Critical Textual Criticism and Missionary Work

[gjensen]

I want to a share a perspective from the street where apologetics happen. Much of this conversation is useless out on the street.

I would make an appeal to all of the elders here. Leave this out of the pulpit and Sunday School class. This is not a subject new believers need to get bogged down in. Preach and teach from a translation that you trust. We do not need to hear about all of its deficiencies, or the many variants over and again.

I realize the above statement will not go over well here.

In evangelism and discipleship, it is best that everyone use the same translation. The differences can be unsettling for some. At this point, we do not need any extra-added difficulties. I certainly would not hand out commentaries in evangelism. I would be very careful what I suggest to new believers. Any extra materials used should be carefully considered.

This subject will still come up, and it will have to be addressed. This is a reality that we have to deal with. And when it has to be dealt with, know who you are dealing with. Be concerned with where they are. It does not take too much to be too much. It can be too much for mature believers.

I visited a Southern Baptist Church using Lifeway material in Sunday School. The material used the KJV as its text, but the commentary had the CSB in mind with its explanations. It troubled the retirement age believers that had been reading their Bible their entire lives. I did not help them by explaining the differences. It hurt me to see them troubled. People need to be certain about the Bible they have in their hand.

I had a man ask me why after 2,000 years the church has not worked this out yet. A good question though he understood that it was not that simple. The larger point he was making was that this does not belong out on the street.

There is some appeal in reliable translations of a settled text. For this reason I would choose the KJV, but I am convinced that it has lost its place in evangelism today.

We are blessed to have so much, but we do not have the wisdom to manage what we have. We have not caught up to the ever evolving text and translations yet. I wish we could go back to the "authorized for the use in churches". I suspect that we would be better for it.

 

[Taylor]

I want to a share a perspective from the street where apologetics happen. Much of this conversation is useless out on the street.

I would make an appeal to all of the elders here. Leave this out of the pulpit and Sunday School class. This is not a subject new believers need to get bogged down in. Preach and teach from a translation that you trust. We do not need to hear about all of its deficiencies, or the many variants over and again.

I realize the above statement will not go over well here.

In evangelism and discipleship, it is best that everyone use the same translation. The differences can be unsettling for some. At this point, we do not need any extra-added difficulties. I certainly would not hand out commentaries in evangelism. I would be very careful what I suggest to new believers. Any extra materials used should be carefully considered.

This subject will still come up, and it will have to be addressed. This is a reality that we have to deal with. And when it has to be dealt with, know who you are dealing with. Be concerned with where they are. It does not take too much to be too much. It can be too much for mature believers.

I visited a Southern Baptist Church using Lifeway material in Sunday School. The material used the KJV as its text, but the commentary had the CSB in mind with its explanations. It troubled the retirement age believers that had been reading their Bible their entire lives. I did not help them by explaining the differences. It hurt me to see them troubled. People need to be certain about the Bible they have in their hand.

I had a man ask me why after 2,000 years the church has not worked this out yet. A good question though he understood that it was not that simple. The larger point he was making was that this does not belong out on the street.

There is some appeal in reliable translations of a settled text. For this reason I would choose the KJV, but I am convinced that it has lost its place in evangelism today.

We are blessed to have so much, but we do not have the wisdom to manage what we have. We have not caught up to the ever evolving text and translations yet. I wish we could go back to the "authorized for the use in churches". I suspect that we would be better for it.

I know you said that your post wouldn’t go over well here, but l found myself agreeing with all of it.

 

[Pergamum]

Can you give names of these heretics within evangelical institutions? Liberal unbelief doesn't count, since they have been doing that since Porphyry

You gonna make me do homework? I already linked an article about a BYU professor being put in charge of the Hebrew OT revision.

Even Metzger calls large portions of Scripture to be fables or mere stories and not history, such as Job and Jonah. I don't think he believed Moses wrote the first five books of the bible.

Carlo Martini was editor of the United Bible Societies’ Greek N.T. since 1967 for many years. He is a Jesuit priest and Roman Catholic Archbishop of Milan. He is within "Christendom" but we can hardly count him as a close friend.

JP Green details many other folks who cast doubt on the Scripture in his book, "Unholy Hands on the Bible": https://books.google.com.my/books?i...epage&q=unbelievers textual criticism&f=false

 

[Pergamum]

I know you said that your post wouldn’t go over well here, but l found myself agreeing with all of it.

I also agree.

 

[RamistThomist]

Even Metzger calls large portions of Scripture to be fables or mere stories and not history, such as Job and Jonah. I don't think he believed Moses wrote the first five books of the bible.

I put Metzger as midway between Evangelical and liberal. He was a Princeton don. Doesn't excuse him, but those views were quite common back then.

 

[iainduguid]

You gonna make me do homework? I already linked an article about a BYU professor being put in charge of the Hebrew OT revision.

Even Metzger calls large portions of Scripture to be fables or mere stories and not history, such as Job and Jonah. I don't think he believed Moses wrote the first five books of the bible.

Carlo Martini was editor of the United Bible Societies’ Greek N.T. since 1967 for many years. He is a Jesuit priest and Roman Catholic Archbishop of Milan. He is within "Christendom" but we can hardly count him as a close friend.

JP Green details many other folks who cast doubt on the Scripture in his book, "Unholy Hands on the Bible": https://books.google.com.my/books?id=6bQ6rfcdGywC&pg=PA571&lpg=PA571&dq=unbelievers+textual+criticism&source=bl&ots=7Qw9-_9h6M&sig=ACfU3U1fWos0kL5bVesLPeYjGYTiAwde2Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiE7srs38DnAhXTILcAHUmrBisQ6AEwEHoECAsQAQ#v=onepage&q=unbelievers textual criticism&f=false

The basic fallacy here is that no one is "in charge" of text criticism. What critical resources like Nestle Aland and BHS (and in the future - if they ever get it done - BHQ) are simply handy collocations of information about the different readings that exist in a variety of manuscripts and translations (including variations among majority manuscripts). Scholars like myself then use these resources to save having to track down all of the individual manuscript readings. We then make independent decisions about which reading we think is best in a particular context. The fact that NA28 or the editors of BHS propose a particular reading as the best has little or no impact on the text critical decisions that scholars make, whether they are conservative or evangelical, except insofar as scholars reach similar conclusions for similar reasons.
As to the main point, I tend to agree that text critics, like plumbers, are best when you don't have to see them. Somebody needs to do that work, even if you only want them to provide a compelling case that the Received text is based in the best manuscript evidence. Study Bibles probably need to discuss text critical issues at least briefly (see the introduction to the Reformation Heritage KJV for an example of that kind of text critical discussion within a believing framework). But we should provide that discussion in a context that builds up people's confidence in the text rather than tearing it down.

 

[Pergamum]

Somebody is in charge of the Bible societies and the text apparatus (Na28). And these decisions are critical and trickle down to the layman. It is not merely a loose collection of anyone, but there is a structure and there are head people picked and they make critical decisions impacting commentaries.

So, yes, there are people in charge of textual criticism. And many of them are not conservative believers.

 

[RamistThomist]

Somebody is in charge of the Bible societies and the text apparatus (Na28). And these decisions are critical and trickle down to the layman. It is not merely a loose collection of anyone, but there is a structure and there are head people picked and they make critical decisions impacting commentaries.

So, yes, there are people in charge of textual criticism. And many of them are not conservative believers.

You are confusing two different issues. Metzger's private beliefs about Jonah have nothing to do with variant NT readings. Anyway, if TR guys can praise someone like Erasmus who denied the gospel, then we have the right to go to Metzger.

 

[RamistThomist]

And the man who taught me NT Greek--Carlton Winbery--was close friends with Metzger, so we got everything first hand. Metzger believed in the evangelical essentials about Christ; he just could never shake OT criticism. Again, that was common before the Jewish thinker Umberto Cassuoto effectively buried the Documentary Hypothesis.

 

[Pergamum]

And the man who taught me NT Greek--Carlton Winbery--was close friends with Metzger, so we got everything first hand. Metzger believed in the evangelical essentials about Christ; he just could never shake OT criticism. Again, that was common before the Jewish thinker Umberto Cassuoto effectively buried the Documentary Hypothesis.

Ok, thanks for the information. Fair points.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Hi everyone, I realize now I was ignorant in my understanding of the place of variants within the received text. I vaguely knew they were there, but didn't understand what that meant, on a practical level. So I misunderstood some of the positions and remarks on the thread. My sincere apologies for the needless typing and frustration that caused.

As far as apologetics, I get it much more now after doing a bit of reading. I would of course be coming from the RT position. I'll probably never be really fluent in apologetics for it, certainly not in getting deeply into technical issues, but it would be good to at least understand the main broad issues and to have some resources to refer to if and when things come up. So I've begun compiling and organizing some quotes and resources from past PB threads (a great resource for the RT position at least, maybe CT as well). I've ordered a publication that was recommended and will be looking for more that address the broad issues. My aim would be first of all to honor the Lord, and also to bring comfort and encouragement to Christians dismayed and suffering a loss of confidence due to thinking they don't have a reliable Bible (the same aim we all share). I know that I would be speaking to people according to my station in life, just in small ways, and not debating.

So it was recommended and requested that we address apologetics, do we want to do that and can we without getting back into debate mode?

 

[Hamalas]

I've had people raise this objection when doing street evangelism. When I've had this conversation with people, I've tried to help them re-frame the issue in their minds.

Textual criticism is usually brought up as a kind of "gotcha" argument (or sometimes coming more from a place of agnosticism/uncertainty). The thought generally is: "If there are variants in the textual tradition, surely that must mean that we have no idea what the original Bible said?"

To which I always ask them: have you had the chance to look at the kinds of variants we can see in the manuscripts? When they say "no" (and they almost always say "no" because they're usually just parroting an objection they heard somewhere) I try to help them understand what kinds of variants actually exist. As Pergy mentioned, the vast VAST majority of these are absolutely meaningless. (Like the difference between spelling Savior with or without a "u" in it). Of the more "significant" variants, there is not a single variant reading that would materially affect any tenant of Christian teaching.

Bottom line for believer and unbeliever alike: the in-depth study of textual variants gives us an unheard of level of certainty regarding the testimony of Scripture. There is simply no other ancient book about which we have such quantity and quality of evidence. And even the variants we see are largely peripheral and unimportant. So if you want to cast doubt on the Bible, you'll have to find another way to do it.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Perhaps the best way to deal with the missionary "problem" raised by textual variants when one is engaged in evangelism to those from an Islamic background is only going to be solved by a long period of instruction for new converts in the doctrine of biblical inspiration and preservation in contrast with the Islamic notion of the Koran as divine revelation.

I realise that I may be asking a lot, but those evangelising in the Islamic world need to have a firm grasp of these issues as part of the efforts to reach out with the gospel. Sweeping matters under the rug will not help anyone in the long-run and may actually damage their faith once they realise that facts have been hidden from them.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

A bit of an addendum to the above post: I am currently reading through William Cunningham's Theological Lectures (I usually read one lecture per Sabbath) and have been struck by how much time he spends discussing matters of apologetics when he was teaching ministerial students. We might not like the hard work of apologetics, but training and reading in the discipline are essential if you are going to give a reason for the hope that is in you - and how much more so for ministers and missionaries than the ordinary Christian?

 

[Pergamum]

Perhaps the best way to deal with the missionary "problem" raised by textual variants when one is engaged in evangelism to those from an Islamic background is only going to be solved by a long period of instruction for new converts in the doctrine of biblical inspiration and preservation in contrast with the Islamic notion of the Koran as divine revelation.

I realise that I may be asking a lot, but those evangelising in the Islamic world need to have a firm grasp of these issues as part of the efforts to reach out with the gospel. Sweeping matters under the rug will not help anyone in the long-run and may actually damage their faith once they realise that facts have been hidden from them.

Given the time and busyness and all the other priorities of trying to disciple ex-mslms, the textual variants have never been anything I've brought up voluntarily. There is too many other priorities. Plus, dealing with their rejection from family, threats of violence, losing jobs, etc.

We try to do our best, but we always come up short.

One textual issue that often comes up is the meaning of John's Gospel 1:1, showing that in the beginning the Word already was and was with God and was God (and therefore Jesus was not a creation, but Creator). And the Muslims believe that the Qur'an has existed eternally and perfectly in heaven as the Mother Book in Heaven, and so this can become a bridge to understanding (they also acknowledge something eternal and uncreated residing in heaven alongside God and yet they are not polytheists, so neither are we).

Also, (and this will receive opposition) but most mslms who come to faith do so, not through argumentation or apologetics, but because 1. prayers for healing are answered dramatically, 2. Christians aided then in their times of illness or poverty and showed kindness, 3. they've reported dreams - often of Jesus - leading them to seek out the bible or a pastor, 4. or they've been touched when a Christian has prayed for them. or 5. They've read of Jesus in the gospels or heard stories of his healings and tenderness, and were attracted to His beauty. Most come to faith through non-cognitive factors first, but are drawn first with the heart or the beauty of Jesus.

Few are argued into the faith, which is why I've never been a fan of apologetics-as-evangelism, but only as a later discipleship tool. This is why simple preachers often baptize many Mslms and why some big-name apologists who debate mslms often have little actual fruit among the mslms.

 

[Solparvus]

Given the time and busyness and all the other priorities of trying to disciple ex-mslms, the textual variants have never been anything I've brought up voluntarily. There is too many other priorities. Plus, dealing with their rejection from family, threats of violence, losing jobs, etc.

We try to do our best, but we always come up short.

One textual issue that often comes up is the meaning of John's Gospel 1:1, showing that in the beginning the Word already was and was with God and was God (and therefore Jesus was not a creation, but Creator). And the Muslims believe that the Qur'an has existed eternally and perfectly in heaven as the Mother Book in Heaven, and so this can become a bridge to understanding (they also acknowledge something eternal and uncreated residing in heaven alongside God and yet they are not polytheists, so neither are we).

Also, (and this will receive opposition) but most mslms who come to faith do so, not through argumentation or apologetics, but because 1. prayers for healing are answered dramatically, 2. Christians aided then in their times of illness or poverty and showed kindness, 3. they've reported dreams - often of Jesus - leading them to seek out the bible or a pastor, 4. or they've been touched when a Christian has prayed for them. or 5. They've read of Jesus in the gospels or heard stories of his healings and tenderness, and were attracted to His beauty. Most come to faith through non-cognitive factors first, but are drawn first with the heart or the beauty of Jesus.

Few are argued into the faith, which is why I've never been a fan of apologetics-as-evangelism, but only as a later discipleship tool. This is why simple preachers often baptize many Mslms and why some big-name apologists who debate mslms often have little actual fruit among the mslms.

Calvin, Institutes, Ch 7, Sec 4 and 5. Beveridge translation, taken from my Logos copy (Hendricksen).

Central point: Scripture taken by faith on the authority of God, by a Spirit given persuasion; and to begin with arguments is backwards, as no one can be persuaded by argumentation.

He later clarifies that arguments will confirm a faith already established.

For the record, I do not believe in burying my head in the sand concerning variants.

---------

" Yet they who strive to build up firm faith in Scripture through disputation are doing things backwards. For my part, although I do not excel either in great dexterity or eloquence, if I were struggling against the most crafty sort of despisers of God, who seek to appear shrewd and witty in disparaging Scripture, I am confident it would not be difficult for me to silence their clamorous voices. And if it were a useful labor to refute their cavils, I would with no great trouble shatter the boasts they mutter in their lurking places. But even if anyone clears God’s Sacred Word from man’s evil speaking, he will not at once imprint upon their hearts that certainty which piety requires. Since for unbelieving men religion seems to stand by opinion alone, they, in order not to believe anything foolishly or lightly, both wish and demand rational proof that Moses and the prophets spoke divinely. But I reply: the testimony of the Spirit is more excellent than all reason. For as God alone is a fit witness of himself in his Word, so also the Word will not find acceptance in men’s hearts before it is sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit. The same Spirit, therefore, who has spoken through the mouths of the prophets must penetrate into our hearts to persuade us that they faithfully proclaimed what had been divinely commanded. Isaiah very aptly expresses this connection in these words: “My Spirit which is in you, and the words that I have put in your mouth, and the mouths of your offspring, shall never fail” [Isa. 59:21 p.]. Some good folk are annoyed that a clear proof is not ready at hand when the impious, unpunished, murmur against God’s Word. As if the Spirit were not called both “seal” and “guarantee” [2 Cor. 1:22] for confirming the faith of the godly; because until he illumines their minds, they ever waver among many doubts!

Let this point therefore stand: that those whom the Holy Spirit has inwardly taught truly rest upon Scripture, and that Scripture indeed is self-authenticated; hence, it is not right to subject it to proof and reasoning. And the certainty it deserves with us, it attains by the testimony of the Spirit. For even if it wins reverence for itself by its own majesty, it seriously affects us only when it is sealed upon our hearts through the Spirit. Therefore, illumined by his power, we believe neither by our own nor by anyone else’s judgment that Scripture is from God; but above human judgment we affirm with utter certainty (just as if we were gazing upon the majesty of God himself) that it has flowed to us from the very mouth of God by the ministry of men. We seek no proofs, no marks of genuineness upon which our judgment may lean; but we subject our judgment and wit to it as to a thing far beyond any guesswork! This we do, not as persons accustomed to seize upon some unknown thing, which, under closer scrutiny, displeases them, but fully conscious that we hold the unassailable truth! Nor do we do this as those miserable men who habitually bind over their minds to the thralldom of superstition; but we feel that the undoubted power of his divine majesty lives and breathes there. By this power we are drawn and inflamed, knowingly and willingly, to obey him, yet also more vitally and more effectively than by mere human willing or knowing!"

........ then Chapter 8, Section 1...........


"Unless this certainty, higher and stronger than any human judgment, be present, it will be vain to fortify the authority of Scripture by arguments, to establish it by common agreement of the church, or to confirm it with other helps. For unless this foundation is laid, its authority will always remain in doubt. Conversely, once we have embraced it devoutly as its dignity deserves, and have recognized it to be above the common sort of things, those arguments—not strong enough before to engraft and fix the certainty of Scripture in our minds—become very useful aids. "

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

Yes, the OP was created out of a frustration when Bible Study materials that I gave to a new convert cast doubt upon the very presence of a passage (I believe it was the adultery passage).

The broader purpose of the OP was to discuss how to deal with this issue in the context of evangelism and missions.

Particularly in reference to the 1. the ending of Mark, 2. the adultery passage, and 3. The Comma, if a missionary's bible study materials tell the convert that these passages are not Scripture, and yet the translated bible and the missionary tell the convert that these are Scripture, and the missionary has even used one example (the women caught in adultery) as an example of God's forgiveness, then this creates a major problem on the mission field.

Particularly in comparison with the Qur'anic text, there are a lot of variants. The Qur'an is fairly uniform. So for an ex-mslm to hear for the first time of variants in the biblical text, whereas he's been told his whole life that the Qur'an is a perfect copy of the Mother Book in heaven, this will sow doubts.

I do also note that, despite many godly men handling textual criticism, how are there so many heretics involved as well. There are a lot of heretics doing textual criticism and standing in judgment of the text. This is also a frustration.

Nobody denies the existence of textual variants or scribal errors. And we all know printer's and scribe's have left out a word here or there and even created a "Bad Bible" by one such error. This is different than saying that for most of Church History we've taught from the 3 examples I've given above (1.Mark's ending, 2. Adultery passage, 3 the Comma), but we needed Liberal scholars like Westcott and Hort recently to show us that we've been mistaken for the majority of the last two millenia and to guide the Church into greater truth.

I think, try to find better study materials if possible, now that you are aware the current one is defective, and try to reassure your pupil of the authority of the Word of God. Maybe a teachable moment in a sense - the Bible is the Word of God, the study material casting doubt on it is the word of man - they (and we) must trust the word of God over the word of man.

 

[greenbaggins]

Hi everyone, I realize now I was ignorant in my understanding of the place of variants within the received text. I vaguely knew they were there, but didn't understand what that meant, on a practical level. So I misunderstood some of the positions and remarks on the thread. My sincere apologies for the needless typing and frustration that caused.

As far as apologetics, I get it much more now after doing a bit of reading. I would of course be coming from the RT position. I'll probably never be really fluent in apologetics for it, certainly not in getting deeply into technical issues, but it would be good to at least understand the main broad issues and to have some resources to refer to if and when things come up. So I've begun compiling and organizing some quotes and resources from past PB threads (a great resource for the RT position at least, maybe CT as well). I've ordered a publication that was recommended and will be looking for more that address the broad issues. My aim would be first of all to honor the Lord, and also to bring comfort and encouragement to Christians dismayed and suffering a loss of confidence due to thinking they don't have a reliable Bible (the same aim we all share). I know that I would be speaking to people according to my station in life, just in small ways, and not debating.

So it was recommended and requested that we address apologetics, do we want to do that and can we without getting back into debate mode?

I could be wrong, but I'm fairly sure it isn't you who is causing frustration. The discussion, at any rate, appears to have gotten back to an even keel.

 

[iainduguid]

We all agree that text criticism is necessary, even for those who adopt the received text. The question is where it needs to be mentioned in Study Bibles and commentaries, which is a wisdom matter. Calvin, John Gill (extensively) and Matthew Henry all have at least some mention of the text critical issues that arise with Psalm 22:16, where the KJV chose to go with a minority manuscript tradition (supported by Septuagint and Vulgate) rather than the vast bulk of the received manuscript tradition. Calvin and Henry even attribute the manuscript differences to deliberate tampering on the part of the Jews, which seems far more likely to undermine people's faith than most Study Bibles' comments about different manuscript traditions in the NT. So it's definitely not simply a new problem. The onus is on us as pastors to review the level of the materials we are using with young believers to build up rather than tear down their faith, and equip ourselves to answer their questions well when they come up.

 

[Robert Truelove]

The text is a canonical issue and must be addressed from a Biblical, canonical worldview. Until the post-enlightenment approach to the text is set aside and a return is made to the pre-critical, canonical understanding of the text, we will continue to suffer declension and arm our enemies to assault the faith once given to the saints.

 

[Pergamum]

For the Muslims it was the first "rightly guided caliphs" who gathered and assembled the Qur'an and destroyed all competing copies. They recognized better than modern Christians that the Islamic Holy Book is to be kept pure under the care of those who believed and defended their faith. I cannot imagine any part of the process of printing the Qur'an to be given over to a printing company run by atheists or homosexuals, for instance.

Yet this has been so with the Bible. There are some folks who are holding key positions who could never receive communion or even membership in most of our churches, and yet come out every few years with a new Nestle-Aland's revision. What are we on now, NA-28 or NA-29? And how many of those who worked on this will end up in hell?

Dr Kurt Aland, for instance, seems to deny that 2 and 3 John, Jude, and 2 Peter were really written by those men. He seems to doubt that the gospels were actually written by those 4 men. Despite the ancient Fathers saying otherwise, Alan is convinced that many of the New Testament epistles were written under pseudonyms and not really Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.


We can say: "We must put a man's personal beliefs aside and only focus on his scholarship" - but how is this possible when he is unsound? The modern critical apparatus is partially named after a guy who doesn't even believe that John wrote his own Gospel. And yet we are revising the bible and even deleting long-held passages based upon his "scholarship" - I don't buy it.

These textual critics have used their "scholarship" as a Trojan Horse to get within our very walls.

 

[RamistThomist]

He seems to doubt that the gospels were actually written by those 4 men.

Where do the Gospels say they were written by those men?

 

[Pergamum]

Where do the Gospels say they were written by those men?

So you don't believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote the Gospels attributed to them?

 

[RamistThomist]

So you don't believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote the Gospels attributed to them?

I'm simply going by the text.

 

[Pergamum]

I'm simply going by the text.

Taking Luke/Acts as an example, not only is the ancient church pretty much unanimous but there are also the "we" passages.

 

[RamistThomist]

Taking Luke/Acts as an example, not only is the ancient church pretty much unanimous but there are also the "we" passages.

True, you can reverse-engineer the "we" passages back to a Lucan authorship. Still, condemning a man simply because he refused to go beyond the bible on this isn't fair.

 

[Pergamum]

True, you can reverse-engineer the "we" passages back to a Lucan authorship. Still, condemning a man simply because he refused to go beyond the bible on this isn't fair.

He cast doubt upon the very canonicity and authorship of the books.

Likewise, Eberhard Nestle seems to say that the Bible is to be judged like any other piece of literature and that the NT authors did not believe their writings to be the authoritative Word of God, nor expected to be read by the worldwide Christian community.


--

Can it really be said that these men even believed in the verbal inspiration of Scripture?

 

[RamistThomist]

He cast doubt upon the very canonicity and authorship of the books.

Likewise, Eberhard Nestle seems to say that the Bible is to be judged like any other piece of literature and that the NT authors did not believe their writings to be the authoritative Word of God, nor expected to be read by the worldwide Christian community.


--

Can it really be said that these men even believed in the verbal inspiration of Scripture?

I can't remember, did he specifically attack the canonicity? The canon list isn't actually in the bible.

 

[Hamalas]

For the Muslims it was the first "rightly guided caliphs" who gathered and assembled the Qur'an and destroyed all competing copies. They recognized better than modern Christians that the Islamic Holy Book is to be kept pure under the care of those who believed and defended their faith. I cannot imagine any part of the process of printing the Qur'an to be given over to a printing company run by atheists or homosexuals, for instance.

Yet this has been so with the Bible. There are some folks who are holding key positions who could never receive communion or even membership in most of our churches, and yet come out every few years with a new Nestle-Aland's revision. What are we on now, NA-28 or NA-29? And how many of those who worked on this will end up in hell?

Dr Kurt Aland, for instance, seems to deny that 2 and 3 John, Jude, and 2 Peter were really written by those men. He seems to doubt that the gospels were actually written by those 4 men. Despite the ancient Fathers saying otherwise, Alan is convinced that many of the New Testament epistles were written under pseudonyms and not really Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.


We can say: "We must put a man's personal beliefs aside and only focus on his scholarship" - but how is this possible when he is unsound? The modern critical apparatus is partially named after a guy who doesn't even believe that John wrote his own Gospel. And yet we are revising the bible and even deleting long-held passages based upon his "scholarship" - I don't buy it.

These textual critics have used their "scholarship" as a Trojan Horse to get within our very walls.

 

[Hamalas]

I post that in love brother (and somewhat tongue-in-cheek). I do hold you in high regard, but I do think the argument you're making basically boils down to a good-old-fashioned genetic fallacy. Maybe I'm missing something.