Should the Differences in Biblical Manuscripts Scare Christians?

A reply to “some of the most important things to say, first off.” I have freely taken the quotes from the two similar sources, which may not exactly match in all cases:

• Mark Ward’s video, Should the Differences in Biblical Manuscripts Scare Christians?
• Randy Leedy’s essay, Should the Differences in Biblical Manuscripts Scare Christians?

In this video, Mark tells us that he used points from Randy Leedy in his book Authorized: the Use and Misuse of the King James Bible. He thinks they are “some of the most important things to say, first off, to someone who is troubled by the questions” of differences (or variants) in biblical manuscripts. However:

“But in almost five years now, no one has taken note of these arguments that I know of. I certainly haven’t received any reply to them from those who defend the King James or TR.”

I suspect possibly because (1) this is a small bit couched in a small place in the book, that might go somewhat unnoticed,[i] and (2) those who noticed it probably did not think it as strong of a point as Mark does (or maybe mostly agreed).[ii] After this post, no one can in the future say that no one has taken note of these arguments. Perhaps many will not agree with the note taken, but the note is now taken.

In the video linked above, Mark makes the following three points.[iii]

1. No theologies or denominations claim a particular text
2. Even if we had absolutely perfect copies, the work of interpretation would still have to go on
3. Pristine perfection is a property of the next world, not (generally) of this one

None claim a particular text

Leedy and Ward say “…there are no Calvinist manuscripts/versions, Arminian manuscripts/versions, Pentecostal, Reformed, Presbyterian, Episcopal, Congregationalist, Egalitarian, Complementarian, Integrationist, Cessationist, or Continuationist manuscripts/versions.” Yet, there are manuscripts, texts, and/or readings that some prefer over other manuscripts, texts, and readings. There are no “Jehovah’s Witness” manuscripts, but they clearly prefer those that leave out certain references to hell.[iv] There are no “Church of God with Signs Following” manuscripts, but they clearly prefer those that include Mark 16:17-18. There are no “Unitarian” manuscripts, but they clearly prefer those that change 1 Timothy 3:16 and leave out the Comma Johanneum. And so on. Let us not pretend that theologies and denominations that are somewhat fluid concerning the text do not tend to gravitate towards readings that confirm their beliefs.

In support of this point, they also say, “Take any systematic theology textbook you want, and the set of proof texts offered for particular points is for all practical purposes version-independent—the authors don’t care which translation you use, so they just give references.” This may be true to an extent. Often, they cite proof texts without specifically pointing the reader to read it in a particular version. But, yes, as Mark says, take a look for yourself. Check the citations in the book. If authors are multiple versionists, they won’t cite only one version. However, most do have a leaning. Look in the front matter and you will likely find something like “Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations are taken from…” Further, any author or editor of a Systematic Theology worth his salt will not include references to verses that he does not believe are original, neither to verses that do not support his point being made. Further, if they are Critical Text men, they won’t usually refer to the Textus Receptus, unless to point out an error they think they have found in it compared to the CT. So – perhaps somewhat buried beneath the surface – there will be doctrinal and moral support for certain texts and translations.

Another “hidden” consideration in what Ward further observes, is that it is not like there are an equivalent number of texts available to the type of theologies there are, or the number of denominations there are. “If you walk into a Christian bookstore looking for a Bible, there are only two textual choices on the shelves.” Available New Testament translations are based on either the TR or CT. This informs us on why 15 different denominations don’t use 15 different Greek texts. Primarily only two are accessible.[v]

The work of interpretation must go on

Leedy and Ward tell us, “If we had the originals themselves—the very pieces of papyrus Paul used to compose Romans and Ephesians, for example—or if no copies contained any textual variants at all, unlocking the Bible’s power would still require us to do exactly what we do now: search for Scripture’s wisdom as for hidden treasure, interpreting carefully, comparing Scripture with Scripture, and making relevant personal application.”[vi]

When I read this, I asked myself, “Who would disagree with that?” Yes, we might disagree about the status of the apographs, but not about the need for rigourous study and biblical exegesis. We must read the Bible. We must pray for spiritual guidance. We must study the Word. We must study the words in the Word. We must compare Scripture with Scripture. We must apply what we learn (which helps us learn more; see John 7:17).

However, the one “except” mentioned by Leedy and Ward is an extremely important one.

“Nothing would change except that we would be able to dismiss from our minds the possibility that the text we’re working with may not preserve God’s exact inspired words with complete perfection.”

That is a very important difference. Can we be settled on a starting point and begin from there? Or, do we need to sift through 5000 manuscripts and figure out where the word of God is before we even begin to interpret it? Can your interpretation ever be settled if your text is not settled?

“…my own weaknesses as a reader expose me to far more significant misunderstanding than the differences in biblical manuscripts do,” say the dynamic duo. I have no quarrel with acknowledging the problem of my own personal weaknesses as a reader and student of God’s word. I know them all too well. Leedy and Ward do not seem to grasp, or admit, however, that they pile a second problem on to the first. An extremely important question, “Do you have God’s word or not?”[vii]

Pristine perfection is a property of the next world

Leedy and Ward say, “The very strong pattern God has ordained is that pristine perfection is a property of the next world, not this one, so I just need to conform my expectations to that reality.”

Again, I think even readers who do not agree with Leedy and Ward on their Bible conclusions will have no strong aversion to the point that pristine perfection is generally a property of the next world. Here, all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, and the wages of sin is death. There, there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain. Does this therefore imply that God can do nothing perfectly in this God-forsaken world? God is the Rock, his work is perfect (Deuteronomy 32:4). The pattern of the word of God is, hopefully, pristine perfection in at least the originals, if Leedy and Ward agree with the Bob Jones position – “Bob Jones University holds to the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible in the original manuscripts...”[viii] And, of course, there is plenty of room to wonder how they think we must view pristine perfection.[ix]

Concluding thoughts

In their own thoughts at least, Leedy and Ward have set the readers’ and listeners’ minds at ease. Nothing to be afraid of. “…we can be completely at ease that, with the exception of extreme paraphrases or Bibles translated by cult groups, any Bible we may use is fully trustworthy as God’s Word.”

“The bottom line is that God has arranged things so that I can take any good English Bible translation, based on any textual or translation philosophy, treat it as if its every English word were straight from him, and get everything I need from that Bible to know, love, and live for him in a way that will bring Christ’s ‘Well done!’ when I stand before him. And what more is there to life?”

Their conclusion – that one can use any good English translation, treat it as if its every word were straight from God, and get everything you need to know – sounds wonderful, magnanimous, and reassuring.[x] But the devil is in the details. Leedy, Ward, and those in their orbit do not practice what they preach. For example, Mark is actively engaged in turning people away from using one “good English Bible translation” to provide “everything I need” to know, love and live for God. To know this, just read Authorized, or listen to his YouTube videos. In fact, most of these guys, not just Mark, never recommend using just one Bible.

Hear Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart. They claim the Greek text behind the King James Version was filled with mistakes. These copying errors, according to them, “often do make a difference in the meaning of certain specific texts.” Because of this they conclude, “This is why for study you should use almost any modern translation rather than the KJV.”[xi] Almost any modern translation, but not the KJV!

All reassurances aside, it is certain that English Christians were generally settled and not scared regarding the English Bible and the Greek text until Westcott and Hort came along and overturned the apple cart. Our position was here first. Few were scared until they and the long black train that followed them came along.

Again, finally, what Leedy, Ward, and others tell us here in mollifying messages is not what they invest their time in telling us. They really do not want us to use ONE English Bible translation and treat it as every word of God. Mark Ward’s commitment to the “vernacular” means one must choose any version other than the King James for study, preaching, evangelism, and discipleship.[xii] On this we cannot see eye to eye.

---

[i] On part of pages 114-115, under the heading, “The Modern Versions are Based on Inferior Greek and Hebrew Texts.”
[ii] I “mostly” agree, though this post is to highlight points where I disagree. I suppose the main disagreement is that these three points do not prove the thesis.
[iii] These three points are only two points in Authorized (“First,” “Second,” but no Third). Ward presents Leedy’s points as two points (1) no groups or theological persuasions claim a particular Greek manuscript or manuscripts; and (2) even if we had pristinely perfect copies…we’d have work hard to interpret them. However, they are teased out to three points in Randy Leedy’s Should the Differences in Biblical Manuscripts Scare Christians?
[iv] In their book How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, Gordon D. Fee and Douglas K. Stuart refer to the 1961 New World Translation, writing “This is an extremely literal translation filled with the heretical doctrines of this cult” (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003. p. 43). If I remember correctly, the New World Translation is based on the 1881 Greek text of B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort and the 1946 18th edition Novum Testamentum Graece.

[v] In recent years the “Majority Text” is accessible as Greek texts (e.g., Hodges-Farstad, Pickering Family 35, Robinson-Pierpont). They are not available in any practical way to the general English reader. In other words, as far as I know, you cannot walk into that Christian bookstore and readily buy an English Bible translation based on the Majority Text.

[vi] Brother Christopher Yetzer has suggested that this point is about interpretation of the words in order to translate them properly, rather than in order to understand scripture once it has translated. There is also the possibility that Leedy and Ward have both ideas in mind.
[vii] “Mostly so,” they probably would say. Dan Wallace says “what we have is good enough.” (In contrast, Agur, the son of Jakeh writes, “Every word of God is pure...”) Bart Ehrman says he is not insanely pessimistic about “the possibilities of getting back to a pretty close approximation of the original text in most cases.” Possibilities. Pretty close. Approximation. In most cases. Peter Gurry agrees.
[viii] Leedy and Ward both are, or have been, associated with Bob Jones University.
[ix] Leedy probably has in mind one or both of these definitions: (1) Remaining in a pure state, without human alteration; (2) Of, relating to, or typical of the earliest time or condition; primitive or original.
[x] When I was a young man, roughly 40 years ago, I remember hearing and seeing a good bit of “the King James Version is a bad translation” sort of arguments. A lot of this in more recent times has been covered over with smooth words and sophisticated phrases, but in the end the aim is still the same – to get people to stop using the King James Bible and start using a modern translation.
[xi] Fee and Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, p. 34.
[xii] Ultimately, however, Ward recommends using multiple translations of the Bible rather than only one. See pages 136-137 in his book Authorized.