montfaucon. Along with paleography arose papyrology (meaning the study of papyrus manuscripts) by accident of history through the arid conditions in Egypt. 1892-1992 is considered The Century of Papyrology. "Papyrology as a systematic discipline dates from the 1880s and 1890s, when large caches of well-preserved papyri were discovered by archaeologists in several locations in Egypt..."(Papyrology) “In 1920, the John Rylands Library of Manchester, England, attained a heap of papyri recently discovered in an ancient Egyptian garbage dump.” (Treasure from a Garbage Dump- Edward Andrews) A brief digression- This makes the point that we don’t know how much discarded evidence is forever lost to history. "About 250 years after the production of the Complutum, a Danish scholar named Moldenhawer visited Alcala to survey their library resources in order to answer the question, but he could find no manuscripts of the Greek New Testament at all. Suspecting that the library must have had some such manuscripts at some point, he made persistent inquiries until he was finally told by the librarian that the library had indeed previously contained ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, but that in 1749 all of them had been sold to a rocket maker named Toryo "as useless parchments" (but suitable for making fireworks)." (Misquoting...pg.77)
“The 20th century saw an explosion of tools that have served as helps to paleographers. We have the Schoenberg Database of Manuscripts (SDBM), the Marcel Richard list of some 900 catalogs that describe 55,000 Greek manuscripts, The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, and the Institute for New Testament Textual Criticism in Münster, Germany.” (Greek Paleography and Its Beginnings) They believe they can date the manuscripts to within about 50 years – the time of a scribes working lifespan roughly. “For example, when looking at our modern languages today, we can see subtle changes within every generation or two. This holds true of ancient languages as well.” (Handwriting Investigation) Although, handwriting styles can be and are forged deceiving even the experts. The dating of the inks with chemical analysis is sometimes employed as a ‘final authority’ with manuscript ages. So, by the 21st century we are well on our way to establishing the earliest probable form of the NT text with the latest scientific methods and more manuscripts always being discovered.
Localized Textual Traditions
“Christian texts were copied in whatever location they were written or taken to. Since texts were copied locally, it is no surprise that different localities developed different kinds of textual tradition. That is to say, the manuscripts in Rome had many of the same errors, because they were for the most part "in-house" documents, copied from one another; they were not influenced much by manuscripts being copied in Palestine; and those in Palestine took on their own characteristics, which were not the same as those found in a place like Alexandria, Egypt. Moreover, in the early centuries of the church, some locales had better scribes than others. Modern scholars have come to recognize that the scribes in Alexandria — which was a major intellectual center in the ancient world — were particularly scrupulous, even in these early centuries, and that there, in Alexandria, a very pure form of the text of the early Christian writings was preserved, decade after decade, by dedicated and relatively skilled Christian scribes."(pg.72)
Textual scholars developed family classifications for the manuscripts such as the Byzantine, Western, Cesarian, and Alexandrian. Bart Ehrman explains that Johann Albrecht Bengel (1687-1752) began to recognize “the enormity of the problem of textual variation” from the thirty thousand variants noted in John Mill's Apparatus of the Greek NT in 1707 (Misquoting Jesus... Ehrman, pg.83, pg.109) Bengel "became deeply disturbed by the presence of such a large array of textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament, and was particularly thrown off as a twenty-year-old by the publication of Mill's edition and its thirty thousand places of variation. These were seen as a major challenge to Bengel's faith, rooted as it was in the very words of scripture. If these words were not certain, what of the faith based on them?" (Misquoting Jesus pg.109) Bengel is noted for his contribution of distinguishing the classifications of manuscript families from resemblances. As well as the rule textual critics employ that “the more difficult reading is preferable to the easier one. The logic is this: when scribes changed their texts, they were more likely to try to improve them. If they saw what they took to be a mistake, they corrected it; if they saw two accounts of the same story told differently, they harmonized them; if they encountered a text that stood at odds with their own theological opinions, they altered it. In every instance, to know what the oldest (or even "original") text said, preference should be given not to the reading that has corrected the mistake, harmonized the account, or improved its theology, but to just the opposite one, the reading that is "harder" to explain. In every case, the more difficult reading is to be preferred.” (pg.111-2) Of course, this assumes no rogue scribes or malevolent intent, “as many, which corrupt the word of God”. (2 Cor.2:17) This occupies a large part of Ehrman's book “Misquoting Jesus, The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why” about scribe's changes to a text — whether accidentally or intentionally.
Scribes a Changin’
Most scholars agree that the first two centuries of the church is when most variations occurred in the New Testament manuscripts. (Misquoting...pg.71, pg.129, KJV-Only Controversy- White pg.152) This was when most copyists were not professional and accidents occurred for the majority of variants. (pg.55) But Ehrman notes that charges against heretics altering the texts of scripture are “very common among early Christian writers.” (pg.53) Origen and even pagans criticized Christians for altering their texts. (Origen 185-253 AD before the earliest "most reliable" Vaticanus from the 4th century. pg.56) "The third century church father Origen, for example, once registered the following complaint about the copies of the Gospels at his disposal: The differences among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please. Origen was not the only one to notice the problem. His pagan opponent Celsus had, as well, some seventy years earlier. In his attack on Christianity and its literature, Celsus had maligned the Christian copyists for their transgressive copying practices: Some believers, as though from a drinking bout, go so far as to oppose themselves and alter the original text of the gospel three or four or several times over, and they change its character to enable them to deny difficulties in face of criticism (Against Celsus 2.27)" (pg.52)
Also, with Jerome by 382 AD. "Problems emerged very soon, however, with the Latin translations of scripture, because there were so many of them and these translations differed broadly from one another. The problem came to a head near the end of the fourth Christian century, when Pope Damasus commissioned the greatest scholar of his day, Jerome, to produce an "official" Latin translation that could be accepted by all Latin-speaking Christians, in Rome and elsewhere, as an authoritative text. Jerome himself speaks of the plethora of available translations, and set himself to resolving the problem." (pg.74-5) The pattern we see from the surviving evidence is that the oldest manuscripts were closer to the time when most alterations occurred.
Well intentioned scribes were also altering the texts according to New Testament textual scholars. (pg.56-7) Ehrman devotes chapter 6 to “Theologically Motivated Alterations of the Text”. It “is also possible that a scribe will sometimes correct the correct manuscript in light of the wording of the incorrect one. The possibilities seem endless.” (pg.58) It sounds like the situation we have today was reminiscent of the first two centuries- plus all the ‘science’ and ‘scribal habits’ we are aware of today. So, with all the changes and alterations occurring with copyists and translators with a range of intentions over centuries textual scholars need a game plan to get as close to the originals as randomness will allow. Or if you are an Evangelical scholar, you are ready to appeal to God’s providence at your theory’s moment of need. (As in ‘we do history until we need to do theology when history falls short.’ Or, ‘we know He preserved the original readings in a genealogical history of Greek manuscript for us today to uncover using modern advancements in historiography, paleography and papyrology’.)
Westcott & Horts Road to Recovery
Ehrman recognizes next two Cambridge scholars, Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) “for developing methods of analysis that help us deal with the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.” (pg.121) "The area in which their work has perhaps proved most significant is in the grouping of manuscripts. Since Bengel had first recognized that manuscripts could be gathered together in "family" groupings (somewhat like drawing up genealogies of family members), scholars had attempted to isolate various groups of witnesses into families. Westcott and Hort were very much involved in this endeavor as well. Their view of the matter was based on the principle that manuscripts belong in the same family line whenever they agree with one another in their wording. That is, if two manuscripts have the same wording of a verse, it must be because the two manuscripts ultimately go back to the same source — either the original manuscript or a copy of it. As the principle is sometimes stated, Identity of reading implies identity of origin." (Misquoting... pg.123-4)
We might note as well that Hort not only helped develop manuscript families, but also family squabbles. "I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of texts, having read so little Greek Testament, and dragged on with the villainous Textus Receptus. ... So many alterations on good MS [manuscript] authority made things clear not in a vulgar, notional way, but by giving a deeper and fuller meaning. . . . Think of that vile Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late MSS [manuscripts] ; it is a blessing there are such early ones." "In another letter to Ellerton on April 19, 1853, Hort relates: I have not seen anybody that I know except Westcott, whom ... I visited for a few hours. One result of our talk I may as well tell you. He and I are going to edit a Greek text of the N. T. some two or three years hence, if possible. Lachmann and Tischendorf will supply rich materials, but not nearly enough. . . . Our object is to supply clergymen generally, schools, etc., with a portable Greek Testament, which shall not be disfigured with Byzantine [i.e., medieval] corruptions." (pg.122) Like Karl Lachmann (1793-1851) before them, they want to jettison the TR (Textus Receptus) and "establish the text anew" on new principles. In 1831 he produced the 1st version in over 300 years not based on the TR but on "his own principles". (Misquoting... pg.116-7) The TR was based on 12th century Byzantine manuscripts and Lachmann wanted to produce a text that he thought resembled the 4th century text during the rise of the state sponsored church. Not surprisingly, Byzantine manuscript scholar Maurice Robinson still observes the vehement anti-Byzantine norm in the field of textual criticism that he has experienced in his training. Interesting side note, Robinson also states that the field of textual critical scholars today is only a few dozen qualified. But their assessments outweigh centuries of church preference and use. The church still does not want to give up the Pericope Adulterae or the longer ending of Mark traditions and all major bibles still include them despite scholarly instruction to the contrary.
Ehrman again: "One can then establish family groups based on textual agreements among the various surviving manuscripts. For Westcott and Hort there were four major families of witnesses: (1) the Syrian text (what other scholars have called the Byzantine text), which comprises most of the late medieval manuscripts; these are numerous but not particularly close in wording to the original text; (2) the Western text, made up of manuscripts that could be dated very early — the archetypes must have been around sometime in the second century at the latest; these manuscripts, however, embody the wild copying practices of scribes in that period before the transcription of texts had become the business of professionals; (3) the Alexandrian text, which was derived from Alexandria, where the scribes were trained and careful but occasionally altered their texts to make them grammatically and stylistically more acceptable, thereby changing the wording of the originals; and (4) the Neutral text, which consisted of manuscripts that had not undergone any serious change or revision in the course of their transmission but represented most accurately the texts of the originals.
The two leading witnesses of this Neutral text, in Westcott and Hort's opinion, were Codex Sinaiticus (the manuscript discovered by Tischendorf) and, even more so, Codex Vaticanus, discovered in the Vatican library. These were the two oldest manuscripts available to Westcott and Hort, and in their judgment they were far superior to any other manuscripts, because they represented the so-called Neutral text.
Many things have changed in nomenclature since Westcott and Hort's day: scholars no longer talk about a Neutral text, and most realize that Western text is a misnomer, since wild copying practices were found in the East as well as in the West. Moreover, Westcott and Hort's system has been overhauled by subsequent scholars. Most modern scholars, for example, think that the Neutral and Alexandrian texts are the same: it is just that some manuscripts are better representatives of this text than are others. Then, too, significant manuscript discoveries, especially discoveries of papyri, have been made since their day. Even so, Westcott and Hort's basic methodology continues to play a role for scholars trying to decide where in our surviving manuscripts we have later alterations and where we can find the earliest stage of the text.” (pg.124-5)
While "in Alexandria, a very pure form of the text of the early Christian writings was preserved... by dedicated and relatively skilled Christian scribes" (pg.72) "one cannot simply look at what the oldest manuscript reads, with no other considerations, is that, as we have seen, the earliest period of textual transmission was also the least controlled. This is when nonprofessional scribes, for the most part, were copying our texts — and making lots of mistakes in their copies." The "age does matter, but it cannot be an absolute criterion. This is why most textual critics are rational eclecticists. They believe that they have to look at a range of arguments for one reading or another, not simply count the manuscripts or consider only the verifiably oldest ones. Still, at the end of the day, if the majority of our earliest manuscripts support one reading over another, surely that combination of factors should be seen as carrying some weight in making a textual decision. "(pg.129)
"The majority of textual critics today would call themselves rational eclecticists when it comes to making decisions about the oldest form of the text. This means that they "choose" (the root meaning of eclectic) from among a variety of textual readings the one that best represents the oldest form of the text, using a range of (rational) textual arguments. These arguments are based on evidence that is usually classified as either external or internal in nature."(pg.128) "most rational eclecticists think that the so-called Alexandrian text (this includes Hort's "Neutral" text), originally associated with the careful copying practices of the Christian scribes in Alexandria, Egypt, is the superior form of text available, and in most cases provides us with the oldest or "original" text, wherever there is variation. The "Byzantine" and "Western" texts, on the other hand, are less likely to preserve the best readings, when they are not also supported by Alexandrian manuscripts." (pg.131) Scholars will consider intrinsic probabilities and transcriptional probabilities. (The key word is probability.) Intrinsic are “probabilities based on what the author of the text was himself most likely to have written. We are able to study, of course, the writing style, the vocabulary, and the theology of an author." Transcriptional probability "asks, not which reading an author was likely to have written, but which reading a scribe was likely to have created. Ultimately, this kind of evidence goes back to Bengel's idea that the "more difficult" reading is more likely to be original." (pg.131) Following these various techniques scholars still do not all agree with each other's conclusions. "While some textual scholars may disagree, 15 codices are dated within the second century C.E., with another 65 codices dated to the third century C.E. These are undoubtedly some of the most valuable manuscripts in establishing the original text of the Christian Greek Scriptures."(Handwriting Investigation- Edward D. Andrews) Just review under Andrew’s article heading the discussion of dating P52. One would suspect that if the probabilities were higher and scholars are honest there would always be a consensus. But as it stands us non-experts are left picking scholars like we pick fighters in combat sports.
Offering his assessment of the current field and always ready to champion probabilities "Daniel B. Wallace writes in the foreword of MYTHS AND MISTAKES In New Testament Textual Criticism that “The new generation of evangelical scholars is far more comfortable with ambiguity and uncertainty than previous generations.” (Page xii). This is certainly the case." (DATING P52- Andrews) I wonder if they are as comfortable with “ambiguity and uncertainty” regarding the resurrection of Christ and their eternal salvation? It is a fallacy to think we gain deductive certainty from something that is probably true.
So, the critical methodologies developed by those opposing the ‘vulgar and vile’ TR have produced relatively the same text over the last 100 or so years. "The Greek text that Westcott and Hort produced is remarkably similar to the one still widely used by scholars today, more than a century later. It is not that no new manuscripts have been discovered, or that no theoretical advances have been made, or that no differences of opinion have emerged since Westcott and Hort's day. Yet, even with our advances in technology and methodology, even with the incomparably greater manuscript resources at our disposal, our Greek texts of today bear an uncanny resemblance to the Greek text of Westcott and Hort." (pg.123)
Byzantine Scholars Counter
The Majority and Byzantine manuscript scholars, although themselves in a minority do not acquiesce in academic obscurity. Without getting too far into the details and killing the vibe, the debate over how the majority of the Greek manuscripts happen to be Byzantine continues. Maurice Robinson a Byzantine scholar suggests that since the Byzantine manuscripts were not all copied from a few exemplars but all from individual lines of transmission there must have been a large number of manuscripts prior to the later 9th century extant ones remaining. He recommends scholarship related to the change of uncial to miniscule script around that time and region and that the older copies were likely written over or destroyed. Robinson affirms that every serious textual critic from Westcott and Hort onward believe that the Byzantine manuscripts dominated from the 4th century onward (see here.) Which they attribute to a theoretical presumption of a Byzantine recension or revision in the 4th century. And since Greek was spoken for about a thousand years longer than the rest of everywhere (except Greece) more Byzantine Greek manuscripts remain. Robinson asserts there is no evidence of any formal revision. Ancient historical theories are largely assertions in the absence of lost evidence which is assumed to be evidence of absence. There are things that survive by whatever reason (accidents of history) and things that do not. Theories are founded on the things that did survive. Nor can you appeal to God's providence and assume you know His reason. And we don’t know what we don’t know. Some people call this call 'epistemological humility' others call it 'extreme skepticism'.
Furthermore, Robinson adds that its illogical to determine readings on a variant-by-variant basis. What is needed is a transmissional probability basis not reasoned eclecticism. Eldon Jay Epp, is not a supporter of the Byzantine text, but Dr. Robinson adds this quote from him. One “of his articles was called 'The Nature of the New Testament Text in the 2nd Century’. He says, “We know almost nothing about the specific provenance of our early manuscripts except of course that the 45 earliest ones, the papyri, virtually all come from Egypt and that 20 of these as well as seven others were unearthed at Oxyrhynchus. Very little however is known about Christianity at Oxyrhynchus at the time these manuscripts were used. These sparse data would appear to offer precious little assistance in an effort to link our early manuscripts in some direct way with early church history. Virtually all of the earliest manuscripts come from Egypt.” And then he continues, in other articles in his for example, Continuing Interlude article: “The early history of the text is directly and immediately visible only in these earliest papyri uncials. Yet can we really be satisfied with so limited a view of that early history? Can we really be content with Egypt as the almost exclusive locale for this glimpse into the earliest textual history? Was any New Testament book written there? And does not Egypt therefore clearly represent only a secondary and derivative stage in textual history? Is the accident of circumstance that papyrus survives almost exclusively in the hot climate and dry sands of Egypt to dominate and determine how we ultimately write our textual history? Can we proceed with any assurance that these 40 randomly surviving earliest manuscripts are in any sense representative of the earliest history of the text? Can we not do better than this? Textual critics at large will require a more comprehensive and convincing rationale for the text they accredit as the nearest possible approximation to the original. A rationale that reaches beyond the highly valuable but severely limited assessment of individual variation units and isolation and a rationale that seeks and finds a broader historical base than the early and precious but narrowly restricted and clearly derivative manuscript witnesses of Egypt.” Epp said in ‘Decision Points’, “How representative really of the earliest history of the New Testament text are these earliest papyri? What assurance do we have that these randomly surviving manuscripts represent in any real sense the entire earliest period of the text? Virtually all of these documents come from one region Egypt, can we be satisfied with Egypt as the all but exclusive locale for viewing this earliest history of the text? Was Egypt in the 3rd Century representative of the New Testament text for all of Christianity at that period? Probably not. Does not Egypt then at best represent a secondary and derivative stage in the history of the New Testament text? Is it not merely an accident of history that papyrus survives almost exclusively in the dry sands of Egypt? Should we not assure ourselves either that these earliest witnesses present a unitary text which of course they do not, or lacking that assurance should we not require a guarantee or at least some persuasive evidence that they are genuinely representative of the earliest history of the text?” (around 2:40 here)
We might find Byzantine text people or Majority text people or Textus Receptus/Confessional people or the Critical text rational eclectic people parade their latest editions out and say ‘This is the closer descendent of the original autographs, by X %’. And the only way for us to prove this is the historical genealogical records that remain by mere accident of history and are evaluated by transmissional, intrinsic and transcriptional probabilities after handwriting analysis is done and we assume or conclude they are not ancient forgeries. Thereby confining scripture to the prison of history and probabilities or science falsely so called (1 Tim.6:20). Although scripture has left a historical footprint it transcends history for it provides the preconditions of all rationality and evidence for anything whatsoever, including history. Keep that in mind.
Do Variants Disprove Sola Scriptura?
John Mill in 1707 compiled materials from around 100 Greek manuscripts comparing Syriac and Coptic versions and the church fathers' (patristic) writings which he cited in a critical apparatus. Mill had compiled over 30,000 variants. His publication served as an assault on the Textus Receptus (TR) and the general public's reception of it as final authority. (pg.84) The 1689 Baptist confession, and the Westminster confession for example indicate the Greek and Hebrew originals were elevated to the status of final appeal, by their assertion of faith in Gods “singular care and providence” by which he “kept pure in all ages”.
To the critical scholar this was naïve and simplistic since it omits their preeminent advice. "Yet no real progress was possible as long as the Textus Receptus remained the basic text and its authority was regarded as canonical...Every theologian of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (and not just the exegetical scholars) worked from an edition of the Greek text of the New Testament which was regarded as the "revealed text." This idea of verbal inspiration (i.e. of the literal and inerrant inspiration of the text), which the orthodoxy of both evangelical traditions maintained so vigorously, was applied to the Textus Receptus with all of its errors..." (Kurt & Barbara Aland “The Text of The New Testament” pg.6-7 See also the Aland’s and the Archaic Mark classification forgery debacle.)
Enter Richard Simon. “Moreover, his view was precisely the one that many English Protestants feared would result from a careful analysis of the New Testament text, namely that the wide-ranging variations in the tradition showed that Christian faith could not be based solely on scripture (the Protestant Reformation doctrine of sola scriptura), since the text was unstable and unreliable. Instead, according to this view, the Catholics must be right that faith required the apostolic tradition preserved in the (Catholic) church. The French author who pursued these thoughts in a series of significant publications was Richard Simon (1638-1712). In any event, in pursuing his case, Simon argues that all manuscripts embody textual alterations, but especially the Greek ones (here we may have more polemic against "Greek schismatics" from the "true" church).
There would not be at this day any Copy even of the New Testament, either Greek Latin, Syriack or Arabick that might be truly called authentick because there is not one, in whatsoever Language it be written, that is absolutely exempt from Additions. I might also avouch, that the Greeks Transcribers have taken a very great liberty in writing their Copies, as shall be proved in another place}
Simon's theological agenda for such observations is clear throughout his long treatise. At one point he asks rhetorically:
Is it possible. . . that God hath given to his church Books to serve her for a Rule, and that he hath at the same time permitted that the first Originals of these Books should be lost ever since the beginning of the Christian Religion?
His answer, of course, is no. The scriptures do provide a foundation for the faith, but it is not the books themselves that ultimately matter (since they have, after all, been changed over time), but the interpretation of these books, as found in the apostolic tradition handed down through the (Catholic) church. Although the Scriptures are a sure Rule on which our Faith is founded, yet this Rule is not altogether sufficient of itself; it is necessary to know, besides this, what are the Apostolical Traditions; and we cannot learn them but from the Apostolical Churches, who have preserved the true Sense of Scriptures. Simon's anti-Protestant conclusions become even clearer in some of his other writings. For example, in a work dealing with the "principal commentators on the New Testament," he is forthright in stating: The great changes that have taken place in the manuscripts of the Bible. . . since the first originals were lost, completely destroy the principle of the Protestants. . ., who only consult these same manuscripts of the Bible in the form they are today. If the truth of religion had not lived on in the Church, it would not be safe to look for it now in books that have been subjected to so many changes and that in so many matters were dependent on the will of the copyists.
Once Mill's edition appeared in 1707, Protestant biblical scholars were driven by the nature of their materials to reconsider and defend their understanding of the faith. They could not, of course, simply do away with the notion of sola scriptura. For them, the words of the Bible continued to convey the authority of the Word of God. But how does one deal with the circumstance that in many instances we don't know what those words were? One solution was to develop methods of textual criticism that would enable modern scholars to reconstruct the original words, so that the foundation of faith might once again prove to be secure. It was this theological agenda that lay behind much of the effort, principally in England and Germany, to devise competent and reliable methods of reconstructing the original words of the New Testament from the numerous, error-ridden copies of it that happened to survive.” (pg.103-5 Misquoting... Ehrman)
Although presuppositionalism was in front of the church in the scriptures it would lay dormant until Cornelius Van Til (1895-1987) when God gracefully illuminated a path for his people through the darker deception falling upon the world. (1 Tim.4:1, 2 Pt.2:1, 2 Tim.2:13, Mt.24:3-4)
We encounter an epistemological problem when we construct the bible from scratch with rational eclecticist methodologies sorting through historical data. Because we would then be starting necessarily with a worldview which cannot itself start with the bible if we in fact end with the bible. And to assert the critical Greek Text as authoritative over the TR tradition because the science of textual criticism is superior methodologically (objective) than the inward witness of the Spirit (subjective), is to be spoiled through the same philosophy and science falsely so called. (Col.2:8, 1 Tim.6:20) Presuppositionalism (objective) necessarily precedes any inductivism if it is to be valid. To know things inductively presupposes the biblical worldview & theology (regarding laws, abstractions, validity of sense perception, uniformities, etc.). You must start with the worldview provided by the bible necessarily from the impossibility of the contrary. You can’t assume the inerrant bible, discard it while you determine what the bible is inductively from scratch, and then reconstruct the inerrant bible from probabilities.
In an article with the same title as this section, Greg Bahnsen analyzes a spat between Daniel Fuller and Clark Pinnock about which of the two is more consistently adhering to the inductive principle (their final authority). They are contrasting themselves with Van Til whom they oppose mistakenly thinking he teaches fideism, which he does not; which Bahnsen documents. Van Til believed ‘Christ saved science’ meaning science is possible upon the fact that Christ upholds all things by the word of his power and only that. (Heb.1:3, Col.1:16-7) Bahnsen observes: “In the very nature of their historical discipline, Fuller and Pinnock are not the presuppositionless inductivists that they make themselves out to be. The historian studies not the direct phenomena but the sources that report the past. The historian must interpret his sources, attempting to reconstruct the past. He does not simply accept the facts as a passive observer.” (Unargued Philosophical Baggage (10) Again, observing the difference between the hard sciences and history: historians “cannot properly reduce human history to the history of natural objects—to do so would be to screen out that which is peculiar to humans: intentions, desires, motives, morals, etc. In approaching the evidence the historian is also forced to use a criterion of selectivity, and this itself involves personal value judgments.” (same section) “Christianity does not thus need to take shelter under the roof of “known facts.” It rather offers itself as a roof to facts if they would be known. Christianity does not need to take shelter under the roof of a scientific method independent of itself. It rather offers itself as a roof to methods that would be scientific.” (footnote 16 Van Til Christian-Theistic Evidences) -2 Cor. 10:5 But following the inductivists peculiarly full rational assurance can be derived from a text that is only generally reliable. Again, assuming they are neutral uninvested observers that are presuppositionless and purely objective.
Bahnsen critiquing E.J. Carnell regarding apologetical assurance incapable of rising above “rational probability” writes, "Now then, the critical philosopher must be allowed to ponder: just how "securely" does Carnell "establish" the dictum that worldviews cannot arise above rational probability and that they are supported only inductively (i.e.,their probability increases with an increase of evidence)?" As if the inductive study of evidence happens without a worldview or "unargued philosophical baggage".
"R .C. Sproul popularizes a similar point in Objections Answered..." "Scripture must first be authenticated through historical reasoning about the "basic" trustworthiness of its manuscripts, leading us (rationally? psychologically?) "to believe confidently" that Jesus is divine (pp.31-32). There is a "leap of faith" here (or some "circular reasoning," despite Sproul's disclaimer)- as though Scripture cannot be self-authenticating, but claims made by Jesus (found only in Scripture!) can be. Regardless, Sproul creates other difficulties for himself. His historical "chain" of reasoning already has two weak "links" (maintaining only the "basic" reliability of the documents, and circularly accepting Christ's interpretation of Himself, His resurrection, etc., on His own say-so), but he adds more. He must admit that substantial portions of the Bible are not even subject to the authenticating "historical research" that he demands, and with regard to those biblical statements which are subject to it, he admits that "not every biblical discrepancy has been resolved" (p.26)" "Sproul concedes, then, that one's commitment to the infallibility of Scripture (a universal claim about the inability of the Bible to err) rests on the much narrower grounds of its mere "general reliability" (pp.33-34)." Van Til's Apologetic- Greg Bahnsen pg.72 (Also, of interest- Bahnsen/Sproul debate here.)
But, for our observations the textual critic is not presuppositionless either. And what he is working with is even less probable than the hard sciences, because we can’t measure “that which is peculiar to humans: intentions, desires, motives, morals, etc.”. Textual scholars literally make the bible less historically reliable than the current news. Where the bible offers full assurance, (2 Pet.1:16-19, Acts 17:31, Col. 2:2, 1 Thess. 1:5, Heb. 6:11, 18-9, 10:22, Psa. 93:5, Rom. 4:21, Prv.22:20-21) scholars offer “probabilities” and “general reliability”. This is because they are operating from different methods of reasoning. Whereas presuppositionalism offers apodictic and deductive certainty from the impossibility of the contrary, they are using inductive reasoning which can only reach varying degrees of probability. They believe the question of which text is inerrant (if any) and most closely matching the original manuscripts can only be answered inductively and independent of presuppositional commitments. As if the world of sense perception that inductive reasoning accesses is totally insulated from the world of deductively certain truths. (Revisionary Immunity- Greg Bahnsen, also see Two Dogmas- Quine) But as we like to say, ‘the existence of evidence is evidence of God’s existence’ and the particular God of the Scripture.
We agree with Bahnsen here: "As Warfield notes, “It is the Bible that we declare to be ‘of infallible truth’—the bible that God gave us, not the corruptions and slips which scribes and printers have given us.” Absolute truth can be attributed to God’s Word but not to the words that are the results of errors by scribes and printers." (The Inerrancy of the Autographa- Greg Bahnsen) When he says again: “The restriction of inerrancy to the autographa does not leave the evangelical with only a chimera to defend. Moreover, evangelicals such as Warfield are not so deluded as to think that recovery of the autographic text would (though impossible with absolute perfection) rid them of all biblical difficulties for which to give an answer”, we would add “impossible with absolute perfection” based on textual criticism. But is it necessarily true that the text of scripture can only be recovered by critics? Would the biologist have been able to determine that Jesus Christ is the Son of God by examining his likeness of sinful flesh?(Rom.8:3) The question is not so much ‘is the church able to recognize accurately which text most accurately conveys the original words’ but rather ‘is God able to communicate accurately to his people?’
The Inward Witness of the Spirit or Traditions?
The rational eclecticist critics say that the layman desires to ignorantly hold traditions, and this is why they prefer the TR or KJV. But perhaps what they call tradition is the testimony of the Spirit. Again, can the church receive a text apart from textual critics? The inward leading of the Spirit is a real thing- (John 14:17,26,15:26, 16:13, 6:45, 10:27,3-4, 8,14,16, 1 Jn.2:20,27, 4:6, 1 Cor.2:10-13, Rev.2:11, 1 Thes.2:13, Mt.11:25-7), and it is not textual criticism and can only be measured in terms of the whole of scripture. John Calvin asserted, in face of the murmurings of the wicked, certain worthy persons “have not a clear proof at hand to silence them”, he contends that the Spirit confirms the faith of the godly “inwardly”. (Institutes Book 1 Ch.VII sec.4-5, Ch.VIII sec.1,V) The 1689 Confession states the “authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God”. That, "our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts." Westminster confession Ch.1, IV, VIII,IX, X
Someone might contend that this would reduce to one extreme where ‘everyone claims infallibility through subjectivity’ (‘It feels true’). While ‘everyone claiming higher degrees of probability through their own scholarship’ is more desirable. The KJV translators put it like this: “or if... we shall be maligned by self-conceited brethren, who run their own ways, and give liking unto nothing but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their Anvil”. (Dedicatory Epistle) Are we all to decide variant readings on a personal basis and construct our own texts, along with our translation preferences? Maybe we can decide the canon also! Is this what "priestly scientists" would have? This would certainly create the opportunity for their own promotion and preeminence. As the Aland's scornfully noted above, “Every theologian of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (and not just the exegetical scholars)” revered the TR as did the laymen. Their confessions said the Spirit bore them witness of that text which at the least coincided with the Reformation and subsequent awakenings if not more believably sparked them. Maybe the genealogical records are incomplete, and the biologist cannot confirm the lineage, but the Spirit of the LORD can confirm. And the organic reverence and consistent usage over time globally by the bible believing people of God is itself evidence in contrast with the individual rational eclecticist who subordinate our scripture to his ‘science’.
The Originals versus the Copies
So, we affectionately revere a traditional text and they feel attachments to old parchments. Why are there no originals? Bahnsen's article The Inerrancy of the Autographa referenced above makes the necessary distinction between the autographic manuscripts forever gone to us, with the autographic text which we have in our hands (impossibility of the contrary). He cogently explores what the scriptures teach regarding the copies and reasons that the copies carried the authority they did because they were copies of the originals. And, that neither Christ, nor the apostles nor the scribes and Pharisees disputed about their 1st Century text or if they had access to the original readings therein. Nor do we find scribes trying to compare scraps of ancient texts with various probabilities then debating the results with each other regarding final authority. They used the copies as though they carried the same authority as originally given.
Sample scriptures regarding the copies carrying the same authority as the originals- 2 Pet. 1:19-21, Matt.1:22, 22:29,31, 19:4,7, Luke 24:27, 20:28, John 5:38-9, 10:34-5, Heb.10:15, Acts 2:16, 25, 31, 34, 28:25, Mark 13:14, Rom.15:4, 4:3, 11:4, etc. Copying scripture was an ancient command- Deut. 17:18.
God did not apparently preserve the original autographs or the exact original wording in the original languages or a genealogical history of the transmission and he commanded translating of his words/teachings (Matt.28:19-20). We see in the bible that the same meaning or truth value can be conveyed in various word orders (e.g. harmonization of the gospels; NT quotations of OT passages) and synonyms as ‘word’ & ‘saying’: Rom.13:9 "if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Gal.5:14 "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."
And ‘word does not mean a single word fragmented from a sentence. Acts 28:25-8 "...Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers, Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive: For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it. (Also see Col.1:5, 2 Thes.3:14, Act.10:44, 13:15, 1 Cor.12:8- "word of wisdom" and "word of knowledge" would mean a thought or saying). I think almost every time the word ‘word’ appears in the KJV it means saying. Gen.15:1 After these things the word of the Lord came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward. Ex.12:35 And the children of Israel did according to the word of Moses; and they borrowed of the Egyptians jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment”. Apart from examples of divine commentary of OT texts (as Psa.40:6-8 w/ Heb.10:5-9) sometimes the same thoughts are conveyed in different words- “And Naboth said to Ahab, The Lord forbid it me, that I should give the inheritance of my fathers unto thee…for he had said, I will not give thee the inheritance of my fathers”(1 Ki.21:3-4). Not a verbatim quotation. Another example of different words used to state the same idea is found in 2 Kings 4. “And she said, Nay, my lord, thou man of God, do not lie unto thine handmaid.” (v16) with “she said, Did I desire a son of my lord? did I not say, Do not deceive me?” (v28) When Jesus told Martha "Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?" in John 11:40 this appears to be a summary of his word to her in v 23-26. (See also Jn.13:10-11, compare 2 Chr.36:22-3 & Ezra 1:1-3)
But God Himself would preserve his words/thoughts- Isa.59:21, 40:8, 30:8, Prv.22:12, Eccl.3:14, Psa.100:5, 111:7-8, 119:86, 90, 160, 146:6, Matt.5:18, Deut.30:11, Psa.33:11, Psa.12:6-7. And we have them again, from the impossibility of the contrary.
Original Wording vs Synonymy
Scholars agree that most variants are spelling variants or typos. But following next is a textual variant (Eph.3: 9) debated by scholars that I believe is an example of synonymy in context and not a contradiction. The biblical distinction we saw above shows a difference in word order and synonymy with copies. Again, the meaning (the word/saying) can be conveyed with a variety of words and word order through divers tongues; where translating and copying was part of the great commission- Matt.28:19-20 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations… Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.
KJV Eph.3: 9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
NASB Eph. 3:9 and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things;
In this context fellowship & administration are synonymous when you understand the stewardship of the mysteries of God is for the fellowship of the saints. Administering to and to whom you minister are conjoined. The saints are oriented around and called in various administrations to disseminate the apostle's doctrine. (Acts 2:42) The "the church of the living God" is "the pillar and ground of the truth". (1 Tim.3:15) As the unjust steward was commended “because he had done wisely” in that he made “friends of the mammon of unrighteousness”. (Lk.16:8-9) Stewardship or the administering of graces and truths are (as in the context Eph.3) by the apostles to the body; i.e. “the grace of God which is given me to you-ward” (3:2), "the dispensation of God which is given to me for you" (Col.1:25). Therefore, administering this grace is building up of the body around the stewardship of these mysteries of God. 2 Corinthians 8:4 Praying us with much intreaty that we would receive the gift, and take upon us the fellowship of the ministering to the saints. v20 Avoiding this, that no man should blame us in this abundance which is administered by us: Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. 1 Corinthians 4:1 Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. 1 Peter 4:10 As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.
As we see in scripture administering the mysteries was to the saints for the building up of the fellowship of the saints around the mysteries. The ideas assume each other. While we can’t know what the original wording was from textual critics (only what their varying probabilities yield), the idea is the same. God’s preservation was regarding his words meaning his propositions.
Reasoning Presuppositionally About the Texts
In summary, whereas any orthodox text or bible contain essential Christian doctrines and can be used to teach the necessary preconditions of intelligibility as philosophically grounded upon the LORD, when real differences, omissions and additions are in conflict we must stick with our precommitments to the biblical worldview if we are to be rationally consistent in choosing between texts. So, when forced to decide between texts the decision must abide by our precommitments grounded in scripture. If we do that then the critical text and methodologies upon which all new bible texts and translations since the mid 1800’s, must be rejected because they necessarily abandon these precommitments for establishing a new text founded upon their new methodologies. Once you abandon the bible to reconstruct another one you necessarily embrace science falsely so called as a higher authority or science independent of the biblical worldview. Because you just abandoned the text and therefore its teachings, to reconstruct another text to support the teachings. You are abstracting the truth of scripture (presupp doctrines) from an actual text, then assuming those abstracted principals you rebuild a new text where you can ground those same principals. You are separating the truth derived from verses in scripture from the actual verses of scripture. This is a contradiction. You can’t hold truths derived from scripture which are not dependent upon those same scriptures. You can’t hold on to some of the text of scripture to presuppose your worldview to reestablish the rest without making that decision by inductivism (science independent of Christ). The result is you judge inductively which parts of the bible have strong probability for original readings (or the earliest stage of the text) and which are less so. And finally, once you’ve completed your task some parts of the bible would be more probable and other parts less probable and no parts certain. You’ve just been spoiled of your objective assurance for the bible and all things taught therein very subtly.
Colossians 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
تعليقات