WM 314: Review: Meade on "I've heard it said the Old Testament is full of errors"

 

I want to offer a brief review of a video and an article that was recently posted to the Crossway website (October 29, 2024) in the series titled “I’ve heard it said.”

This short video (less than two minutes) features Dr. John D. Meade, OT professor at Phoenix Seminary, and a recent critic of the Reformation Bible Society and its defense of the traditional MT of the Hebrew OT.

Meade’s segment is titled “I have heard it said that the Old Testament is full of errors,” This video (and others in this series) are meant to address various controversial topics on theology or apologetics from a contemporary evangelical perspective.

Let’s listen to the video and then I’ll offer a few observations.

Meade’s video is presumably meant to defend the authority, authenticity, and integrity of the text of the OT against unnamed modern skeptics who argue that it cannot be trusted because it is full of errors.

If you listen to Meade’s presentation, however, you will find that he does not deny or refute the charge that the text of the OT is full of errors. In fact, he agrees with and affirms this perspective.

Meade begins by noting, rightly, that there are no longer any extant autographs or original manuscripts of the OT books. We do not, for example, have any of the books of the Pentateuch handwritten by Moses. We do not have autographs but only apographs, copies of the OT books. The Puritan John Owen speculated that God did not allow the autographs to be preserved because he knew that men would be tempted to worship them.

Meade then adds that these copies of the OT are riddled with human “fragility” and are filled with transmissional errors. He says it is not a question as to whether or not there are errors, affirming plainly, “There are errors.”

Meade then suggests, however, that this admitted situation of an overwhelmingly corrupted OT text should not lead to pessimism or despair. Despite this confused textual situation, Meade says, one cannot conclude “We don’t have the Bible.” He assures his listeners, in fact, that we have “a wealth of manuscripts” (some modern scholars are fond of saying we have “an embarrassment of riches”).

Our saving grace (or saviors), Meade asserts are “textual critics” who can compare manuscripts, “sift out” copyist errors, and “actually restore the original text,” by comparing all of the evidence.

Meade concludes by saying he is “optimistic, that we can get back to the original books of the OT.”

Let me offer five observations on Meade’s presentation:

First, as already noted, Meade is NOT refuting the charge that the OT is full of errors. He is in basic agreement with that assertion. The title of the video might well have been, “I agree that the OT is full of errors, but I am nonetheless optimistic we can almost fix it.”

His approach here reminds me of the veritable cottage industry that developed among evangelical scholars a few years ago in order supposedly to “refute” the textual criticism of Bart Ehrman. The only problem was most of these men who lined up to “refute” Ehrman confessed that they basically agreed with Ehrman that the text of the NT was overwhelmingly corrupt, that traditional passages like Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53—8:11 are spurious, and that it is the task of scholars to attempt to reconstruct it to some semblance of what the original might have been. These evangelical scholars did not so much disagree with Ehrman as to whether the NT text was grossly corrupt and needed reconstruction, but only as to whether, under these circumstances, it could still be said to be inspired and to hold authority for faith and practice.

Meade is essentially suggesting a similar approach with regard to the text of the OT, though he does not explicitly cite a “Bart Ehrman” type OT scholar as a foe.

Second, Meade is promoting in this video a modern restorationist view of textual criticism. This view suggests that the text of the Bible is rather hopelessly corrupted, but that modern academic scholars can examine the extant empirical evidence and use human reasoning to at least “reconstruct” a close approximation to the original text. Such scholars are typically clear to point out that they cannot guarantee that the text they reconstruct is, in fact, the authorial text. It will be subject to change based on new discoveries and methods developed by scholars.

Third, this modern reconstruction model is a departure from the classic Protestant approach to the text of Scripture. That view held that the Bible had been immediately inspired by God, and it has been kept pure in all ages (see WCF/2LBCF 1:8). This view holds that though the autographs have not been preserved, they remain accessible through faithful copies (apographs). There were some scribal discrepancies in transmission, but these were minor and could be easily corrected using those faithful copies and the consensus of the rule of faith.

With respect to the OT the Protestant fathers affirmed that these ancient “oracles of God” had been preserved by the Jews in the traditional Masoretic Text of the Hebrew OT (cf. Romans 3:2). This text had then providentially come into print at the dawn of the Protestant era (first published by Daniel Bomberg in 1524-1525). These printed editions of the Hebrew Masoretic Text of the Old Testament were used as the touchstone and standard for all the classic Protestant translations of the Bible.

The Dutch divine Petrus Van Mastricht declared, “Neither the Hebrew of the Old Testament, nor the Greek of the New Testament has been corrupted” (TPT 1:164).

The English divine John Owen suggested that to attempt to amend or alter the traditional text would be “to make equal the wisdom, care, skill, and diligence of men, with the wisdom, care, and providence of God himself” (Works 16:357).

Fourth, the reconstruction method is advocating departure from the traditional Masoretic Text, affirmed by both Jews and Protestants for centuries, in favor of a modern critical text, reconstructed using reasoned eclecticism.

Fifth, as indicated by Meade’s answer, and as touched on above, those who hold to this modern view do not believe that we currently have the text of the OT rightly reconstructed in hand. They are only “optimistic”—to used Meade’s term— that perhaps a very close approximation of the text might be achieved sometime in the future, as a result of the application of modern textual criticism.

Sadly, we seem to be observing the same undermining of the stability and authority of the OT text, under the application of modern textual criticism, as has already largely taken place among many evangelicals and mainline Protestants with respect to the NT text. No doubt many evangelical scholars making use of this reconstruction method would be willing to say of the OT text what Daniel B. Wallace has already said of the NT Text. Something like:

We do not have now—in our critical [Hebrew] texts or any translations—exactly what the authors of the [Old] Testament wrote. Even if we did, we would not know it [cf. Gurry and Hixson, Eds. Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism, xii].

Let us, finally, return to the topic. “I’ve heard it said that the OT is full of errors.” Is it possible that we might still respond to this topic in the way that Van Mastricht and Owen the Westminster divines and the Particular Baptist fathers did in their day?:

The Hebrew OT is not full of errors. It was immediately inspired by God and has been kept pure in all ages in faithful copies. As it did for the ancient Jews and for men of the Reformation, the traditional Hebrew Masoretic Text continues to provide for Bible-believing Protestant Christians a clear and authoritative canonical standard for both the sacred books and the sacred text of the OT.

JTR