Hi again. Here, as promised, is the second half of my reply to Zach’s comments. Not wanting to push people too far too quickly, I was hoping to keep this material back until I had had a chance to present it in a more gradual fashion in Part 3 of my series of articles in
Media Spotlight, but under the circumstances it seems appropriate to post it here. The following submission is probably not as polished as the first half was, but I hope it will prove of use nevertheless and that readers will forgive the blemishes.
ANALYSIS UNHELPFUL
As we saw last time, a number of arguments are commonly employed to give the impression that any attempt to investigate the gulf in attitude between the two camps would be redundant. If these fail, other arguments are brought up to head off such an investigation on the basis that it would be
unhelpful. I can think of five arguments in this category.
(1) MINOR: We are regularly told that, in practical terms, the textual differences separating the two camps are all trivial - and that any analysis of the gulf would therefore be a waste of everyone’s time.
Even if we accept that the differences are all minor, there are some problems with the above line of reasoning:
We’ve already agreed, in the ‘Background’ section I posted yesterday, that the Bible is God’s Word and therefore that its accuracy is very important.
We’ve also already agreed that thousands of textual differences separate the two camps. Since only one of the two camps can be right, the other camp is in error and (in view of the importance of accuracy) it needs to be shown this. Thus it is wise to find out which camp is on the right side of the gulf and it is wise for the other camp to be open to correction and to accept the truth.
Even if all the thousands of textual differences at issue are accidental or well-intentioned, (a) they are numerous enough to cause damage to the pure and intricate text of God’s Word (as I hope I established in Part 1 of my series), and (b) they are of a type and quantity which promotes doubt about the inspiration and hence reliability of God’s Word (as I hope I established in Part 2a of my series). Regardless of whether or not the textual differences
within one’s chosen camp are trivial, it is clearly advisable to ensure that we are at least on the right side of the gulf!
(2) DOUBT: Ironically (in view of the preceding entry), it is sometimes argued that analyzing the gulf in attitude is unhelpful for the very reason that such an analysis can itself lead to doubt about the reliability of one’s preferred translation of the Bible – i.e. because such an analysis draws attention to a gulf that most “laymen” don’t even know exists.
This argument assumes that the textual differences between the camps are spiritually negligible. But even if that is the case (and we will obviously need to check it later), there are still problems with this argument:
As I noted in entry “(1)” a few moments ago, doubts about the reliability of God’s Word are already caused by (among other things) the very nature of many of the textual differences between Bible translations. (I hoped I’d proved this in Part 2b.) Put another way, plenty of folks already have a significant distrust of their Bible version thanks in no small part to the textual differences between the camps and their respective translations. A sound and clear analysis of the gulf in attitude between scholars will ultimately deal with this and hence will
increase one’s faith in Holy Writ rather than diminish it.
We’ve already agreed that “it is sensible for Christians to make some rudimentary checks to ensure that their personal Bible translation is trustworthy”. For those “laymen” who do this, some doubt about God’s Word is inevitably caused in their minds by having the scholars in each camp insisting (unshakeably!) that their side is right and that their preferred Greek family is the best. Scholars in both camps are forever impugning the reliability of the family exalted by the opposite camp. A solid analysis of which camp is right would actually
remove said doubt.
(3) DIVISIVE: Another common argument used by camp B to deny the value of analyzing the gulf is that the textual differences between the two camps are not as important as unity.
This line of argument seems to assume (a) that true Christians divide from each other if, on investigating the gulf, they reach different conclusions from each other, and (b) that, no matter how serious the textual differences are between the camps, God sees these accumulated differences as less crucial than the visible unity of His People…
Let’s look at these points, starting with point (a):
Every Christian must, on the basis of their conscience and their understanding of God’s Word, decide to what extent – if any – God requires them to divide on this matter. Just because some Christians divide over issues is no reason to keep them ignorant about those issues. Each of us is responsible before God for our actions, and God is big enough to cope. (He has promised that He will build His Church and we must not tell Him how to do it!)
As I said at the start of Part 2a, “we are on holy ground here (Rom. 1:2; 2 Tim. 3:15). We are supposed to
love God’s Word and treat it with awe (Psa. 119:161-168). We should guard its purity as we would our life – if not more carefully. In view of the fact that men and women have indeed
died for the sake of the Bible over the centuries, it seems to me that the least we can do in return is seek to protect its accuracy.” Unless God has shown us that it is impossible to determine which camp is on the correct side of the gulf, we should – with patience and grace - seek to do so!
“Division” can take many forms, and the Bible makes plain that not all division is wrong. (I looked briefly at this matter at the end of Part 2a. It gets discussed much more extensively in Part 4 of a book I have co-authored called
Alpha – the Unofficial Guide: Church.)
What about point (b)?- For now, let’s continue to assume that the textual differences between the camps are spiritually minor.
It is interesting to note in passing that there exists plenty of division between the supporters of camp B! For instance, and as Jim has observed, there are folks who are happy with camp B’s New American Standard but who are strongly opposed to other translations emanating from that same camp (and not just the extreme paraphrases either). Indeed there is division even among camp B supporters who use the “same” translation as each other! Many fans of the original NIV are up in arms about the new NIV editions coming out now. (It is rather surreal to see these folks be so deeply upset about the relatively small differences involved here, given that they are comparatively relaxed about the far greater number (and more serious type) of differences existing between translations produced by camps A and B. I have come across people in this very NIV category who blow a fuse if anyone shows even a hint of divisiveness over the much wider gulf involved between the two camps.
The argument about divisiveness only makes any sense if the textual differences between the camps are harmless. But even if the differences are merely accidental or well-intentioned it does not follow that they are harmless. Beyond this, and as we have already established, Satan is incredibly subtle, and an utterly implacable enemy of God and His People. It surely follows that:
(a) Satan is unimaginably keen to corrupt God’s Word in whatever way he can in order to reduce its efficacy as much as possible, but
(b) He is limited as to the quantity and nature of these corruptions because his overriding need is obviously to ensure that the purposes of his alterations are hard to discern, else the whole endeavour will have been pointless. In other words, what may appear at first glance to be a bunch of unrelated and minor differences could actually represent deliberate corruption by the enemy. I hope Part 2b in my series went into all this and showed that some of the textual differences between the camps are indeed important, especially when taken together.
(c) It goes without saying that if brothers are using Bible versions based on what is effectively a counterfeit Greek text then they ought to be told.
The Bible is the foundation for all that we believe and all that we do. Given the extraordinary importance God attaches to the purity of His Word, such that even well-intentioned changes bring curses on those who make them (as I showed in Part 1 via passages like Revelation 22:18-19), it seems clear that we should make this our priority. After all, if God commands us to contend earnestly for the faith then it cannot be wrong to contend for the words through which that faith is given to us. Should we really turn a blind eye to corrupt texts? What is more fundamental than ensuring the brethren use trustworthy versions of God’s Word?
Finally, I would suggest that the truly divisive thing is when believers are presented with copious amounts of verifiable evidence that their position is wrong and they refuse to listen. They are dividing from the truth and therefore from God. In God’s economy, what value has unity without truth?
(4) GOD: Followers of Camp B insist that the textual differences cannot be serious because God simply wouldn’t allow such a state of affairs. God would supposedly prevent any of His children from using an appreciably corrupted Bible. On this basis, any analysis of the gulf in attitude is said to be a waste of time and a mere distraction.
There are all sorts of problems with this argument:
It implies that any new translation, no matter how extreme a paraphrase it is or how biased it is, must be acceptable to God if it is popular. This is not a biblical stance. For example, David’s son Absalom was very popular but he was seriously in the wrong.
It implies that God pre-empts any serious deception before it can affect His People. This is not biblical either. For instance, God did not stop Satan from deceiving Eve. Nor did He stop Satan from deceiving a third of the angels!
If we are to find the truth we need to seek it as diligently as we would seek “hid treasure” (Prov. 2:3-5). It is up to us to seek the truth. God has already given us plenty of warnings about this. Here are some cases in point: He has already warned us in His Word about people who corrupt the scriptures (e.g. see Jer. 22:36). He has already warned us that our enemy is wily (e.g. in Eph. 6:11), crafty (e.g. in Dan. 8:25), and subtle (e.g. in 2 Cor. 11:3). And He has already warned us that we need to be vigilant - e.g. in 1 Pet. 5:8.
Please Note: Certain folks in camp B accept that it is possible for some believers to fall for counterfeit Bibles, but they are adamant that it is impossible for a
majority of God’s People to do so. As Zach has put it, “I just can't believe that God would allow so many of his people [to] become deceived and only a select few to know the truth…”.
There are problems with this stance too:
It presupposes that the analysis of the gulf in attitude inevitably leads to one or other of the KJV-Only positions (which, in turn, requires the analysis to have been performed!)
It also presupposes the degree of hazardousness of camp B translations in the hands of truth-loving believers.
It also runs the risk of comprising circular reasoning (i.e. a corrupt translation in the hands of a false teacher can be used to help give a false impression of what God is really like).
Siding with the majority, even the majority among God’s People, is a very dangerous game to play. After all, the majority in Christ’s day rejected Him, and the majority of the spies who went to spy out the Promised Land were wrong too. I can just imagine Noah prophesying that only eight people out of the entire population of the earth would survive God’s wrath at that time - and someone replying “I just can't believe that God would allow so many of his people to become deceived and only a select few to know the truth”. Likewise I can imagine Moses prophesying that, out of the estimated two million people who left Egypt, only two souls would enter the Promised Land – and one of the crowd shouting ““I just can't believe that God would allow so many of his people to become deceived and only a select few to know the truth”
There is a lot more I could say on this whole matter but, at the end of the day, even if the textual differences between camps were relatively unimportant it still doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do the analysis!
(5) SCHOLARSHIP: In desperation, some members of camp B claim that an analysis for the “layman” is pointless because the principles of textual criticism are beyond the layman and an analysis of them is therefore a waste of time and could even be dangerous.
As usual, there are serious problems with this argument:
Who
says it is too hard for the “layman” to understand the issues? Only those in camp B ever seem to make the claim, yet if it is indeed too hard for the common man then one would have thought that sincere scholars on BOTH sides would say so.
Why would God make it too hard for the common man? Would the God of the Bible REALLY leave the accuracy of His Word solely in the hands of some elite class? The Bible never says so. Indeed it strongly indicates that the opposite is the case (e.g. in 1 Cor. 1:25-30). God calls every believer to test “ALL things” (1 Thess. 5:21) but camp B claims that this is impossible when it comes to textual criticism. Even among the requirements God has laid down for church
elders there is no mention of the need for high scholarship or of great learning or knowledge about the minutiae of modern textual criticism.
The fact is that none of the concepts involved in textual criticism is difficult. The complexity comes with the amount of information required to disprove the wily, evidence-light (and often tortuous) arguments thrown up by camp B to obscure the truth!
A key point is this: The Bible is a spiritual book and must be approached spiritually. It is interesting to observe that camp B scholars who argue that only those people who meet certain man-made qualifications can understand the issues aright never seem to add any comment to the effect that, since the Bible is a spiritual book, only saved scholars can interpret the evidence aright. (Along with various other aspects of this posting, I go into this matter more in Part 3b.)
Actually, it turns out (as I intend to show in Part 3 of my articles) that you can determine which camp is in the right
without approaching the question from the point of view of textual criticism, so the argument is rather flawed regardless.
I'm afraid ’ve run out of time to post the final section, but I’ll drop that in as soon as I can.