Do textual variants affect doctrine?

Do textual variants in Greek manuscripts of the New Testament affect doctrine? No, we are told, – at least by many evangelical scholars – “Textual variants do not affect any Christian doctrine.” “No fundamental tenet of the Christian faith is affected or disturbed by textual variants.” Theodore Letis calls this the ideology of harmless engagement – the argument that “The doctrine of it is plain in other places” or that no Christian doctrine is affected by a variant or omission. (See From Sacred Text to Religious Text, p. 257.)

Textual variants

We presently have knowledge of the existence of some possible 5000 to 6000 extant Greek manuscript testimonies of the New Testament (according to whose count we accept). Jacob W. Peterson writes, “It is best to say that there are about 5,300 Greek New Testament manuscripts in existence, although 5,100 might be the safer estimate.”[i] This number includes manuscripts of all or parts of the New Testament, books, parts of books, and small fragments (even mere parts of verses).

The 5000 to 6000 extant Greek manuscripts, according to whose estimate you are willing to abide, contain some 400,000 variant readings (i.e., a word, letter, etc. in a manuscript that is different from that word, letter, etc. in another manuscript) – again, according to whose estimate you are willing to abide. Peter Gurry explains, “The estimated number of variants in just our Greek manuscripts is around half a million, not including spelling differences.”[ii]

About 500,000 variants in about 5000 manuscripts of a Testament that contains about 139,000 words is a frightening prospect for many readers.[iii] What to do?

Ostrich in the sand

The ostrich approach accepts the variants and denies their importance. Do textual variants affect doctrine?

“And so it is with the Sacred Text; make your 30000 [variations] as many more, if Numbers of Copies can ever reach that sum: all the better to a knowing and a serious Reader, who is thereby more richly furnish’d to select what he sees Genuine. But even put them into the hands of a Knave or a Fool; and yet with the most sinistrous and absurd Choice, he shall not extinguish the Light of any one Chapter; nor so disguise Christianity but that every Feature of it will still be the same.” – Richard Bentley, Remarks upon a Late Discourse of Free Thinking, in a Letter to F.H., D.D., by Phileleutherus Lipsiensis (London, 1713, Quote copied from the 8th edition, 1743, pp. 107-108.)

“...no point of orthodox truth is weakened, even though supports, which some have thought sustained it, are found to differ from such supposed use and bearing. There are undoubted passages enough which speak of the proper Godhead of Christ, without our wishing to press into the same cause others for which we have no sufficient evidence, and which were not required to establish that necessary truth in the early controversies.” – Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament (London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1854, p. 234.)

“...the critic...does not explain that the vast majority of these variant readings are of little importance, and that in no instance is any vital Christian doctrine involved.” – Alva J. McClain, The “Problems” of Verbal Inspiration (Winona Lake, IN: Brethren Missionary Herald Co., n.d. but at least by 1947, pp. 17-18.)

“A careful study of the variants (or different readings) of the various earliest manuscripts reveals that none of them affects a single doctrine of Scripture.” – Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1964, pp. 18-19.)

“And even when viewed separately and individually, variants recognized as significant cast no doubt on any Bible principle or doctrine. In actuality the number of textual variants validates God’s providential preservation of His Word.” – Charles E. McLain, “Variants: Villainous or Validating?” (Calvary Baptist Theological Journal, Volume 12, Spring/Fall 1996, p. 104.)

“…nothing we believe to be doctrinally true, and nothing we are commanded to do, is in any way jeopardized by the variants…The interpretation of individual passages may well be called in question; but never is a doctrine affected.” – D. A. Carson, The KJV-Only Controversy – A Plea for Realism) Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1979, p. 56.)

“The simple fact of the matter is that no textual variants in either the Old or New Testament in any way, shape, or form materially disrupt or destroy any essential doctrine of the Christian faith.” – James R. White, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2009, p. 67.)

“...where there are inclusions of highly questionable variants, none contradict the harmony of the doctrines taught in Scripture...” – Preaching Variants, August 31, 2021, by Nicholas Batzig

Do textual variants affect doctrine? “No, not really,” say they. Don’t you worry about it.

Affect doctrine generally

Here we might consider it a generalizing thing – that is, by destroying a person’s confidence in the Scriptures, it affects bibliology itself, for example the doctrines of inspiration and preservation. For example, removing 1 John 5:7 or revising 1 Timothy 3:16 does not demolish the deity of Christ or untangle the Trinity. However, it does remove support for these doctrines. It does raises questions – for example, has the inspired word been preserved or corrupted in these cases? Do you know the mind of God at this point?

Catholic Priest Richard Simon, a chief opponent of the Protestant Reformers concerning the Bible, considered the variants in the manuscripts an important and decisive matter – a defeater of the doctrine of  Sola Scriptura, which required the authority of the Roman Catholic Church to settle the matter. See his book A Critical History of the Text of the New Testament: Wherein is firmly Establish’d the Truth of those Acts on which the Foundation of Christian Religion is laid, (London: R. Taylor, 1689).

After the issuing of the revision of the English New Testament in 1881, Catholic editors rejoiced because the work diminished the principle of sola scriptura. They wrote: 

“One thing at least is certain, the Catholic Church will gain by the New Revision…indirectly, because the ‘Bible-only’ principle is proved to be false. It is now at length too evident that Scripture is powerless without the Church as the witness to its inspiration, the safeguard of its integrity, and the exponent of its meaning. And it will now be clear to all men which is the true Church, the real Mother to whom the Bible of right belongs.”

Free thinkers reacted similarly, though obviously for different reasons.

“And we think one of the certain effects of this acceptance of the revised version will be the increase of more rational views about the Bible. A book that can be amended cannot be infallible. Yet thousands of readers of the King James version have read it in the firm belief that they were reading an infallible book. They will now begin to see that that belief, at least, was a mistake. But, since no claim is made that the new revising committee have been inspired, and their process of working with the instrumentalities of human scholarship is even frankly described, have these readers an infallible book now? Have all mistakes been corrected? And these ‘manuscripts’ that are talked about,—on what authority do they rest? And so, the question of infallibility having once been started among readers who never raised it before, it may not rest until it reach the question of original authorship, and the popular theories of the Bible be reconstructed on a more rational basis. From this point of view, therefore, the revised New Testament has a special interest for Liberals. That the revision, on points where any doctrinal change is involved, favors liberal Christian rather than orthodox interpretation is also apparent.” – “The New New-Testament,” Free Religious Index, May 26, 1881, in Free Religious Index, Volume I (New Series), Boston, MA: Free Religious Association, p. 570 [This organization opposed organized religion and favored natural or rational religion.]

Do textual variants affect doctrine? “Yes,” some say. Variants and changes support liberal Christianity, free-thinking – or whatever the position is that someone thinks it favors. So stated, it protests providential preservation and knocks the shine of inspiration.

Affect doctrines specifically

Do textual variants affect doctrine? The brilliant Christian Isaac Newton, scientist and scholar, thought so. He was neither a knave nor a fool. In An Historical Account of the Two Notable Corruptions of the Scriptures, in a Letter to a Friend, Isaac Newton shows that he thought the (supposed) spuriousness of both I John 5:7 and the “orthodox variant” in 1 Timothy 3:16 supported the Unitarian cause.

In An History of Early Opinions Concerning Jesus Christ, Compiled From Original Writers; Proving that the Christian Church was at First Unitarian, Volume IV (Birmingham: Pearson and Rollason, 1786, p. 105), Unitarian Joseph Priestley sees the problem of 1 John 5:7 as a victory for Unitarianism, writing in one place, 

“and the famous verse, I John, v. 7. concerning the three that bear record in heaven, has been sufficiently proved to have come into the epistle in this unauthorized manner; and had it been done in an early period, there would have appeared no more reason to have suspected the genuineness of it, than there now does that of the introductions to the gospels of Matthew and Luke.”

George Vance Smith – an Unitarian who served on the English Bible Revision Committee created in 1870 – believed that variants have theological impact. He felt that the new revision muted the doctrine of the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and the atonement. He was quite pleased with those results. In the conclusion of his book, Texts and Margins of the Revised New Testament Affecting Theological Doctrine Briefly Reviewed, he summarizes the “Doctrinal Results of the Revision.” Smith asserted that “any such statement [that the changes of translation are of little doctrinal importance] appears to be in the most substantial sense contrary to the facts of the case...The changes just enumerated are manifestly of great importance, and are they not wholly unfavourable to the popular theology?  Many persons will deny this, but it is hard to see on what grounds they do so.  Or, if it be true that the popular orthodoxy remains unaffected by such changes, the inference is unavoidable that popular orthodoxy must be very indifferent as to the nature of the foundation on which it stands.” – Texts and Margins of the Revised New Testament Affecting Theological Doctrine Briefly Reviewed, by George Vance Smith (London: 37 Norfolk Street, 1881, pp. 45, 47).

In more modern times, text critic Bart Ehrman seems to play both sides against the middle. On the one hand, Ehrman agrees, “Essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.” On the other hand, he also writes:

Most textual variants (Prof. Metzger and I agree on this) have no bearing at all on what a passage means. But there are other textual variants (we agree on this as well) that are crucial to the meaning of a passage. And the theology of entire books of the New Testament are sometimes affected by the meaning of individual passages.

From my point of view, the stakes are rather high: Does Luke’s Gospel teach a doctrine of atonement (that Christ’s death atones for sins)? Does John’s Gospel teach that Christ is the “unique God” himself? Is the doctrine of the Trinity ever explicitly stated in the New Testament? These and other key theological issues are at stake, depending on which textual variants you think are original and which you think are creations of early scribes who were modifying the text.” – Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, (New York, NY: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005, pp. 252-253)

Experts disagree

Despite being told “Textual variants do not affect any Christian doctrine,” experts often disagree (and sometimes the same expert seems to with himself). In One Bible Only, W. Edward Glenny disagrees, writing, “His last statement that no variants affect any doctrine is too strong. Some variants do affect the doctrinal content of individual passages.” – One Bible Only?: Examining Exclusive Claims for the King James Bible (Roy E. Beacham, Kevin T. Bauder , editors. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2001, p. 133.)

Peter Gurry finesses the answer, writing, “We should not give the impression that New Testament variants do not matter at all for Christian theology or practice; we can and should, however, recognize that no doctrine is in jeopardy because of a serious variant.”[iv]

Hear Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart. They claim the Greek text behind the King James Version was filled with mistakes. They say “few” copying errors – but not zero – affect doctrine, “but they often do make a difference in the meaning of certain specific texts.” Based on this, they conclude, “This is why for study you should use almost any modern translation rather than the KJV.” (Fee and Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2014, p. 34.) It is hard to conclude, based on their recommendation, that the variants do not matter to them!

James Snapp, Jr., in Do Any Textual Variants Impact Doctrine?, points out how Dan Wallace nuances the statement mentioned in our first paragraph, “no viable and meaningful variant jeopardizes any cardinal doctrine.” Nevertheless, contra the supposed authorities, Snapp says he “can think of at least two variants that jeopardize the doctrine of inerrancy, both of which occur in the first book of the New Testament: in Matthew 13:35 and Matthew 27:49.” Why? These variants are factual errors, contradicting the truth of the Scriptures in other places.

Concluding thoughts

Though evangelical text critics and their supporters in academia labor hard to satisfy their followers that “no textual variant affects any Christian doctrine,” we find that is not the case, even when fine nuances are applied to the discussion. The variants may not destroy one’s faith (according to how one relates to them), but concluders on all sides, with heads out of the sand, realize that a variant can certainly change the meaning of a particular text, and that change in meaning can certainly affect its relationship to the doctrine taught therein.

Truly, as some have tongue-in-cheeked, “Variants don’t affect our beliefs – except when they do!”

---

[i] “Math Myths: How Many Manuscripts We Have and Why More Isn’t Always Better,” by Jacob W. Peterson in Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism, Elijah Hixson and Peter J. Gurry, editors. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2019, p. 69. On the other hand, in a 2012 interview, Daniel B. Wallace (who wrote the foreword for Myths and Mistakes) said that “As far as Greek manuscripts, over 5800 have been catalogued.” (See An Interview with Daniel B. Wallace on the New Testament Manuscripts.)
[ii] Gurry goes on to say, “Nearly half of these are meaningless mistakes.” (“Myths About Variants: Why Most Variants Are Insignificant and Why Some Can’t Be Ignored,” by Peter J. Gurry in Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism, Elijah Hixson and Peter J. Gurry, editors. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2019, p. 210.)
[iii] There are roughly 5000 different or unique words that are used about 139,000 times total.
[iv] “Myths About Variants: Why Most Variants Are Insignificant and Why Some Can’t Be Ignored,” by Peter J. Gurry in Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism, Elijah Hixson and Peter J. Gurry, editors. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2019, p. 210.

Two varieties of preservation of the Scriptures

Among Baptists, Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, Reformed, etc. there appear to be two primary varieties of belief on the preservation of the Scriptures. A comparison and contrast may be found in “The Second London Baptist Confession” and “The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.”

The Baptist Confession of Faith, 1689, London Chapter 1, Paragraph 8.

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them.

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, Article X

We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

The 2nd London Baptist Confession presents the older view that the original Scriptures are inspired, have been kept pure, and therefore the apographs (providentially preserved copies of these Scriptures) can be considered authentic. The Chicago Statement on Inerrancy represents a more modern view (affected by modern textual criticism), that the autographa (original text) is inspired and has been preserved “with great accuracy.” It can be considered authentic only to the extent the copies faithfully represent the original. The great problem there is that we must rely on the text critics, many of whom now believe the original text cannot be recovered. Though somewhat cryptic, that is a tacit admission that the originals have not been completely preserved.

Taylor Desoto in Providential Preservation observes:

“Without Providential Preservation, the modern doctrine of Scripture leaves the church without any discernable Bible, just a product that gives the people of God ‘good access’ to the Bible.”

A Fundamental Problem for Fundamentalism

Abstract

In this essay, I suggest a problem of biblical proportions, and introduce the people of the problem. I define and investigate the problem of preservation of the Scriptures or the lack thereof, as it relates to the undergirding of the theology of theological conservatives. In conclusion, I advise that once theological conservatives capitulate to the textual authorities, they have in effect “returned to Rome.” Finally, I urge them to either “go on home to Rome” or stand and fight for the inspiration, infallibility/inerrancy, and preservation of the Bible. (I hope they will choose the latter.)

A Fundamental Problem

Fundamentalism in the religious sense usually has a “connotation that indicates unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs.” Often “fundamentalism” is a pejorative used to describe certain religious beliefs that the accuser does not like. Here I use fundamentalism (and fundamentalist) broadly to mean holding (and those who hold) the fundamentals of the Christian faith, including the inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures we call the Holy Bible.[i] “Fundamental,” as used in this title, is an adjective meaning “of central importance; serving as an essential part of, a foundation or basis.” The discussion centers on a problem of central importance, touching an essential part of fundamentalism.[ii]

The Bible is foundational to the beliefs of Baptists, Fundamentalists, and Confessional Protestants. The fundamental problem is this:

If the Bible cannot be trusted to speak inerrantly about itself, how can it be trusted to speak inerrantly on any or all of the beliefs we hold as true faith and practice? If the Bible in its inerrancy has not been providentially preserved to this generation, how can we trust it to speak inerrantly to this generation? And again, if it does not, how shall we accept and believe any of the fundamental points of our faith?

Does the Bible speak of itself?

“Yes.” Some theologians and Bible students might answer this in the negative. I pass over this possibility, for I am not addressing them. Surely Fundamentalists, Bible-believing Baptists, conservative Evangelicals, Reformed & Confessional Protestants answer “Yes.” Accepting this answer, we pass on to the next question.

If the Bible is inerrant and infallible (and we so believe), and if the Bible speaks of itself, then when the Bible speaks of itself it speaks inerrantly (without error) of itself.

What does the Bible speak of itself?

Here are some examples of how or what the Bible speaks of itself.

• The Old and New Testaments are Scripture. For example, Luke 24:44-45; 2 Timothy 3:15-16; 2 Peter 1:20; 2 Peter 3:16.
• It is God’s word. For example, Mark 7:6-13; 13:31; John 10:35.
• It is eternal. For example, Psalm 119:89; Isaiah 40:8; Matthew 24:35.
• It is written. For example, Joshua 8:31-35; Jeremiah 25:13; Acts 15:15; Acts 13:15; Revelation 1:3.
• It is perfect. For example, Psalm 18:30; Psalm 19:7-9.
• It is pure. For example, Psalm 12:6; 119:140; Proverbs 30:6.
• It is truth. For example, Psalm 119:160; Ecclesiastes 12:10; John 17:17.
• It is not bound and is unbreakable. For example, John 10:35; 2 Timothy 2:9.
• It gives light and understanding. For example, Psalm 119:105, 130; Isaiah 8:20; 2 Peter 1:19.
• It is inspired, given by the Spirit of God. For example, 2 Timothy 3:15-17; 2 Peter 1:19-21.
• It is complete. For example, Deuteronomy 4:2; Proverbs 30:6; 2 Timothy 3:15-17.
• It is sufficient for faith and practice. For example, Matthew 4:4; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:3.
• It is preserved for all generations. For example, Psalm 33:11; 100:5; 117:2; 119:160; Isaiah 30:8; 40:8; 1 Peter 1:24-25.

From these examples, we draw these conclusions. The Bible proceeds from God, and therefore is as good, reliable, truthful, and pure as he is. God gives it to man for the good of his people, authoritative and complete, for instruction in righteousness. To this end, it is eternal, proceeding from the mind of God perfectly through his inspired instrumentality, and preserved, capable of instructing his people past, present, and future. In contrast to this conclusion, there are those who deny its guaranteed inerrancy through inspiration. Others deny its guaranteed utility to the generations through preservation.

In Preservation of the Bible: Providential or Miraculous,[iii] Jon Rehurek concludes that “no explicit indication applies [preservation] directly to written Scripture or to how and when a promise of general preservation would be fulfilled.” He further argues that any case for providential preservation must be made through the historical and manuscript evidence (i.e., no text of Scripture teaches preservation of the written words). In other words, Rehurek and others of his ilk (Dan Wallace, W. Edward Glenny, etc.) do not believe that the Bible promises that God will preserve the words of the Bible. A different class of theologians (W. W. Combs, for example) posit a slightly different exegetical view of the preservation of God’s word, but take it out of the realm of the written word.

“However, a study of this phrase suggests that, more often than not, God’s written revelation is not in view...in the Old Testament the expression ‘the word of God’ (or Lord) is used almost universally of oral communication.”[iv]

Do we miss the irony that it is through God’s written word that we are even aware of God’s oral communication?[v] If the written revelation is not reliably preserved, how shall we reliably know the character of God’s oral communication, and the promises associated with it?

Some of the “preservation texts” regarding God’s word admittedly do not state in so many words, “What is written in print media will be preserved for all time.” Often God emphasizes something more like this:

“What I say is the truth. It does not matter what you think or what you say. Whatever I say will stand. Depend on it!”

How Christian believers, though, extrapolate from such statements that we cannot and should not depend on what God has written is mind boggling to me. Psalm 119:89 establishes the durability, immutability, and trustworthiness of God’s word. Why would we expect less of God’s word when it is written down? Not every reference to “God’s words,” “the word of God,” or “the words of God” is a reference to the written Scriptures. However, when written, God’s words are not less God’s words. Furthermore, how would we presently even know of God’s spoken words from the past, were they not written down?

Consider also:

• Psalm 78:5-7 God established his testimony and appointed his law. One reason this exists is for teaching each generation to come, “that might know them...that they might set their hope in God, and not forget the works of God, but keep his commandments.” How can fathers make known to their children words that they do not have?
• Psalm 119:89 God’s word has been settled, preserved in heaven, forever. How can the faithfulness of his precepts, testimonies, and commandments “unto all generations” (vs. 90, 96) be known if that word is only settled in heaven and is not distributed on the earth? God’s word is a revelation for the benefit of man. It is man (on earth) that needs this word, and not God himself in heaven.[vi]
• Matthew 4:4 “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” How can man live by a word of God that he does not have? Either we must have continual oral revelation, or we must have the written word.

What was the purpose of inspiration? Was it, at least in part, to produce scripture (which is a written record)? Was it for the benefit of the writers, or for the readers? Had God not preserved Paul’s letter to Timothy, for example, until it reached Timothy, to what end is its inspiration? Without preservation, the purpose of inspiration is undermined and rendered pointless. The providential preservation of the Bible is a necessary conclusion from its teachings. God did not write his words only for the moment, for the immediate recipients of its message, but also for future generations.[vii]

When glorying in the treasure of God’s word, rather than focused on denying the providential preservation of the written word, some writers are distracted, and “forget themselves.” They then attribute values to the written word that they, when debating, reserve to the generic word. Perhaps there is “Freudian slip” of the unconscious mind that reveals what they know in their hearts – that God’s word, even when written, is durable, immutable, and trustworthy. Notice, for example, Matt Smethurst’s nice article on 8 Things Your Bible Says About Itself. He writes about the Bible as a book and consistently and assuredly attributes the generic “voided passages” as being statements about and support for the written word.[viii]

What are the implications of what the Bible speaks of itself?

The Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox view (and perhaps others) is that there are two sources of authority – the church & its traditions, and scripture. They teach the Bible is “a standard of truth,” not “the standard of truth.”[ix] Baptists (at least orthodox believing ones), Fundamentalists, the Reformers, and others hold Sola Scriptura – there is one source of authority, the inspired scripture.

“Less-than-fundamental” Christians often hypothesize that the Bible is accurate when it speaks to spiritual, religious, or moral concepts. They argue that other content – such as science, history, or geography – cannot be considered reliable. Scripture itself, however, does not limit itself to which kinds of subjects it speaks truthfully and authoritatively.

When we look to the authority of God’s word to discuss whether his word has been preserved, do we not necessarily do it on the presupposition that it has been preserved?[x] Of course we do. All doctrines grow out of two basic and foundational truths – that God is and that he has revealed himself in the sixty-six books that we call the Bible. If there is not some kind of preservation of that revelation that we currently read and study, all other points of doctrine become pointless.

How do we know what to believe about the Bible? We believe what the Bible says about itself. The Bible is the “Supreme Court” to which every opinion and belief must be brought for resolution according to its truth.

We “fundamentalist types” – in contrast to moderates and liberals – often assert that when the Bible speaks on science, history, or geography, it speaks inerrantly. If the Bible speaks of God creating the world ex nihilo (from nothing), we believe the Bible. Evolutionary arguments to the contrary do not sway us from the truth. If the Bible speaks of miracles outside of nature, we believe the Bible. Secularist animadversions do not sway us. If the Bible speaks of the Israelites crossing the Red Sea, we believe the Bible. The geographic relocations of naysayers do not sway us. If the Bible speaks of David as the king of Israel, we believe the Bible. The archaeologist who can find no evidence of it does not sway us. If the Bible promises the perpetuity of the church, we believe the Bible. Historians who can find no evidence of New Testament Christianity in the intervening years from then until now do not sway us. Were the Bible to say Jonah swallowed a whale, we would believe the Bible.

However, prominent textual critics (some believers and some unbelievers) assure us that the Bible has not been preserved pure in all ages. Many “fighting fundamentalists” docilely fall in line, rendered malleable as little children! If Scripture is not preserved, there is a fundamental problem. It removes the Bible as our resource of inerrant truth. It casts doubt on the reliability of the Bible. “Fundamentalist,” will you recognize and address this fundamental problem?

If the Bible cannot be trusted to speak inerrantly about itself, how can it be trusted to speak inerrantly on creation, miracles, the exodus from Egypt, the kings of Israel, the church – and most importantly the gospel, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures? Even if the Bible spoke (past tense) inerrantly about itself, how can it be trusted if that inerrant word has not been preserved pure through the ages? Textual critics and theologians work overtime to convince us there is no problem – nothing to see here. Those who possess a little spiritual discernment or even an ounce of common sense know better.

In effect, the fundamental problem for the fundamentalist is that modern textual criticism, as we know it, has slowly and surely chipped away at the trustworthiness of the Bible.[xi] When all is said and done, we will no longer have a sole rule of practice – or at least many Christians will not think they have one. When all is said and done, we will no longer have Sola Scriptura. When all is said and done, dissenters from Rome and its “Magisterium” and the Orthodox and their “Holy Tradition” have no more reason to protest or dissent. Git along, little dogies, y’all go on home now.[xii]

“As for me and my house,” we will believe the Bible is verbally inspired, wholly inerrant, and providentially preserved.

---

[i] In this article, anyone who believes that the Bible is an inspired and inerrant document is a fundamentalist. In its simplest form, Christian fundamentalism emphasizes five fundamental points of faith (as clarified by the 1895 Niagara Bible Conference, in the face of the rise of modernism and liberalism): (1) the inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures; (2) the deity of Jesus Christ; (3) the virgin birth of Jesus Christ; (4) the substitutionary blood atonement of Christ for sins; and (5) the physical resurrection and bodily return to Christ. I hold these five fundamentals, but “Fundamentalist” is not my preferred self-descriptor. I am a Bible-believing Baptist. (Baptist born. Baptist bred. When I die, I’ll be Baptist dead.) Many Fundamentalists are adrift on the sea of bad ecclesiology, and a fussy fighting faction seem full of a bad spirit. Nevertheless, number one of the fundamentals, the inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures, is especially relevant to the point of this essay.
[ii] This problem, in fact, is an important consideration not just for those who identify as “Fundamentalist,” but for all Bible-believing Baptists, and for conservative Christians of any stripe who claim to hold Sola Scriptura (scripture alone) – that the Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. Our local church holds the Bible as the sole and only rule of our faith and practice.
[iii] This seems to be no longer available for viewing on The Master’s Seminary website. It currently (12/04/2021) retrieves the message “404 Not Found.” [Note: 12/16/2021, found it at a different url.]
[iv] See Combs, The Preservation of Scripture, p. 13.
[v] 1 Thessalonians 2:13. The written word records and reinforces the heard word.
[vi] God has promised to preserve his word from generation to generation. The generations for whom God promised to preserve his word are generated here on earth, across time, and (may we point out) the majority without access to “the originals.”
[vii] For example, read Psalm 102:18; Romans 15:4; 1 Corinthians 9:10; 10:11.
[viii] Smethurst is a church planter and the managing editor of The Gospel Coalition. He writes, joyously, “The Bible is the most valuable treasure in the universe. It’s our food (Jer. 15:16), our life (Deut. 32:46–47), our comfort (Ps. 119:50), our strength (Ps. 119:28), our guidance (Ps. 119:105), our desire (Ps. 119:20), our hope (Ps. 130:5), our love (Ps. 119:97), our joy (John 15:11), and our treasure (Ps. 119:72).” The Gospel Coalition holds that “the verbally inspired Word of God…is utterly authoritative and without error in the original writings” – which leaves a question about the inerrancy of the apographa (i.e., copies of the first or original writing).
[ix] The Catholic and Orthodox view results in the autonomy of “the Church” apart from the Scriptures. Unfortunately, the approach of many modern evangelicals results in the autonomy of the individual apart from the Scriptures.
[x] Colossians 1:17. God sustains all things. Does this not include his own word?
[xi] The prevailing current mood of textual criticism (among some who are unbelievers such as Ehrman and some who are believers such as Wallace) is that the text of the New Testament cannot be recovered. The old goal, still held by some, (though misguided) was to recover the original autographs. Perhaps there will be a split between the two fields of criticisms. Or not. What a difference a few years make. In 2009 text critic Daniel Wallace wrote, “If the autographs are inspired, we should not rest until we have done all we can to determine the wording of the original.” (“Challenges in New Testament Textual Criticism for the Twenty-First Century” in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Volume 52, No. 1, March 2009, p. 99). Ten years later he wrote, “We do not have now—in our critical Greek texts or any translations—exactly what the authors of the New Testament wrote. Even if we did, we would not know it.” (“Foreword,” in Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism, Elijah Hixson, Peter J. Gurry, editors, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2019, p. xii). About Wallace, Craig Blomberg wrote, “Dan Wallace has clearly become evangelical Christianity’s premier active textual critic today.”
[xii] A dogie is a motherless, stray, or neglected calf. 

Providence and Preservation

The following arguments prove that the sources have not been corrupted. (1) The providence of God which could not permit books which it willed to be written by inspiration (theopneustois) for the salvation of men (and to continue unto the end of the world that they might draw from them waters of salvation) to become so corrupted as to render them unfit for this purpose. And since new revelations are not to be expected (after God has recorded in the Scriptures his entire will concerning the doctrine of salvation), what can be more derogatory to God (who has promised his constant presence with the church) than to assert that he has permitted the books containing this doctrine to become so corrupt that they cannot serve as a canon of faith? (2) The fidelity of the Christian church and unceasing labor in preserving the manuscripts; for since Christians have always labored with great zeal to keep this sacred deposit uncorrupted, it is not credible that they would either corrupt it themselves or suffer it to be corrupted by others...

Francis Turretin, in Institutes of Elenctic Theology

Hence, the providence of God hath manifested itself no less concerned in the preservation of the writings than of the doctrine contained in them; the writing itself being the product of his own eternal counsel for the preservation of the doctrine, after a sufficient discovery of the insufficiency of all other means for that end and purpose. And hence the malice of Satan hath raged no less against the book than against the truth contained in it.

John Owen, in Of the Divine Original, Authority, Self-Evidencing Light, and Power of the Scriptures

Wilkinson, Ray, and Kutilek on Psalm 12:6-7

Did Doug Kutilek get this wrong?

The book Only One Bible appears to take only a moderately negative approach in its opposition to the “King James Only Movement.” On page 17 Kevin Bauder writes,

“A second risk is that the mere publication of this book might raise the temperature of the debate. Unfortunately, the debate has too often descended to the level of name calling, guilt by association, bandwagoning, and truth-twisting.”

You would think, then, that the authors and editor would strive to keep the temperature turned down, keeping “name calling, guilt by association, bandwagoning, and truth-twisting” at arms length. Enter Douglas K. Kutilek. In Chapter 1, “The Background and Origin of the Version Debate,” where he writes,

“Wilkinson was also the first person to misapply Psalm 12:6-7 as though it were a promise of preservation of the KJV.” (p. 44)

“Among other errors, Ray adopts Wilkinson’s misinterpretation and misapplication of Psalm 12:6-7 as though it were a promise of preservation of the KJV.” (p. 45)

Oddly, rather than showing where this claim is found in Wilkinson’s book, the chapter endnote (fn 50, p. 54) only refers to another place Kutilek supposedly refuted it in the 1983 Biblical Evangelist! I could not readily find this writing to check out his claims there. Seems if you refute a claim someone has made, you should at least play the man and show where what you are refuting is found.

Concerning J. J. Ray adopting “Wilkinson’s misinterpretation and misapplication of Psalm 12:6-7,” the chapter endnote (fn 52, p. 54) refers to page 122 in the 1970 printing of Ray’s book. However in the copy I have (a 1983 printing) and another I checked (a 1976 printing), page 122 does not even mention Psalm 12:6-7! Perhaps it can be found in the 1970 printing, but at this time I can neither validate nor invalidate Kutilek’s accuracy regarding this being on page 122 (though I suspect he is not accurate). The words in Ray’s book on page 106, however, state something different. Ray claims preservation of the Textus Receptus, not the King James Bible.

“The words of God are pure words: as silver I tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt PRESERVE THEM EVERY ONE from this generation forever,” (Psalm 12:6-7).

“God has preserved these very words for us in the TEXTUS RECEPTUS; and until we get an honest, trustworthy revision of the King James Bible; the King James will remain our very best English translation of the TEXTUS RECEPTUS.”

“The Bible God wrote has been providentially preserved for us in the Greek Textus Receptus, from which the King James Bible was translated in 1611. Any version of the Bible that does not agree with this text, is certainly founded upon corrupted manuscripts.”

These quotes are from page 106 of God Wrote Only One Bible. They do not show that J. J. Ray thought “of Psalm 12:6-7 as though it were a promise of preservation of the KJV.” [Note: as far as “them” referring to the words of God in Psalm 12:7 being some recent notion, refer to any number of old commentaries to find that there has long been disagreement on how “them” should be interpreted.] 

[Notes: One Bible Only?: Examining Exclusive Claims for the King James Bible, Roy E. Beacham, editor. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2001. Oddly enough, on page 122 Ray seems to place salvation only through the Textus Receptus and translations that agree with it: It is impossible to be saved without ‘FAITH,’ and perfect-saving-faith can only be produced by the ‘ONE’ Bible God wrote, and that we find only in translations which agree with the Greek Textus Receptus refused by Westcott and Hort. God Wrote Only One Bible]

A Version of Scripture is the Divine Word

The following excerpt was written by Thomas Lawrence (1832-1915), a Presbyterian preacher who served as President of the Normal and Collegiate Institute at Asheville, North Carolina 1892-1907. It is found in “The Plenary Inspiration of the Scriptures; Or, The Divine and Human in the Written Word,” Asheville Citizen-Times (NC) Tuesday, August 28, 1900, p. 2 “A paper by the Rev. Thomas Lawrence, read in the Mills River church, Henderson county, N. C., before the Elders’ and Deacons’ institute, held under the joint auspices of the Presbyteries of Asheville and French Broad, representing, respectively, the sister Presbyterian churches, north and south. The paper is published at the request of the institute.”

“Fifth. It is objected, that though we may concede the verbal inspiration of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, the question is but of little moment to the mass of men after all, who have access to the sacred writings only in the form of a translation. But the objection is not well taken. If the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures are verbally inspired, then they form an infallible standard with which the version may be continuously compared and corrected until it perfectly reproduces, not merely the thought, but the very form and structure of the original, and in so far forth as the version faithfully reproduces the original, is it the inspired word, invested with all its divine inherent and awful authority. We have the highest of all authority for saying that a version of Scripture is the Divine Word—that of the divine author of the Scriptures himself. During our Lord’s earthly ministry he frequently quotes from the Septuagent (sic) version of the Hebrew Bible. He cites it as ‘the Scriptures,’and Paul, quoting from the Septuagent (sic) version of Psl. 95-7, speaks of it as the words of the Holy Ghost. ‘As the Holy Ghost saith, If ye will hear his voice.’ Were the great apostle today—nay the Master Himself, on a mission to the English speaking people, He would doubtless use our common English Bible—the most perfect of all versions, in the noblest of modern tongues.”

Preservation: The texts No. 3

Verses and principles relevant to the doctrine of preservation of Scripture

I. Preservation of the Bible is implicit in its nature.

God’s words are eternal and immutable (e.g. Psalm 33:11, Psalm 119:89; Matthew 24:35). Every reference to “God’s words,” “the word of God” or “the words of God” is not a reference to the written Scriptures. The clear teaching throughout the Scriptures is that “God’s words” are both eternal and immutable. When written, God’s words are not less so. We should not expect God’s written words to be subject to the same vagaries of transmission and preservation as any other book – though this is exactly what Wallace and other “anti-preservation doctrine” writers are advancing.[i]

The scriptures are inspired and inerrant. Preserved Scripture is a necessary consequence. W. W. Combs states, “…to say that preservation is the corollary of inspiration means that preservation is a doctrine that can be ‘inferred immediately’ from the ‘proved proposition’ of inspiration; preservation ‘naturally follows’ or ‘parallels’ inspiration…The purpose of inspiration was to produce γραφή (2 Tim 3:16), a written record, a deposit of divine truth for the readers, not the writer. Without preservation the purpose of inspiration would be invalidated.”[ii] If God’s presence in inspiring Scripture was significant, his presence in preserving it would not be trivial.

The scriptures are beneficial and authoritative. All authority belongs to God (Cf. Matthew 28:18-20). A necessary corollary is that God’s word is authoritative – it is a place where God has vested his authority. Or, stated another way, the Bible derives its authority from God. God has the right to set rules, command belief, and expect obedience. These are some matters he has relayed to us through his word. Further, the authoritative word has a purpose and is beneficial to mankind (e.g. Isaiah 55:10-11). Specific points of purpose and benefit will be addressed below.

II. Preservation of the Bible is necessary to its purpose.

Removing the doctrine of preservation removes the vitality from many biblical passages and limits their meaning to the moment. The abiding and enduring purpose of the Scriptures calls for abiding and enduring Scriptures. Some of those purposes are:

The scriptures testify of Jesus Christ and his salvation (John 5:39). The Bible gives or teaches the knowledge of salvation. John, the apostle, said, “These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.” (1 John 5:13) John addresses his written scripture, and its purpose. It follows that preservation of the writing is a necessary part of God accomplishing his purpose. In his Gospel, John says that everything Jesus said and did were not written, supposing “even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written” about him, “But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.” (John 20:30-31; 21:25) God was not aimless in giving his words. Neither is he careless in preserving them, that they may accomplish their purpose.

The scriptures give spiritual guidance, practical and theological. The churches are exhorted to preach the gospel, baptize the believers, and teach the baptized. How shall we proceed? By the teachings of the word of God. “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, a light unto my path.” (Psalm 119:105). We are to follow his steps, but we do not know his steps apart from the God-inspired written word that has been passed down to us. A purpose of giving the scriptures by inspiration was that it might stand as a standard – the standard whereby we know doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. It stands to provide a complete standard “unto all good works.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17) It stands to reason that its preservation is necessary to fulfill that purpose.

The scriptures are a standard of judgment. God is judge and a basis of his judgment will be the words he gave (Psalm 75:7; Acts 10:42-43; 2 Timothy 4:1-2). Because he is judge, we are to preach the word. Commenting on Matthew 5:17-19 in The IVP New Testament Commentary Series, Craig S. Keener writes, “In this passage Jesus also warns that teachers who undermine students’ faith in any portion of the Bible are in trouble with God. This text addresses not only obedience to the commandments but also how one teaches others (and teaches others to do the same; compare Jas 3:1).”[iii] Matthew Poole, commenting on John 12:48, writes, “Nay, the word that I have spoken shall rise up in judgment against him at the last day, and prove that he hath judged himself unworthy of everlasting life.”[iv] Like many, Poole believes the Scriptures are part of the books that stand in judgment in Revelation 20:12: “What books? The book of God’s law; the book of God’s omniscience; the book of men’s consciences. In the former is contained what all men should have done; the two latter will discover what they have thought, spake, or done in the flesh.” If the spoken words are not recorded and preserved, they afford no standard to men either to guide or judge their actions.

III. Preservation of the Bible is a necessary conclusion from its teachings.

The words of Scripture were not just written to or for the immediate recipients of its message. Over and again the Bible notes its own forward look to future generations. For example, Psalm 102:18 in “the prayer of the afflicted” is written with purpose for the generation to come. “This shall be written for the generation to come: and the people which shall be created shall praise the Lord.”

• Mark 10:5 Referring to something written in the Law of Moses, Jesus said, “For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.” If it is true that something written by Moses has a purpose of instructing Jews in the first century, it is a necessary conclusion that God intended to preserve what was written.
• Romans 4:23 “Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;” If Genesis 15:6 was not for the benefit of Abraham alone, but for others to whom righteousness is imputed, then it follows that God intended to preserve what was written for others to whom righteousness is imputed.
• Romans 15:4 Paul quotes from the latter part of Psalm 69:9, then says, “For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.” If it is true that something written by David the king has a purpose of instructing Christians in Rome, it is a necessary conclusion that God intended to preserve what was written.
• 1 Corinthians 9:10 “Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.” If something written by Moses about oxen was also written to instruct Christians in the first century, it is a necessary conclusion that God intended to preserve what was written.
• 1 Corinthians 10:11 “Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.” If the events of the Exodus referred to were written for the admonition of Christians in Corinth, it is a necessary conclusion that God intended to preserve what was written.
• 1 Corinthians 11:26 “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.” If the Lord’s supper is a perpetual ordinance of the churches “till he come” it is obligatory on God’s part to preserve the instructions of it “till he come.”

The preceding texts are exemplary of how scripture can be denuded of its force when the doctrine of preservation is abandoned.

Next Preservation: Concluding thoughts (d.v.)

---

[i] Compare Edward F. Hills: “...the New Testament textual criticism of the man who believes the doctrines of the divine inspiration and providential preservation of the Scriptures to be true ought to differ from that of the man who does not so believe.” (Hills, The King James Version Defended, Des Moines, IA: Christian Research Press, 1984, p. 3) versus W. W. Combs: “...the preservation of Scripture is not different in method from any other ancient book God has determined to preserve...” (Combs, “The Preservation of Scripture,” pp. 9-10)

[ii] Combs, pp. 27-28; Even Ed Glenny, an opponent of the doctrine of preservation, has to admit, “An obvious truth is that a document that is to be included in the canon must be preserved.” (“The Preservation of Scripture,” in The Bible Version Debate: The Perspective of Central Baptist Theological Seminary, Minneapolis, MN: Central Baptist Theological Seminary, 1997, Chapter 5, Footnote 36)

[iii] As an editor of the NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible Keener is not a MT, TR or KJV partisan. Holding the Bible as a standard of judgment is not an uncommon belief among those who hold the Critical Text in esteem, and therefore it should not be charged as if it is a MT, TR or KJV argument. Keener titles his commentary on verses 17-18 “Jesus’ High View of Scripture.”

[iv] John 12:46-48 “I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness. And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.” Unless this was only true for those who visibly saw and audibly heard Jesus during his time on earth, preservation of those words are necessary. The only way we receive not his words is through hearing them as preserved in the Bible.

Preservation of the Scriptures

Last week I read from The Master’s Seminary Journal an article titled Preservation of the Bible: Providential or Miraculous? The Biblical View by Jon Rehurek. Afterward I read Daniel Wallace’s Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism. The general conclusion of these authors is that “The preservation of God’s revelation is the lesson in many of the passages, but no explicit indication applies them directly to written Scripture or to how and when a promise of general preservation would be fulfilled” and that “the case for providential preservation must rest upon theological grounds through the historical (i.e., canonicity) and manuscript evidence (i.e., textual criticism) rather than upon exegetical grounds.”[i] Simply put, the Bible does not teach the preservation of the Scriptures, the only reason we know they are preserved is because we have them, and they have not been preserved in a way any more special than the writings of, say, Confucius or Machiavelli. Another leading author who takes this position is W. Edward Glenny in “The Preservation of Scripture” in the book The Bible Version Debate: The Perspective of Central Baptist Theological Seminary. This is included as Chapter 4 in One Bible Only?: Examining Exclusive Claims for the King James Bible.[ii]

Rehurek’s main point (as well as Wallace and Glenny) is that there is no doctrine of preservation of the written Scriptures taught in the Bible, or in other words, the Bible does not promise that the words of the Bible will be preserved in written form. In contrast to these authors W. W. Combs, in the The Preservation of Scripture, presents his view that the Bible itself teaches a doctrine of preservation of Scripture.

Over the next few days I would like to investigate this topic (d.v.).

Links to other posts in this series 

• Preservation: Not a KJVO debate 
• Preservation: Historical considerations, continuity 
• Preservation: Historical considerations, Confessions 
• Preservation: Historical considerations, Christian individuals 
• Preservation: Public access or availability 
• Preservation: The texts No. 1 
• Preservation: The texts No. 2 
• Preservation: The texts No. 3 
• Preservation: Concluding thoughts 
• Criticizing Professor Wallace 
• Give me my Model T

---

[i] Quoted from Rehurek’s Preservation of the Bible: Providential or Miraculous?

[ii] “Google Preview” only