Question
My question involves the Bible translation issue. I have studied the issue in depth and wonder if you could tell me what you know about the issue?
Thank you.
Response
The Bible issue certainly is an issue that a Christian needs to settle his mind about. The existence of differing text-types of manuscripts with the various theories and claims surrounding them; the substantially differing translations resulting from them; the numerous words, phrases, verses, and even passages called into question in so many Bibles by marginal notes regarding either the presence or absence of manuscript support for them; the endless periodic revisions being made to the critical text, along with the endless stream of purported newer and better translations being produced; these things and more are definitely unsettling when a Christian is confronted with them. And I am persuaded that if a Christian is honest with the situation he will not be able to tolerate it, but will desire to settle his mind on which Bible God expects him to use.
For myself, I began to face up to it some 25 years or so ago, with the stand I take right now and the convictions I hold right now, being different from what it was. I used to be ‘all wrapped up,’ so to speak, in the theories, tenets, claims, scholarship, and the like, of the modem phase to the science of textual criticism. I used to think that it was correct and that proper and intelligent thinking about the Bible, (including how to evaluate texts, how to deal with variations, how to look upon the history of the transmission of texts, how to look upon the history of translating the texts into English, along with any other issue belonging to the subject), rested in its hands. And I used to function accordingly. At that time for me to think that the modem phase to the science of textual criticism could be wrong (and not just wrong on some issues, but wrong on just about everything it says); and for me to think that God actually could have perfectly preserved His word down through time and also already have had it perfectly translated into English a while ago; for me to think anything like that would not have been intelligent. It would have bordered on the irrational, unlearned, and superstitious. Nevertheless, when I began to deal with the issue my thinking changed. And the stand I now take, and the convictions I now hold, are for these very things.
For quite some time now I have been fully persuaded that the prevailing theories, tenets, claims, and scholarship of the modem phase to the science of textual criticism (regardless of popularity and scholarship) are in error and are inconsistent with the Bible’s own testimony regarding itself. In particular, I am persuaded that they are at variance with both the reality and necessity of the Divine preservation of the scriptures, and especially so when it comes to the potentiality of God having already accomplished all that needs to be accomplished in the field of textual criticism and manuscript evidence. I am persuaded that God who intentionally and with deliberate everlasting purpose gave His word in the scriptures, is not only fully capable in theory of dealing with any and all corruptive influences and preserving His word in the face of them, but has actually done so. And that He has done this in accordance with Him being able to fulfill all of His ordained purposes and functions of His written word, not only in His “time past” program with Israel, but also in this present dispensation of His grace, and also those which will yet transpire in the resumption and fulfillment of His program with Israel still “to come.” In addition, I am also fully persuaded that we as English-speaking Christians have an identifiable exact translation of God’s preserved, inerrant, infallible, and complete written word into our English language, which we can knowledgeably and confidently use as such. Moreover, I am persuaded that the historic Protestant reformation process functioned in accordance with both the reality and mechanics of Divine preservation, along with those matters necessary to produce an exact translation of God’s word into English. And that all of this culminated in the King James Bible.
[Since it is not uncommon for me to be asked why I take this stand, we have established on our Enjoy The Bible Ministries website a section in which I set forth a basic synopsis of some of the issues pertaining to it. It isn’t an apologetic, nor is it designed to be so. Just informational, and simple at that, for anyone who would wonder why I say what I do about the King James Bible.]
Now the reason why I am responding to your question in this particular manner is so that you first of all realize that in my understanding of these things, all of the wrangling, theorizing, claims and counter-claims, and the like that goes on with regards to the manuscripts, their families or text-types, their ages, etc., etc.; in other words, almost all of the issues that are discussed, debated, pursued, and that make up what goes on in the modem phase to the science of textual criticism; to me these are all non-issues. That is they are non-issues especially in the sense that what the modern phase to the science of textual criticism says it is trying to do is something that was done and settled long ago. It’s like trying to reinvent the wheel, as the saying goes. There is no need for it because it already has been invented; it already exists. And this, more or less, is my understanding regarding the historic science of textual criticism. It’s already done its job; God has already used it in accordance with Divine preservation and dealing with the manuscripts, along with how they have been affected by both the Satanic policy of evil against God’s written word and by any other form of possible corruption affecting them. And if my understanding is correct, the reality of this was once readily recognized and acknowledged. However, what was once recognized and acknowledged slowly began to be challenged beginning about 300 years ago, with the resultant establishment of a branch to the science of textual criticism that substantially differed from its predecessors. It is this branch that has grown into the modem phase to the science of textual criticism. Which (as I have indicated) is in my understanding at best just wasting its time; but also which at worst is an unwitting pawn in the continuing Satanic policy of evil against God’s written word, as it engages in activities and produces products that keep the question, “Yea, hath God said,” alive and well.
Now, once again, what does all this mean when it comes to me responding to your question? Well primarily it means that I think that the questions you are asking and the issues that you are dealing with are questions and issues that you don’t really need to be all that occupied with. (However, this of course is something for you to decide for yourself. As I have said, I came to this conclusion for myself quite some time back.) As I see things, they are questions and issues that are the offspring of the modem phase to the science of textual criticism itself. They are more or less born of its own theories, terminology, categorizing, definitions, system of classifying of manuscripts, criterion for determining the weight of a manuscript’s witness, and the like. And though dealing with them may have the profitable result of showing the existence of problems, inconsistencies, and even errors within the theorizing of the science; you are still only operating within the framework of the theorizing of the science. (However, that being said, there are a number of men who have limited themselves to operating within the framework of the modem phase to the science of textual criticism, including even its denial of any such thing as Divine preservation, or its feeble lip-service to it, and have shown strictly by textual evidence alone that the theories and claims made for the critical text are riddled with problems, inconsistencies, self-contradictions, impossibilities, and the like. Men like Dean John Burgon; Wilbur Pickering; Jack Moorman; and others. Yet at the same time they also realize that even though they are able to successfully demonstrate these things, the modem phase to the science is like a slippery eel, or a quick-change artist. It just theorizes differently when confronted with problems, and it has complete liberty to do so because it has pretty much eliminated anything that would prevent it from doing so. Anything like acknowledging the reality of Divine preservation, or if it does acknowledge it making it submit to the science rather than the science to it.)
Hence, I am persuaded that any measure of satisfaction, assurance, or whatever you or I might obtain from answers we receive and conclusions we come to when working strictly within the framework of the science, it is, in reality, limited to a supporting role at best. Even though you and I may obtain a certain amount of assurance regarding the correctness of the textus receptus from having inconsistencies and errors exposed in the claims made for the critical text, at best it can only be considered ‘secondary-type assurance,’ if I can coin that term. It’s much like exposing inconsistencies, presumptions, and errors, in the theory of evolution. Though there is a certain amount of assurance for us derived from those things regarding the truth that God created things just as He says He did, it too is only ‘secondary-type assurance.’ Our primary assurance is the word of God itself. As Hebrews 11:3 says, “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” God’s word says, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,” along with other similar declarations, and it is through faith in what God says that we understand and are assured that this is the case. The primary and ultimate assurance for our hearts comes from the effectual working of God’s word within us as we believe it. This is what God has designed to be the case with us, especially in this present dispensation. And this is true for anything God’s word says, not just creation; including such an issue as the reality of the Divine preservation of the scriptures. Again, there may be other matters that can provide what I call ‘secondary-type assurance,’ but they only do that as they concur with what God’s word already says.
However, when it comes to the particular questions you asked regarding the various text types, as I noted previously, there are a number of men who have limited themselves to operating within the framework of the modem phase to the science of textual criticism, have put the various theories and claims of it to an analytical and evidential test, and having done so have found it wanting in many respects. And of course, this includes the issue of the existence of Antioch/ Byzantine text-type manuscripts previous to the time allotted by the claims made for the text-types favored in the critical text, and the like. I mentioned three of these men by name earlier on, who have produced a number of writings on various aspects of their analyses. In particular, Wilbur Pickering’s “The Identity of The New Testament Text” and Jack Moorman’s “Early Manuscripts and the Authorized Version: A Closer Look!” provide just such analyses of the manuscript evidence in light of the claims made for the text type favored by the critical text. If you are not acquainted with either of these two works, you should find them helpful.
Keith Blades
Enjoy The Bible Ministries
20000516 B62 B kjv