Truth
On
Tough
Texts
ISSUE 14 –
September/2006
What’s REALLY at Stake in the
Textual Issue? (2)
Last month we began an examination
of
what is really at stake in the textual criticism
issue. First, we looked at some foundational terms, such
as “textual criticism,” which seeks to “recover the
original text” of Scripture. As we saw, the point of
textual criticism is to study the various manuscripts
that do exist of a literary work (the Bible in
this case) and recreate as closely as possible the
original text that does not
exist.
Second, we examined the
underlying approach of modern textual criticism, which
without argument is that the method of restoring the
original text of Scripture is no different than any
other literature. This approach is totally rationalistic
and rejects the whole idea of Providential
Preservation.
This leads us to one more
consideration.
The Contribution of Edward F. Hills
Edward Freer Hills
(1912-81) was without question a scholar of the highest
caliber. Not only graduating from Yale and Westminster
Seminary, Hills also earned a Ph.D. in textual criticism
from Harvard Divinity School. In spite of those
impeccable, world-class credentials, however, Hills is
laughed at, or just simply ignored, by arrogant modern
textual critics. We are compelled here to say that that
kind of dishonesty is unconscionable.
I would go so far as
to say that any person who thinks he “knows all about
the textual issue” (a statement I’ve heard many times),
but who has not read (and answered) Hills, needs to
think again because he does not know the complete story.
In his two books (Believing Bible
Study and The
King James Version Defended), Hills confronts and
exposes modern textual criticism to be what it really
is—veiled unbelief.
Edward F. Hills was,
in fact, the first “textual critic” to approach the text
from a Godly
perspective instead of a rational one,
from a presupposition of belief instead
of skepticism. It’s for that reason that I don’t even like to
call Hills a “textual critic” because of what the term
automatically implies. I prefer the term “textual
scholar” because of what he believed about the sacred
text and how he approached its preservation. As scholar
Dr. Theodore Letis comments in the Preface to Hill’s
book:
While Hills was the only
recognized, published New Testament text critic to
advocate the primacy of the Byzantine text either in his
day or in the present, no one since has been more
innovative than he was in attempting to integrate his
confessional, theological perspective with the
discipline of New Testament text criticism.[i]
In other words,
Hills looked at this issue theologically instead
of rationally. What a
concept! Here is where Hills began:
In science, in philosophy,
in New Testament textual criticism, and in every other
field of intellectual endeavor, our thinking must differ
from the thinking of unbelievers. We must begin with
God.[ii]
While Hills is
called naďve and antiquated in this thinking, he
uncompromisingly and unconditionally recognized God’s
sovereign providence over everything. Correct me
if I’m wrong, but isn’t that what evangelicals are
supposed to believe?
Hills goes on to call this
reliance on God’s sovereignty concerning the Traditional
Text “the logic of faith.” He asks, “How do we take our
stand upon divine revelation?” and then answers that
question clearly and profoundly:
Only in one way,
namely through the logic of faith. For God so loved
the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have
everlasting life (John 3:16). Since this Gospel is
true, these conclusions logically follow: First,
the Bible is God’s infallibly inspired Word. This must
be so, because if our salvation depends on our believing
in Christ, then surely God must have left us an
infallible record telling us who Jesus Christ is and how
we may believe in Him truly and savingly. Second,
the Bible has been preserved down through the ages by
God’s special providence. This also must be so, because
if God has inspired the holy Scriptures infallibly, then
surely He has not left their survival to chance but has
preserved them providentially down through the
centuries. Third, the text found in the majority
of the biblical manuscripts is the providentially
preserved text. This too must be true, because if God
has preserved the Scriptures down through the ages for
the salvation of men and the edification and comfort of
His Church, then He must have preserved them not
secretly in holes and caves but in a public way in the
usage of His Church. Hence the text found in the
majority of the biblical manuscripts is the true,
providentially preserved text. Fourth, the providential preservation of the Scriptures
did not cease with the invention of printing. For why
would God’s special, providential care be operative at
one time and not at another time, before the invention
of printing but not after it? Hence the first printed
texts of the Old and New Testament Scriptures were
published under the guidance of God’s special
providence.
Thus when we believe in
Christ, the logic of our faith leads us to the true text
of holy Scripture, namely, the Masoretic Hebrew text,
the Textus Receptus, and the King James Version and
other faithful translations [Ed: emphasis added;
note that Hills was not “KJV Only”]. It is on
this text, therefore, that we take our stand and
endeavor to build a consistently Christian apologetic
system.[iii]
In New Testament textual
criticism, therefore, we must start at the highest
point. We must begin with God, the supreme and eternal
Truth, and then descend to the lower, temporal facts
which He has established by His works of creation and
providence. We must take all our principles from the
Bible itself and borrow none from the textual criticism
of other ancient books. It is only by following this
rule that we will be able to distinguish facts from the
fictions of unbelievers.[iv]
Finally, Hills
submits that this approach will provide something that
the modernistic approach can NEVER
provide—namely, certainty.
If we believe in the
special providential preservation of the Scriptures and
make this the leading principle of our Biblical textual
criticism, we obtain maximum
certainty, all the certainty that any mere man can
obtain, all the certainty that we need. For we are led
by the logic of faith to the Masoretic Hebrew text, to
the New Testament Textus Receptus, and to the King James
Version. But what if we ignore the providential
preservation of the Scriptures and deal with the text of
the Holy Bible in the same way in which we deal with the
texts of other ancient books? If we do this, we are
following the logic of unbelief, which leads to maximum
uncertainty . . . In short, unless we follow the
logic of faith, we can be certain of nothing concerning
the Bible and its text.[v]
Dear Reader, do you
not think it odd that evangelicals maintain the doctrine
of God’s sovereignty in creation, salvation, and all
other areas except the
preservation of Scripture? We submit, therefore, that if
we do not trust in the sovereignty of God to preserve
the true text, on what else can we rely? As we’ve seen,
the foundation of modern textual criticism, from Bengel
to the present, is that the Bible is treated like any
other historical document, from a purely rationalistic
and naturalistic approach. Should Christians embrace
that? Should we defend such humanistic philosophy? If we
do, we are wallowing with unbelievers in the mire of
uncertainty and unbelief.
Conclusion
During the writing
of this article, I came across (providentially, I
believe) J.I. Packer’s book God Has
Spoken (1979) in which I read
something rather amazing, yet typical of our day. In a
section titled “The Infection of Uncertainty” he makes
this truly excellent point:
At no time, perhaps, since
the Reformation have Protestant Christians as a body
been so unsure, tentative and confused as to what they
should believe and do. Certainty about the great issues
of Christian faith and conduct is lacking all along the
line. The outside observer sees us as staggering on from
gimmick to gimmick and stunt to stunt like so many
drunks in a fog, not knowing at all where we are or
which way we should be going. Preaching is hazy; heads
are muddled; hearts fret; doubts drain our strength;
uncertainty paralyses action.[vi]
While we certainly
say a hearty “Amen” to that, five pages before Packer
sabotages his own statement by praising the existence
and use of the plethora of Bible translations, giving
equal admiration for
word-for-word, dynamic equivalence, and everything in
between. He even manages to throw in the unwarranted
attack that those who “feel swamped” by all the variety
and “are resolved to trust none of them, but stick to
the King James Version” are
“irrational.”
What Packer either fails
to recognize or refuses to acknowledge, however, is that
the textual issue
is part of the very uncertainty he talks about.
There is, in fact, as we’ve seen, absolutely no
certainty whatsoever about the text in modern criticism,
and there NEVER will be. If you think I’m wrong,
just keep watching the contemporary scene. The text is
always in flux, updated periodically with a “new
edition” of the Greek text, not to mention the latest
“translation du jour.” A contemporary of B. B.
Warfield (who we examined in Part 1), Professor N. M.
Wheeler of Lawrence University, well sums up the scene
in his day (and ours). He said that Warfield’s view (and
today’s) implies that “we must ask the critics every
morning what is the latest conclusion in order to know
what is that Scripture inspired of God.”[vii] Oh, where are the Wheelers
today?
Packer also goes into some
detail about how “Higher Criticism” has caused the
uncertainty he outlines. “Higher Criticism,” of course,
questions the historical accuracy of the Bible and has
been practiced by inarguably unsaved critics, while
“Lower Criticism” is another term for Textual
Criticism.
But again, what is
totally ignored, and even scoffed at, is the
incontrovertible fact that both Higher
Criticism and Lower Criticism were the spawn
of unbelief. Both approach the Bible like any other
piece of literature and “evaluate” it according to
rationalistic principles. I repeat—that is a
fact!
While we will not
deal with it here, it can be historically demonstrated,
if truth be told, as does Dr. Theodore Letis, that
Higher Criticism was actually introduced in England
“as a direct
development of the lower criticism.”[viii]
Many people think that Higher Criticism came first, but
that simply is not so. It was the seemingly “harmless”
and even “helpful” Textual Criticism that came first,
and it paved the way for the full-blown Higher Criticism
that rejected the very veracity of the
Bible.
So, what’s really at stake in the
textual issue?
Answer: the
very underpinnings of Scripture. What grieves me to the core of my soul is that
what I have shared in this two-part article
categorically refuses to be acknowledged by the majority
of evangelicals today. What is so appalling is that
these evangelicals willfully align themselves with men
and a philosophy that undermines the very Scripture they
profess in their “Statements of Faith” to love and
defend.
It continues to
amaze my mind and burden my spirit that while some
Christian leaders are quite rightly sounding a warning
about “seeker-sensitive” Christianity, the diluted
Gospel, and other key issues, some of the very same
leaders refuse to recognize that the REAL core of
these problems is men’s attitude toward the Bible.
If we have a low view of Scripture, which modern
criticism most certainly does, it is actually this that
produces other problems. What is needed today more than
anything else is a high view of Scripture, but
that will NEVER be found in
modern textual criticism.
Where do you stand,
my Dear Christian Friend? Are you following the
rationalists who handle Scripture the same way they
handle any other literature and reconstruct it according
to their own rules? If you are a pastor, it is my burden
to implore you that if you adhere to modern
textual criticism and embrace the text and translations
it produces, then you are, my Dear Brother, defending a
philosophy that is rooted in unbelief. I
beg you to look honestly at
what is really going on concerning the text of
Scripture.
Or do you already
recognize how vital it is that we trust a text that has
been providentially and
miraculously preserved by God
through the ages? It’s time we all make that choice, and
I pray that it’s this one.
One final question,
I think, will put the matter succinctly: Do you believe
that the Bible IS divinely preserved or do
you believe that It MUST BE humanly
reconstructed?
May God richly bless you,
and I pray that I’ll hear from you on this pivotal
issue.
Dr. J. D.
Watson
Pastor-Teacher
Grace Bible
Church
*
* *
The Preservation of the New Testament
Text
By
Edward F. Hills
The
Holy Spirit guided the early Christians to gather the
individual New Testament books into one New Testament
canon and to reject all non-canonical books. In the same
manner also the Holy Spirit guided the early Christians
to preserve the New Testament text by receiving the true
readings and rejecting the false. Certainly it would be
strange if it were otherwise. It would have been passing
strange if God had guided His people in regard to the
New Testament canon but had withheld from them His
divine assistance in the matter of the New Testament
text. This would mean that Bible believing Christians
today could have no certainty concerning the New
Testament text but would be obliged to rely on the
hypotheses of modern, naturalistic critics.
But God in His mercy
did not leave His people to grope after the True New
Testament Text. Through the leading of the Holy Spirit
He guided them to preserve it during the manuscript
period. God brought this to pass through the working of
His preserving and governing providence. First,
many trustworthy copies of the original New Testament
manuscripts were produced by faithful scribes.
Second, these trustworthy copies were read and
recopied by true believers down through the centuries.
Third, untrustworthy copies were not so generally
read or so frequently recopied. Although they enjoyed
some popularity for a time, yet in the long run they
were laid aside and consigned to oblivion. Thus as a
result of this special providential guidance the True
Text won out in the end, and today we may be sure that
the text found in the vast majority of the Greek New
Testament manuscripts is a trustworthy reproduction of
the divinely inspired Original Text. This is the text
which was preserved by the God-guided usage of the Greek
Church. Critics have called it the Byzantine
text, thereby acknowledging that it was the text in use
in the Greek Church during the greater part of the
Byzantine period (452-1453). It is much better, however,
to call this text the Traditional
Text. When we call the text
found in the majority of the Greek New Testament
manuscripts the Traditional Text, we signify that this
is the text which has been handed down by the God-guided
tradition of the Church from the time of the Apostles
unto the present day.
A further step in
the providential preservation of the New Testament was
the printing of it in 1516 and the dissemination of it
through the whole of Western Europe during the
Protestant Reformation. In the first printing of the
Greek New Testament we see God’s preserving providence
working hiddenly and, to the outward eye, accidentally.
The editor, Erasmus, performed his task in great haste
in order to meet the deadline set by the printer, Froben
of Basle. Hence this first edition contained a number of
errors of a minor sort, some of which persisted in later
editions. But in all essentials the New Testament text
first printed by Erasmus and later by Stephanus (1550)
and Elzevir (1633) is in full agreement with the
Traditional Text providentially preserved in the vast
majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts. This
printed text is commonly called the Textus
Receptus (Received Text). It is
the text which was used by the Protestant Reformers
during the Reformation and by all Protestants everywhere
for three hundred years thereafter. Hence the printing
of it was, after all, no accident but the work of God’s
special providence.
The special
providence of God is particularly evident in the fact
that the text of the Greek New Testament was first
printed and published not in the East but in Western
Europe where the influence of the Latin usage and of the
Latin Vulgate was very strong. Through the influence of
the Latin-speaking Church Erasmus and his successors
were providentially guided to follow the Latin Vulgate
here and there in those few places in which the Latin
Church usage rather than the Greek Church usage had
preserved the genuine reading. Hence the Textus
Receptus was a further step in
the providential preservation of the New Testament. In
it the few errors of any consequence occurring in the
Traditional Greek Text were corrected by the providence
of God operating through the usage of the Latin speaking
Church of Western Europe.
Thus God by His
special providence has preserved the New Testament text
in a three-fold way through the universal priesthood of
believers. In the first place, during the
fourteen centuries in which the New Testament circulated
in manuscript form God worked providentially through the
usage of the Greek-speaking Church to preserve the New
Testament text in the majority of the Greek New
Testament manuscripts. In this way the True New
Testament Text became the prevailing Traditional
Text. In the second place, during the 16th
century when the New Testament text was being printed
for the first time, God worked providentially through
the usage of the Latin-speaking Church to influence
Erasmus and the other editors and printers of that
period to follow the Latin Vulgate in those few places
in which the Latin Church usage rather than the Greek
Church usage had preserved the genuine reading. Then in
the third place, during the 450 years which have
elapsed since the first printing of the New Testament,
God has been working providentially through the usage of
Bible-believing Protestants to place and keep the stamp
of His approval upon this God-guided printed text. It is
upon this Textus Receptus that the King James Version and the other classic
Protestant translations are based.
[Excerpted from Chapter 4
(“A Christian View of the Biblical Text”) of The King James Version Defended
(pp. 106-107)]
NOTES
[i]
Preface in Edward F. Hills, The King James Version
Defended (Des Moines, IA:
Christian Research Press, 1956, 1984), p.
vi.
[ii] Hills, p. 61 (emphasis
added).
[iii] Hills, p. 86 (emphasis in
the original except for editor’s note).
[v] Hills, pp. 224-225
(emphasis in the original).
[vi] J.I. Packer, God
Has Spoken (Downers Frove, IL:
Intervarsity Press, 1979), p.20.
[vii] N. M. Wheeler,
“Uncanonical Inspiration,” Sunday School Times 25
(Jan. 6, 1883), p. 4. Cited in Theodore P. Letis, The
Ecclesiastical Text, p.
15.
[viii] Theodore P. Letis,
From Lower Criticism To Higher Criticism, an
essay based on a
lecture delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Society
of Biblical Literature before the History of Exegesis
Section, San Francisco, California, 22 November 1992.
Essay published in Journal of Higher Criticism,
9/1 (Spring 2002), pp. 31-48. Read it at
www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/LetisPriestly.pdf.
