Presuppositional Apologetics are very popular now, and I am an advocate. But presuppositionalism touches every discipline and is not restricted to Apologetics. So I think itai??i??s important to work even in Textual Criticism from a presuppositional position.
Let’s look at two sides of the issue: Traditional/Ecclesiastical Textual Criticism and Modern Textual Criticism.
The broadest presupposition on each side is:
- Traditional/Ecclesiastical Textual Criticism ai??i?? Scripture has been providentially preserved by God.
- Modern Textual Criticism ai??i?? Scripture has been corrupted and must be restored (e.g. Metzger: The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration).
The biblical presupposition is clear:
Isa 59:21Ai?? As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.
Psa 12:6-7Ai?? The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.Ai?? (7)Ai?? Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
The more narrow presupposition deals with by what means God preserves His word:
- Traditional/Ecclesiastical Textual Criticism ai??i?? Scholars within the framework of the Church.
- Modern Textual Criticism ai??i?? Scholars within the framework of academic committees.
The biblical presupposition is that the Church is entrusted with the oracles of God:
Rom 3:1-2Ai?? What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?Ai?? (2)Ai?? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
1Ti 3:15Ai?? But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
Believe it or not there’s even a presupposition that one would think exists in all Christian disciplines, but in the very discipline that deals with the text of Scripture on such an intimate level it is non-existent: The presupposition that God’s word in the originals is perfect, without fault.
Modern textual criticism and translations actual contain factual errors because they think that such errors best reflect what was in the original inspired Scriptures. Consider for a moment Mat 1:7,10. Both the Greek text and many modern English translations read, in v. 7, that Asaph was in the royal lineage of Christ rather than Asa, and in v. 10, that Amos was a progenitor of Christ rather than Amon. These names in the genealogy of Christ are factual errors, showing that both the textual critics and translators believeAi??that in Matthew’s original there were factual errors.
Many times we hear that “no doctrines are changed” with the different Greek texts or different translations that are used, but that is not the truth. In fact, the biggest doctrine that is changed is the doctrine of preservation.
The doctrine of preservation is a foundational teaching of the Protestant Church. Most conservative Christians are in agreement that the original manuscripts of Scripture are inspired. But as we do not possess these originals, the doctrine of the preservation of these originals is of utmost importance. What this doctrine states is that while the Bible was immediately inspired in the originals, it was also kept pure throughout the ages. The purity of preservation is no less than the purity of inspiration as it is the work of God Himself. Yet sadly today the conservative Christian Church is teaching something quite different. They no longer believe in the doctrine of preservation, though some do claim a belief in it. There are pockets of Christianity that still hold to this doctrine, being unshaken by the postmodernism that has infected the Church at large. Some of the organizations that represent this remnant of historic Christian belief in preservation are the Trinitarian Bible Society, the James Begg Society, and the Dean Burgon Society.
To better see the distinction between historic Christianity and postmodern Christianity we will look at two confessions that deal with the preservation of Scripture – The Westminster Confession of Faith, and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. The Westminster Confession of Faith (chapter 1, section 8) says this:
The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in, the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the language of every people unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.
We can see that the accepted doctrine of the Protestant Church was that God kept His Scripture pure in all ages. That is how preservation was defined. Now before we go much further, let’s look at what the word “pure” means. To be pure is to be complete, without fault, free of foreign elements.1 This gives us an excellent idea of what the Westminster Divines were telling us in this passage of the Confession. They believed that the Scriptures in their original languages were pure and perfect in the apographs (copies), not solely in the autographs.
Now let’s see what a modern confession has to say about the purity and preservation of Scripture. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (article X) says this:
We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.
We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.
This clearly shows us that modern Christian teaching promulgates the idea that we can have Scripture with “great accuracy,” but not pure. How great is the accuracy? I’ve heard scholars suggest numbers from 98% to over 99% (Bruce Metzger et al), but never 100%. The statement of faith also shows that they look on the apographs as being the Word of God only to the extent that they represent the original. This is an interesting statement, as the originals do not exist. Logically speaking, since we do not have the originals this statement of faith confirms a belief that they do not know to what extent the Scriptures that we have are the Word of God since it is impossible for them to see how closely they represent the original.
We also see the doctrine of preservation vanishing among Bible translators and Greek Text editors. I will look at two popular evangelical translations as well as the critical Greek Text put out by the United Bible Society.
2 Chronicles 31:16 (NASB):Ai??without regard to their genealogical enrollment, to the males from thirty years old and upward-everyone who entered the house of the LORD for his daily obligations-for their work in their duties according to their divisions;
All ancient manuscripts contain “3 years old” and not the 30 that we see in the NASB. This shows that the translators felt a need to correct the Scriptures. This need to correct clearly goes against any honest teaching on preservation.
1 Samuel 13:1 (ESV):Ai??Saul was … years old when he began to reign, and he reigned … and two years over Israel. [Note: the most recent revision of the ESV has corrected this]
Here the ESV translators show that there is missing text in the Scriptures. Clearly you cannot show that there is missing text and still believe the text has been preserved. Remember that the definition of pure includes completeness. Besides, this would sound very strange if read in public.
The editors of the UBS critical Greek text also have a different idea of preservation. The UBS critical Greek text at Acts 16:12 uses “protes” – which is found in no manuscript. The reading should be “prote” without the “s.” The “s” makes the noun genitive, which changes the meaning. Instead of reading that Philippi is a foremost city of Macedonia, it reads that Philippi is a city of the first district of Macedonia. They do this because they do not think the text has been preserved, but rather it needs correcting.
I strongly urge Christians to consider where a denial of the preservation of Scripture will lead the Church. Without preservation there is no purity. Without purity the text can be questioned. When the text can be questioned we have no final authority. We ought not be satisfied with a doctrine on autographs (original text) without also having a strong doctrine on apographs (existing copies) The early Protestant Church understood the importance of this doctrine. We should seek to embrace it again as something that is dearly beloved to us.
1 The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, sv, “pure.”
2 Bruce M Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 3rd ed (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 209.
Latest posts by Larry Bray (see all)
- 1 Corinthians 15 – Devotional on the Resurrection - May 6, 2014
- Temptations and How to Conquer Them - Apr 24, 2014
- Turning from Sin to Christ – A Lesson from the Prodigal Son - Apr 14, 2014