And yet a little more on this matter of modern textual critics asserting that the apostles’ autographs (their original writings) contained error.
In the book Dr. Theodore Letis’ edited (and contributed to),
The Majority Text: Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate, James A. Borland has an essay,
“Re-Examining New Testament Textual-Critical Principles and Practices Used to Negate Inerrancy” [reprinted from the
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society; Vol. 25, No. 4 (December 1982), by permission]. In this essay Borland shows how that one thrust of TC practice is indeed used to negate the inerrancy of the apostles’ original writings; in other words, the apostles were in error in the things they wrote. I quote the opening paragraph of the essay:
Perhaps it is not shocking to assert that Satan uses every means at his disposal to attack the credibility, reliability and authority of God’s Word. He began the assault in the garden with Eve and has not stopped yet. But often his ways are more subtle than the blatant lie succumbed to by Eve. We live in a modern era of sophistication. Even in Biblical and textual studies we hear more and more about the use of computers and other highly technical tools. And Satan is more than willing to accommodate our sophistication in the area of textual criticism. Especially is this so when it occasionally allows men to assert fallibility in the New Testament autographs based on widely accepted principles and practice of textual criticism.
He briefly surveys the established tenets of NT text critical theory, and then in particular Dr. Hort’s, which postulates the “primacy of the two earliest uncial MSS, Aleph (
Sinaiticus) and B (
Vaticanus), which date from the middle of the fourth century A.D. These two MSS were given the question-begging designation of being the ‘neutral text.’” He continues,
In short, the resultant practice of these new sophisticated principles was to overturn completely the textual critical practices of the past. Since the majority Byzantine text was judged to be a later text, the supposedly more ancient, more pure “neutral text” was substituted at the junctures of innumerable variants…
In referring to the Westcott and Hort theory, George Ladd approvingly writes, “The basic solution to the textual problem has been almost universally accepted.” He goes on to assert that “it is a seldom disputed fact that critical science has to all intents and purposes recovered the original text of the New Testament.” Ladd believes that “in the search for a good text, piety and devotion can never take the place of knowledge and scholarly judgment.” [the quotes are from Ladd’s book, The New Testament and Criticism (Eerdmans 1967) In a footnote Borland quotes Gordon Fee in the same vein saying, “Fee is equally bold in asserting that ‘the task of NT textual criticism is virtually completed’” (in “Modern Textual Criticism and the revival of the Textus Receptus,” JETS 21, 1978, 19-33).] Yet it is precisely this “almost universally accepted” “knowledge and scholarly judgment” that if followed too often leads to the conclusion that the very autographs of Scripture recorded errors and blunders.
He then considers more deeply Westcott and Hort’s rules of external evidence regarding the manuscripts (by which they were able to dispose of the testimony of the majority of manuscripts), and then their rules of internal evidence, which came to the forefront after their external rules had gotten rid of the MT. Borland goes on,
Naturally each of these canons [of internal evidence] to a large degree must be subjectively applied. When a decision is difficult in the area of the internal evidence of readings, scholars often resort to the old circular reasoning that “certain MSS tend to support the ‘original’ text more than others and that those MSS are the early Alexandrian. Therefore, when internal evidence cannot decide,” Gordon Fee advises, “the safest guide is to go with the ‘best’ MSS.” [Fee, “Textual Criticism of the New Testament,” Expositor’s Bible Commentary, p. 431] Thus all too often external evidence is the last resort, and when it is appealed to, the results have already been determined by a preconception of which MSS are the “best.”….[L]et us examine several examples of this prevalent textual-critical method—which ultimately asserts that the autographs did indeed contain incontrovertible mistakes.
In other words, the prevalent textual methodology can be and is being used to deny the inerrancy of the original autographs.
Nearly a century ago George Salmon astutely observed that Westcott and Hort had attributed to the gospel writers “erroneous statements which their predecessors had regarded as copyists’ blunders.” Salmon noted that “there was indeed but little rhetorical exaggeration in the statement that the canon of these editors was that Codex B was infallible and that the Evangelists were not. Nay, it seemed as if Hort regarded it as a note of genuineness if a reading implies error on the part of the sacred writer.” [G. Salmon, Some Thoughts on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (London: John Murray, 1897), p. 26]
The above was excerpted from
another PB thread (about halfway down the post). Borland, in this essay, discusses the Asaph-Amon issue mentioned above, and another example. Those interested in obtaining Letis’ works (without paying the exorbitant sums being asked for in some places!) see
this post for info.
Is it not evident that one tenet of some major modern text critics – and a tenet intrinsic to the use of certain manuscripts – that these manuscripts demonstrate
against the doctrine that “all scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Tim 3:16)? If this view is inextricably interwoven with the use of said manuscripts (most notably
a and B) does it not follow that, as with the Trojan Horse of yore, many have let a destructive – albeit covert – force within their minds, and, in many cases, their families and churches?
Letis’ writings are cutting-edge in demonstrating some of these things (yes, I know he did not conduct himself well in the “Theonomy-L debate” with Dr. White – and in this debate I first became aware that James White not only showed himself to be a Christian gentleman, but had a good sense of humor as well), yet notwithstanding this momentary lapse Letis’ works are highly recommended.
I also want to recommend a book I just finished, Dr. Thomas Holland’s,
Crowned With Glory: The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version (Writers Club Press, 2000; ISBN: 0595 14617 1). He is irenic, scholarly, generous and gracious to opponents and opposing views, discerning of the issues and history of the transmission of the text, and full of other good information, including the examination and defense of a good number of contested verses in the AV. Not at all a “more heat than light” type of book, but rather a real gem.