Logical Problems with Textual Criticism as Related to Biblical Inerrancy

 

Logical Problems with Textual Criticism as Related to Biblical Inerrancy

 

The ongoing disputes between the reasoned eclecticism text critics and the Byzantine Majority text critics has led to something of a comeback of the defense of the traditional and confessional view that the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus is the best representation of what the original autographs contained.  Some in the modern textual criticism camp, also known as reasoned eclecticism, have accused the confessional view supporters of being part of the King James Only controversy.  However, the confessionalists uphold only that the Westminster Confession of Faith affirms that the original Hebrew and Greek texts are the authentically preserved copies of what the original autographs contained:

 

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;(a) so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them.(b) 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,(c) therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,(d) that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner,(e) and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.(f) 

[Westminster Confession of Faith.  Chapter 1.  Of the Holy Scripture.  Paragraph VIII.]

 

The recently formed Reformation Bible Society is in agreement with the Trinitarian Bible Society on the doctrine of the preservation of the authentical text.  The apparent controversy also includes the fact that the Reformation Bible Society and the Trinitarian Bible Society both prefer the authorized King James translation of the biblical texts.  Furthermore, the RBS and the TBS both affirm the Bomberg edition of the Masoretic Hebrew text and the Scrivener’s edition of the Textus Receptus Greek New Testament as the authoritative biblical texts.  There are very few differences between the Stephanus edition of the Textus Receptus and the Scrivener’s edition.  There are also a few minor differences between the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia edition of the Hebrew Old Testament and the Bomberg edition, which dates to the Reformation period.

However, I wish to discuss the more pressing issue of biblical inerrancy in regards to these disputes.  This problem also relates to the dispute about the archetypal knowledge of God, known only to Himself, and the ectypal knowledge of God as it is revealed to humanity.  Suffice it to say that biblical revelation or special revelation is in the ectypal realm of epistemology.  The dispute between the late Dr. Gordon H. Clark and the late Dr. Cornelius Van Til had to do with this issue, although Gordon Clark never directly addressed the archetypal/ectypal distinction.  Clark’s view was that the Bible is univocally the very words of God, while Van Til argued that the Bible is only analogically the inspired word of God.  I have written numerous articles on my blog on this topic, so I will not go into great detail here.  Clark’s major concern was that the theologians in the Van Til camp had unwittingly crossed over into the liberal views promoted by neo-orthodoxy and Barthianism.  Emil Brunner was also a controversial theologian of neo-orthodoxy, though he disagreed with Barth’s rejection of natural revelation.

A further bit of information about Dr. Gordon H. Clark is that he was one of the founders of the Evangelical Theological Society in 1949.  In more recent times some critics of the society have said that the requirement of a commitment to biblical inerrancy to join the ETS is not meaningful because there is no other doctrinal statement to affirm in order to become a member.  The official doctrinal basis is stated as,

“The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory.”

[The Evangelical Theological Society.]

In fairness to Dr. Clark and the other founders, at the time of the establishment of the ETS, there were far less doctrinal differences between supporters of biblical inerrancy than what exists today.  Unfortunately, some modern members of the ETS society are less than orthodox by some accounts.  Moreover, a weakness of the Reformation Bible Society is that there is no mention of any requirement to affirm biblical inerrancy, since none of the required confessional statements mention inerrancy specifically.  The perceived advantage of limiting the ETS statement to biblical inerrancy and the trinity was perhaps misplaced.  However, the knife cuts both ways; The Reformation Bible Society should have some requirement for adherence to the fundamentals of the Evangelical faith in addition to the confessional requirements.  This is true because at the time of the Westminster Confession of Faith and other confessional statements plenary verbal inspiration and biblical inerrancy were not the issues that they are today.  In short, the problem goes way beyond the dispute over the providential preservation of the original autographs in the extant apographs.  The inspiration and the infallibility and the inerrancy of Scripture are at stake as well.

The accusation of some opponents of the Trinitarian Bible Society and the Reformation Bible Society that the two societies are essentially KJV only advocates is misleading.  The reason is that the KJVO or King James Only movement affirms that the KJV is an inspired and inerrant translation of the Bible from the original Hebrew and Greek.  The RBS and the TBS societies do not make that assertion.  They affirm that the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus authentically preserve the original autographs.  But even this distinction avoids a problem of all three major Evangelical positions.  The three major positions are:  1)  reasoned eclecticism;  2)  reasoned majority text reconstruction; and 3) the providentially preserved and authentical Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.  The problem of all three positions is that if only the original autographs--which no one possesses today--are the inspired autographs, then it logically follows that nothing we have today is the exact reduplication of the original inspired and inerrant autographs, including the “authentical” text. 

Although the confession affirms that the authentical text has been kept pure in all ages, it does not show how that reduplicates the originally inspired autographs.  By all accounts, there are minor differences or variants even between the Bomberg Masoretic Text and the later editions based on the Leningrad Masoretic Text such as the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia.  Critics of the Textus Receptus have pointed out that there are several different editions dating back to the Complutensian Polyglot of 1514 and at least 5 editions of Erasmus’ Textus Receptus.  (See: Editions of the Textus Receptus.)   Additionally, there are variants between the many editions of the Textus Receptus of the Greek New Testament.  (See:  Variants between the Textus Receptus and the KJV.  See also:  TR variants.)

The problem here is that if we are to affirm the plenary verbal inspiration of the Bible and the inerrancy of the Bible, there are obviously spelling differences at a bare minimum, not counting the variations in wording.  The Bible obviously implies that there are no spelling errors in the text:

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. (Matthew 5:18 KJV)

There are fewer variants in the editions of the Hebrew Masoretic Text, but variants do exist.  I do not have access to a Bomberg edition of the Hebrew Masoretic Text.  However, in the textual apparatus of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia there is a textual variant that supports the King James translation of Psalm 22:16.  Liberal critics have often attacked the KJV as using the Septuagint translation of the verse to support the prophecy of the crucifixion.  However, the variant reads as a verb for pierced rather than the word for lion.  The difference is between a yod, which would make the word mean lion, and a waw, which would render the Hebrew word as a verb, meaning pierced or dug. 

(Ps. 22:17 WTT)  כִּ֥י סְבָב֗וּנִי כְּלָ֫בִ֥ים עֲדַ֣ת מְ֭רֵעִים  הִקִּיפ֑וּנִי כָּ֜אֲרִ֗י יָדַ֥י וְרַגְלָֽי׃

The apparatus for the BHS lists this variant from the second edition of Kennicott, which is from the Bomberg edition of the Hebrew Masoretic Text:  כארוּ

Most of this evidence points to the fact that no one today has any original copy of the autographs.  Therefore, there must be a decision made as to the standard text of the Hebrew and Greek Bibles used for translation.  The Westminster Confession of Faith 1647 seems to indicate that that would be the first editions of the Masoretic Text available in that time and the editions of the Textus Receptus available to the Westminster divines of that period.  The variants in these editions are much fewer in number than either the reasoned eclecticism view of the modern textual critics or the Byzantine Majority approach of Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont.  In short, the critics who say that the KJV utilized the Greek translation of the Old Testament called the Septuagint or LXX to translate Psalm 22:16 are wrong.  The Bomberg edition of the Masoretic Text shows clearly that the KJV translators used only the Masoretic Text for the translation of this verse.

Furthermore, I would conclude that everyone involved in all three major positions are evading the fact that they are starting with unproved starting points.  Dr. Gordon H. Clark called these axioms.  He once said that everyone is a fideist.  By that he meant that everyone has presuppositions or unproved starting points.  Some critics call this circular reasoning.  But if so, then everyone is guilty of circular reasoning at some point in their arguments.  Clark was simply being honest.  Also, Clark once asked the question that if the atheist or the liberal has unproved starting points, why criticize the Christian for starting with the Bible as the main axiom?

Most critics of the late Dr. Gordon H. Clark’s apologetics fail to make a crucial distinction between his theological arguments and his apologetical arguments.  In some instances, Clark, utilizing his training in philosophy, uses a socratic method of argument.  In such instances, Clark liked to use the reductio ad absurdum approach.  This approach reduces the opponent’s objections to absurdity.  While Clark did not always build his own case to a point of undeniable proof, he was often successful at showing how the other side was blatantly contradictory.  On the confessional and fundamental doctrines and theology of the Christian faith as a system of propositional truth, Dr. Clark was without doubt extremely orthodox.  Clark, however, admitted that he sometimes made mistakes in logic.  Apologetics can get extremely detailed.  Clark liked to point out that there are many battle fronts in a war.  Not every individual can fight every battle front; so, there are limitations on what one person can do in one lifetime.  This does not even touch on the fact that many persons change their views on particular issues over time.  This was true of the church father, Augustine of Hippo, as well; his Retractions are evidence of this.

The short answer to all of this is that the Scriptures are self-authenticating.  In other words, it is a matter of faith to believe that what you are reading is God’s inspired, inerrant and infallible word.  The Westminster Confession of Faith says as much:

V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture;(a) and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.(b)

Westminster Confession of Faith:  Chapter 1, paragraph 5.  Of the Holy Scripture.

Notice here that the testimony of the church moves us to this conclusion.  Also, we learn from reading the Bible that the doctrine is efficacious.  The style is majestic.  All of the parts of Scripture consent to a unity, a scope of the whole.  “Notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.” 

Dr. Clark was once asked how the Christian knows that the Bible is the Word of God and not the Koran?  His answer was that the Christian has been born again and the Muslim has not been born again.  Can we prove any of this using evidentialism, empiricism, or unregenerate reasoning?  The answer is obviously no.

Herein lies another problem for the reasoned eclecticism utilized by Dr. James White, Dr. Daniel Wallace, and others.  The problem is that they are placing another authority above Scripture, namely the alleged “science” of textual criticism.  Is the Christian supposed to suspend his or her faith commitments in order to prove or disprove the portions of the Bible that critics question?  If so, then the Bible itself is always subject to question.  If there are one or two errors in the Bible, then the entire Bible is in question.

This raises another question:  which Bible translation is self-authenticating?  I for one do not trust the reasoned eclectic approach to Scripture.  I read mostly the New King James Version or the King James Version of the Bible.  That’s because the authorized King James Version has stood the test of time, despite some translation issues here and there.  Why would I trust a translation that has to constantly be revised according to an ever-changing science of textual criticism which never arrives at the truth?  Why presuppose that there are errors in the Bible?  A believer should instead presuppose that the Bible is God-breathed, without error, and infallible in every doctrinal point, especially the doctrine that God is the ultimate author of every single word of it.  Does the plowboy or the housewife need to read Greek and Hebrew or study textual criticism?  I doubt it.  Instead of questioning everything as James White and Dan Wallace does, why can’t we just presuppose that the confessional view established in Westminster Confession chapter 1 is true?  In that case, we need not consult modern translations to find out what the NKJV or the KJV and other translations based on the confessional view got wrong.  Presuppositionalism does not need to prove that the Bible is true.  Although technically speaking no translation is totally without error, we can trust that insofar as the KJV is faithful to the authentical texts in the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus it is the inspired and inerrant word of God for the reader.  The KJV is an acceptable translation for public preaching and teaching.

At some point the Christian must move on from evidentialism to a position of being convinced that the Bible is the inspired Word of God.  Without the Bible there is no Christianity at all.

 

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. (Ps. 12:6-7 KJV)

In a future post I will examine the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and point out what I think are weaknesses or errors in that document.  There needs to be more clarification on the doctrines of preservation, inspiration, and the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture.