Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFideles  On the one hand, I do find it troubling that committees of mostly secular scholars make the decisions on what manuscripts contain additions or subtractions from the Word of God. If this enterprise simply contained men who were self-professed Christians who believed in the Providence of God and prayed with the Church for the wisdom for the task I wouldn't be so uncomfortable. As it is, though, all the arguments (even from men I respect) are "...well you have to understand the science of this stuff and, look, science makes it plain that this manuscript has this addition and this one doesn't. We know that this is something a scribe added to make the Gospels match...."
In my estimation, the Scriptures are something that is recognized by the Church because she hears the voice of her Bridegroom. It ought to be the enterprise of the Church to select manuscripts and I simply am not comfortable with a pagan "scholar" telling us all what our Bridegroom said.
That said, I don't necessarily buy the idea either that the scholars that met to write the King James were under Divine Inspiration when they collected their manuscripts for the purpose of translation. The Textus Receptus is not a manuscript but those that they chose. I'm willing to grant the idea that the Church could gather together again and potentially choose manuscripts that might be different than those chosen.
In the end, though, the TR has going for it that it was the work of the Church. That can't be completely dismissed. I guess I'm of the opinion that the Church could theoretically meet and choose a different set of texts and profound injury wouldn't be done to the Body of Christ by their selection. I guess I've never bought completely into the doomsday scenarios that are sometimes painted. |
Hello Rich,
These are some insightful comments. Several months ago my elders asked me to put together a series of lectures on this subject (biblical criticsm in general). I completed week four this past Lord's Day out of 16 weeks of proposed lectures.
This last week I presented Erasmus work and concluded as follows:
"Overall I believe it would be correct to conclude that Erasmus, in 1516, did to the Roman Church in terms of the common received text, through his Latin translation, what Wescott & Hort did to the Protestant Church in terms of the Egyptian text 365 years later. The former was Reformational in its scope, the latter Counter-Reformational."
You've hit on one my biggest concerns regarding this whole debate. In 1516 the publication of a new translation based upon a different Greek text was precipitated by heresy in the Church. The Romanist's were clear in their declaration - "learn to believe in the Church not in the Gospel", and their persecution of believers, who simply didn't recognize the outward forms of ecclesiastical authority as salvific, was injury upon insult.
Today, however, the public life of the Church has been made a battle ground re-introducing the very textual line upon which the Reformation was born opposing. There is no heresy taught in the Protestant Bible, in fact the proponents plainly claim they are not engaged in altering Protestant theology. But that is disingenuous because just because an orthodox interpretation can still be obtained from a different text doesn't mean that the changes won't lend themselves, once exegesis and interpretation is applied, to new and novel doctrines.
The almost total lack of Pastoral concern over the issue is alarming to me and troublesome. When I came to knowledge of this issue two decades ago it was based upon switching to the NIV because a good friend had told me it was just an updated translation, to make it easier to understand, he said. He didn't disclose the issue of a different text - nor did I consciously notice it. But my unconscious did, and I'll never forget waking up in a cold sweat doubting my faith over reading Luke 2:33 in the NIV where Joseph was changed to father. I was leading a Bible study in our apartment complex on Thursday evenings at the time and we were going through Luke. I distinctly remember waking up in the middle of the night as if arguing with someone in a dream over the deity of Christ, and the opponent asserting the opposite by asking how this is so if Joseph is His father? I got up and got the Bible and then got my old King James out and compared them, I was horrified. I didn't know much, but I knew Joseph and father were two different words that aren't mistranslations.
I began studying it out just comparing texts and found several more shocking examples and started talking to my pastor at the time and several brothers. Universally, the response was the same - "Oh, but that is still found over here, or, over there;" "another text still teaches this or that." The lack of pastoral concern distressed me then and still does today, because what might be recorded in the Bible based upon what some men said about the identify of Christ's father and what the Holy Spirit is saying in Luke 2:33 of critical texts should cause people concern. That set my feet on studying this out to much more depth, but the whole thing - which you pointed out - still troubles me to this day, and that is that the texts which are changed teach and enforce orthodoxy, and there removal is justified
on those grounds.
And you correctly point out as well, the way in which critical proponents seem to claim absolute knowledge on issues based upon multiple texts strown out across centuries and continents. Well, we can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the First Amendment of our Constitution doesn't mean what the US Supreme Court redefined it to about 60 years ago, and the majority don't seem to care nor believe you when you prove it - but these men speak in absolute terms as if they have total knowledge based upon nothing more than their opinion. It's very similar to the way the evolutionist will assert in absolute terms what is the creation of his own mind, and every just nods in agreement. That must be the way it is, science has spoken, like EF Hutton or something - if you remember those old commercials.
No one seems to be concerned that the primary authority of the Church has been changed inconsistent with the secondary authority because they can still exegete the doxology of the Lord's prayers, for example, from other texts and show it is a correct theology. But if you don't have the Confession, then why would you ever do that, how would you know to even consider that?
I'm troubled by the fact that Pastors that are trained in seminary and generally have strong faith don't seem to be, at least to me, deeply concerned over the fragility of the faith of men under their care and how this issue can have drastic consequences. If men were bringing forward texts that taught heresy and showing that they were wrong, as Erasmus and the Reformers were doing, against the Latin Vulgate, then I would be much more inclined to consider the arguments. But all of this public debate over the removal of texts that they agree teach orthodoxy doesn't carry any weight with me, I don't see how Christ is glorified in promoting unbelief and casting continual disparagements upon the veracity of the Word of God.
Cordially,
Thomas