I have posted WM 125: Q & A: Text, Translation, Preservation, Canon. You can listen here. In this episode I respond to three recent sets of questions sent to me by podcast listeners. Below are the questions (in italic) and my response notes (in bold):
Question
one:
Hello
Dr. Riddle,
Might
you consider this Q/A for a Word Magazine broadcast (unless you’ve already addressed
it; I don’t recall coming across this anywhere yet)? When one holds to
the Traditional/Confessional Text, how should we view and interact with: (i)
the Critical Text (i.e. text(s) resulting from Reasoned Eclecticism); (ii)
English translations from the CT? This, particularly in light of the
reality that, if one holds to the TT one would presumably view the CT as being
an “adding to or taking away from” Scripture, which is a most serious
thing. Thus, do we view the CT and translations thereof still as
Scripture, as parts of Scripture, as study resources only, or in some other
type of category?
Response:
See
Confession 1:8
I
can use critical texts and translations based upon them as study tools.
As
far as translations go, I can consider them the Word of God to the degree that
they reflect the Hebrew and Greek original. In places where they depart from
the original, they are deficient.
For
authoritative study, preaching, and teaching I will prefer to study the
received text and translations based upon it.
Will
this be a test of fellowship? I can have fellowship with those who disagree but
I reserve the right to advocate for my position.
Practically
speaking I think it is wise for a local church to have an agreed upon text for
its liturgical and doctrinal ministries. I prefer the traditional text.
Question
two:
Hope
this finds you well!
I
want to get a better understanding of your view of the preservation of
scripture. I've been thinking about what we can both agree it's not. Do we
agree on these bullet points?
Response:
I am not a fan of this format. Rather than offer some interpretation of what
you think I may or may not agree with why not simply take something I have
written or said and note your own agreement or disagreement?
Preservation
does not mean a guarantee that God's people somewhere on earth will have the
perfectly preserved word at any given point in time. The Textas Receptas
[Textus Receptus?] did not exist until the 16th century. There was no Greek
manuscript that perfectly matched the TR prior to the TR. Thus, if the TR is
the perfectly inspired and preserved Word of God, then no single person
[manuscript?] contained the perfectly inspired word of God prior to the 16th
century. And moreover, it was centuries after Christ before any Christians had
the full cannon in possession anyway.
Response:
I
disagree with every sentence in this statement.
Preservation
means that God’s Word has been “kept pure in all ages” (confession 1:8).
The
received text did not come into existence only in the sixteenth century. It is
identical with the divine original.
Since
it is identical with the divine original, there were Greek mss. that “matched
the TR” from the beginning. Thus, there were mss. that contained the inspired
and preserved Word of God from the beginning.
Christians
had the “full canon” the moment the last canonical book was written.
Preservation
does not mean a guarantee that translations won't mess things up. No
translation is perfect. Theological
Propaedeutic [Philip Schaff, 1892] on page 193 gives a list of
places where the KJV mistranslates things, for instance, including a place
where it gets the gender wrong, being imprecisely gender-neutral instead of
masculine.
Response:
On
translations, see again Confession 1:8.
I
am not familiar with this Schaff work but know he was a modern critical text
advocate.
I
would have to review his perceived KJV “mistranslations” one by one to see if
they have any merit or if, as I suppose, they might be contested.
By
extension, preservation does not mean a guarantee that meaningful numbers of
Christians will have access to the perfectly preserved Word. Most people cannot
read Greek and Hebrew. Therefore the overwhelming majority of Christians in
church history have not had meaningful access to the perfectly preserved word
of God
Response:
I
disagree with the first sentence. See again Confession 1:8.
I
agree with sentence two but disagree with sentence three. Muslims believe you
must know Arabic to read and understand the Koran, but Christians do NOT believe
that you must know Hebrew and Greek to read and understand the Bible.
Preservation
does not guarantee that the Bible does not change from one generation to the
next. The TR changed much in the 16th century, and conjectural emendations such
as the TR's reading of Luke 2:22, based purely on theological reasons, were
later found to have (admittedly very narrow) manuscript evidence. I don't think
it's putting words in anyone's mouth to say that a TR advocate would point to
this as a divine attestation that the conjecture was providential and
well-founded; but underlying this conviction betrays the admission that new
manuscript discoveries can indeed influence our position and that this need not
be shied away from.
Response:
I
disagree with every sentence in this paragraph.
Preservation
does guarantee that the Bible does not change.
The
printed TR tradition did not change much (i.e., it was not wildly unstable) in
the sixteenth century and Luke 2:22 is not an example that proves a defeater
for the Confessional Text position (see Agros podcast #12). Please note the
distinction made by Jan Krans between an emendatio ingenii ope (‘emendation by
means of reasoning’) and an emendatio codice ope (‘emendation
by means of manuscripts’).
You
talk about how your disagreements with modern textual critics are a fundamental
disagreement about the preservation of God's word. You also talk about the fact
that maybe there are impurities in the TR or slight changes that ought to be
made. Please correct me if I'm overstating the case of our agreement in these
above tenants. I'm struggling to understand what a TR-only advocate's view of
preservation is.
As
a point of reference, this is what I've mentally constructed, based on our
areas of agreement, as to what a TR advocates' view of preservation looks like.
"For the first 15 centuries nobody had the Word of God in its full purity.
There were editions that came close, but none of them fully hit the mark, for
none of them matched the TR. And then through a one hundred years of editing
through textual criticism of liberals who denied justification by faith and who
in their doctrinal impurity are similar to modern 20th and 21st century textual
critics, we went through the process of getting the TR. The changes were
evolutionary and demonstrably based on scientific study of the available texts
when we read these scholars in their own words. Lots of changes were made
throughout this 100 years, many of them speculative, many of them seemingly in
error, but through God's providence, what emerged is the closest thing we're
ever going to get, nay, even the perfect Word of God. And any attempt to
revisit this (including the efforts of Maurice A. Robinson at assembling
a Byzantine priority text that seeks to fix the perceived problems in the TR) are unnecessary
and should be decried as a rejection of the Received Text and a waste of
time."
Is
that woefully missing the mark? How off am I? I want to fairly understand the
case as best as possible.
Response:
Your
“reconstruction” of the TR position is not something I recognize. What is this
100 year process? Who were the scholars working on this who rejected
justification by faith and held other doctrinal errors similar to those held by
modern text critics of the nineteenth century? Are you talking about Erasmus?
This was not true of the Protestant orthodox (like Stephanus and Beza) who produced
the printed editions of the TR.
What
is the TR advocate's view of preservation? If we agree on the bullets, where
does the disagreement lie, exactly? It seems we both agree that things were
messy for the first 15 centuries — failing to do so is to deny history,
inasmuch as the TR has important deviations from the majority text and has no
full support of any single manuscript. It seems we disagree on whether that
messiness has continued for the past 5 centuries or not. But for two people to
have a disagreement about something that occurred 75% into New Testament
history does not require a fundamental disagreement about the nature of the
preservation of scripture, which tells me that there's something more here.
Something I'm missing or misunderstanding. Can you help me here?
Thanks
Response:
As
noted above I have little, if any, agreement with the points you noted above.
The
confessional text is NOT that “things were messy for the first 15 centuries.”
No, God’s Word was “by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages.”
The true text has not been “messy.” It has always been challenged, abused,
ridiculed, and attempts have been made to alter and distort it. This has been
true since the time of the apostles (2 Peter 3:15-16; Rev 22:18-19). The
printing, editing, and promulgating the traditional text was of providential
importance in the sixteenth-seventeenth century, but God’s word has always been
kept pure. Christ’s sheep have always heard his voice in it.
Question
three:
Hello
Pastor Jeff,
As
time may allow you…
1. Thx for your post Audio
and Video available from SEBTS's 2019 "Linguistics and New Testament
Greek" Conference at http://www.jeffriddle.net/2019/06/audio-and-video-available-from-sebtss.html.
Just wondering whether to dip in or not… my objective at present is to form a
more solid understanding of text criticism and understand the key aspects to
the “two sides”… will listening to the link(s) contribute to that personal
objective in your view? Was this conference curved toward reasoned
eclecticism (deliberate or otherwise)?
2. Would you hold to the canon being closed at the Reformation
rather than by, or toward the end, of the 300’s AD? I’ve heard Pastor
Truelove’s several sermons on this now and taking pause for thought… I think I
understand the historical nature of canonicity, but it strikes me that closure
of same late provides historically challenges if not practical textual ones
(i.e. if the canon closed late why can’t the text similarly ‘settle’ late?).
Response:
On
#1: Though a few of these lectures are pitched at an introductory level, most
are pitched to those who hold at least an intermediate level of Greek. Much of
this is relevant for text criticism and all speakers would likely support the reasoned
eclectic view.
On
#2: I would say the canon was closed when the last canonical book was written.
The question is: When do we have the first instance when the canon was recognized/acknowledged?
This was not defined confessionally until the Reformation era. Canon is still a
dividing line between RC, Orthodox, and Protestants.
JTR
