"It's epistemology, stupid!"

Yesterday, I did a post about my review article of Garnet Howard Milne’s book Has the Bible Been Kept Pure? that appears in the latest Puritan Reformed Journal. I also recorded an audio version of the review. As I did the audio version, I noticed that the editors had made a few changes to the text. I understand. This happens. I found one change, however, to be puzzling.

Near the end of the article I try to make a point about how focus on epistemology is key for overturning modern text criticism in the hearts of conservative, Reformed evangelicals and drew an historical analogy from politics.

In my original review it read as follows (note the lines in bold):

Still, it is Milne’s historical and doctrinal arguments that hold pride of place in this work, and they are formidable. The work’s greatest strength is its stress on the epistemological weaknesses of the modern text critical method. When Bill Clinton defeated the incumbent George H. W. Bush in the 1992 United States presidential election, he said his key to victory was that he kept reminding his campaign staff, “It’s the economy, stupid!” If the traditional text is once again to prevail among the Reformed and evangelical then it might well come about because its advocates keep repeating, “It’s epistemology, stupid!”

The anecdotal quip from the Clinton campaign is familiar to anyone who remembers the 1992 election. According to a Wikipedia entry, “It’s the economy, stupid” was actually a variation on “The economy, stupid” as coined by legendary Clinton political strategist James Carville.

Here, however, is how the passage above was edited to appear in the published article (again note the lines in bold):

Still, it is Milne’s historical and doctrinal arguments that hold pride of place in this work, and they are formidable. The work’s greatest strength is its stress on the epistemological weaknesses of the modern text critical method. When Bill Clinton defeated the incumbent George H. W. Bush in the 1992 United States presidential election, he said his key to victory was that he kept reminding his campaign staff it was all about the economy. If the traditional text is once again to prevail among the Reformed and evangelical then it might well come about because its advocates keep affirming that it is all about epistemology.

So, the offending word “stupid” was removed. It is indeed a coarse word. When my children were young we taught them not to say this word or to call anyone by that name. More than once, I had a child report with horror on some interaction overheard in public or on media, “He said the ‘S’ word.” And by that he meant he had heard someone use the word “stupid.” Oh the glories of giving your children shelter in homeschooling!

Is, however, the word so coarse that it should have been excised from the article? Would such a phrase offend the sensitive ear of the Puritan Reformed Journal reader? Does the paraphrase weaken the impact of the historical reference? Does “It’s epistemology, stupid!” make a bigger splash than “it is all about epistemology”?

Well, the article stands as it is. Maybe one day some Reformed digital scholar will write an article attempting to reconstruct the original text of the review, while another will argue it should stand as received. Smiles.

JTR