Truth On Tough Texts

ISSUE 14 – September/2006

What’s Really At Stake in the Textual Issue? (2)

ast 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.[1]

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.[2]

While Hills is called naïve 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.[3]

In comparing his approach to that of Modernism, Hills later writes:

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.[4]

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.[5]

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.[6]

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.”[7] 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.”[8] 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

he 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 section from Chapter 4 (“A Christian View of the Biblical Text”) of The King James Version Defended (pp. 106-107)]

ISSUE 14 – September/2006

The Contribution of Edward F. Hills

Conclusion

The Preservation of the New Testament Text