Can’t get there from here

Ausgangstext, noun. Initial text, that is, the earliest recoverable version of a text that can be considered the direct predecessor to the surviving manuscript traditions (not the original text).

“When textual criticism speaks about the original text, it typically means this Ausgangstext. It is only with this text that genuine text critical methods are dealing. Textual stages that may have been situated between the autograph and the Ausgangstext, are not accessible to text critical means.” [bold emphasis mine] (Gerd Mink; English translation by Peter Gurry, citing from “Eine umfassende Genealogie der neutestamentlichen Überlieferung, Gerd Mink, New Testament Studies, Volume 39, Issue 4, October 1993, pp. 481-499)

It is revealing, tragic, and cautionary that the text critics continue to tell us that they do not believe we either have or can have the original inspired scriptures as written by the original inspired authors. Let God be true, but every man a liar.

The criterion of textual criticism versus textual translation

The criterion of textual criticism versus textual translation.

A curious cumbrous thought 
Came to my mind today:
Big Eva speaks one thing
And then shucks it away.
Translators must be Christians true,
For text critics – academic’ll do.

It is my impression that in the broad category of people who consider themselves evangelical, there exists the two contrasting and contradictory views about the places of faith and scholarship regarding text and translation.[i]

1. When it comes to textual criticism, many evangelicals are not concerned about who is doing the work of text criticism. They simply must be academically qualified.

2. When it comes to Bible translation, many evangelicals are concerned about who is doing the work of translation. They feel they should be professed Christians, and that they should hold the doctrines of inspiration & inerrancy.

Steelmanning the issue; not a strawman.

Statements about Textual criticism.[ii]

The quality of the work of textual criticism does not depend on the beliefs of the text critics, but on the credibility of their scholarship. Therefore, it does not matter what they believe, or even if they are Christians at all, as long as they are good well-trained scholars who consistently apply that scholarship.

“I would like to work as a text-critic as if God didn’t exist, so to speak.” Tommy Wasserman, comment on blog post “‘First-Century Mark’ SBL Panel”

“In practice New Testament textual critics today tend to be Christians themselves, but not always. It does not matter, for the quality of their work does not depend on their faith but on their adherence to academic standards.” Jan Krans, “Why the Textus Receptus Cannot Be Accepted”

“My job as a textual critic is not to ensure that readers have an inerrant edition of the Bible in their hands.” P. J. Williams, “Inerrancy and textual criticism”

“If you understand the process of textual criticism today, if you understand how scholars examine manuscripts and examine readings today and there can be unbelievers that do it...” James White, White vs. Levesque Debate (starts at 1:04:20)

These quotes illustrate a common view that the quality of text critical work in establishing the true text of the Bible does not depend on the faith or religion of the textual critics but on their training and adherence to academic standards.

Statements about Bible translation.

I perceive there is among those called evangelicals a discrepancy and/or contradiction in their approach to textual criticism versus their approach to Bible translation. Bible translations by and for evangelicals emphasize the concern that the translators of the text of the Bible need to be orthodox Christians. So, suddenly the evangelicals decide the quality of the work indeed DOES depend on the orthodox beliefs of the translators.

“In faithfulness to God and to our readers, it was deemed appropriate that all participating scholars sign a statement affirming their belief in the verbal and plenary inspiration of Scripture, and in the inerrancy of the original autographs.” “Preface to the New King James Version,” The Holy Bible: New King James Version, Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1982 p. v

“In working toward these goals, the translators were united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God’s Word in written form.” “A Word About the NIV,” The Holy Bible: New International Version, Colorado Springs, CO: Biblica, p. A14[iii]

“The ESV publishing team has included more than a hundred people…Translation Oversight Committee…Translation Review…the Advisory Council…Crossway Board of Directors. This hundred-plus-member team, shares a common commitment to the truth of God’s Word and to historic Christian orthodoxy and is international in scope, including leaders in many denominations.” “Preface,” ESV Study Bible, Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2011, p. 22

“The CSB is translated directly from the best available Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic source texts into English by biblical scholars who affirm the authority of Scripture as the inerrant Word of God and seek the highest level of accuracy in their translation.” Christian Standard Bible FAQs

Questioning the discrepancy; looking for answers.

Why does Average Joe Evangelical think that the scholarship of the translators and their adherence to academic standards are not sufficient to do the work of Bible translation? He thinks that way in the case of the scholarship of the text critics and their adherence to academic standards. Why, in their minds, cannot non-Christian scholars sufficiently make the same decisions about translation as orthodox Christian scholars? 

I personally believe that we need the trust of Christians who are skilled, orthodox, and honest, whether textual critics or translators of original language texts.[iv] (And more personally, I believe we already have text and translation we can trust.) However, I am trying to understand why the split thinking many evangelicals make in the two different tasks. Why is distinction of the necessity of orthodoxy made when it comes to translators? Why do they not call out for orthodox Christian text critics as well?

What’s going on?

If evangelical folks are willing to apply the mantra that the quality of the text critical work depends only on the quality of the training of the scholars, their academic credentials, and their working knowledge of the subject, why do these same evangelicals change horses when they get to the translation stream? Why wouldn’t the quality of the translators’ work also depend on the quality of the training of the scholars, their academic credentials, and their working knowledge of the subject?

I am unsure of this state of affairs. Perhaps one possibility is that most of them cannot read and do not directly use the products produced by the text critics – so that does not impact them directly (at least not in a way obvious to them). On the other hand, these evangelical Christians do read, use, and study the products produced by the translators, and can become quite disturbed when they find something that they believe is unorthodox.[v] 

Another matter involved in this may be how the different products are promoted. Evangelical-oriented Bible translations are deliberately marketed to their consumers framed in guarantees of the translation’s accuracy, reliability, and orthodoxy. Producers of original language texts (especially Greek texts) market their products in a different way, often much of the promotion addressing what great strides the scholars have made in the direction of recovering the “initial” text. A lot of that is probably foreign to the average evangelical Bible reader, even among the very educated.

That is two things that may come into play. What do you think? Why this discrepancy in how evangelicals look at scholarship regarding Bible translations versus original language texts?

---

[i] I understand that all evangelicals do not present a mass single view on the subject, but I perceive that there is a general common feeling and approach on this subject of which write.

[ii] Textual criticism in the biblical context is the branch of textual scholarship that attempts to establish what is the original or best possible reading of the Bible. See also HERE, HERE, and HERE.

[iii] NIV constitution statement: “Only those shall be eligible for membership on the Committee who endorse the purpose for which the Committee exists, and who are willing to subscribe to the following affirmation of faith: ‘The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written, and is therefore inerrant in the autographs’; or to the statements on Scripture in the Westminster Confession, the Belgic Confession, the New Hampshire Confession, or the creedal basis of the National Association of Evangelicals; or to some other comparable statement.”

[iv] Here is what you get when translators are untethered from Christian orthodoxy: “The Scholars Version is free of ecclesiastical and religious control, unlike other major translations into English, including the King James Version and its descendants (Protestant), the Douay-Rheims Version and its progeny (Catholic), and the New International Version (Evangelical). Since SV is not bound by the dictates of church councils, its contents and organization vary from traditional bibles…The Scholars Version is authorized by scholars.” The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus. New Translation and Commentary by Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, New York, NY: Polebridge Press/Scribner, 1993, p. xviii.

[v] One example of this was the great uproar that was created when the Revised Standard Version changed the word “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14 to “young woman.”

Definition of textual criticism

Textual criticism is a science, and, since it comprises recension and emendation, it is also an art. It is the science of discovering error in texts and the art of removing it. That is its definition, that is what the name denotes.

It is purely a matter of reason and of common sense. We exercise textual criticism whenever we notice and correct a misprint. A man who possesses common sense and the use of reason must not expect to learn from treatises or lectures on textual criticism anything that he could not, with leisure and industry, find out for himself.

textual criticism is not...an exact science at all.

Alfred Edward Housman (March 26, 1859 – April 30, 1936) was an English classical scholar and poet.

Preservation of the Scriptures

In his lecture “How Has God Preserved His Word” at the TBS 2023 Trinity & Text Conference, Pastor Jeff Riddle of Christ Reformed Baptist Church made the following points that I want to repeat and accentuate here. In the modern era this classic biblical doctrine of preservation has been neglected, denied, and redefined.

Neglect. According to Brother Riddle, “Protestant pastors and theologians starting in the early 20th century largely stopped writing about the Divine preservation of scripture.” I think this is a valid observation, and that it was probably brought on by conservatives focusing on what they saw as an important strong point – inspiration – while avoiding focusing on a point of which they were becoming uncertain.

“What does it profit a man if he proves the Bible was originally inspired but he cannot point with certainty to the place where it has been preserved?”

Denial. Following in the path of neglect of the doctrine of preservation of scripture, “there’s been denial of this doctrine.” The denial is not a denial of normal preservation – that is, we have the manuscripts of scripture that in the course of natural means survived to the present. Daniel Wallace makes this historical argument, writing, “My own preference is to speak of God’s providential care of the text as can be seen throughout church history, without elevating such to the level of doctrine.” (“Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism”)

This denial is not a denial of the historical accident of preservation of written media, but a denial that the scriptures teach God’s determination to preserve them. Put another way, the absence of a doctrine of preservation is the absence of any promise from God to preserve his words written in scripture.

At this point, many modern deniers of the doctrine of preservation want to “have their cake and eat it, too” – that is, many will claim that the original words of scripture are found somewhere in “the entirety of the manuscript tradition.” At least to some of them, this means they think the right words exist “somewhere” in the extant manuscripts, if we can just find them. However, once God’s promise to preserve scripture is dismissed, so is any basis on which to believe that we must still have all the autographic words of scripture.

Redefinition. The neglect and denial of the doctrine of preservation leads to a redefinition of the meaning of “preservation.” This is inevitable because they still use the word “preservation.” Many who use the word “preservation” do not mean the historical doctrine of God’s providential preservation. Some may even continue to use the word “providential,” but without its traditional or expected meaning in reference to scripture. Jon Rehurek speaks of God’s providence with regard to the preservation of Scripture in a way that is no more special than the providence of preserving the works of Shakespeare or Plato (“Preservation of the Bible: Providential or Miraculous? The Biblical View”). Stripped down, the redefinition simply means that we have some manuscripts of scripture that still exist today. It is the manuscripts, the media, that have been preserved, and not necessarily the words. Therefore, we can have the extant preserved media, and not know that the original words are preserved. Again quoting Dan Wallace, “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).

In contrast to the problem of neglect, denial, and redefinition, Pastor Riddle explains that “the classic Protestant biblical doctrine of divine preservation of scripture should be retrieved, maintained, and defended.”

Retrieval. If you have abandoned the doctrine, you need to retrieve it. It is sound, biblical, and historical teaching – and as a committed Baptist, I add that it is sound, biblical, and historical Baptist teaching.

Maintenance. If you have retrieved the doctrine, now maintain it. If you have not abandoned it, continue to maintain, hold, and support this biblical doctrine.

Defense. The doctrine – as with any and all biblical doctrines – should be defended as the truth taught in and by the scriptures. (See “What does the Bible speak of itself” in A Fundamental Problem for Fundamentalism.) Jude, verse 3 ...it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

Pastor Jeff Riddle exhorts that the retrieval of the older traditional bibliology “includes retrieval of the biblical doctrine of the divine preservation of scripture. We are not called upon to empirically reconstruct the text. We are called on to receive the text, as God’s people, which he has preserved.”

If we do not know what the Bible is, then we do not know what the Bible says. If we do not know what the Bible says, then we cannot speak with authority from it or about it.

Do we have the Old Testament?

I am on an email list from Crossway. Sometimes there are links to helpful articles; sometimes not so much. November 3rd’s article was “I’ve Heard It Said the Old Testament Is Full of Errors.” Coming from Crossway, I was not exactly hopeful that it would exude the kind of confidence that many regular folks have in their Bibles.

In the brief article/video, Old Testament scholar John D. Meade says that the Old Testament has “all the signs of human fragility,” but it “has a wealth of manuscripts, a ton of evidence, and textual critics who can actually look at all those manuscripts, compare them, sift out what are simple copyist errors, and actually restore the original text based on comparing all of the evidence.”

Just what parishioners in the pews pine for, a troupe of text critics to tell them that they do not have the Old Testament. But just hold on till they finish their never-ending work! Like New Testament scholar Dan Wallace, Meade believes “We do not have now—in our critical [Hebrew] texts or any translations—exactly what the authors of the [Old] Testament wrote.” Perhaps he learned from experience to try to maintain a little more optimism (or something) than Wallace, and did not go on to say, “Even if we did, we would not know it.”

After I first wrote this for a Facebook post in early November, I was excited a few days later that Pastor Jeff Riddle posted a review of it. His goes into more detail than mine. You can listen and read on the Stylos blog, as well as listen on YouTube.

Quoting another text critic

In the past I have presented quotes that reveal the thinking of modern textual critics. Today’s quote if from Jan Krans (or, Jan Krans-Plaisier). Krans is a text critic and Fellow at the Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, Netherlands. Previously we have noticed Krans’s statement “In practice New Testament textual critics today tend to be Christians themselves, but not always. It does not matter, for the quality of their work does not depend on their faith but on their adherence to academic standards.” This longer quote is an excerpt from the same source of writing, “Why the Textus Receptus Cannot Be Accepted.”

The second position regards the establishment of the correct text of the Greek New Testament—the text closest to what the authors wrote and published—as a purely scholarly endeavour. Textual criticism of the New Testament does not fundamentally differ from that of any other text from Antiquity. The basic task is always clear-cut: charting the entire transmission—everything preserved as manuscripts and other sources—and finding out by means of the best text-critical method available what is oldest and most original. Needless to say the transmission of each text may have had special characteristics which scholars will have to take into account.

An immediate consequence of this position is that in principle the text-critical task is never finished. Methods can be refined and fresh manuscript finds can be made. Readers of the New Testament—just as for instance readers of Plato’s works—will have to live with a degree of uncertainty, even more so since there are cases that the available evidence does not allow for firm conclusions. Regrettably Bible translations and even source text editions more often than not hide even this relatively small degree of doubt from their readers.

Krans here is clear on what some text critics and critical texts defenders hem-haw about. He is adamant that textual criticism is “a purely scholarly endeavour,” and that “the text-critical task is never finished.” He tries to make readers feel good that “a degree of uncertainty” in inherent their process. If you are satisfied with a purely scholarly endeavour that is ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of the text, you go for it. It’s not for me. 

Farewell, farewell to all who doubt;
My Savior calls us to come out;
The truth, the truth, shall set me free —
Their scheme is not the thing for me.
(Adapted from words in the song Arkansas by S. P. Barnett)

“neither be ye of doubtful mind.”  Luke 12:29

Nay on the KJV Parallel Bible

Baptist missionary Christopher Yetzer has been doing some review and critique of the KJV Parallel Bible website. This project was “conceived, designed, and organized by Mark Ward,” who is the author of Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible, Blogger, YouTuber, and ubiquitous “Apostle” to King James Onlyists. Brother Yetzer has found that the number of errors on the website makes it an unreliable witness for its so-called purpose – for those who do not read Greek to “know for [themselves] what these differences are” and so that they do not “have to take someone else’s word for it.”

To my way of thinking there is an underlying and unspoken purpose that aligns with Mark Ward’s ongoing effort of praising the King James Bible while trying to get people to convert to newer translations.

The creator hopes his readers will conclude that they should change from using the KJV and instead use a modern translation. To lead to this conclusion, the site attempts to show (1) that there is not much difference between the texts behind the KJV and modern translations so that there will not be much actual change, and (2) that there is enough difference between the texts behind the KJV and modern translations that folks should change to a modern translation.

When Mark Ward first told me about this site, I thought it sounded like a very good idea that could be widely useful in the Bible versions debates. Now, even if I were not aware of the problems Christopher Yetzer has found (some of which I have inspected and seen myself), the site’s endorsement by Daniel Wallace and Peter Gurry, eager advocates of the Critical Text and ardent opponents of the Traditional Text, is enough to give me pause. “Take my word for it,” if you use this site, you will still be taking someone else’s word for it.

---

Note: I do not mean the site cannot be useful to some folks. However, with its mistakes, it is not and cannot be useful to those for whom it is supposedly designed.

John 1:1 in Sinaiticus

The following is the text copied from the Codex Sinaiticus website (with a picture below), regarding John 1:1.

[I am unable to type exactly in the style of the uncial, especially the macron or line above the nomina sacra. The last two letters in the last line are the first two letters of the word in verse 2.]

ΕΝΑΡΧΗΗΝΟΛΟΓΟC 
ΚΑΙΟΛΟΓΟCΗΝ 
ΠΡΟCΤΟΝΘΝΚΑΙ 
ΘCΗΝΟΛΟΓΟCΟΥ

Which we read in modern printed texts as:

εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος

I have read and heard some claims that that the differences in John 1:1 (e.g., a god instead of God) are because of Codex Sinaiticus. I am no fan of Sinaiticus; I think it is a bad manuscript that should not be followed. However, as far as John 1:1 is concerned, Sinaiticus appears to have the same text in that verse as the Stephanus, Scrivener, Westcott-Hort, NU, SBLGNT, etc.

If someone is translating this verse differently, it is a translation issue rather than textual.

Arrogantly assuming Academic Elevation

In a Facebook group dedicated to the subject of “New Testament Textual Criticism,” a contributor using the name Stephen Ford posted a criticism of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. Probably an atheist or agnostic (since he speaks of Christians in the 3rd person), his primary aim is to show that “The fact that the 4 gospels’ portrayals of the Easter story do indeed contradict each other…calls into question the essential reliability of the narratives as historical or eyewitness sources.”[i] At the moment I bypass the fact that Ford is merely regurgitating claims that have been reliably answered multitudes of times. What I want to notice is a peculiar, or particular, example of the arrogance of some textual critics. The names are changed to protect the guilty, and the particular group is not named because I respect the creator of the group (who was not involved in the exchange).[ii] 

The post was wrongly placed in this group because Stephen Ford does not (hopefully now, “did not”) understand the difference between New Testament textual criticism and criticizing the New Testament.[iii] When challenged for being “off topic,” he replied, “Pointing out discrepancies in a text is a criticism of the text, is it not?” Eventually, this led to mocking on the part of two text critics (and the moderator, who may also be a text critic).  

Boyd Stevens wrote: “If one doesn’t know what textual criticism is, it’s hard to take serious the entire post above.” The moderator who called attention to it being off topic agreed with Stevens (yet continued to leave the post up for commenting).[iv] 

Mitchell Timmons agreed: “I mean, the basic meaning of Textual Criticism is something that one learns about in Bibliology 101.”

J. Phillips correctly pointed out to Ford, “The sorts of discrepancies you see in the accounts are exactly what you see in real historical reporting. There are no actual contradictions.” Also, an exchange developed between Ford and a defender of the resurrection accounts, to which text critic Timmons looked down disgustedly and replied, “oh boy...”

Now, I understand that the post did not belong in this group, based on the criteria of what for and why the group exists. However, the particular moderator chose to leave it up for discussion before deleting it, to make an example as an illustration of people not knowing what text criticism is. Fair enough, I suppose. However, the mockery misses the point of truth by a mile. It is not that Ford does not know what text criticism is – but that he does not believe and misunderstands the Bible itself. You don’t have to be a text critic to harmonize and believe the Gospel accounts of the resurrection.

The comments of text critics Stevens and Timmons illustrate the arrogance of the Academy, the uplifting of the universities, and smirk of the scholastics. Knowing and understanding the biblical truth of the resurrection has nothing to do with knowing what the definition of text criticism is. Plenty of lay church members who know their Bibles “inside and out” and yet know little to nothing about text criticism. They understand the resurrection historically and theologically. You do not have to know what text criticism is to know what the Bible teaches,[v] however arrogantly some academics assume they know it all – and that you must bow before them if you wish to know it all. These text critics and the moderator do not get an “A” for effort, should go directly to jail, do not pass go, and do not collect $200!

• “Don’t let your boy’s schooling interfere with his education.” – Grant Allen
• “Pride brings a person low, but the lowly in spirit gain honor.” Proverbs 29:23

---

[i] This likely is his real name, since he linked to an article “Conflicting Details in the Easter Story” on his blog.
[ii] And does not himself usually play the scholar card.
[iii] Textual criticism is the study of a literary work that aims to establish the original text, including the analysis of the transmission of said text from its origin to the present. Bart Ehrman explains it this way: “Textual criticism is the attempt to establish what an author originally wrote whenever there is some uncertainty about it. For example, if Dante wrote the Inferno by hand, and we don’t actually have the hand-written copy he produced, and different surviving copies of the work have differences among them – which one is most like what he actually wrote?”
[iv] The thread was closed after staying up for reading and commenting 48 hours. In contrast, some moderator in that same group quickly closed a critique of Mark Ward’s KJV Parallel Bible website – even though both Ward and leading evangelical text critic have called it “A New Tool for Teaching Textual Criticism to English Speakers” (therefore patently relevant to the group’s purpose).
[v] Unless they are wrong in constantly claiming their work affects no major Bible doctrine.

Ever learning

Modern textual criticism, in the opinion of some of its leading minds, has given up its so-called search to recover the words of the original text or autographs. They are satisfied they cannot recover it, and seek now for the Ausgangtext (or texts), “a hypothetical, reconstructed text, as it presumably existed, according to the hypothesis, before the beginning of its copying.” Some more conservative (relatively speaking) text critics have pushed back against this. In the “Conclusion” of the book Can We Recover the Original Text of the New Testament (p. 87), editors Abidan Paul Shah and David Alan Black write:

“Lack of a settled original text only leads to a lack of a settled biblical theology which only leads to uncertain Christian doctrines and practice.”

This is most certainly true. No settled text = no settled theology = no settled faith and practice for modern Christians. Unfortunately, these authors’ solution is “to continue to practice a scientific approach to retrieving the original text of the New Testament.” What is the fruit of the scientific approach or method? The same kind of fruit against which they complain. Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the text leads to Christians tossed about by every wind of doctrine.

Let us look for a more stable foundation, a settled text that has been preserved and in the hands of the churches and Christians all along. Why go look for something you already have?

Do evangelical scholars believe in the orthodox corruption of Scripture?

In his book The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Bart D. Ehrman asserts as an historical fact that orthodox Christian scribes altered the New Testament texts in order to conform them to orthodox Christian beliefs. Or, put another way, because of various unorthodox views in early Christianity (such as teaching that Jesus was a man and not God), the scribes might alter original passages in order to strengthen the orthodox teaching against heretical teachings. Boiled to its essence, the idea of “Orthodox Corruption of Scripture” claims that early Christian scribes made changes, that the changes were deliberate, and that these changes were in favor of orthodoxy against heterodoxy (i.e., heresy).

Consider the New English Translation Bible (NET) footnotes concerning some passages of Scripture.[i]

John 7:8-10 in the NET

You go up to the feast yourselves. I am not going up to this feast[s] because my time has not yet fully arrived.” When he had said this, he remained in Galilee. But when his brothers had gone up to the feast, then Jesus himself also went up, not openly but in secret.

NET footnote “s.”

Most MSS (P^66,75 B L T W Θ Ψ 070 0105 0250 ƒ^1,13 M sa), including most of the better witnesses, have “not yet” (οὔπω, oupō) here. Those with the reading οὐκ are not as impressive (א D K 1241 al lat), but οὐκ is the more difficult reading here, especially because it stands in tension with v. 10. On the one hand, it is possible that οὐκ arose because of homoioarcton: A copyist who saw oupw wrote ouk. However, it is more likely that οὔπω was introduced early on to harmonize with what is said two verses later. As for Jesus’ refusal to go up to the feast in v. 8, the statement does not preclude action of a different kind at a later point. Jesus may simply have been refusing to accompany his brothers with the rest of the group of pilgrims, preferring to travel separately and “in secret” (v. 10) with his disciples.

In contrast to “not go up” in modern translations from the critical text, the King James Bible and Textus Receptus says “not yet” – “Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast…” How does the NET footnote explain the variant? By charging most manuscripts with being the victim of “orthodox corruption of Scripture.” Their thought is that οὐκ/not go is correct, and that the most likely explanation of what happened is “that οὔπω was introduced early on to harmonize with what is said two verses later.”

So, they say, copyists saw a problem in the meaning of the text. They fixed it. Is that not, in effect, Bart Ehrman’s principle of “the orthodox corruption of Scripture”?

Below see two other examples where the notes in the NET Bible indicate that they think that the Byzantine text tradition was infiltrated by “the orthodox corruption of Scripture.”[ii] 

Mark 1:2 in the NET

As it is written in the prophet Isaiah,[d] “Look, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way,

NET footnote “d.”

“…the reading of the later MSS [“in the prophets”] seems motivated by a desire to resolve this difficulty [i.e. ‘written in the prophet Isaiah’ immediately followed by a reference to the prophet Malachi]”

1 Timothy 3:16 in the NET

And we all agree, our religion contains amazing revelation: He[x] was revealed in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among Gentiles, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.

NET footnote “x.”

“It appears that sometime after the 2nd century the θεός [God] reading came into existence, either via confusion with ὅς [who] or as an intentional alteration to magnify Christ and clear up the syntax at the same time.”

In both the second and third examples, the NET Bible footnote suggests, at the least, a possible intentional change (“motivated by a desire,” “an intentional alteration”) from the original reading to one that is more “orthodox.” 

Do evangelical scholars believe in the orthodox corruption of Scripture? Yes. I would say so, that some of them do, based on these representative examples from the footnotes in the NET Bible.

---

[i] Matthew 19:17 is another example of the charge of intentional alteration by scribes: “There is only one who is good…” (NET). They believe that copyists added “God” to the text (although they generally ascribe it to clarification rather than specifically doctrinal reasons). Many other evangelicals make these same kinds of claims. I am using the NET Bible because their notes are online and handy. Positionally, the NET editors are representative of other evangelical scholars. 

[ii] These editors and others are careful how they state their opinions. They are evangelicals who claim to hold the inerrancy of Scripture. Bart Ehrman is an agnostic and does not need to appear to support the inerrancy of Scripture. This admits a difference in degree between such evangelicals and Ehrman, but not a difference in kind. Saying scribes deliberately altered some places in Scripture for “orthodox” purposes is saying scribes deliberately altered some places in Scripture for “orthodox” purposes – regardless of who says it and what explanation give for it after saying it.

Spirit or Light? Ephesians 5:9

It is to be expected that when we write polemically, we try to put our own position in the best light. Some Bible translations write their text-critical notes to put their position in the best light. While I expect them to believe what they produce, nevertheless it seems that text-critical notes should be aimed more at education than disputation. What am I talking about?

This is often seen in comments on Mark 16:9-20, where it is pointed out that this text is “not in the oldest and best manuscripts.” They most often do not clarify they are only talking about two manuscripts, both of which have quirks at the end of Mark. See, for example, Odd Features at the Ending of Mark in Codex Sinaiticus.

This type of diversion can be seen in the text-critical note on Ephesians 5:9 in the New English Translation (NET) by Biblical Studies Press, L.L.C. The traditional reading is “Spirit,” while most modern translations have “light” instead

• NET: for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness, and truth—
• KJV: for the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;

The Textus Receptus and Critical Texts differ in one word.

• CT: ὁ γὰρ καρπὸς τοῦ φωτὸς ἐν πάσῃ ἀγαθωσύνῃ καὶ δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ ἀληθείᾳ
• TR: ὁ γὰρ καρπὸς τοῦ πνεύματος ἐν πάσῃ ἀγαθωσύνῃ καὶ δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ ἀληθείᾳ

Excerpted from the NET Bible®:

Ephesians 5:9 tc Several mss (P⁴⁶ D² Ψ 1175* 1505 M) have πνεύματος (pneumatos, “Spirit”) instead of φωτός (phōtos, “light”) ... Further, the external evidence for φωτός is quite compelling (P⁴⁹ א A B D* F G P 33 81 1175^c 1739 1881 2464 latt co).

Notice how that, according to the NET, “Several mss” have “Spirit” (6 are listed), but the “external evidence for φωτός is quite compelling” – and over twice as many MSS are listed in support of that reading. This could impress the uninitiated that the majority of manuscripts support the reading φωτός/light. Nevertheless, the majority of extant manuscripts actually support the traditional reading – πνεύματος/Spirit. See, for example, the Majority Text of Robinson-Pierpont, which agrees with the Textus Receptus:

ὁ γὰρ καρπὸς τοῦ πνεύματος ἐν πάσῃ ἀγαθωσύνῃ καὶ δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ ἀληθείᾳ —

In my opinion, Critical Text advocates often find their tales in cracks and try to skew the evidence polemically toward their viewpoint rather than educationally pointing out the facts for readers to consider and make a choice. Again, I am not opposed to disputation in polemical fields of discussion. Nevertheless, text-critical notes in Bibles are not the place for such sleight-of-hand magic tricks!

Text critics opening the canon

Bible-believing Baptists teach and preach a “closed canon.” In regards to the Bible, a closed canon means that God inspired Scripture up to a certain point of time and text, and then concluded. All scripture is inspired; all written in finished. The canon of Scripture closed when God gave the last word of the New Testament (which we believe was the last word in the book of Revelation). At this point God stopped giving Scripture. Every book of the Bible from the first to the last is written. The Scriptures are complete. 39 books in the Old Testament, 27 books in the New Testament, making 66 books in the entire Bible – no more and no less.

In modern times, textual critics – especially or most particularly the editors of the NA-UBS Greek NT – are opening the canon and adding Scripture. Surely not, you say? How so?

Here’s how. I noted in a post on August 15, 2023 that in a debate Thomas Ross said:

There are mere handfuls of words hundreds of times in the UBS that look like no manuscript on the face of the Earth…As for whole verses, groups of verses, or larger sections of text, the portion of the UBS/NA text that looks like exactly zero manuscripts on the earth grows exponentially.

What is Ross talking about? This – these critical text editors mine this manuscript and that manuscript, pulling words from this one and that one to create new sentences, new verses, new sections of text that have never existed in any known manuscript. They are writing Scripture themselves, even though God has closed Scripture!

On October 4th I linked to a video in which Adam Boyd focuses on one text and demonstrates how this “new inspiration” [my words, not his] creates a new text with wording that does not appear in any extant manuscript.

This phenomenon that some are calling “Frankentext” is opening or has the effect of opening the closed canon and giving us new Scripture – scripture readings that have never before existed. God stopped giving scripture. Text critics have not!

And sought to slay him

John 5:16 (KJV) And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.

John 5:16 (ESV) And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath.

John 5:16 reveals another variant which the light of theological study and biblical context will help explain. The Textus Receptus includes the words και εζητουν αυτον αποκτειναι – which are left out the NA & UBS Critical Texts. Which is correct? The Textus Receptus. Notice the context and meaning by reading John 5:16-18 –

And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day. But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

The answer is found in comparing verses 16 and 18. The former says the Jews “sought to slay him” and the latter says “the Jews sought the more to kill him.” In context the phrasing of verse 18 supports the Textus Receptus reading και εζητουν αυτον αποκτειναι (and sought to slay him). Why? It explains that adding the accusation blasphemy to breaking the Sabbath, the Jews sought “the more” (all the more, additionally, even harder) to kill Jesus.

• KJV: Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him
• ESV: This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him,
• NET: For this reason the Jewish leaders were trying even harder to kill him
• NIV: For this reason they tried all the more to kill him

“All the more” means more seeking to kill Jesus than has previously been mentioned. However, in the Critical Text it has NOT previously been mentioned (i.e. και εζητουν αυτον αποκτειναι is missing). “All the more” refers back and connects to nothing if και εζητουν αυτον αποκτειναι (and sought to slay him) is removed. So much for touting “neutral” textual criticism done academically “as if God does not exist.” Such an approach removes theological tools that are needed to understand why certain words do or do not belong in the Bible.

I must work

Q. “Why do modern Bible versions use ‘We’ rather than ‘I’ in John 9:4?”

• KJV: I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.
• ESV: We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work.

A. The short answer is because most modern translations are translating based on the NA-UBS Critical Text, which has the third person plural (ημας) instead of the first person singular (εμε) which is in the Textus Receptus. Most modern translations translate that way (we). Generically all do not, such as MEV, NKJV, and WEB, since they are consulting the TR tradition. This is not a TR issue only. The Majority Text also has εμε, and any Majority Text English translation will have the translation “I” as well.

This variant in John 9:4 (I/εμε vs. we/ημας) demonstrates the problem of exempting text criticism from the light of biblical theology. Who is this “we” that “must work the works of him who sent me”? My first inclination, were I thinking “we” is correct, would be that “we” means the Divine Trinity (i.e., Father, Son, and Holy Ghost). However, that interpretation does not fit how Jesus ties that statement together – with “the works of him that sent me.” Also, the singular nominative “I” better matches the singular predicate “me” (though I don’t consider that conclusive in itself). Using the “we” text as his base, Everett F. Harrison says Jesus was “linking the disciples with himself.” (So, to Harrison, “we” is Jesus and his disciples. The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1093) Jesus has just said that the works of God will be displayed in this blind man. The “we” of “Jesus and the disciples” together did not work the work, but rather the “I” of Jesus alone. 

• v. 4 “I must work”
• v. 5 “I am in the world”
• v. 5 “I am the light of the world”
• v. 6 “he had thus spoken”
• v. 6 “he spat on the ground” 
• v. 6 “and [he] made clay of the spittle
• v. 6 “he anointed the eyes of the blind man
• v. 7 “and [he] said”
• v. 11 “A man that is called Jesus…”
• vs. 35-37 “the Son of God…Jesus said…Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.”
• v. 39 “I am come into this world, that they which see not might see”

These disciples, after asking Jesus the question recorded in verse 2, do not again come in sight in this chapter. Jesus is the light of the world who gives this blind man light (sight). “I” represents the theological and contextual fit. “We” does not.

Oldest is Best?

Q. Should we assume an older manuscript is a better text than a more recent one? Is there a biblical basis for this?

A. “Oldest is best” or “earliest and best” are expressions of an eclectic theory of textual criticism, in which the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament that are dated chronologically as the oldest are also thought to be the best (i.e., by “best” they mean closest to or most like the original words written by a biblical author). For example, discussing Acts 8:37 Edward D. Andrews (Critical Text supporter and chief translator of the Updated American Standard Version) begins, “The earliest and best Greek manuscripts [emp. mine] … do not contain vs. 37.”

The oldest manuscript (i.e., first) is the original autograph. It was first in time, first chronologically. When God finished inspiring and Isaiah had written down his prophecies, that was the first and oldest manuscript of Isaiah. When God finished inspiring and Paul completed his letter to the Galatians, that was the first and oldest manuscript of Galatians. However, none of these original autographs are extant (that is, the media on which these words were written no longer exists). All manuscripts, authentical or inauthentic, are copies of the original autograph, it being the first.[i] At first blush someone might think, “Well, it seems like the first copy made (i.e., oldest) would be the best.” That is a logical fallacy, and even if that were true, the oldest copies we have are not the first copies of the originals.

There is no biblical reason to think the older the manuscript, the better it is, or that it is the best. Neither is there any logical reason why it should be said that an older manuscript is better. The prevailing mantra of textual criticism asserts that the older is better because it is closer in time to the original autographs. If it is actually older, then all that can be said is that it is older, that is, is closer in time to the autographs.[ii] However, the age of a manuscript does not equal or necessarily reflect the age of its text. A newer manuscript could be a copy of an older text. Or a newer manuscript could be a copy of the same text from which the older manuscript was copied, but accomplished with no or fewer errors. Which would be more accurate? Closer in time to the original does not equal closer in accuracy to the original. An older inaccurate manuscript is not better than a newer more accurate one. 

Consider this illustration. Ten years ago (November 7, 2013) I write out on a piece of paper all the information that is on my birth certificate. In doing so, I make some mistakes. Today (November 7, 2023) I write out on a piece of paper all the information that is on my birth certificate. In doing so, I make no mistakes. Which copy is older? Which copy is better?[iii]

---

[i] That is, they all in some sense go back to the original or first writing. Obviously we recognize there are copies of the original, copies of copies of the original, and so on.

[ii] Text critics who reject eclectic text theories – for example, Maurice Robinson (who promotes majority text theory) – have succinctly and successfully pointed out “the fallacy of the oldest.” Older manuscripts and versions, as well as references by early church writers, demonstrate a terminus a quo for a particular reading, that is, a time or date at which the reading can be “no later than.” For example, if around AD 175 Irenaeus mentions what we know are Mark 16:19, then we know that in or around AD 175, Mark 16:19 was in the Gospel of Mark used by Irenaeus. This establishes the existence of a given reading at a given date. It arose “no later than” that. Authenticity is a different debate not established by time or dating.
[iii] Even those who dismiss providential preservation must accept the logic of this illustration. Even if I made a mistake in the more recent copy, were it to have fewer mistakes than the older copy, it is still the better copy. Age does not determine accuracy.

What is Textual Criticism?

Bart Ehrman usually isn’t my “go-to” guy to quote. He is theologically on the other side of the world from me. However, in some of my recent reading I saw that he made a comment I felt worth repeating. I often mention text criticism (textual criticism) and text critics (textual critics). However, I am not sure it has occurred to me to define it, just assuming my readers are familiar with the term! Ehrman replied to a question he received about textual criticism, and, unlike me, began by clarifying what the term meant. Here is what he wrote:

“Textual criticism is the attempt to establish what an author originally wrote whenever there is some uncertainty about it. For example, if Dante wrote the Inferno by hand, and we don’t actually have the hand-written copy he produced, and different surviving copies of the work have differences among them – which one is most like what he actually wrote? That is especially a big issue, for example, for Shakespeare (massively important for Hamlet and other plays) and … well, and the New Testament.”

So, textual criticism in the biblical context is the branch of textual scholarship that attempts to establish what is the original reading of the Bible. The textual critic engages in the work of textual criticism, using evidence in the attempt to recover the original text. This, then, is what these guys are doing, whether or not we agree with their purpose or their research.

[Note: much of biblical textual criticism has now devolved into speaking of determining (rather than the text of the original autograph) the Ausgangtext – “a hypothetical, reconstructed text, as it presumably existed, according to the hypothesis, before the beginning of its copying.” Additionally, we providential preservationists believe we have God’s word and that it does not need recovering.]

I love the King James Bible, but...

Consider an outré approach to expressing belief about the Bible, that has exploded into the mainstream. Will Kinney has dubbed this the “praise and then blast” syndrome. This is especially popular when discussing the King James Bible. When I was a young preacher, honest detractors disparaged the KJV head on. Take no prisoners. Apparently that is not “PC” in our perpetually-offended culture. You have to play nice. Start with deference to the old man before you kick him to the curb. And so, we have gotten the perpetually pervasive putrid phrase “I love the King James Bible, but...” And watch out for those buts; some of them can be quite a doozy. I love the King James Bible, but... – then they proceed page after page to blast away at all the alleged “errors” they think they have found in this Bible they profess to love so much! If spouses preferred that approach, they might get slapped – a lot. “I love my spouse, but…”

The King James Version has with good reason been termed “the noblest monument of English prose.” Its revisers in 1885 expressed admiration for “its simplicity, its dignity, its power, its happy turns of expression ... the music of it cadences, and the felicities of its rhythm.” It entered, as no other book has, into the making of the personal character and the public institutions of the English-speaking peoples. We owe to it an incalculable debt. Then they began to wildly whack away at the monument. By the time of the Revised Standard Version, the noble monument had “grave defects.”

“Yet the King James Version has grave defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of Biblical studies and the discovery of many manuscripts more ancient than those upon which the King James Version was based, made it manifest that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for revision of the English translation.” (RSV revisers, 1971 edition)

In previous writings on my blog, I have mentioned this passive-aggressive “I love the KJV, but...” phrase. Today I post some such statements that I have collected off the internet for possible future reference/use. Many include complaints about “archaic words,” but it takes all kinds. Here are some gleanings. [Bracketed comments are mine.]

• I love the King James Version, but I fear it is filled with so many archaic words that I find it easier to read the passage in Hebrew. [Fortunately, biblical Hebrew does not have any archaic words, right?]
• I love the King James Version, but if you are just beginning, then I would recommend the New Living Translation, since it is pretty easy to read and it doesn’t have any “thous” and “thees” to make it confusing. [Yep, they use other things to confuse you.]
• I love the King James Version, but if that’s the only version you use, you’d better do some digging in the original languages. [So you would not recommend that folks using modern translations should do some digging in the original languages?]
• I love the King James Version, but it has some significant problems because the language has changed. [The more significant problems are likely your ineptitude of study.]
• I love the King James version but don’t read it because I’m thrown off by the THEE and THOU and THUS. [Yes, I can clearly see you are thrown off by the “thuses.”]
• I love the King James Version, but it has a few problems. This is why it’s good to use multiple versions of the Bible when we study the text. [Especially since these multiple versions have no problems?]
• I love the King James Version but sometimes the words used are not what we are accustomed to choosing in our daily conversation today. [I know thousands of words I do not use in daily conversation.]
• I love the King James version, but finally decided to make a change. I’m glad I did. [I am glad I didn’t.]
• I love the King James Bible, but it waters down the truth about obeisance to state power. [Huh? Dilutes deference to governmental authority?]
• I love the King James Bible, but it could also be made gender neutral / gender inclusive. [I think we’re good. Go find something modern if you want gender neutral / gender inclusive, and leave the KJV alone.]
• I love the KJV, but you have to read with your eyes open. [I usually do.]
• I love the KJV, but use the ESV while doing official church functions and such...for the sake of polity. [Sounds like you have bad church polity.]
• I love the KJV, but I can say the same of the NIV, NASB and NKJV. [You can say anything you want.]
• I love the KJV, but it is not the best for study. [It has been studied for over 400 years. That is a pretty fair recommendation!]
• I love the KJV, but I get more out of the 1984NIV. [Better hold on to it. The NIV committee is how many iterations away from that one by now?]
• I love the KJV, but I wouldn’t go over to China and give it to its people. [Yep, probably give them a Bible in Chinese, or whatever language they read, instead.]
• I love the KJV, but there are passages that are beautiful more than meaningful. [Actually, it is beautiful and meaningful. Fortunately, you cannot accuse most modern translations of being beautiful!]
• I love the KJV, but sometimes, it doesn’t convey the truth as it should. [IOW, how you think it should.]

CT vs. MT vs. TT

When it comes to printed Greek texts of the New Testament, they fall into three groups:

• Critical Text - this term refers to texts that are created from the process of collating and comparing the extant Greek manuscripts using a complex and varied set of rules (eclecticism) to determine the “original” or “earliest” reading. By far the most commonly used is the NU - the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies text, which are the same text with different “apparatus.” The majority of modern translations of the Bible are based on the Critical Text.
• Majority Text - this term refers to texts that are created from the process of collating and comparing the extant Greek manuscripts to find which readings are in the majority in available manuscripts. The primary Majority Texts are those by Hodges-Farstad, Robinson-Pierpont, and Wilbur Pickering. There are no major or common Bible translations based on the Majority Text.
• Traditional Text - this term refers to a line of texts more commonly referred to as the Textus Receptus, descending originally from the work of Desiderius Erasmus, and including printed texts by Stephanus, Beza, and the Elzevirs. The Traditional Text in most common use today is the Scrivener Text printed by the Trinitarian Bible Society. The traditional text is also called the Confessional Text. The text is “traditional” in being commonly and widely used since the 1500s by so-called “Protestant” churches, and in distinction of the Roman Church and its Latin text. Reformation-era translations were based on the Traditional Text, and it is the preferred underlying New Testament text for translations made by the Trinitarian Bible Society.

I do not intend to go into great detail. Hopefully the above statements are simple and fair representations of each type, category, or group of  texts. I do not doubt that my own preference affects how I try to define them. The above is primarily an introduction to the two points below.

The Majority Text and Traditional Text are closer textually. The Traditional Text has minority readings in a few places, but contains mostly majority readings, making it very close to any reconstructed text based on majority readings. The Critical Text has many more minority readings than either of these two, as well as many patchwork readings that are not found in any manuscript.

The Majority Text and Critical Text are closer philosophically. They are both achieved by ongoing reconstruction and then because of their method are never finally settled. New discoveries can change their form and content. Though there are some variant Traditional Texts (TRs), those who use the Traditional Text are settled and the only changes likely are in the form of minor editing (which could be correction of typographical errors or simple formatting).

Criticism of the Bible

Writing on “Criticism of the Bible,” James Orr (1844-1913) claims a survey of the subject “will show the legitimacy and indispensableness of a truly scientific criticism, at the same time it warns against the hasty acceptance of speculative and hypothetical constructions.”

“Criticism goes wrong when used recklessly, or under the influence of some dominant theory or prepossession. A chief cause of error in its application to the record of supernatural revelation is the assumption that nothing supernatural can happen. This is the vitiating element in much of the newer criticism, both of the OT and of the NT.”

“Criticism of Scripture is usually divided into what is called ‘lower or textual criticism’ and ‘higher criticism’...the latter—‘higher criticism’—while invaluable as an aid in the domain of Bib. introduction (date, authorship, genuineness, contents, destination, etc.) it manifestly tends to widen out illimitably into regions where exact science cannot follow it, where often, the critic’s imagination is his only law.”

“‘Higher criticism,’ having largely absorbed ‘introduction’ into itself, extends its operations into the textual field, endeavoring to get behind the text of the existing sources, and to show how this ‘grew’ from simpler beginnings to what now is. Here, also, there is a wide opening for arbitrariness.”

“Criticism of the Bible,” (748-753) James Orr, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Volume II, James Orr, editor. Chicago, IL: The Howard-Severance Company, 1915. pp. 749

Daily Mountain Eagle, September 24, 1913, p. 2