1 Sunday, September 11, 2016 Grace Life Schl f Thelgy Frm This Generatin Fr Ever Lessn 28 Intrductin t Preservatin Intrductin Since ur last meeting n April 17, I have been reading and studying in preparatin fr the resumptin f class. The bulk f my reading ver the last fur and half mnths has fcused n the dctrine f preservatin. In the interest f full transparency, I have read a hst f bks r prtins theref as well as essays and articles in thelgical jurnals. My reading has traversed bth sides f the preservatin cntrversy, and included the titles listed in the summer 2016 Reading List n page 8. During ur intermissin I als wrte a paper titled The King James Bible in America: An Orthgraphic, Histrical, and Textual Investigatin. This paper is currently underging a peer review by a grup f pastrs and Bible teachers. Much f what I read was very challenging t my previus thinking n the tpic f preservatin. Mre than nce during the curse f the past fur and half mnths I cntemplated giving up and just ending the class. As the reading list demnstrates there are schlarly men with high academic credentials n bth sides f this issue. All f this just highlights all the mre ur need t base ur thinking n this tpic upn Gd's wrd, nt mere human pinin. I am still in the prcess f wrking thrugh hw t explain where I am at n these issues. I am aware that ding this in real time, in frnt f a live audience, might expse me t criticism as I wrk thrugh the limitatins f terminlgy. Here is what I knw; even within the King James Camp there is n universally agreed upn viewpint t which everyne subscribes. There are many sub-views that are arrived at via varius means and fr a variety f reasns. There is a tendency exhibited by sme t cnsider thse with nuanced r slightly different views as nt being King James enugh. That being said, all I am asking fr is a fair hearing befre ne decides t brand me ne way r the ther. Review After dealing with sme preliminary issues (Lessns 1-10), the main bjective f ur first term was t set frth a clear understanding f the dctrine f inspiratin. In ding s, we cnsidered the fllwing: Varius Theries f Inspiratin (Lessn 11) Ptential Pitfalls f the Plenary Psitin (Lessn 12) Passages Prving the Plenary Psitin (Lessn 13) Divine Dictatin as the Mechanism f Inspiratin? (Lessns 14-17) Pastr Bryan Rss
2 Gd s Design in Inspiratin: Equality Between the Living and Written Wrd (Lessn 18) The Living Wrd s Attitude Tward the Written Wrd (Lessn 19) The New Testament Writer s Attitude Tward the Written Wrd (Lessn 20) Internal Evidence f Inspiratin: Undesigned Cincidences (Lessns 21-22) Internal Evidence f Inspiratin: Fulfilled Prphecy (Lessn 23) External Evidence f Inspiratin: The Histricity f the Old Testament (Lessn 24) External Evidence f Inspiratin: The Histricity f the New Testament (Lessn 25) External Evidence f Inspiratin: The Transmissin f the Text (Lessn 26) Disclaimers Regarding the Limitatins f Inspiratin (Lessn 27) In Lessn 2, I intrduced yu t the fllwing set f presuppsitins that we used t guide ur study f inspiratin. Gd exists. (Psalm 14:1) Gd has magnified His wrd abve His wn name. (Psalms 138:2) Gd s wrd is eternally settled in heaven. (Psalms 119:89) Gd, thrugh the prcess f inspiratin, has cmmunicated His wrd t mankind. (I Timthy 3:16 & II Peter 1:21) Gd s wrds were written dwn s that they culd be made eternally available t men. (Isaiah 30:8, I Peter 1:23) Gd prmised t preserve that which He inspired. (Psalms 12:6-7) Generally speaking, the first five f these presuppsitins are nt in dispute amng leading Evangelical and Fundamentalists thelgians. Hwever, the same culd certainly nt be said fr the sixth presuppsitin regarding preservatin. Much ink has been spilt debating this dctrine. It is t understanding the sixth presuppsitin i.e., the dctrine f preservatin, that we will devte the majrity f ur time in this sectin f the class. Pastr Bryan Rss
3 Intrductry Lessns 3 and 4 as well as 8 thrugh 10 did tuch upn preservatin, perhaps a bit prematurely, but lack the details we will begin cvering this mrning. By way f review, we bserved the fllwing basic pints abut preservatin in these early lessns. Preservatin is the Bible s claim fr itself. Gd prmised t preserve that which He inspired. Gd did nt see fit t accmplish His fundamental prmise f preservatin by preserving the riginal autgraphs. This is evident because, had He chsen t accmplish preservatin in this fashin, we wuld pssess the riginals tday. In rder t accmplish the preservatin f His wrd, Gd did nt preserve it in a state f exact sameness but in a state f pureness. There are substantive differences in meaning between the TR and the Critical Text that impact the accuracy f the text, sme f which impact dctrine. The gal f these early lessns was nt t set frth a fully develped dctrine f preservatin. One must first fully appreciate the dctrine f inspiratin befre being able t fully grasp the dctrine f preservatin in its fullness. Put anther way, if ne des nt accurately understand inspiratin, he will struggle t understand what is being preserved and hw t scripturally identify the prcess. Taking Stck f the Facts Fact 1 the riginal autgraphs are nt extant i.e., they n lnger exist. Fact 2 n tw Greek manuscripts are exactly the same. Alexandrian manuscripts א (Cdex Sinaiticus) and B (Cdex Vaticanus), the tw scalled ldest and best, differ with each ther in ver 3,000 places in the gspels alne. The manuscripts cmprising the Alexandrian Text Type differ frm thse cmprising the Byzantine Text Type. N tw Byzantine manuscripts read exactly the same. Fact 3 n tw printed editins f the Greek New Testament are exactly the same. Editins f the TR are nt exactly the same. The TR differs frm the Critical Text Critical Text editins are nt exactly the same. Pastr Bryan Rss
4 United Bible Sciety Nestle-Aland Fact 4 n tw editins f the King James Bible are exactly the same. Fact 5 the King James differs frm mdern versins. Fact 6 n tw mdern versins read exactly the same. Summary Statement: If the preservatin f the Wrd f Gd depends upn exact preservatin f the wrds f the riginal dcuments, then the situatin is dire. N tw manuscripts cntain exactly the same wrds. N tw editins f the Masretic Text cntain exactly the same wrds. N tw editins f the Textus Receptus cntain exactly the same wrds. N tw mdificatins f the King James Versin cntain exactly the same wrds and the Bible nwhere tells us which editin, if any, des cntain the exact wrds f the riginals. These are nt speculatins, these are plain facts. (Bauder, 155) All f this raises serius questins as t the extent and means by which preservatin was accmplished. Sme, as we will see in the cming weeks, g s far as t say that there is n such thing as preservatin i.e., it is a cntrived dctrine t supprt King James Onlyism. What is clear is this, demanding exact sameness r identical wrding as yur standard f preservatin reaches beynd the histrical and textual facts and is ultimately unhelpful and detrimental t ne s psitin. Yet, this is exactly what many King James advcates argue fr when they hld t plenary preservatin r identical preservatin. Oppnents f the King James are mre than happy t allw King James advcates t adpt this standard as their burden f prf because they knw the verbatim r identical preservatin cannt be sustained in the light f the facts. The fllwing pints are inescapable: Gd prmised t persevere His wrd. Psalms 12:6-7; 105:5; 119:89, 111, 152, 160; Isaiah 30:8; 40:8; Matthew 24:35; I Peter 1:23-25 Gd did nt see fit t preserve His wrd by preserving the riginals. This is self-evident because the riginals n lnger exist. Pastr Bryan Rss
5 Gd did nt supernaturally ver-take the pen f every scribe, cpyist, r typesetter wh ever handled the text t ensure that n differences f any kind entered the text. Differences exist at every level f this discussin. If the standard fr preservatin is plenary r pristine identicality, why did Gd nt just preserve the riginals and thereby remve all dubt. S hw d we make sense f all f this? One culd adpt a cmpletely humanistic r naturalistic apprach and try t reasn thrugh the cnundrum n the basis f human viewpint alne. Or, ne can lk t Gd s wrd fr guidance and insight int hw t think abut the prblem, just as we did in ur investigatin f inspiratin. I believe that we shuld allw the Hly Spirit t instruct us hw t think abut the issue. When in dubt, the viewpint f faith is always best. This brings us back t the end f Lessn 27 where we left ff last April. Many encunter prblems studying manuscript evidence/textual criticism because they apprach the subject frm the vantage pint f human viewpint. In ther wrds, the subject is brached with a lack f thrugh understanding f the fundamental underlying dctrines. As we have seen thrugh ur study f inspiratin, the Bible is unlike any ther bk and shuld be apprached accrdingly. Once again, Dr. Edward F. Hills pinted this ut in his 1956 bk The King James Versin Defended. The Christian Church has lng cnfessed that the bks f the New Testament, as well as thse f the Old, are divine Scriptures, written under the inspiratin f the Hly Spirit... Since the dctrine f divine inspiratin f the New Testament has, in all ages, stimulated the cpying f these sacred bks, it is evident that this dctrine is imprtant fr the histry f the New Testament text, n matter whether it be a true dctrine r nly a belief f the Christian Church. But what if it be true? What if the riginal New Testament manuscripts actually were inspired f Gd? If the dctrine f divine inspiratin f the New Testament is a true dctrine, then New Testament textual criticism is different frm the textual criticism f rdinary bks. (Hills, 1-2) Thus there are tw methds f New Testament textual criticism; the cnsistently Christian methd and the naturalistic methd. These tw methds deal with the same materials, the same Greek manuscripts, and the same translatins and biblical qutatins, but they interpret the materials very differently. The cnsistently Christian methd interprets the materials f New Testament textual criticism in accrdance with the dctrines f the divine inspiratin and prvidential preservatin f the Scriptures. The naturalistic methd interprets these same materials in accrdance with its wn dctrine that the New Testament is nthing mre than a human bk. (Hills, 3) What des Hills mean when he uses the phrase naturalistic methd in these qutes? He is referring t the methdlgy f naturalism r the philsphical viewpint accrding t which Pastr Bryan Rss
6 everything arises frm natural prperties and causes, and supernatural r spiritual explanatins are excluded r discunted. (Ggle Definitin) Drs. Westctt and Hrt, in the intrductin t The New Testament in the Original Greek, started their task with the presuppsitin that the Bible is t be treated like any ther bk. The principles f criticism explained in the freging sectin hld gd fr all ancient texts preserved in a plurality f dcuments. In dealing with the text f the New Testament n new principle whatever is needed r legitimate. (Westctt and Hrt, 73) This presuppsitin is n dubt a result f their lw view f inspiratin. When speaking abut primitive crruptin in the text, Dr. Hrt states: Little is gained by speculating as t the precise pint at which such crruptins came in. They may be due t the riginal writer, r his amanuensis if wrte frm dictatin, r they may be due t ne f the earliest transcribers. (Westctt and Hrt, 280-281) On this pint Hrt stands in ppsitin t mdern Evangelical schlarship in that he allws fr crruptin t have entered the text via the riginal writer. Such a psitin explains why Hrt is reluctant t ascribe infallibility t the text in any frm. In a letter addressed t J.B. Lightft dated May 1, 1860, Hrt stated in part: I am cnvinced that any view f the Gspels, which distinctly and cnsistently recgnizes fr them a natural and histrical rigin (whether under a special Divine superintendence r nt), and assumes that they did nt drp dwn ready-made frm heaven, must and will be startling t an immense prtin f educated English peple. But s far, at least, Westctt and I are perfectly agreed, and I cnfess I had hped that yu (Lightft) wuld assent... If yu make a decided cnvictin f the abslute infallibility f the N.T. practically a sine qu nn fr c-peratin, I fear I culd nt jin yu, even if yu were willing t frget yur fears abut the rigin f the Gspels. I am mst anxius t find the N.T. infallible, and have a strng sense f the Divine purpse guiding all its parts; but I cannt see hw the exact limits f such guidance can be ascertained except by unbiased a psterir criticism... (Regarding the questin f Prvidence in Biblical Hrt writes) Mst strngly I recgnize it; but I am nt prepared t say that it necessarily invlves abslute infallibility. (Hrt, 419-421) This is the type f textual criticism that Dr. Hills is referring t when he talks abut the naturalistic methd. He is speaking abut an apprach t the scriptures that dubts their supernatural rigin, dubts their infallibility even in the riginal autgraphs, and treats the Bible as thugh it were any ther bk. Such was the apprach f Drs. Westctt and Hrt. Pastr Bryan Rss
7 Wrks Cited Bauder, Kevin T. An Appeal t Scripture in One Bible Only? Examining the Exclusive Claims fr the King James Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publicatins, 2001. Hills, Edward F. The King James Versin Defended. Des Mines, IA: Christian Research Press, 1956. Hrt, Fentn Jhn Anthny. Life and Letters f Fentn Jhn Anthny Hrt, Vl. I. Lndn: Macmillian and Cmpany LTD, 1896. Westctt, Brke Fss & Fentn Jhn Anthny Hrt. The New Testament in The Original Greek. Lndn: Macmillian and Cmpany LTD, 1896. Pastr Bryan Rss
8 Summer 2016 Reading List Bks Brandenburg, Kent. Thu Shalt Keep Them: A Biblical Thelgy f the Perfect Preservatin f Scripture. El Sbrante, CA: Pillar & Grund Publishing, 2003. Clud, David W. Myths Abut the Mdern Bible Versins. Oak Harbr, WA: Way f Life Literature, 1999. DiVietr, Kirk. Cleaning-Up Hazardus Materials: A Refutatin f Gail Riplinger s Hazardus Materials. Cllingswd, NJ: The Dean Burgn Sciety, 2010. Jnes, Flyd Nlen. Which Versin is the Bible? Humbldt, TN: Kingswrd Press, 1989. Letis, Thedre P. The Majrity Text: Essays and Reviews in the Cntinuing Debate. Institute fr Biblical and Textual Studies, 1987. Miller, Edward. A Guide t the Textual Criticism f the New Testament. 1886. Mrman, Jack. Frever Settled: A Survey f the Dcuments and Histry f the Bible. Cllingswd, NJ: The Dean Burgn Sciety Press, 1999. Nrris, Rick. The Unbund Scriptures: A Review f KJV-Only Claims and Publicatins. Fayetteville, NC: Unbund Scripture Publicatins, 2003. Pickering, Wilbur. The Identity f the New Testament Text. Nashville, TN: Thmas Nelsn Publishers, 1980. Pickering, Wilbur and Phillip Kayser. Has Gd Indeed Said? The Preservatin f the Text f the New Testament. Omaha, NE: Biblical Blueprints, 2009. Srensn, David H. Tuch Nt the Unclean Thing: The Text Issue and Separatin. Duluth, MN: Nrthstar Baptist Ministries, 2001. Sturz, Harry A. The Byzantine Text-Type & New Testament Textual Criticism. Nashville, TN: Thmas Nelsn Publishers, 1984. Surrett, Charles L. Which Greek Text? The Debate Amng Fundamentalists. Kings Muntain, NC: Surrett Family Publicatins, 2013. Taylr, Jim. In Defense f the Textus Receptus. Cleveland, GA: Old Path Publicatins, 2016. Van Bruggen, Jakb. The Ancient Text f the New Testament. 1976. Pastr Bryan Rss
9 Essays and Jurnal Articles Bauder, Kevin T. The Issues at Hand in One Bible Only? Examining the Exclusive Claims fr the King James Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publicatins, 2001. Bauder, Kevin T. An Appeal t Scripture in One Bible Only? Examining the Exclusive Claims fr the King James Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publicatins, 2001. Beacham, Ry E. The Old Testament Text and the Versin Debate in One Bible Only? Examining the Exclusive Claims fr the King James Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publicatins, 2001. Brland, James A. Re-Examining New Testament Textual-Critical Principles and Practices Used t Negate Inerrancy in Jurnal f the Evangelical Thelgical Sciety. December1982. Brland, James A. The Preservatin f the New Testament Text: A Cmmn Sense Apprach in Faculty Publicatins and Presentatin f Liberty University. Spring 1999. Cmbs, William W. The Preface f the King James Versin and the King James-Only Psitin in Detrit Baptist Seminary Jurnal. Fall 1996. Cmbs, William W. Errrs in the King James Versin? in Detrit Baptist Seminary Jurnal. Fall 1999. Cmbs, William W. The Preservatin f Scripture? in Detrit Baptist Seminary Jurnal. Fall 2000. Glenny, W. Edward. The Preservatin f Scripture in The Bible Versin Debate: The Perspective f Central Baptist Thelgical Seminary. Minneaplis, MN: Central Baptist Thelgical Seminary, 1997. Krinke, Jhn M. Shuld Believers Accept the Preservatin f Gd s Wrd(s) by Faith, r by Histry & Science Submitted t the Dean Burgn Sciety in July 1997. Kutilek, Duglas K. The Backgrund and Origin n the Versin Debate in One Bible Only? Examining the Exclusive Claims fr the King James Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publicatins, 2001. Rehurek, Jn. Preservatin f the Bible: Prvidential r Miraculus? The Biblical View in The Master s Seminary Jurnal. Spring 2008. Skiltn, Jhn H. The New Testament Text Tday in The New Testament Student and His Field, Vl. 5. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Refrmed Publishing Cmpany, 1982. Wallace, Daniel B. Sme Secnd Thughts n the Majrity Text in Biblitcheca Sacra. 1989. Pastr Bryan Rss
10 Wallace, Daniel B. The Majrity Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical? in Biblitcheca Sacra.1991. Wallace, Daniel B. Inspiratin, Preservatin, And New Testament Textual Criticism in Grace Thelgical Jurnal. 1992. Wallace, Daniel B. The Majrity-Text Thery: Histry, Methds, and Critique in Jurnal f the Evangelical Thelgical Sciety. June 1994. Pastr Bryan Rss