First
there's the issue of the text itself. Primarily we're speaking of the Greek New
Testament authored in the first century by the Apostles. As the Church grew
copies were made and eventually several manuscript traditions developed...
small variations depending on the region where they were produced. Despite
these differences and the arguments of modern day critics these texts have
always been more or less in agreement. The differences are miniscule and
usually don't involve much more than spelling, word order and occasionally the
placement of a paragraph.
In fact
there are some who legitimately question the whole school of Textual Criticism,
the method it employs and the presuppositions which drive its criteria. In some
cases they are delineating 'families' which may not in fact exist and are
rooted in speculative historical argument.
There are
thousands of texts comprised of one or more of the books of the New Testament.
These texts collectively have been called the Byzantine or sometimes the
Majority or Traditional text. These terms are used in slightly different ways
depending on who you're talking to. To keep things simple we will restrict
ourselves to speaking generally.
One
sub-grouping of this larger body of texts is known as the Textus Receptus which
became the basis for our English Bibles at the time of the Reformation. The
Textus Receptus (TR) has a few problems and is missing a few parts that had to
be dealt with. The TR was used in the making of the King James Bible and
represents historical continuity with the main body of texts that have been used
by The Church (broadly speaking) throughout history.
In the late
1800's some newer texts were discovered that many people believed to be older
than the thousands of surviving Byzantine Texts we still possess. These new
texts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) incorporated with other papyri and fragments
discovered here and there became the basis for the Alexandrian Text or as it is
sometimes called by those who oppose it... the Critical Text. They represent a
very small number of manuscripts compared to the Byzantine of which we have
thousands.
Sometimes
the Critical Text refers to what is called an Eclectic Text, which simply means
the scholars pick and choose which readings they think are the oldest and most
true to the original. The Byzantine Texts are out of favour and thus the
Alexandrian Text has more or less become the equivalent of the Critical. Or to
put it differently an Eclectic Text whether labeled Critical or not will
inevitably be based on the Alexandrian. No matter how you frame it, the
Alexandrian Text has won the day.
This 'new'
or as is argued 'older' text became the basis of almost all subsequent Bible
translations. Though there are very few of these newly discovered texts,
because they're deemed older, they are viewed as superior and thus for many
scholars the Byzantine families of texts have been effectively consigned to the
waste bin. We could say a textual coup took place and suddenly in the late
1800's the Church wanted to use a different text from what it had historically
been using.
We join with
those who are critical of the claims put forward by the defenders of the
Alexandrian or Critical Text. We don't accept that the manuscripts are older
nor do we accept that they should supplant the traditional text that the Church
had been using for centuries. We believe that even if the Alexandrian Texts are
older they represent an aberration, a minority group of texts that were
rejected and not used by the Church throughout its history. We don't have to
resort to conspiracy theories about Origen, Alexandria or other such notions
put forward by people like Riplinger and Ruckman to reject the Critical Text.
The modern
Textual Critic attempts to approach these ancient manuscripts as a sceptical scientist
and on a certain level that is understandable and even helpful.
But
theologically if we believe in Canon, if we believe in Scripture and also its
Sufficiency and Authority we must also believe in the doctrine of Providential
Preservation. We must believe that God through Providence protects and perpetuates
His Word to the Church throughout history. He would not give His Word only to have
it fail to be preserved. We do not believe the Church gave us the Scriptures,
nor do we believe Church tradition or a living apostleship divinely interpret
the Scriptures for us today. Even those who claim these prerogatives depend on
Scripture. Without the Scripture we have nothing to stand on. We believe it was
inspired by the Holy Spirit and preserved by Providence. It is through the
written word that we hear the testimony of the Apostles and are taught the
oracles and mysteries of the Kingdom of God. It is through the Scriptures that
we learn of Christ and His work. Without the Apostolic testimony of the New
Testament we would be left blind.
Interestingly
some of the older Puritan authors when writing about this issue raised the
question... what if other texts were found in the future that differed from what
The Church already possessed? They called the acceptance of such texts akin to
Atheism.
Why such a
strong denunciation? Because in embracing new texts, regardless of arguments
about age, it implied the Church has for centuries not possessed the correct
Scripture. The lack of Providential Preservation was all but a denial of the
Living God.
Defenders of
the Alexandrian or Critical text will argue that no fundamental doctrines are
changed and the Scriptures missing in the Alexandrian text... a few passages
and many words and clauses... affect no doctrine. These 'critics' believe the 'additional'
words and phrases found in the Byzantine Texts were later additions and thus
not inspired. And thus whether meaning harm or not they are implying the Church
has (for centuries) read these words and mistakenly thought they were
Scripture. According to the defenders of the Critical Text we were wrong in
thinking the Woman Caught in Adultery (John 7.53-8.11) was Scripture. They
would say it has no place in the Bible.
Modern
Conservative Protestantism has fallen into a trap. Seeking academic
respectability and a more robust and demonstrable defense for the text the
conservative academy has allowed the secularists and critics to establish the
boundaries of the argument and playing field. Conservatives have fallen into
the trap of seeking the Autographs, trying through Textual Criticism and
reconstruction to locate the 'true text'.
This switch
to the language of 'inerrancy' came about in the late 1800's and early 1900's.
Inerrancy refers not to the text we now possess but to the Autographs, the
original actual documents penned by the Apostles but lost to time. I don't
think many people realize that those who embrace the Critical Text don't
believe the Bible they hold in their hands is inerrant. They believe that only
insofar that the text reflects the Autograph is it inerrant.
Inerrancy is
a quest constantly informed by new discoveries and textual insights. It can
never end. The Bible teacher has to work through hosts of textual variants (discrepancies
between manuscripts) and scholarly considerations in seeking the 'true text'.
If you
believe in Providential Preservation you don't need to rest on scientific
scholarly hunts for the inerrant autographs. Instead we have a preserved
Infallible Text that The Church (broadly speaking) has possessed throughout
history. Again that's a generalization and we have to speak of how to assemble
this text from the various manuscripts. However, the Textus Receptus is a fair
representation of this Providentially Preserved Infallible Text.
Infallibility
as it is being used here also incorporates the idea of inerrancy without
restricting itself by being limited to the Autographs. At this point not
everyone will agree with how these terms are being used and many believe
inerrancy represents a stronger and more detailed explanation of infallibility.
We do not mean to suggest that historic and scientific details don't matter.
Our purpose is to emphasize the nature of the text we possess and the
confidence we can have in it. We believe the quest for inerrancy and finding
the solution in the Autographs rather than the preserved Ecclesiastical Text
has sent the Church down a wayward path. It seeks a text it will never find and
academic respectability it will never earn.
In embracing
this model and seeking mainstream credibility modern Protestant Evangelicalism
has already entered a death-spin. The Word of God is not a sure foundation, but
something subject to dissection and constant reinterpretation.
As a
reaction to this many not fully understanding the issues have clung tenaciously
to the King James translation as representing safe ground. Granted you are safe
with the King James, but you must be careful not to fall into another error and
one just as bad as the foundational arguments of the Critical Text.
Some have
mistakenly believed the King James translation is inspired, that the Holy
Spirit miraculously intervened in the year 1611 and that the King James serves
as the new Autograph. All appeals to Greek or Hebrew texts they would argue are
now unnecessary. This is unacceptable and without Biblical warrant and often
represents a peculiarly American way of looking at some of these issues.
There's
another position that has nothing to do with the King James per se, one that
holds to the older Text Type coupled with the idea of a Providential or
Ecclesiastical text. Keeping with that Byzantine Text will allow for new
translations to be made... as long as they follow good and God-honouring
practice in their translation.
There aren't
many of these translations as almost all scholars have embraced the Critical
Text. There's very little interest in pursuing translations of what are viewed
as thousands of obsolete discredited Byzantine manuscripts.
We believe
the New King James represents a translation faithful to the historical text and
yet in many ways superior to the older King James. It corrects some
translational mistakes and presents the language in a way more faithful to the
Koine Greek of the time. By this we mean the tone and posturing of the
verbiage. The King James (which was revised numerous times after 1611)
deliberately employed a 'high' tone and the language is not that of the common
people. We speak of Elizabethan English, but the King James Bible was
deliberately crafted to sound extra-lofty and majestic in manner... quite
different from how the Greek would have sounded to ancient ears. The motives
are understandable but misplaced.
We wish the
New King James publishers would have dispensed with the unfortunate association
of King James I/VI of England and Scotland. He was a wicked man and undeserving
of having his name on the spine. Besides the NKJV has nothing to do with him,
but I'm sure the publishers utilized the name to identify with the textual
tradition. Riplinger and others are convinced of conspiracy due to copyright
issues etc... Such matters may be cause for concern but do not touch the
fundamental issues at stake.
Finally, the
issue of translation must be addressed. The KJV, NKJV and Critical Text Bibles
like the NASB and ESV adhere to Formal Equivalence. They are attempting as much
as is possible to translate word for word. If you've ever studied a foreign
language you'll immediately know that word-for-word translation is difficult
and often impossible. There are words that don't match, tenses that don't have
equivalents, colloquialisms and word play. Translations adhering to Formal
Equivalence are willing to sacrifice style and flow in order to stay faithful
to the text. The reader will have to be more attentive and the exegete will
need to do his homework but the translated text stays close to the original in
terms of the technical language.
Dynamic
Equivalence represents a more fluid form of translation and to its critics a
less serious attempt to stay faithful to the idea that the actual 'Words' of
the text are inspired. It seeks to communicate the ideas, the broad semantics
without worrying as much about the literal details. Some of these translations
stray into what can only be called paraphrase. Not only are they not faithfully
following the text, and rightly revering it as some would say, but the reader
is subject to the bias of the translator. Serious exegetical work is all but
impossible.
Most modern
Bibles not only employ the Critical Text but also translate it Dynamically. The
NIV, the NLT and many more represent this school of thought.
We will
grant the NASB and the ESV (both revisions of the RV/ASV project) are good
translations. They just use the wrong text.
We are not
suggesting those who use these corrupted Bibles are not Christians. These
faulty Bibles still contain the Gospel and we'll grant that on a practical
day-to-day level of Bible reading the differences are not that significant.
But, the
underlying issues are profound and this compromise on the Bible has undermined
and will continue to undermine the Church of Jesus Christ.
Though our
acceptance of and even preference for the NKJV will upset some, we hope they
will understand the larger issue. Practically speaking the NKJV and KJV are so
close that even reading them publically in concert is not an issue. No one will
have any trouble following along.
The Critical
Text needs to be rejected and yet the answer is not to fall into another
extreme of falsely believing in a 17th century miracle that is
without warrant. Those that just prefer the KJV because of its historical
place, that position is certainly both acceptable and respectable... but not
unassailable. There are other claimants to the historic Protestant mantle such
as the Geneva Bible, but they too have their problems.