Textual Criticism: The New Attack on the Inerrancy and the Infallibility of Scripture

"The fully developed liberal theologian could very well admit that Scripture itself asserts its own inerrancy. But then add that this is just another of the long list of Scriptural blunders. The theologian who has just begun to the edge away from the position of historic Protestantism and still wishes to be known as an evangelical, is more cautious. He is not willing to speak of a long list of Scriptural blunders. He has only two or three difficulties. Two or three insignificant places where the Bible has unfortunately missed the exact truth. But let me point out, with force, that the theological position is the same in both cases." 

"Whether the list of blunders is long or short., both these theologians contradict Christ who said, 'The Scripture cannot be broken.' The liberal and the pseudo­-evangelical both repudiate Christ as well as the Scripture."  Dr. Gordon H. Clark. 

[From a lecture given, "The Inerrancy of Scripture."] The Sermon Audio version is available here:  The Inerrancy of Scripture.]

Westminster Confession of Faith  1:8

The Old Testament in Hebrew, (which was the native language of the people of God of old,) and the New Testament in Greek, (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations,) being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical . . .

Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. (2 Tim. 3:7 KJV)

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen. (1 Tim. 6:20-21 KJV)

The Evangelicals who accept the "science" of textual criticism and who still affirm the doctrine of biblical inerrancy have a major problem.  The problem that should be apparent to everyone is that only the original autographs are the infallible, inerrant and absolutely inspired words of God.  No one is willing to take on this problem honestly.  Instead, what we get are clever dodges and evasive maneuvers.

Translations are not the exact inspired and inerrant words of God. Even the original Reformers and Puritans acknowledged that in all matters of doctrinal dispute we are to appeal to the original languages in the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts behind the text of cross-cultural translations, including English and the many other languages around the world.  A further problem is that we cannot reconstruct the original autographs using modern textual criticism.  I say this because obviously the presupposed axioms of the textual critical methods are unproven starting points which may or may not be accurate to the truth.  In short, textual criticism is a highly subjective and fallible process which is prone to errors of speculation and presumption.

Even the late Dr. Gordon H. Clark was not immune to this problem.  Anyone who has read his commentaries can see that he appealed to the textual critical apparatuses of the critical editions of the Greek New Testament.  But did he continue to follow that line of thought in his later years?  I would argue that he did not; because in his later years, he began to gravitate toward the Byzantine Majority Text as the basis for Scripture translations.  I would argue that he would have eventually come around to the confessional view advocated by the Reformation Bible Society.  Clark insisted that the Westminster Confession of Faith was the best summary of the Bible ever produced.  (See also:  WCF 1:6).

The confessional view basically says that the original autographs cannot be reconstructed, as even most of the modern textual critics, including Bart Ehrman acknowledge.  Evangelicals like James White and Daniel Wallace clearly lost their debates with Ehrman, both of which are posted on YouTube.  You can look them up for yourselves.

So where does that leave us?  James White insists that we can reconstruct the original autographs.  But he is duplicitous and equivocates on this point.  He also insists that only God in His archetypal knowledge knows what the actual canon of Scripture is and what the original autographs contained.  Yet, White loudly asserts that we have the original autographs in the many variants exant today.  This is obviously a contradiction.  Either we have the original autographs or we do not.  We do not.  So any reconstructed edition of the critical Greek New Testament is a matter of scholarly opinion, not an infallible and inerrant reconstruction of the original text of the New Testament.  The same can be said about the Old Testament Masoretic Text, which has problems of its own.

Also, White likes to disparage his opponents as King James Only.  That's basically the fallacy of the abusive ad hominem and gaslighting.  Dr. Jeff Riddle, the Reformed Baptist scholar who heads up the Reformation Bible Society, does prefer the King James Version for public preaching and teaching.  But Riddle is not King James Only because he publicly refutes the idea that any translation is the inspired Word of God.  Riddle affirms that only the original autographs are the inspired Word of God.

The confessional view as advocated by Riddle and the Reformation Bible Society is that the Westminster Confession of Faith and other Reformed Confessions affirm that the Textus Receptus is an accurate and providentially preserved reproduction of the original autographs, while simultaneously acknowledging that the TR is not the original autographs or absolutely an inerrant copy of the autographs.  The TR obviously has some minor variants.  But even the Puritans were aware of these, yet they asserted that all doctrinal disputes were to be resolved by appealing to these Greek manuscripts.  The same with the Hebrew Masoretic text--all doctrinal disputes were to be resolved by these Hebrew texts.

The doctrine of plenary verbal inspiration and the inerrancy of Scripture depends on having a providentially preserved Bible.  The Reformers were content with the Textus Receptus and the Masoretic Text.  We should likewise affirm what the Reformed confessions say, namely that God has providentially preserved the Bible:

VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew, (which was the native language of the people of God of old,) and the New Testament in Greek, (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations,) being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;r so as in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.s But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto and interest in the scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,t therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,u that the word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner,w and, through patience and comfort of the scriptures, may have hope.x

r Mat. 5:18. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

s Isa. 8:20. To the law, and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them Acts 15:15. And to this agree the words of the prophets, as it is written. John 5:39. Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me: Ver. 46. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.

t John 5:39. Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they which testify of me.

u 1 Cor. 14:6. Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine? Ver. 9. So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air. Ver. 11. Therefore, if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian; and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me. Ver. 12. Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church. Ver. 24. But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all. Ver. 27. If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. Ver. 28. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

w Col. 3:16. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.

x Rom. 15:4. For whatsoever things were written aforetime, were written for our learning; that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

Westminster Assembly. The Westminster Confession of Faith: Edinburgh Edition. Philadelphia: William S. Young, 1851. Print.