What is sin?

What is sin?

• It is the glory of God not honored.
• The holiness of God not reverenced.
• The greatness of God not admired.
• The power of God not praised.
• The truth of God not sought.
• The wisdom of God not esteemed.
• The beauty of God not treasured.
• The goodness of God not savored.
• The faithfulness of God not trusted.
• The commandments of God not obeyed.
• The justice of God not respected.
• The wrath of God not feared.
• The grace of God not cherished.
• The presence of God not prized.
• The person of God not loved.
• That is sin.

Attributed to John Piper in an e-mail I received.

Combs: we do not now possess the words of the autographs

William W. Combs of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, in an essay titled “The Preservation of Scripture” states:

...it is an incontrovertible fact, obvious to anyone who has examined the manuscript evidence, that we do not now possess the words of the autographs in an absolutely inerrant state. (“The Preservation of Scripture,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 5, Fall 2000: p. 22)

When I read that statement, it struck me how similar this is to Dan Wallace’s now infamous “We do not have now—in our critical Greek texts or any translations—exactly what the authors of the New Testament wrote” statement. Perhaps it has not been taken as egregiously, since Wallace added, “Even if we did, we would not know it.” It seems to me that so many of these Critical Text supporters are on “the same page” regarding the Bible, whether they are regarded as moderate, conservative, or fundamental.

Combs quotes R. A. Torrey on whether translations are the word of God. Torrey, as these moderns, follows the Warfieldian reasoning about the original autographs, concluding, “The answer is simple; they are the inerrant Word of God just to that extent that they are an accurate rendering of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as originally given, and to all practical intents and purposes they are a thoroughly accurate rendering of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as originally given.” (R. A. Torrey, The Fundamental Doctrines of the Christian Faith, New York, NY: George H. Doran, 1918, pp. 36–37). Nevertheless, it is striking that Torrey seems much more willing to regard them as thoroughly accurate renderings of the originals for all practical intents and purposes. It seems that many with whom we engage today do not see translations as the word of God for all practical practices.

The TCC, church fathers, and Variants

In the sixth iteration of the Textual Confidence Collective, the four TCC members discuss two early church fathers and happily insert both Irenaeus and Chrysostom as proponents of their “Textual Confidence” view of Scripture (as opposed to the “Textual Absolutism” of those who support either the TR and/or KJV).[i] However, they seem to miss the fact that these two men were “absolutists” on the variants they mention. Yes, both Irenaeus and Chrysostom acknowledged a textual variant. So do we. However, these men did not admit, in concert with the TCC and modern text critics, that: (1) it is does not matter which reading you choose (Chrysostom, “it is rather this latter [reading]”) or (2) it does not affect any doctrine (Irenaeus, “it is loss to wander from the truth, and to imagine that as being the case which is not”).

Initially, the collectors focused on Irenaeus’s looking for the old and good copies – setting this up as the same method as the modern text critics’ talking point about the “oldest and best manuscripts.” In my opinion, “approved” is likely a better English translation than “best” (which gives a little different flavor to the statement). Irenaeus writes that 666 is “found in all the most approved and ancient copies.” This suggests the copies received by the churches.

The collectors refer to the dissertation “Explicit References to New Testament Variant Readings among Greek and Latin Church Fathers,” by Amy M. Donaldson.[ii] Concerning Irenaeus, Donaldson writes:

Within a century of the composition of the NT, the writings had begun to be widely disseminated enough that discrepancies between the copies required commentary. In his work addressing heresies, Irenaeus makes note of the fact that in some copies of Revelation the number of the beast is 616 rather than 666 (Rev 13:18; §190).[iii] The latter he deems to be the correct reading, based on its presence in the best and oldest copies (ἐν πᾶσι δὲ τοῖς σπουδαίοις καὶ ἀρχαίοις ἀντιγράφοις), the witness of John’s contemporaries, and the logic that the number of the beast would contain three identical digits (since “six” represents apostasy, and three sixes shows the fullness of the beast’s apostasy). Here, we see Irenaeus use a combination of external and internal evidence. His first appeal is to the character of the MSS that read 666. Later in the passage, he follows this up with an explanation of how the variant could have occurred in the inferior copies: a scribe, either intentionally or unintentionally, replaced the character x (60) with i (10).[iv]

According to the TCC, the earliest known discussion of a variant in the New Testament Greek is this of Irenaeus, which occurs in Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter 30.[v] Regarding the text of Revelation 13:18, Irenaeus argues for one reading (666) against another (616). He calls 616 an “erroneous and spurious number.” The error causes readers “to wander from the truth,” and it is “by no means trifling.” He believes it is essential to have a proper understanding of this passage. He does not attribute the variant to heretics, necessarily, but allows that it may have been an honest mistake by the scribes. However, he warns there will be a harsher judgment for those who may have altered the text intentionally. “[T]here shall be no light punishment inflicted upon him who either adds or subtracts anything from the Scripture.” Irenaeus believes the textual variant does matter, that it affects doctrine, and that both readings cannot be right!

John Chrysostom, in his Homily 18 on Ephesians, mentions a variant in Ephesians 5:14, explaining, “By the sleeper and the dead, he means the man that is in sin; for he both exhales noisome odors like the dead, and is inactive like one that is asleep, and like him he sees nothing, but is dreaming, and forming fancies and illusions. Some indeed read, And you shall touch Christ; but others, And Christ shall shine upon you; and it is rather this latter. Depart from sin, and you shall be able to behold Christ. For every one that does ill, hates the light, and comes not to the light. John 3:20 He therefore that does it not, comes to the light.”[vi] Notably, Chrysostom quickly dismisses the variant by saying one is the right reading – “you shall touch Christ” is in some copies, but “And Christ shall shine upon you” is the correct reading. As Irenaeus, Chrysostom believes the textual variant does matter, that it affects doctrine, and that both readings cannot be right. Concerning Chrysostom, Amy Donaldson writes:

At Eph 5:14 (§152), Chrysostom uses for the lemma and discussion the reading “Christ will shine upon you.” As he begins the discussion, he first notes the variant “you will touch Christ” as found in some copies, but then after repeating the lemma, he declares that the text is the latter reading (μᾶλλον δὲ τοῦτο ἐστε). Without further comment on the variant or the basis for his decision, he carries on with the exegesis and does not return to the variant. Similarly, at John 1:28 (§78), Chrysostom merely mentions a variant with limited comment and only in passing. The lemma reads “Bethany”; when coming to this part of the text, he cites this version but then adds that the more correct manuscripts (τῶν ἀντιγράφων ἀκριβέστερον ἔχει) read “Bethabara.” Here, he does include his criterion for determining the better reading: geography. For, Bethany is not beyond the Jordan, as John states, but closer to Jerusalem.

At John 1:28 Chrysostom also believes the textual variant matters, and that both readings cannot be right.

[In the TCC discussion, Elijah Hixson brings up a third person, Basil of Caesarea, regarding John 1:18. However, it appears to me that Basil did not discuss variants so much as use two different phrases when discussing John 1:18, “only begotten Son” and “only begotten God” in De Spiritu Sanctu.[vii] Amy Donaldson does not include any mention of John 1:18 in her anthology of textual variants mentioned by church fathers.[viii]]

Bringing up Irenaeus and Chrysostom as witnesses, the TCC nevertheless avoids witnessing that these two discussed the variant as “absolutists” – that is, they believed there was a right reading and a wrong reading, and that they knew which was which!

Irenaeus shows charity toward those “who have done this in simplicity, and without evil intent” but that other “such persons shall not come forth without loss, because they have led into error both themselves and those who confided in them. Now, in the first place, it is loss to wander from the truth, and to imagine that as being the case which is not; then again, as there shall be no light punishment inflicted upon him who either adds or subtracts anything from the Scripture, under that such a person must necessarily fall.” He urges “these men…ought to go back to the true number of the name, that they be not reckoned among false prophets.” Chrysostom explicitly and without equivocation states of the two readings he mentions – “it is rather this latter.” He is absolute. The approach of Irenaeus and Chrysostom blunts the barb and mutes the message that the Textual Confidence Collective was trying to make.

The discussion of variants by early Christian writers provides an interesting historical resource. This, however, likely will not serve well as grand “proof texts” for whatever slant one has on textual variants.

---

[i] Starts about 12:40 (and lasts about 8 or 10 minutes). The TCC discusses church fathers making comments about differences in manuscripts. The four members are Timothy Berg, Elijah Hixson, Peter Montoro, and Mark Ward.
[ii] Doctoral Dissertation, University of Notre Dame, 2009.
[iii] Revelation 13:18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six. (KJV) ωδε η σοφια εστιν ο εχων τον νουν ψηφισατω τον αριθμον του θηριου αριθμος γαρ ανθρωπου εστιν και ο αριθμος αυτου χξς (1894 Scrivener NT).
[iv] Is it not odd that in a dissertation submitted toward a Doctor of Philosophy degree that the author would never cite where in Against Heresies Irenaeus writes about this?
[v] The estimated range of dating of Against Heresies, Book V is AD 175-185.
[vi] Ephesians 5:14 Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light. (KJV) διο λεγει εγειραι ο καθευδων και αναστα εκ των νεκρων και επιφαυσει σοι ο χριστος  (1894 Scrivener NT).
[vii] The estimated range of dating of De Spiritu Sancto (On the Holy Spirit) is the mid-4th century AD.
[viii] Donaldson examines Basil in regard to Luke 22:36. In addition, she mentions others – such as Didymus, Diodore, Epiphanius, Eusebius, and Origen – regarding discussion of variants.

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.

Should the Differences in Biblical Manuscripts Scare Christians?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

None claim a particular text

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

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

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

The work of interpretation must go on

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pristine perfection is a property of the next world

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

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

Concluding thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

Weird foods, and other words

• balut, noun. A Filipino dish of a duck embryo, boiled and eaten in the shell.
• bockety, adjective. Of a person: unable to walk without difficulty; infirm, lame.
• durian (or durian fruit), noun. A prickly Singapore fruit of trees belonging to the genus Durio (whose flesh smell is often described as “rotten”).
• festoon, noun. A string or chain of flowers, foliage, ribbon, etc., suspended in a curve between two points; a decorative representation of this, as in architectural work or on pottery.
• lutefisk (also called lyefish), noun. A traditional Nordic Christmas dish made from dried whitefish which has been dried, then rehydrated in baths of lye and cold water.
• Nordic, adjective. Relating to a Germanic people of northern European origin, especially Scandinavia, Finland, Iceland, and the Faroe Islands.
• oinomancy (also œnomancy), noun. A form of divination conducted by examining patterns (such as colors and other features) in wine.
• parisa, noun. A traditional dish of cured meat (normally with lemon juice) mixed with cheese, peppers, onions and spices.
• prevaricate, verb. To speak falsely or misleadingly; to deliberately misstate or create an incorrect impression; lie.
• soysage, noun. A type of vegetarian or vegan sausage made with soy protein instead of meat (a portmanteau of soy + sausage; this is a proprietary name in the United Kingdom). 
• tartare, adjective. (especially of fish) finely chopped and served raw.
• tong zi dan, noun. A  Chinese delicacy of chicken eggs boiled in the urine of “prepubescent virgin boys.”
• visceral, adjective. Characterized by or proceeding from instinct rather than intellect; characterized by coarse or base emotions; earthy.
• wasp cracker, noun. A Japanese cracker made of rice and dried digger wasps.

Power in the blood

“It is universally true that sin never has been, and never will be forgiven, except in connection with, and in virtue of the shedding of blood. It is on this principle that the plan of salvation by the atonement is based, and on this that God in fact bestows pardon upon people. There is not the slightest evidence that any man has ever been pardoned except through the blood shed for the remission of sins.”

Albert Barnes. Notes, Explanatory and Practical, on the Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 195

Throned upon the Awful Tree

1. Throned upon the awful tree,
King of grief, I watch with thee.
Darkness veils thine anguished face:
None its lines of woe can trace:
None can tell what pangs unknown
Hold thee silent and alone.

2. Silent through those three dread hours,
Wrestling with the evil pow’rs,
Left alone with human sin,
Gloom around thee and within,
’Till th’appointed time is nigh,
’Till the Lamb of God may die.

3. Hark, that cry that peals aloud
Upward thro’ the whelming cloud!
Thou, the Father’s only Son,
Thou, his own Anointed One,
Thou dost ask him—can it be?
“Why hast thou forsaken me?”

4. Lord, should fear and anguish roll
Darkly o’er my sinful soul,
Thou, who once wast thus bereft
That thine own might ne’er be left,
Teach me by that bitter cry
In the gloom to know thee nigh.

John Ellerton wrote “Throned upon the awful tree” in 1875, 7s. meter in six lines. It is Hymn 118 in the 1875 edition of Hymns Ancient & Modern, paired with the tune Gethsemane. The hymn appears as No. 345 in the Trinity Psalter Hymnal (2018), with Arfon or Tros y Garreg (a Welsh minor mode folk tune).

John Ellerton was born in London, England in 1826. He was educated at King William's College and graduated from Trinity College, Cambridge, England, He was ordained a minister of the Church of England. Ellerton died Torquay, Devonshire, England in 1893.

My tastes are simple, and other quotes

The posting of quotes by human authors does not constitute agreement with either the quotes or their sources. (I try to confirm the sources that I give, but may miss on occasion; please verify if possible.)

“My tastes are simple: I am easily satisfied with the best.” -- Winston Churchill

“Liberty is more important than government convenience.” -- Mike Landry

“If you take the ‘words’ out of the Bible, you will have nothing left except the cover and the paper it is printed on.  Hence, if the Bible is inspired in any sense, this inspiration must somehow be in the words.” -- Alva J. McClain

“May God give you, for every storm a rainbow, for every tear a smile, for every care a promise, and a blessing in each trial.” -- Vin Scully

“It is rank hypocrisy to translate from a text that you don’t even believe in.” -- Kent Brandenburg

“We are immortal till our work is done.” -- George Whitefield (in a letter he wrote in 1750 to James Hervey)

“The Election is over. Jesus still reigns.” -- Jared Kennedy

“We don’t have a Bible, and you can’t have one either.” -- Taylor DeSoto, characterizing modern text critical position

“The propensity of a person’s insistence on being called ‘Doctor’ is inversely proportional to the amount of effort expended on the degree and the value of it.” -- Heard

“Most Theological terms were given us by apostate Roman Catholics and High Church of England men, and we Baptists have borrowed their terms and used them like they were sweet morsels for our palates.” -- J. Louis Guthrie

Adding to and taking away words

The modern text critics tell us that we cannot know—at least cannot be sure—what the words of God are.

In the last chapter of the last book of the Bible, the Lord Jesus, the faithful witness declares, with dire warnings, against adding to or taking away the words of the Book.

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (Revelation 22:18-19)

God’s warning with consequences inevitably presupposes that we can know what the words of God are—that we can know whether we are adding to taking away from them. If not, how are held accountable?

[Note: Compare “I” in verse 18 with “I” in verse 20. The exhorting “I” is our Lord Jesus Christ., not John the apostle.]

Goodwill, love, and humility

“At this point, America effectively has two month-long national holidays: Christmas and ‘Pride.’ The first evokes goodwill, love, and humility. The other celebrates self-gratification, lust, and, well, pride. 

“These opposite holidays reflect the divided heart of America and go way beyond the battle between ‘Happy Holidays’ and ‘Merry Christmas.’ Look around at the Hallmark movies, corporate ads, and common propaganda pushed by Christmas card companies and you’ll see the same trend: less God becoming man and more man ‘becoming’ woman. A few scrolls down Vistaprint and Shutterfly’s holiday section will confirm that subversion is swiftly on the rise.

“This is a time of year to rejoice in the Word made flesh Who makes us whole, particularly in the messages we send to our family and friends.”

Align Newsletter.

William H. Brackney, 1948 - 2022

On Tuesday I received an announcement from the American Baptist Historical Society about the death of William Henry “Bill” Brackney. He died in November, but prior to this e-mail I had seen no death announcement.

The ABHS e-mail mentions:

As the first person to hold the title of “Executive Director” of the American Baptist Historical Society, Rev. Dr. William H. Brackney left his indelible mark on the Society. (Earlier administrators bore the title of “Curator.”) During his tenure as Executive Director, ABHS became the permanent custodian of the records of the national boards of American Baptist Churches, USA, the Philadelphia Baptist Association, and the Freewill Baptist movement in North America. We can credit Bill Brackney with initiating the Archives Center at the ABCUSA headquarters at Valley Forge, PA. With the addition of ongoing exhibits at Green Lake, WI, ABHS expanded to three sites.

and

Bill’s numerable publications, projects that he spearheaded, and research were unmatched among Baptist historians.  His knowledge of Baptist history and the historians who study it was immense! Bill was very involved in the 2018 Rauschenbusch Conference that ABHS co-hosted with Mercer University and the Acadia Centre for Baptist and Anabaptist Studies. This jointly-sponsored conference was an example of collaborative work that Bill liked to organize.

William H. Brackney was the son of Samuel Harp Brackney, Jr. and Mildred Pointer. His brother, Kennard Samuel Brackney, was also a minister. William H. Brackney served as a pastor of both Baptist and United Methodist Churches, and was the author of over 40 books. He was also a long-time educator.

William Brackney’s academic career includes:

• Assistant Professor at Houghton College in Houghton, NY, USA
• Associate Professor of Church History at Colgate Rochester Divinity School in Rochester, NY, USA
• Vice President, Dean, and Professor of History of Christianity at Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, PA, USA
• Principal and Dean of Theology at McMaster Divinity College, McMaster University, in Hamilton, ON, Canada (1989-2000)
• Chair of the Department of Religion and Professor of Religion at Baylor University in Waco, TX, USA (2000-2006)
• Distinguished Professor and Chair in Christian Theology and Ethics at Acadia Divinity College, Acadia University, in Wolfville, NS, Canada (2006-2017)
• MacDonald Professor of Baptist Theology and Ethics at Carey Theological College, University of British Columbia, in Vancouver, BC, Canada (2017-2019)

His writings include:

• (1982) A Traveler’s Guide to American Baptist Historical Sites
• (1994) The Baptists
• (1998) Baptist Life and Thought: a Source Book
• (2006) Baptists in North America: an Historical Perspective
• (2008) Congregation and Campus: Baptists in Higher Education
• (2009) Historical Dictionary of the Baptists
• (2009) The A to Z of the Baptists
• (2012) Historical Dictionary of Radical Christianity

Brackney obtained his higher education at the University of Maryland, College Park (BA), the Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Philadelphia (MA), and the Temple University in Philadelphia (MA, PhD).

In 1986, William Bill Brackney was born January 13, 1948 in Washington, District of Columbia. He died on November 13, 2022 in Kentville, Nova Scotia, Canada.