Hath God said?

“…hath God said?”

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? Genesis 3:1

The first question recorded in the Bible is found in Genesis 3:1.

The serpent questions God’s word.

• Questions whether it is true.
• Questions whether it is good.

The serpent questions God himself.

• Questions God’s motive.
• Questions God’s nature.

First, the serpent questions the word of God, then he denies the word of God. By this pattern we can identify the work of the father of lies, “that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world.”

This really puts me off

Biblicaltraining.org – “You now have a world-class education from premiere professors so you can learn and grow spiritually, for free.” I have been familiar with this site for quite some time, even creating an account there several years ago. There may be some good stuff there somewhere, but over the years, I have increasingly become suspect of Bill Mounce and crew. Those who get caught up with this site just might be running a fool’s errand, biblically speaking. You do not need this kind of free “world-class” education.

Last night, while searching for articles on “Which Textus Receptus” I got a Google hit on “Lecture 20: The Greek Text of the KJV (Part 2).”[i] (It has that phrase several times.) From there, I also looked at “Lecture 21: Textus Receptus and the Doctrine of Preservation.” In it, I found disrespect for and accusations against Edward F. Hills that really set me off![ii]

Some excerpts from “Lecture 21.” (I researched back to the originator, and the site says these lectures are “by Dr. Daniel Wallace.”)

...the doctrine of preservation, in as much as the TR people are using it, ends up being a Marcionite view (Marcionists believe that the Hebrew God was a separate and lower entity than the all-forgiving God of the New Testament…Marcion came to believe that the God of the Old Testament was an evil deity and wasn’t the same as the God of the New Testament.

A scholar by the name of Hill (sic) was the only scholar of the 20th century who was a textual critic that defended the Textus Receptus. He got his Ph.D. in Textual Criticism at Harvard University. He was dropped from the Ph.D. program at Chicago University but Harvard was unaware of this. In Harvard, he actually changed his views in terms of what he presented and what he believed. He did a fairly good dissertation on the Cesarean (sic) text and had some articles published in the Journal of Biblical Literature. Once he got his Ph.D., he then revealed that he was a Textus Receptus advocate. I thought that in the Textus Receptus, like in the King James Bible, thy (sic) shall not lie, but apparently that only applies in other contexts than at Harvard. There is nobody alive today that is a bonafide (sic) textual scholar who holds that the TR is the best text to follow. There are two or three majority text advocates but no TR advocates. Hill (sic) was really the last one and perhaps the only one.

If you can’t talk about the Old Testament that way, then by definition you are a Marcionite when it comes to the two testaments.

To argue for this doctrine [i.e., the doctrine of preservation of the scriptures, rlv] is bibliological schizophrenic marsionite (sic).

Inflammatory language.

Now some of this might seem like the same-old same-old debate and argumentation that we all do, and in some ways, it is. However, in Lecture 20, Dan Wallace claims that inflammatory language is inappropriate. He lectures us on leaving off the vitriol. If Wilbur Pickering says either “Alef” or B have lied, it is inflammatory and inaccurate, according to Wallace. Yet apparently this is only inappropriate when others do it. Wallace can sure spew it out in Lecture 21! Those whom he thinks approaches the Old and New Testament preservation issue differently than he believes that they should are Marcionite heretics! Calling someone a “bibliological schizophrenic marsionite (sic)” is not inflammatory, vitriolic, and inaccurate? My, my, Dan. Let him that is without sin cast the first stone. (Oh, I forgot, you don’t believe that is really in the Bible, do you?)

Calling someone a liar is inflammatory, too.

Lying.

Calling someone a liar is inflammatory and vitriolic, too, is it not? Maybe not…if he is a liar. Wallace implies that Edward F. Hills, after being booted from the University of Chicago PhD program, lied to get into Harvard.[iii] Then Hills deceived the Harvard crew about what he believed and sprung it on them after he got his PhD. All without any evidence. Just take it on credit, ’cause inflammatory Dan says so!

In addition, Wallace hints that Hills was a bit “less than” the modern boys since he only wrote “a fairly good dissertation” under Henry J. Cadbury and Kirsopp Lake at Harvard.[iv] Then he lets it all hang out. There are now no bona fide TR textual scholars living – and only two or three [bona fide?] majority text advocates! Only two or three – even though he already named three in Lecture 20![v] Fib much, McGee? (Maybe you just forgot? I hope so.)

I thought “do not give false testimony” was in the CT, as well as in the NET Bible, but apparently that only applies in contexts other than BiblicalTraining.org?

Pot, meet Kettle Dan.

A hymn to accompany the blog post.

Oh, Danny boy, the texts, the texts are calling
From Aleph to B, and the scholar’s pride.
The Bible’s gone, and all our doctrines falling,
It’s you, it’s you must go and it must bide...
The light is gone and the truth in shadow
Oh, Danny boy, your views, your views have got to go!

(Sing to the tune of Londonderry Air/Danny Boy)

---

* On 8 January 2024, I intended to look back at these transcriptions and found they are no longer available on the site. Apparently some links have changed as well (such as to Bill Mounce and Dan Wallace). Video lessons by Wallace on “Textual Criticism” can be found HERE (at least for now).

Somewhat related, Christopher Yetzer found some comments on the NKJV in Wallace’s lecture “Which Translation is Best” (starting about 18 minutes and 35 seconds in), “The New King James Version done in 1982 is a curiosity...I worked on it. I was Arthur Farstad’s assistant for quite some time. He was the senior editor of the New King James Bible, and I did a lot of proofreading and a little bit of editing… and basically the New King James takes exactly the same Greek and Hebrew texts as the King James Bible took and gives them a modern translation...Again I worked on the New King James Version. In fact, I was kind of the watchdog to make sure the translators were translating from the Textus Receptus. In one or two places they weren’t, they used a modern Greek text and I really nailed these guys. I said, ‘No that’s not right. You have to use the TR.’ So not a single one of the translators, not a single one of the editors of the New King James Bible thinks that the Greek text that they translated is the best one available today. Not one of them. And over 100 scholars worked on this.”

---

[i] Wednesday, February 23, 2022.
[ii] For those in “The Academy” who rely on credentials, they should find Edward Freer Hills’s are quite impeccable. Of course, once his views do not agree with theirs, his credentials are invalidated. James Price, for example, writes that “his [Hills, rlv] subsequent adoption of an essentially King James Only position disqualified him from being a credible textual critic.” The real text critics are only the ones who agree with me. Cancel culture is alive and well in modern textual criticism (except they never cancel the heretics and unbelievers) (King James Onlyism: A New Sect, James D. Price, By the author, 2006, p. 265). Others are more charitable. “For men who accept the Bible as the Word of God, inerrant in the original manuscripts, it should be out of the question to engage in the textual criticism of the Scriptures in a ‘neutral’ fashion—as if the Bible were not what it claims to be…All along the line it is necessary to insist, as [Edward F.] Hills does, that ‘Christian, believing Bible study should and does differ from neutral, unbelieving Bible study.’ He is quite correct when he reminds us that ‘to ignore...the divine inspiration and providential preservation of the New Testament and to treat its text like the text of any other book is to be guilty of a fundamental error which is bound to lead to erroneous conclusions.’” (The New Testament Student and His Field, Vol. 5, John H. Skilton, Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1982, pp. 5-6)
[iii] In contrast to some of the inordinate mumbo jumbo floating around the internet, Bruce Metzger told Theodore Letis that he believed the University of Chicago wronged Hills, taking his money for two years, they deciding he was not liberal enough for them to give him a PhD! (Edward Freer Hill’s Contribution to the Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text, Theodore P. Letis, Philadelphia, PA: Institute for Renaissance and Reformation Biblical Studies, 1987, p. 106)
[iv] Hills’s ThD Dissertation was “The Caesarean Family of New Testament Manuscripts,” Harvard University, 1946.
[v] Zane Hodges, Wilbur Pickering, and Maurice Robinson.

"Wife-as-Sister," an Abrahamic problem

Abram/Abraham* lived as a monotheist among polytheists, a worshiper of the one true God in a world of idolaters. In the time of Abraham, nations worshiped many gods. These gods were usually viewed as responsible for particular geographical areas and political borders. Abraham's father and family were idolaters (Cf. Joshua 24:2-3), but Abraham knew one God. As he traveled from Ur of the Chaldees and throughout the land to which this one God called him, he did not change his gods. He did not shift his allegiance as he crossed various geo-political boundaries. Abram worshiped and served Jehovah, a God who knew neither geographical boundaries nor political borders. Abraham’s God was the same whether he was in Ur, Haran, Bethel, Egypt, Gerar or any other place God led him. Through His calling and leading of Abraham, God demonstrated His sovereignty -- His jurisdiction not just over Abraham and his family, but over all of the families of the earth.

Abraham was a man of great faith, but he was also a man of recurring weakness. One of his weaknesses was fear for his life and his safety. This is vigorously demonstrated in two separate "wife-as-sister" scenes in his life. At these times, Abraham represented Sarah as his sister rather than his wife. Sarah was a beautiful woman and they were in a strange land. Abraham feared that a powerful leader might kill him in order to take Sarah as wife. Among some who hold a low view of inspiration, these two incidents are conflated as one. Close examination of Genesis 12 and Genesis 20 indicates that these accounts are distinct events and not a retelling of the same event with more detail or from a different perspective. There are distinctions or differences that are hard to account for if we accept the Bible as inspired and truthful. For example, in Genesis 12:10-20 the participants are named Abram and Sarai. Chronologically this happens before God changed their names. In Genesis 20:1-18 the participants are named Abraham and Sarah. This happens after God changed their names, as recorded in Genesis 17. The geographical locations are different. This first wife-as-sister scene occurred in Egypt with Pharaoh the king. The second occurred in Gerar and with Abimelech the king. Gerar is in the south of Canaan, nowhere near Egypt (Genesis 10:19). The gifting is different. Pharaoh gave Abram gifts before he knew that Sarah was Abram's wife (12:16). Abimelech gave Abraham gifts after he discovered that Sarah was Abraham's wife (20:14-16). The discovery is different. In Egypt Pharaoh discovers that Sarai is Abram's wife when considering the cause of the plagues (20:18). In contrast, God reveals the truth to Abimelech in a dream (20:3). There are differences in the stories to such a degree that it leaves no possibility of these two incidents being the same. Interestingly, the same "wife-as-sister" ruse was perpetrated by Isaac upon a later king of Gerar (Cf. Gen. 26:1-11; the "name" Abimelech is a royal title used for various Philistine kings).

Why is Abraham (and Isaac) passing off his wife as his sister? The reason given in the text on both occasions is fear for his life, or self-preservation. See Gen. 12:11-13 and Gen. 20:11-13. This was Isaac's reasoning also (Cf. Gen. 26:7). Regrettably, in each case these scenes of presumption and deception follow directly after God's appearances and assurances. How weak we are. Praise God, His strength is made perfect in weakness. It was not altogether unreasonable for Abraham to think he could be killed for his wife. Ancient Egyptian texts preserve records of kings who took wives from husbands as they pleased. The beloved king David made Uriah pay for his wife with his life (though through a series of intrigue David did not initially intend). Even today in the United States some cult leaders take their followers' wives and make them their own (though usually without killing the husbands). Know, then, that this was a real fear and not an imagined one. We are not told what was going on in Abraham's mind, beyond fear. Perhaps he thought he could control the situation so that it would not degenerate into adultery and polyandry. The deception portrayed Sarah as an unmarried woman -- one in the absence of her father and in the presence of her brother. Marriage custom would have dictated that the suitor (in these cases, Pharaoh and Abimelech) ask permission from the brother to betroth and marry this unmarried sister. (Cf. Gen. 24:29- 60 for this custom of brotherly involvement among Abraham's people.) Abraham perhaps thought himself positioned perfectly to act as the older brother and deny the suitor. Regardless of what he thought, the plan was flawed. It fell apart. In both cases Sarah came precariously close to marriage. Both cases required their rescue by God.

Why does God record such an uncomplimentary chronicle of Abraham (and Isaac). First, this hints to us that we are reading a divine record rather than a human one. Were I to record the history of my family, I would acknowledge our failures, but certainly would not exhibit them in bold detail for the entire world to gaze upon. Second, though God never emphasizes these flaws in the New Testament, He records them for examples to and warnings for us. He preserves them for our learning and our admonition. So, what should we learn?

God's purpose is sovereign, immutable and inevitable. God chose a man -- Abram. He chose a family and a nation -- Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Israel. God chose them and not others. Therefore, we cannot dismiss the importance of these individuals. But the success God's purpose was not dependent on these individuals. God's purpose depends on God. God fulfilled His covenant promises despite the falls, flaws and failures of the patriarchs. God's blessings were furnished to Abraham despite his mistakes. Gods calls, God blesses, God leads and God sanctifies. In the end Abraham may be well remembered not as a faithless failure but as the faithful father of the promised seed, both physical and spiritual. And through him all the nations of the earth are blessed.

God's dominion is over all of the families of the earth. God chose Abraham and led him to a new country. Abraham was not out of God's jurisdiction when he entered the lands of those who worshiped other gods. Neither were those who worshiped other gods out of God's jurisdiction! Abraham went to Egypt. The Egyptians worshiped a multiplicity of gods. But when the plagues come it is not his own gods with whom Pharaoh must deal -- they are no help -- it is the God of Abraham, the God of heaven and earth Who adds plagues and removes them. Abraham sojourned in Gerar. The Philistines worshiped false gods such as Dagon, Ashtoroth and Beelzebub. But it was not his gods who warned him, not his gods to whom Abraham prayed, and it was not his gods who healed his land. The same may be said of other lands, as God's dominion demonstrably extends over Bethel, Hai, Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboim, Bela (Zoar), Horeb, Salem, Mamre and others. This is a fundamental biblical concept, and necessary to understanding Jehovah’s dealings with mankind.

*For simplicity I have defaulted to the use of "Abraham" and "Sarah," though strictly speaking they should be called "Abram" and "Sarai" in references before God changed their names.