Modern Scientific Textual Criticism - Bound or Independent
In 1558 William Whitaker, a master apologist for the truth of sola Scriptrua, wrote his comprehensive apology against the Roman Catholic dogma of Bellarmine and Stapleton on the topic of Holy Scripture - Disputations on Holy Scripture. Under the First Controversy and the Sixth question Whitaker writes concerning the necessity of Scripture,
"For if in civil affairs men cannot be left to themselves, but must be governed and retained in their duty by certain laws; much less should we be independent in divine things, and not rather bound by the closest ties to a prescribed and certain rule, lest we fall into a will-worship hateful to God." [523]
So for this brief post, here is the question, to those whose trust rests in the quality and certainty of modern scientific textual criticism [MSTC], in what way is MSTC "bound by the closest ties to a prescribed and certain rule" seeing that Holy Scripture falls most conspicuously under the category of "divine things"?
I maintain that MSTC is not bound but rather is a "will-worship hateful to God." For the nay-sayer, I concur that a form of textual criticism was in practice before the likes of MSTC, but that form was not of the same genus. Not of the same genus in that pre-Enlightenment textual criticism was subject to the leading of the Holy Ghost as manifested in the spirit-filled believing community of the time, whereas MSTC is subject to the scientific deductions of select scholarly board. For those perhaps a bit confused on this point, here is a slice of Theology 101. Where the Holy Spirit is leading the word of God is also present, and where the word of God is present so also is the leading of the Holy Spirit. MSTC pretends no such thing. You need not look any further than the several prefaces to the various editions of the leading Greek NT's on the market today. The goal of the MSTC scientific exercise is not for certainty, truth, or doxology, but for scientific worship of their own wills by oppressing the church with their findings and declaring all others uneducated, ignorant, and old-fashioned. So I conclude, where the Spirit of God is leading, the word of God accompanies that leading, thus pre-Enlightenment textual criticism is not of the same genus as MSTC, and should not be considered as such.
For those who seek to position MSTC with in the limits of the "prescribed and certain rule" [i.e. Holy Scripture], know that if you cannot, then you are in danger of condoning, supporting, and advancing a "will-worship hateful to God." Why is it will-worship? Because MSTC's goal is professedly not that of God's will but of a never-ending scientific endeavor governed by the limitations of human cognition to locate God's words. [i.e. men worshipping their own will to decide certain content qualities of divine revelation] Why is it hateful to God? A willful act not subject to the will of God is what brought us sin and the fall of man. Thus, MSTC is nothing more than an present day extension of that god-overthrowing will evidenced by our first parents.
The purpose of this post is to sharpen the iron of the supporters of the MSTC, by challenging them to locate MSTC in the greater exegetical and historical tapestry of Bibliology and if they cannot, to abandon MSTC as a system suitable for the work of Christ's Kingdom.
Problems of definition
Before the challenge can be answered, terms have to be clarified.
I concur that a form of textual criticism was in practice before the likes of MSTC, but that form was not of the same genus. Not of the same genus in that pre-Enlightenment textual criticism was subject to the leading of the Holy Ghost as manifested in the spirit-filled believing community of the time, whereas MSTC is subject to the scientific deductions of select scholarly board. For those perhaps a bit confused on this point, here is a slice of Theology 101. Where the Holy Spirit is leading the word of God is also present, and where the word of God is present so also is the leading of the Holy Spirit. MSTC pretends no such thing.
Your argument claims that the distinction lies primarily in role of the Spirit in the textual work. The claim has two parts: a definition of that Spirit role and a definition of "MSTC."
1) What form did this "leading of the Holy Spirit" take? Break it down for me. The possibilities are several:
- Those doing the textual work heard the Spirit speak (as in the book of Acts)
- Those doing the textual work were born along by the Spirit like the "holy men of God" in 1Pet.1.21
- Those doing the textual work had the gift of prophecy and could reveal which readings were correct
- Those doing the textual work were lead by the Spirit through majority vote as local congregations voted on alternate readings
- Those doing the textual work sought wisdom as they evaluated the available copies and were granted that wisdom
2) Where is the biblical evidence that the kind of Spirit leading described in the answer to #1 actually occurred?
3) Where is the evidence that none of those practicing textual reconstruction today seek and obtain that aid of the Spirit? Your argument also requires a comprehensive view of "MSTC" (i.e., "all of those who practice textual reconstruction today reject the work of the Spirit"). If you are only claiming that some who practice it reject this work of the Spirit, there is no disagreement. Everybody knows some of these guys are only interested in reconstructing an accurate text for academic reasons and do not even believe there is a Holy Spirit).
The God's Spirit - God's word - God's people Paradigm
Thank you for your post Brother Blumer. The answer to question 1 is this, the Standard Sacred text position as I maintain it, holds that the believing community (i.e. blood bought saints, the Body of Christ) is lead by the Holy Spirit into all truth (John 16:13) which includes what is God's word and what is not. The Spirit of God bears witness to the spirit of the believing community, and through this leading, God's people come to accept or reject the readings of a given text because ultimately the words of Scripture are spiritually discerned, not scientifically.
Answer to question 2. The most concise explanation of the process mention in the first paragraph is found in Isaiah 59:21:
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 they mouth, shall not depart out of they mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of they seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and forever.
Here is the clearest example of the word of God, Spirit of God, and people of God dynamic. Please note that the covenant maker is Jehovah and the covenant made here is just as strong as that one given to Abraham. Also note that it is upon "seed's seed", not merely the educated or leaders but upon generation after generation which leads to the next point. This covenant is transgenerational and given no point of termination. Finally, seeing that the O.T. and N.T are equal in authority, certainty, and inspiration, there is to be no division of testaments with regard to this covenant in the dispensation of grace. (See also Deut. 30:10-14)
Answer to question 3. Is there a place for linguistic, archeological, and hermeneutical investigation? Yes there is, but the conclusions must be kept within the upper and lower control limits of Holy Scripture, which is achieved through following the process briefly described above. As you have already admitted there are some who treat the Scripture as merely a science project, and because of their radically terrestrial Archimedean point their opinions concerning those things which are spiritually discerned bear virtually no authority with regard to the believing community or its sacred text. It is the believing community which has authority over lost scholar's guesses. Let us assume for the present discussion that there are those who do textual work mentioned at the beginning of this paragraph. These laborers for the faith are servants of the believing community not the "Bosses" of the believing community. In other words, the findings of linguists, archeologists, and scholars are not to be foisted upon the Body of Christ. In likeness to a Pauline analogy, this would be like the feet of the body taking the body where the rest of the body is not ready to or does not want to go. Even if the findings are correct, it is the Spirit lead believing community that places the imprimatur upon the finding(s) not the scholarly community. In short, the scholars perform the work in their several disciplines and present their work to the believing community and through the leading of the Spirit the work is accepted or rejected. Those practicing textual reconstruction, even if lead by the Spirit, do not have the power or authority to place the imprimatur on what is God's word and to withhold it from what is not. Only the Spirit lead believing community is capable of that.
Oh well...
The answer to question 1 is this, the Standard Sacred text position as I maintain it, holds that the believing community (i.e. blood bought saints, the Body of Christ) is lead by the Holy Spirit into all truth (John 16:13) which includes what is God's word and what is not. The Spirit of God bears witness to the spirit of the believing community, and through this leading, God's people come to accept or reject the readings of a given text because ultimately the words of Scripture are spiritually discerned, not scientifically.
But even more importantly, how does the information from the Spirit come to the minds of the people? Do they intuitively know the correct reading or is there some process of evaluation according to criteria or any process of reasoning?
This line of questioning is vital to the debate for multiple reasons, but, to name two:
- If the information comes to the minds of believers directly by the Spirit apart from any cognitive process or evaluation, this puts the entire question outside the realm of debate. Proponents can simply claim that they "just know" this is how the process works. Reasoning (or discussion or debate or even thought) are irrelevant to someone who "just knows" something.
- If, on the other hand, the position is that the Spirit guides the believing community as they engage in a process of evaluating readings according to criteria, there is also very little left to debate. This is so because once we allow that the Spirit can work through reasoning and not just intuitively, we must then allow that believers who engage in text reconstruction by evaluating the likely age of MSS, the breadth of geographical distribution of readings, the likely error scenarios that would explain one reading or another, etc. can experience the guidance of the Spirit in that process. It becomes evident that there is no difference between the text reconstruction efforts of believers in OT times vs. that ofbelievers today who do so using a disciplined evaluation process.
We could also go into what you mean by "scientific," but I've gone many rounds in the past with those who hold to this position and the prospect of doing it again is wearisome. There is almost always a steadfast determination to avoid using precise definitions and this determination grows stronger the closer we get to arriving at the real substance of the debate. One tends to think that the view relies on vagueness and ambiguity as its chief means of defense.
To return to the original question, if the question is, "is the practice of reconstructing texts by evaluating mss and readings according to criteria an activity that believers carry out under the Lordship of Jesus Christ (what is meant by "bound"?) or outside of that Lordship ("unbound"?), the answer is self evident. To a Christian everything is service to the Master. This includes science (though it's never made much sense to me what science has to do with this... we're really talking about study and evaluation.)
A Few Questions for you
So for this brief post, here is the question, to those whose trust rests in the quality and certainty of modern scientific textual criticism [MSTC], in what way is MSTC "bound by the closest ties to a prescribed and certain rule" seeing that Holy Scripture falls most conspicuously under the category of "divine things"?
Why is this the standard? I am not familiar with the Bible basis for this, nor for the Bible identification of the prescribed and certain rule for textual criticism. Can you be more clear on this? What are the "upper and lower limits" as established by the Bible? And where does the Bible establish them?
where the word of God is present so also is the leading of the Holy Spirit.
Is the word of God present in the modern Greek texts? If you say No, then tell us why it is virtually identical in all respects to what you say is the Word of God. If you say yes, then why aren't the modern Greek texts are the result of the leading of the Holy Spirit? What say you?
You need not look any further than the several prefaces to the various editions of the leading Greek NT's on the market today. The goal of the MSTC scientific exercise is not for certainty, truth, or doxology, but for scientific worship of their own wills by oppressing the church with their findings and declaring all others uneducated, ignorant, and old-fashioned.
Can you please quote these prefaces that say their goal is worshiping their own wills and oppressing the church with their findings? I admit to not having read these in a while, but I don't recall that being found in any prefaces that I am familiar with. And since (as everyone agrees), the modern versions are virtually identical to the ancient versions (in some cases closer to the ancient versions than even the TR is), can you help us understand why would we not want to be oppressed by the Word of God?
Because MSTC's goal is professedly not that of God's will but of a never-ending scientific endeavor governed by the limitations of human cognition to locate God's words. [i.e. men worshipping their own will to decide certain content qualities of divine revelation
How is this different than you, limited by your own human cognition, locating God's words in only one text or translation? Why should we listen to you rather than to them?
The Spirit of God bears witness to the spirit of the believing community, and through this leading, God's people come to accept or reject the readings of a given text because ultimately the words of Scripture are spiritually discerned, not scientifically.
Lastly, how do you account for the fact that the vast majority of the "believing community" today accepts the eclectic texts and the translations that come from them? This is particularly true among those who know what they are talking about. It seems that very few people in the "believing community" who are informed on the issues accept your position. If God infallibly leads the "believing community" to the right texts and right variants through the Spirit, it seems to me that we have some major problems.
General Observations
I must say that I find it refreshing that Br Van Kleeck is defending a historic bibliology on this. Those who are familiar with the Westminster Confession are cognisant that the term "authentical text" was their Scriptural presuppositions leading them to the TR and the Masoretic. Indeed, the wording was deliberately selected as a counterpart to the Council of Trent's claim that the authentic text was the Vulgate with its underlying Critical Text. That is why they included the longer ending of the Lord's Prayer and 1 John 5:7 in their confessional documents.
Anyone who is familiar with Church history, especially from a Reformed background should be aware of these facts. That is why I find it bewildering that so many claim in modern Fundamentalism that KJV/TR advocates are some kind of late twentieth century aberration in the church. I am assuming it is not intellectual dishonesty but rather a truncated Americanised view of textual history from the less well informed. Without being patronising, it appears from what I have read that those who propagate this erroneous myth is that they tend to be from the Bible seminaries that emerged in the middle of the twentieth century mainly from an IFB persuasion who deliberately cut themselves off from the Reformed heritage that we all sprung from.
I wrote a paper, which no one has ever answered, documenting from multiples sources throughout the last 600 years that the Reformers have consistently held to the TR/Masoretic only view of the texts.
I would be interested to see one from a Critical Text perspective refuting it.
But we're kind of switching horses here a bit aren't we? Supposedly the argument for TR/MT was that there is a special group of believers with a special knack for hearing from the Holy Spirit in the process of textual reconstruction. And supposedly, anybody who disagrees with them is doing "Modern Scientific Textual Criticism."
But now we should use TR/MT exclusively because the Reformers allegedly taught that no other text could be authentic. Of course, both arguments could be used for the Traditional Text view, but it's interesting how switching from one argument to another is so often a method of "let's hope they won't notice that we haven't answered their objections to the other argument."
After some general (and not in dispute) observations about the Reformers' believe in sola scriptura, we find this...
W.R. Farmer explains how the Alexandrian manuscripts were tainted by corruption, “But there is ample evidence that by the time of Eusebius the Alexandrian text-critical practices were being followed in at least some of the scriptoria where New Testament manuscripts were being produced. Exactly when Alexandrian text-critical principles were first used . . . is not known1.” Calvin said of Origen,
.
If this is a sample of how the argument unfolds in the rest of that section of the paper, I don't think I'll the time to read it. Calvin is not talking here about Alexandrian manuscripts. He is talking allegorical method of interpretation.
... great advice from Calvin there though!
One more sample, a few pages later...
Commenting on Isaiah 59:21, Calvin affirmed his belief in the perfect preservation of all the Words of Scripture in every age in the true Church,
5. any MSS that ever turn up that don't match, they can't possibly be right
Look closely. It's all there somewhere.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar