Thursday, March 31, 2011

The Vision (3/31/11): No such thing as an actual atheist

Image:  "New Atheist" Author Christopher Hitchens

I and several other CRBC men have enjoyed meeting on Tuesdays mornings this year at PVCC to discuss Robert L. Reymond’s A New Systematic Theology (Thomas Nelson, 1998). This past week we began the section on the doctrine of God. In the opening chapter Reymond notes that, in truth, there really are no atheists. He states:

All this means that there is no such thing among mankind as an actual atheist. There are only theists, some of whom claim to be atheists. But God’s Word declares that these “atheists” are not real atheists; they only attempt to live as though there is no God. But they know in their hearts that He is “there” and that He will someday judge them for their sin. As we have said, they are theists who hate, and attempt to do everything they can to suppress, their innate theism. Their “intellectual problems” with Christianity are in reality only masks or rationalizations to cover up their hatred against God and their love of and bondage to sin. These “practicing atheists” insist that the burden of proof lies with the theist to prove God’s existence to them. But the burden of proof is actually theirs to prove that the physical world is the only reality and that no supernatural spiritual being anywhere exists. This, of course, they cannot do. Thus, their “atheism” is their own unproven “grand assumption”—an assumption, by the way, which they cannot consistently live! (p. 153)

Indeed, “The fool has said in his heart, There is no God” (Psalm 53:1).

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff

Rejoinder to Jamin Hubner: Part 9 (Pericope Adulterae)

Note to readers: I have added the label "Jamin Hubner"at the end of this and the other rejoinders in this series. If you click on the "Jamin Hubner" button, you can read all the rejoinders in this series.

This rejoinder is in response to Jamin Hubner’s post “Case Studies in King James Onlyism: The Woman Caught in Adultery was in the Original? [sic]” (which is essentially part 9 in his series “The ESV Translation: A Response to Jeff Riddle” which he began in response to my bog article “Three Basic Challenges to the ESV”).

I will be brief with regard to technical textual discussion of this disputed passage:

With regard to the pericope adulterae (John 7:53-8:11), according the NKJB editors it appears in over 900 Greek manuscripts. In other words, it has healthy external attestation. It clearly was embraced as part of the traditional text and was included in all Protestant translations of Scripture until the modern era.

There is also strong internal evidence arguments as to why it could have been omitted by those who might have been uncomfortable with the ethical ramifications of the passage (i.e., Jesus completely forgives a woman caught breaking the 7th commandment, as Hills explains).

Hubner quotes an extended passage from Metzger’s Textual Commentary to support exclusion. We should be no more surprised that Metzger desires to exclude the passage than that Hills desires to include it.

I have previously shared Calvin’s assessment, which I would once more affirm:

Calvin on the pericope adulterae (John 7:53-8:11):

“It is plain enough that this passage was unknown anciently to the Greek Churches; and some conjecture that it has been brought from some other place and inserted here. As it has always been received by the Latin Churches, and is found in many old Greek manuscripts, and contains nothing unworthy of an Apostolic Spirit, there is no reason why we should not apply it to our advantage” (Calvin’s Commentaries).

By this time, it will surprise no one to learn that I believe that the pericope adulterae should be received as part of the infallible and authoritative Word of God. I have preached and taught on this passage and would gladly do so again.

Here, however, is how Hubner concludes this article:

It is not enough to desire certainty and avoid discomfort in dealing with textual variants to reject the facts and turn to some brand of KJV Onlyism, or "the TR is stable," or whatever. The believer must open himself up to the Word of God itself - all of it, as it comes to us from the sands of Egypt or the halls of a monastery or some other place. The Lord has provided a rich tradition from which to gain and read the autographic text. But like a child sitting with 110 pieces for a 100 piece puzzle, we must every now and then do some work to figure out what is truly part of God's Word. The story of the woman caught in adultery probably isn't one of those pieces.

He claims that “the believer must open himself up to the Word of God itself.” This smacks of mystical subjectivism. Is Hubner really suggesting that each believer individually is to make a determination as to whether or not John 7:53-8:11 is Biblical? When we hold the Word of God, are we really all like children with 110 pieces of a 100 piece puzzle, and it is our task to try to put the pieces together? Does this sound like anything remotely resembling the statement on Scripture in the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith? Does it cohere with the Puritan Father John Owen? No. Instead, it sounds like the postmodern musings of D. C. Parker and Bart Ehrman who see the Bible as a “living text” composed of many valid texts. Take a look at the ending of Mark in the NRSV—with no less than three optional endings presented all as equally valid options--for ideas as to what future editions of evangelical Bibles (like the ESV) might look like. I can hear Hubner now accusing me of a “slippery slope argument.” The truth is that the slippery slope argument is very often completely valid.

Hubner’s final tepid, yet stunning, conclusion is, “The story of the woman caught in adultery probably isn’t one of those pieces.” I would suggest that if he really believes that, then he ought to protest vociferously any translation that dares to print these words within the pages of Holy Scripture. He should rip them out of his Bible. But what if he is wrong? What if this is the Word of God? We are not to add to God’s Word or take away from it (Deut 4:2; 12:32; Rev 22:18-19).

What I find is that many who embrace the modern critical text speak out boldly against what they consider to be late, extrabiblical additions (e.g., John 7:53-8:11; Mark 16:9-20), but when it come to printing and publishing Bibles they demure and leave the contested passages with the Bibles, enclosed by seemingly innocuous brackets. Why not go ahead and yank those passages out, if you are truly convinced that they are non-canonical? Daniel Wallace has said that he printed Mark 16:9-20 in the smallest font he could find in the NET Bible and would eventually like to see an edition with it relegated to the footnotes. Who knows? Maybe in the next edition he can successfully achieves that goal, and in the edition after that he can get rid of it all together? Why don’t modern translations remove these passages? The most likely answer is that they realize that there would be a public backlash that would make the revolt against the gender-neutral TNIV look like child’s play. They would not sell Bibles and their theology would come under serious scrutiny. So, instead we get brackets. Is it possible that the reason modern scholars have not yet been able to dislodge this text from the Bible, despite massive and sophisticated efforts for over 100 years, is that it is canonical? What is it we say about the canon contra Rome? The Bible chooses the church; the church does not choose the Bible. This would mean that we are the puzzle pieces and the Word of God puts us together.

Hubner has demonstrated the dangers in embracing the modern critical text. It leads one to see the Bible as a jumble of puzzle pieces, including many stray pieces that do not fit. Those who embrace the received text, however, see the Bible as an intact, beautiful picture that has been expertly framed by our Protestant and Reformed forebears and preserved by our Guardian.

Jamin, you are obviously a gifted young man. I plead with you (and other readers) prayerfully to consider this exchange on the transmission of Scripture.  I will certainly do the same.

We are obviously beginning to cover a lot of the same ground and meet the same impasses. I feel sure a post on Revelation 16:5 is coming down the pike from Mr Hubner. Rest assured, I would counter with more about Psalm 145:13 and 1 Samuel 6:19. And on and on it goes….

In my next post in this series, I will discontinue direct interaction with Mr. Hubner’s posts. I will, however, provide an annotated reading list of resources that I have found helpful if one wants to learn more about the traditional text of Scripture. We are living in a day when there appears to be a resurgence of Calvinistic soteriology. Many have rediscovered the Reformers and Puritans. Will we also rediscover the Reformed Bible?

JTR

Rejoinder to Jamin Hubner: Part 8

Note to readers: I have added the label "Jamin Hubner"at the end of this and the other rejoinders in this series. If you click on the "Jamin Hubner" button, you can read all the rejoinders in this series.

This rejoinder is in reponse to Jamin Hubner’s post “Case Studies in King James Onlyism: Predictable Answers to Riddle’s Questions” (which is essentially part 8 in his series “The ESV Translation: A Response to Jeff Riddle” which he began in response to my bog article “Three Basic Challenges to the ESV”).

For those counting, Hubner has now written c. 17,500 words in 9 posts in response to my c. 1,600 word ESV blog post.

Here are some responses:

1. On the charge of KJV-Onlyism:

Do we believe what Riddle and Macgregor say about themselves or how Hubner chooses to define them?

Did it ever occur to Hubner that White’s categories in his “definitive” work might be inappropriate? Indeed, one of the chief criticisms of White’s KJV-Only Controversy is that he picks the low hanging fruit by attacking extremists like Riplinger and Ruckman rather than engage with reasonable and Reformed defenses of the traditional text and even of the KJV (as put forward, for example, by those in the Trinitarian Bible Society or by scholars like T. Letis). Is it really fair to lump orthodox defenders of the traditional text with heretical KJV-Onlyists? What would Hubner and White say if an atheist wrote a book about Christians and lumped Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Baptists into the same category? Would they not cry foul? It is similarly inappropriate and inaccurate to label all those with whom you disagree on textual matters as “KJV-Onlyists.”

I am thankful that Mr. Hubner finally acknowledged that he has not, in fact, read Macgregor’s book but has relied on extended quotes from my articles for his knowledge of this work. Mr. Hubner, is it responsible to critique a position with which you do not have first hand familiarity? Shouldn’t you actually read Macgregor in context before labeling him?

2. On Hubner’s changing the title to omit “The ESV Translation”:

Was this an innocent abbreviation, as Hubner now claims, or an effort to shift the focus of the discussion?

3. On Hubner’s error on Micah 5:2:

I am glad that Hubner acknowledges that the nature of his error was in misunderstanding of the Hebrew text but sorry he is unwilling to repost the error as it originally appeared in order to help readers evaluate his actual facility with Hebrew.

4. On previously ignored arguments:

a. ESV NCC copyright:

Maybe we just have to agree to disagree here. I see this as a separation issue. Hubner does not. Perhaps our discussion has at least let some folk become aware of this issue, and they can decide whether this is important or not.

b. Inconsistencies in the ESV:

Despite Hubner’s protestation, the ESV remains a mild revision of the RSV, the translation of choice among liberal Protestants until the New Revised Standard Version. I invite readers to compare passages in the ESV and RSV to see their wide agreement.

c. On Christological interpretation of passages like Micah 5:2 in the ESV:

Previously, Hubner wrote that the concerns raised were “irrelevant.” Glad to hear now that he affirms their relevance. If they are relevant does he see danger in the RSV/ESV rendering of Micah 5:2, particularly with regard to how groups like JWs might interpret this verse to justify their denial of the eternality of Christ?

d. On the traditional text predating the KJV:

Hubner does not respond here. I assume he is ceding that his comments regarding the traditional text only emerging in 1611 with the translation of the KJV were inaccurate. This is also reflected in his response in Part 7 when he nuanced this argument by saying that the underlying text of the KJV was somehow unique. In truth, the text of the KJV corresponds with the traditional text used in all other Reformation era translations.

e. On the ESV rendering of Psalm 145:13 based on single Hebrew manuscript:

First, Hubner challenges whether or not I ever raised this as an issue in my rejoinders.

To begin with, Psalm 145:13 is one of only four examples I cite in my brief blog article “Three Basic Challenges to the ESV.”

Second, I clearly did make reference to this verse in part four of my rejoinder. Here is the complete paragraph (underline added):

Hubner next throws out a specific reference to the text and translation of Revelation 16:5 in the KJV and NKJV. Again, this would make for an interesting discussion, and I believe there is, without doubt, a more credible case that can be made for the KJV/NKJV rendering of this verse than Hubner is aware, but, in the end, it is not germane to our discussion of the ESV. I might also add here that in my ESV article I cited the ESV’s decision to depart from the Masoretic text of Psalm 145:13 by adding a line supported by only one Hebrew manuscript. In his zeal to discuss the KJV, Hubner seems to have ignored the focus of my article, the ESV, including my specific reference to Psalm 145:13. Along these lines, I might cite similar issues in the ESV. The RSV/ESV rendering of 1 Samuel 7:19, for example, provides a reading (“seventy men”) that is not supported by any Hebrew manuscript (the MT here reads “seventy men, fifty thousand” and translations based on the traditional text typically render it as “fifty thousand and seventy men” (NKJV; cf. Geneva Bible, KJV; note: the NASB also reads, “50, 070”; see my posts on the text and translation of 1 Samuel 6:19: part one; part two; part three).

My point was that it would be inconsistent to criticize the KJV for its rendering of Revelation 16:5 or the TR for its inclusion of the Comma Johanneum when the ESV does something that is quite similar. Namely, it prefers a reading not strongly attested in the majority of manuscripts. BTW, the ESV does this on the basis of internal evidence since Psalm 145 is an acrostic poem, and the translators believed that it worked better with the line added. Personally, I trust the wisdom of the Masoretes here.

Hubner concludes that “none of this really matters.” He then oddly says something about the ESV being based on the “modern critical Greek text.” This is odd because the discussion of Psalm 145:13 has to do primarily with the Hebrew text of the OT, not the Greek of the NT. Perhaps he was thinking of the LXX, but still it is another odd misstatement.

f. On the ESV rendering of 1 Samuel 6:19 and the Hebrew manuscript:

Again, Hubner says he could not find this in my rejoinder. OK I am beginning to wonder how closely he is reading these rejoinders.

Here is the paragraph from part four of my rejoinder again (underline added):

Hubner next throws out a specific reference to the text and translation of Revelation 16:5 in the KJV and NKJV. Again, this would make for an interesting discussion, and I believe there is, without doubt, a more credible case that can be made for the KJV/NKJV rendering of this verse than Hubner is aware, but, in the end, it is not germane to our discussion of the ESV. I might also add here that in my ESV article I cited the ESV’s decision to depart from the Masoretic text of Psalm 145:13 by adding a line supported by only one Hebrew manuscript. In his zeal to discuss the KJV, Hubner seems to have ignored the focus of my article, the ESV, including my specific reference to Psalm 145:13. Along these lines, I might cite similar issues in the ESV. The RSV/ESV rendering of 1 Samuel 7:19, for example, provides a reading (“seventy men”) that is not supported by any Hebrew manuscript (the MT here reads “seventy men, fifty thousand” and translations based on the traditional text typically render it as “fifty thousand and seventy men” (NKJV; cf. Geneva Bible, KJV; note: the NASB also reads, “50, 070”; see my posts on the text and translation of 1 Samuel 6:19: part one; part two; part three).

The point: Again, it is inconsistent to criticize one translation (like the KJV) for isolated instances of conjecture and not acknowledge similar phenomena in other translations (like the ESV).

g. On textual stability:

Hubner again avoids the real point here. Commitment to the traditional text results in a stable, fixed, and reliable text (a closed canon). Commitment to the ongoing editions of the modern critical text results in an unstable, ever-changing text (what is essentially an “open canon”).

h. On inherent dangers in evangelical dependence upon the modern critical text:

Hubner claims that the concern I raise here is simply about inciting “fear.” I see it as a sober warning. I do not trust the academy with the text of Scripture. Hubner muses that it would likely be best if a group of Reformed Baptist Pastors were the stewards of the text, but he sees this as an impossibility. In truth, the great men of the Reformed era have already done the heavy lifting for us. They have given us a traditional text. White dismisses this as an inappropriate desire for certainty. I prefer certainty to the guaranteed uncertainty of hitching my wagon to the modern critical Greek text.

i. On the dangers of postmodern text criticism:

I am glad to hear that Hubner acknowledges that future editions of the modern critical text might well reflect the radical influence of men like Ehrman. How do we escape their machinations? We embrace the traditional text. We find in the preserved copies the authentic text of Scripture.

Now, here are some responses to Hubner’s first nine questions:

1. Will Riddle acknowledge that his claim #1 above fails to acknowledge (a) an immediate definition of the kind of King James Onlyism I believed myself to be dealing with, and (b) that there are" KJV Only advocate"s who defend the Greek text behind the KJV and not the KJV itself?

See my response above.

2. What is meant by "The fact that the ESV holds a NCC copyright is a potential separation issue for Biblical Christians"? Separation in what sense, and why is that significant?

The NCC is an apostate, liberal, social justice “church” group. I do not want to support a Bible that has paid or is paying royalties to it. Therefore, I choose not to make use of the ESV in my private devotions or public ministry.

3. Will Riddle acknowledge that he has not touched my counterargument regarding the above copyright-ESV issue? (that Riddle's principle cannot be held consistently?)

Nope. As I noted earlier, Hubner’s response was a reductio ad absurdam argument. We can take practical steps to separation (of the sort I cited in answer 3) without absurdity.

4. Will Riddle acknowledge that the RSV is a revision of the ASV and ERV, both of which are not "in the Protestant liberal tradition"?

Nope. The ERV was clearly in the Enlightenment influenced, liberal Protestant tradition. The ASV might be less liberal but clearly the RSV was. Do I have to bring up the whole copyright issue again? If the RSV was not liberal, why does it have an NCC copyright?

5. Will Riddle acknowledge that the ESV preface itself defines what it means in the first paragraph under "Translation Legacy" when it says "the words and phrases themselves grow out of the Tyndale-King James Legacy"?

There are two important issues when it comes to translation: translation philosophy and text. Though the ESV claims to take an “essentially literal” approach, it generally departs from KJV wording (cf. the NKJV which does this much more closely). It clearly abandons the traditional text. Thus, I dispute its claim to follow the Tyndale-KJV legacy, both in regard to translation and text.

6. Will Riddle acknowledge that the verses in E and F under his list of "ignored many of the arguments that I presented in my rejoinders" cannot be found in any of the rejoinders?

See my response above. Again, I find it hard to believe that Hubner asked this question without first doing the most basic fact checking (i.e., simply reading my part four rejoinder which explicitly addressed the issue of text!).

7. Will Riddle acknowledge that he was incorrect to say the ESV is based off of the 1952 RSV, but rather the 1971 RSV?

No, unless Hubner can cite significant differences between the 1952 and 1971 RSV.

8. Will Riddle acknowledge that the conjectural amendation made by Beza that now appears in Rev. 16:5 of the KJV is not the same kind of "conjecture" that occurs in I Sam. 6:19 in the ESV?

No. Conjecture is conjecture. Every jot and tittle is significant.

9. Does Riddle agree with Edward Hills when he says,"The texts of the several editions of the Textus Receptus were God-guided. They were set up under the leading of God's special providence. Hence the differences between them were kept down to a minimum." (The King James Version Defended, 222-223)?

I would prefer to say that I uphold the doctrine of the providential preservation of Scripture as stated in the 2LBCF 1689.

Now, responses to his three additional questions:

1. Will Riddle acknowledge that the issue between us is not whether the ESV departs from the traditional text, but why that matters?

The fact that the ESV departs from the traditional text is certainly not irrelevant. Of course, it is highly significant why this matters.

2. Will Riddle acknowledge that he has not really established why the traditional text is superior to modern critical editions?

See article one of the 2 LBCF 1689 and my rejoinder part six, especially the comments by Owen.

3. Will Riddle acknowledge that it is possible for non-Christians to state and present church-edifying truths about textual criticism and the text of the Bible, and have done so in their published editions of the NA27 and UBS4?

No, I do not think it is possible. However, I do believe that the Lord can sovereignly use whatever means he chooses (e.g., Balaam to bless Israel; Cyrus to restore the exiles; etc.). The question is what does the Bible teach are the ordinary means for stewardship of the Scriptures. The answer: Pastors, teachers, and elders. Why then are we trusting in unregenerate academics?

Rejoinder to Jamin Hubner: Part 7 (Reformed Text)

Note to readers: I have added the label "Jamin Hubner"at the end of this and the other rejoinders in this series. If you click on the "Jamin Hubner" button, you can read all the rejoinders in this series.



This post is a rejoinder to Jamin Hubner’s article “Case Studies in King James Onlyism: The Text of the Reformers?” (which is essentially part 7 in his series “The ESV Translation: A Response to Jeff Riddle” which he began in response to my blog article, “Three Basic Challenges to the ESV”).

In this post Hubner challenges the fact that the traditional text was “the text of the Reformers.”

He begins by citing my summary of the traditional text and concedes that this is “generally true” but then claims that it is only relevant if one assumes that the traditional text is superior to the modern critical text. My response: Yes, this is my assumption based on study and consideration of the evidence.

Hubner then offers an aside on the Comma Johanneum. As I have previously noted Hubner has a tendency not actually to interact with statements I have made but to present arguments made by others or ones he imagines I might make (straw men) and then attacks those. Notice how he does this in this passage:

Regarding the Comma Johanneum, I do wonder if Riddle agrees with Hills' assessment on this variant. If so, given the facts about the reading being in the Latin Vulgate and not in the Greek text, Riddle must believe that the Greek manuscript tradition can be so corrupted as to lose, without a trace, an entire reading (even Dean Burgon, a hero of KJV Only advocates, admits that is a later addition without a legitimate claim to being original! See The Revision Revised, 1883, 483). That's quite a belief, indeed - and it is a attitude I would hope no Pastor would instill, either intentionally or unintentionally, immediately or slowly, indirectly or directly, in the minds of God's people.

First, notice how Hubner states what Riddle “must believe” but has not actually said. This is classic straw man.

Second, notice that what Hubner says about the Comman Johanneum (1 John 5:7-8) is factually inaccurate. He claims this passage is only found “in the Latin Vulgate and not in the Greek text.” This is simply wrong. In the summer of 2010 Dan Wallace, hardly a friend to the traditional text, discovered the CJ in Codex 177 making it the ninth Greek manuscript to include the passage (see this post). The CJ is often criticized not because it appears in no manuscripts (as Hubner erroneously claims) but in only a few. Before slamming the TR for including the CJ with so little textual support, remember that the ESV includes a reading in Psalm 145:13 that appears in just a single late Hebrew manuscript!

Third, Hubner’s error then invalidates the insinuations he makes about the Greek text being so “corrupted” that such readings could “be lost, without a trace.” This is certainly not true with the CJ.

Fourth, Hubner implies that it would be inappropriate for any pastor to uphold the credibility of the CJ in the text of Scripture: “That's quite a belief, indeed - and it is a [sic] attitude I would hope no Pastor would instill, either intentionally or unintentionally, immediately or slowly, indirectly or directly, in the minds of God's people.” My first thought: Wow, I sure am glad that advocates for the modern critical text don’t make the same kind of emotional and outlandish attacks that those wild-eyed KJV-Only folk do! Seriously, is Hubner saying he hopes no pastor would teach that a text could be so corrupted that it would only be supported by a few (or no) manuscripts? In that case, I guess he has issues with any pastor who teaches on the ESV of Psalm 145:13 or 1 Samuel 6:19. Or, is he saying that it is pastoral malpractice to defend or teach from the CJ? In that case, he must have problems with John Calvin who cites it in his Institutes (Book III.1.1); with Charles Spurgeon who preached a sermon titled “The Three Witnesses” with 1 John 5:8 as his text; and with R. L. Dabney who wrote a brilliant defense of the CJ on the basis of internal evidence.

Next, Hubner concedes that the ESV (and other modern translations) do, indeed, “depart” from the traditional text as their basis, but he claims I have failed to demonstrate why this matters. He states:

But what Dr. Riddle has yet to establish is why that matters. I mean, obviously they depart for a reason, don't they? Why doesn't Riddle critique these reasons since that appears to be the elephant in the room? It seems enough for Dr. Riddle just to say "modern translations depart from the text used during the Reformation era. Therefore, you shouldn't use them." Is that not the substance of the argument? That we should simply follow popularity during the Reformation era, and reject the latest products of the "secular academy"?

Let me try to state as clearly as I can that I believe the departure from the traditional text matters. It matters because the traditional text is superior to the modern critical one. It matters because the doctrine of the preservation of Scripture is at stake. It matters because doctrinal issues of the authority and canon of Scripture are at stake.

Hubner next cites a rather extended paragraph from part four of the rejoinder. I must say that I am glad that Hubner takes the time to interact directly with my arguments. Maybe my nagging about “straw man” arguments has paid off.

He cites the following paragraph:

In my ESV article I state that, “the ESV is not based on the traditional texts of Scripture that were used by the Protestant Reformers in their vernacular translations….” Note: I am discussing the ESV. Hubner quotes this passage and responds: “and how is it that this text is used ‘by the Protestant Reformers,’ since neither Luther, Calvin, or Zwingli lived when it came into existence around 1611?” Hubner is discussing the KJV. Furthermore, he apparently mistakenly believes that the received text did not come into existence until the KJV translation. The traditional text, however, was around long before the KJV (Erasmus’ first edition of the Greek NT came out in 1516 and Bomberg’s Hebrew Bible in 1524-25, some 75-100 years before the KJV; see the list above of English Bibles prior to the KJV that relied on the traditional text). This point is even conceded by James White in the quote that Hubner cites to refute my position (!): “Everyone admits that the Greek text utilized by Luther in his preaching and by Calvin in his writings was what would become known as the TR.” My concern is that the ESV is not based on this text. It has followed in the path of translations that have abandoned this text in favor of the modern critical text.

He then remarks:

There is so much confusion packed into this paragraph that it's difficult to know where to start.

Sorry, but I don’t think it is confusing. My point stands that while I was making an argument in my original article about the ESV’s departure from the traditional text of Scripture, Hubner attempted to focus the conversation on the KJV.

What is more, he attempts to drive an unnatural wedge between the text of the KJV and the text of the traditional text. As for his remarks about the unique nature of the underlying text of the KJV, it certainly was not radically different from the traditional text, drawn from the various printed editions of the Bible, which undergirded the other Reformation era translations. Any comparison of the Geneva Bible and the KJV will reveal that the underlying text of both translations is essentially the same.

It simply cannot be denied that the traditional texts (the Masoretic text of the OT and the printed versions of the received text of the NT) were the Biblical text standards for the Reformation era and served as the basis for all Reformation era translations. Contra White, the received text was not merely the “default” choice of the Reformers. Rather, they knew of all the major textual variants and chose the received text as their standard. Luther’s translation of the German NT, for example, was taken from Erasmus’s second ed.

White, citing Hills, notes that Calvin sometimes in his writing indicated preferences for non-TR readings.

Again, I would invite readers to consult Calvin’s commentaries on the major textual variants.  Here are several to ponder:

Calvin on the doxology of the Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6:13, omitted in the modern critical text):

“Even though this is not extant in Latin versions, it is appropriate to this place and ought not to be omitted” (Institutes, Book III.XX.47).

Calvin on the pericope adulterae (John 7:53-8:11):

“It is plain enough that this passage was unknown anciently to the Greek Churches; and some conjecture that it has been brought from some other place and inserted here. as it has always been received by the Latin Churches, and is found in many old Greek manuscripts, and contains nothing unworthy of an Apostolic Spirit, there is no reason why we should not apply it to our advantage” (Calvin’s Commentaries).

Calvin on the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7-8):

“The whole of this verse has by some been omitted. Jerome thinks that this happened through design rather than through mistake, and that indeed only on the part of the Latins. But as even the Greek copies do not agree, I dare not assert anything on the subject. Since, however, the passage flows better when the clause is added, and as I see that it is found in the best and most approved copies, I am inclined to receive it as the true reading” (Calvin’s Commentaries).

N.B.: Calvin was fully aware of the textual challenges in these passages. Again, the Reformation era theologians and scholars were well aware of the major textual variations long before the discovery of the papyri. The point is that they rejected these readings in favor of the traditional text.

I would add that another way to evaluate where Calvin eventually landed is by looking to the work of his colleague and successor at Geneva, Theodore Beza, who embraced the traditional text. In fact, Scrivener’s 1894 edition of the text underlying the KJV is based on Beza’s 1598 edition of the Greek NT. Whatever Calvin’s individual private or public musings, this is a discussion about translations. Again, when it comes to translations, the Reformation era used only one text: the received text. Thus, it is completely appropriate to refer to this as the text of the Reformers.  Furthermore, we should prefer the text of Calvin to that of Ehrman.
JTR

Rejoinder to Jamin Hubner: Part 6 (Baptist Confession)

Note to readers: I have added the label "Jamin Hubner"at the end of this and the other rejoinders in this series. If you click on the "Jamin Hubner" button, you can read all the rejoinders in this series.


This post is in response to Jamin Hubner’s article titled “Case Studies in King James Onlyism: The Baptist Confession and Byzantine Priority?” (which is essentially part six in his series “The ESV Translation: A Response to Jeff Riddle” that started as a response to my blog post “Three Basic Challenges to the ESV”).

In this post the reader will notice that Hubner persists in mistakenly referring to my position as “KJV-Onlyism.” Hubner fails to see that one can be opposed to the modern critical Greek text and a proponent of the traditional or received text (these are the terms I prefer to use rather than “Byzantine Priority”) without being a KJV-Only advocate (which entails belief in a special inspired status for the KJV translation per se).

Hubner is quite right, however, when he says that I wish to challenge his readers to question the value of modern translations which are based on the modern critical texts. I am unapologetic in this.

Hubner next states that “Riddle's position is essentially that of Presbyterian Edward F. Hills.” I suppose he reaches this conclusion on the basis of the fact that I offered two quotations from Hills’ book The King James Version Defended in my part four rejoinder. Hubner then cites a third passage from Hills (which I did not cite) to demonstrate Hills’ supposedly radical beliefs in the providential preservation of the Textus Receptus. Though it is clearly overreaching to say that my position is identical with Hills since I am not in full agreement with Hills on all points, I am not ashamed to say that I have found Hills’ work very stimulating and would readily commend it to anyone thinking through these issues. Even James White says that Hills represents “the best of the KJV Only position” (KJV Only Controversy, p. 92).

Hubner then states that the difference between the traditional text (which served as the basis for all the Reformation era translations) and the modern critical text is that the modern critical text makes use of important “new” manuscript discoveries (like Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, papyri, etc.) while the traditional text does not.

Let me again disagree with this simplistic presentation. As I have previously argued, all of the major textual issues were well known by the Reformation era theologians and scholars [e.g., the Lord’s Prayer doxology (Matt 6:13); the pericope adulterae (John 7:53-8:11), the ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20); the comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7-8), etc.]. All one need do for confirmation of this point is to read the commentaries of Calvin and the notes of Erasmus on such passages to find that they were well aware of these issues.

With regard to the papyri, Dutch scholar Jakob Van Bruggen observes that the abandonment of the traditional text:

…did not occur on the ground of newly found papyri. The papyri only begin to play a part in the New Testament textual criticism in the middle of the 20th century. The textus receptus was then already abandoned. Many people who use the Bible think that the Bible translations had to be altered with regard to their text because of the discoveries of the Egyptian sand. Yet the reality is different. The Revised Version dates from 1881. In the practice of Bible-translation and exegesis, the Byzantine text was already abandoned decades before important New Testament papyri were published. Whether or not the new discoveries support the arguments of Hort is a separate question (The Ancient Text of the NT, pp. 15-16).

Regardless, I have already cited the findings of one scholar (Harry Sturz) who has argued that the papyri actually support traditional readings. Hubner has yet to respond to this point.

Conclusion on this point: It is simply untrue that the modern critical text was developed due to new “discoveries” of early manuscripts. The major textual issues were all known in the time of the Reformation. The overthrow of the traditional text was ideologically driven and was a fait accompli in academic circles by 1881 and was not the result of new manuscript discoveries.

Hubner next makes reference to my critique of the “secular academy” but offers no responses to any of my arguments.

Finally, Hubner presents his central objection related to my interpretation of the doctrine of the preservation of Scripture as defined in the 2LBCF 1689. At the heart of the matter is this question: What did the framers of this document mean when they said that the Hebrew and Greek of the Biblical original languages was “immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages”? Hubner argues that the framers of this document were referring not to the actual autographs of Scripture (long lost) but to “the autographic text within the manuscript tradition.” His view would then apparently be that it is the work of scholars in the academy to determine what most closely approximates this nebulous “autographic text.” So he would say that scholars in our day have better manuscripts that have helped us get closer to this ideal autographic text, even if we can never be completely sure that we have it.

One of the major problems with this view is that it is anachronistic. It reads modern “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy” ideals concerning the elusive inerrant autographs into the Reformation era confession.

Another major problem is the fact that it ignores the value of the apographs (copies of the text). My contention is that when the framers of Reformation era confessions like the 2LBC 1689 spoke about the divine preservation of the Scriptures they were addressing not some nebulous “autograph” but the real “apographs” (the copies of the Bible) they possessed. Furthermore, they believed that the extant “apographs” faithfully recorded the actual words of the “autographs.” This was the work of divine preservation. In truth, they were referring to the copies they possessed of the traditional text of the Bible. They well knew about the alternative readings, now adopted in the modern critical text, as represented by codices like Vaticanus, Beza, etc. The point is that they rejected them as inauthentic in favor of the traditional textual readings.

For evidence that this is the most likely view of the framers of the 2LBCF 1689 one can consult the writings of the Puritan independent John Owen who was the primary author of the Savoy Declaration (1658), which, like the 2LBC 1689, closely followed the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646). Owen was also a major influence among early particular Baptists. When Walton produced his “Polyglot,” an early attempt to produce a critical text, Owen responded with an essay titled “Of the Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text of the Scripture” (it is found in Owen’s Collected Works, Vol. XVI [Banner of Truth]).

In that essay, Owen acknowledges that the autographs are “utterly perished and lost out of the world” (p. 353).

Where then do we find the Word of God? Owen answers: “We add, that the whole Scripture, entire as given out from God, without any loss, is preserved in the copies of the originals yet remaining” (p. 357)

He continues: “In them all, we say, is every letter and tittle of the word. These copies, we say, are the rule, standard, and touchstone of all translations, ancient or modern, by which they all are to be examined, tried, corrected, amended; and themselves only by themselves” (p. 357).

Owen later adds (please read this citation carefully): “Let it be remembered that the vulgar copy we use was the public possession of many generations,--that upon the invention of printing it was an actual authority throughout the world with them that used and understood that language, as far as anything that appears to the contrary; let that then pass for the standard, which is confessedly its right and due, and we shall, God assisting, quickly see how little reason there is to pretend such varieties of readings as we are now surprised withal…” (p. 366).

To summarize Owen’s position: The Scriptures have been faithfully preserved by the providence of God in the extant copies of the Bible. The “vulgar copy” or received text achieved a fixed form with the invention of printing and now serves as the standard text.

I believe that the position that Owen articulates is the same as that held by the men who affirmed the 2LBCF 1689. This is what they meant when they affirmed that God had providentially preserved his Word.

Here is the final question that Bible believing Christians, particularly those who hold to Reformed theology, should ask: Do I want a theory of the text of Scripture articulated by John Owen (received text) or Bart Ehrman (modern critical text)? I choose Owen.

JTR

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Rejoinder to Jamin Hubner: Part 5

Note to readers:  I have added the label "Jamin Hubner"at the end of this and the other rejoinders in this series.  If you click on the "Jamin Hubner" button, you can read all the rejoinders in this series.

My 1,600 word blog post “Three Basic Challenges to the ESV” has now resulted in c. 8,700 words in reply in six posts from Jamin Hubner (and there appears to be even more yet to come)! There are at least two things I have rediscovered from this exchange: You can really hit a nerve if (1) you criticize the neo-evangelical Calvinistic translation of choice (the ESV); (2) you offer any defense of or appreciation for the KJV!

Rather than attempt to flow all of Hubner’s various arguments, I will offer some select observations (including some corresponding questions) on the material in Hubner’s part five response:

1. Hubner incorrectly identifies me and Alan J. Macgregor as KJV-Only-ists.

In this post, Hubner makes reference to me, “Macgregor, or other KJV-Onlyists (of varying degrees)” As I understand the term, however, a person who holds to the “KJV-Only” position believes that the KJV translation has a special inspired status. In the language of the 2LBC 1689 they would believe that the KJV is “immediately inspired.” Though I admire, appreciate, and often use the KJV, both privately and in public ministry, I do not hold to a KJV-Only position, as thus defined. I would prefer to say that I am an advocate for formal correspondence translations based on the traditional text of Scripture. I admire and appreciate the KJV, in part, because it is a faithful and accurate translation based on the traditional text. Other Bible translations currently in print that also follow a formal correspondence translation method and are based on the traditional text would include the Geneva Bible and the NKJV.

In his book Three Modern Versions, Alan J. Macgregor makes the following charitable statement about the translations (NIV, ESV, NKJV) which he reviews:

I do not assert, as some do, that there is nothing good in these versions. I believe it is right to acknowledge that they have certain strengths, and on occasions improved renderings. It does not weaken the AV case to say so. Many sincere believers use the NIV and the NKJV, and now some the ESV. I do not dismiss them as worldly or heretical (as some of the extreme defenders of the AV do). However, I do believe that the majority of NIV, ESV, and NKJV users are unaware of vital and worrying facts concerning these versions (p. 2).

Macgregor later makes the following statement concerning the KJV-Only movement:

However, we must also say that believing the AV itself to be infallible and above improvement (commonly called “KJV-onlyism” in the USA and “AV-onlyism” in the UK) is an untenable position that only backs its advocates into a corner. It often leads to the same ungracious remarks that come from the more radical supporters of modern versions (p. 100).

I appreciate Macgregor’s charitable spirit and agree with him in his assessment of “KJV-onlyism.” Hubner is, therefore, simply mistaken when he charges me and Macgregor with being in the KJV-Only camp. One can prefer the KJV above all other translations (as Macgregor does), appreciate it among other translations (as I do), and critique other translations (as both I and Macgegor do) without being KJV-Only advocates.

The “straw man” fallacy may be defined as “changing or exaggerating an opponent’s position or argument to make it easier to refute” (from my children’s home school logic textbook, The Fallacy Detective [Christian Logic, 2003]: p. 68). Hubner commits this fallacy by lumping both my position and that of Macgregor’s in with the KJV-Only position (“of varying degrees”), assuming positions I hold or arguments I might make, and then attacking them rather than responding to the actual arguments I have made (see objection # 4 below).

Questions:

a. Is Hubner willing to admit that he made an error in putting me and Macgregor in the KJV-Only camp?

b. Will Hubner also address the question I raised several times in my rejoinders as to whether or not he has actually read Alan Macgregor’s book Three Modern Versions or if his knowledge of this book is reliant on extended quotations from it in my ESV article and book review article?

2. Hubner appears so keen to shift the discussion from my critique of the ESV to a discussion of the merits of the KJV that he alters the name of his series.

In this post, Hubner states, “the title of this blog series was ‘A Response to Jeff Riddle.’” Clearly, however, this is factually inaccurate. Anyone can simply read the title above his article which states: “The ESV Translation: A Response to Jeff Riddle: Part V.” Clearly, the discussion started out to be about my critique of “The ESV Translation.” These three words (“The ESV Translation”) are the first to appear in all five of Hubner’s first five posts in this series. In this post, however, sensitive to my charge that he has presented “straw man” arguments relating to the KJV, he conveniently omits this part of the title to legitimate his attacks on my purported KJV-Only position (see observation # 1 above).

Question:

Is Hubner willing to acknowledge that the original title of his series was, in fact, “The ESV Translation: A Response to Jeff Riddle” and not merely “A Response to Jeff Riddle” as he curiously claims in this post?

3. Hubner has not fully acknowledged the nature of an error I pointed out in his discussion of the Hebrew text of Micah 5:2.

To his credit, Hubner admits that his statement about the Hebrew of Micah 5:2 in part three of his response was mistaken. After reading his self-correction, however, I am not so sure that Hubner has fully acknowledged the nature of his error. In the post, he says, “I made a hasty mistake and ended up referring to a preposition rather than a noun.” Later, he adds that this was “a silly mistake and I’m glad Dr. Riddle pointed it out.”

Here is the statement in question as Mr. Hubner originally posted it in “The ESV Translation: A Response to Jeff Riddle: Part III” (and which has now been removed by him):

“Second, there are good reasons from the text itself (מִקֶּ֖דֶם מִימֵ֥י עוֹלָֽם׃, ἀπ̓ ἀρχῆς ἐξ ἡμερῶν αἰῶνος in LXX) to translate it as "ancient times" (NIV), "days of eternity" (NASB), or "ancient days" (ESV). The specific preposition that makes the text render "day" (מִן) is used, which is why the RSV, ESV, and NASB are generally more "literal" or "word for word" than the KJV at this point.”

Here is my response to this statement in part three of my rejoinder:

“Though I will readily admit that I am not an expert in Hebrew, I find Hubner’s comment here to be curious. Yes, the preposition min is present in the text but so is the plural for the word “day” (yom)! It is not the preposition—as Hubner states— that might lead a translator to use “day” but the word “days” itself! The KJV translator apparently took the phrase mime ‘olam that might well have been woodenly rendered “from the days everlasting” as an idiom best rendered simply as “from everlasting.” The real question with theological bearing is how to translate the word olam.”

I pointed out in this analysis that Hubner seems unaware that the Hebrew text includes the word “days,” despite the fact that he has cut and pasted the Hebrew phrase into his remarks. Though I did not make this point in my initial response, I might add that Hubner makes this error despite the fact that he also includes the Greek word “days” in his quotation from the LXX (ἡμερῶν).

Here is how Hubner corrected this statement after I pointed out his error:

“Second, there are good reasons from the text itself (מִקֶּ֖דֶם מִימֵ֥י עוֹלָֽם׃, ἀπ̓ ἀρχῆς ἐξ ἡμερῶν αἰῶνος in LXX) to translate it as "ancient times" (NIV), "days of eternity" (NASB), or "ancient days" (ESV). The specific [noun, corrected 3/25/11] for "day" (yom) is used, which is why the RSV, ESV, and NASB are generally more "literal" or "word for word" than the KJV at this point.”

The above statement replaced the erroneous one, which was then omitted from the article. Again, I appreciate the fact that Hubner was willing to acknowledge this mistake, but I am not so sure that he has fully acknowledged the nature of his error. The problem is not simply, as he states, that he inadvertently referred to "a preposition rather than  a noun” but that he was not aware that the noun (yom) was even in the actual text and was basing his argument on the use of the preposition (min). The problem appears to be that he had not adequately read the Hebrew text, and this led to his “silly mistake.” I am not downing Hubner for making a mistake (errare est humanum), but I do not think he squarely addressed the nature of it.

Questions:

a. Will Hubner aknowledge that his erroneous statement concerning the Hebrew of Micah 5:2 was more than just a matter of confusing the words “preposition” and “noun”?

b. Futhermore, would he be willing to repost his original erroneous statement as it first appeared and then add in brackets his self-correction in order fully to acknowledge his original error and to allow those who read our interchange to know what the actual original statement in question was instead of merely having available his corrected statement?

4. Finally, Hubner ignores many of the arguments that I presented in my rejoinders:

Here are just a few:

a. The fact that the ESV holds a NCC copyright is a potential separation issue for Biblical Christians.

b. The ESV is inconsistent (“awkward”) in that, on one hand, it claims to follow in the Tyndale-King James tradition (see the ESV Preface), while, on the other hand, it clearly follows in the tradition of liberal Protestantism (by following the English Revised Version of 1881 and the RSV of 1952).

c. The Christological ramifications of the translation of passages like Micah 5:2 are significant and should be seriously considered when evaluating a translation.

d. Hubner wrongly assumes that the “the received text” only came into being in 1611. As I pointed out, printed editions can be traced back to Erasmus’ 1516 NT and Bomberg’s 1524-1525 Hebrew Bible. This would mean printed versions of the received text were available at least 75-100 years before the KJV appeared in 1611. This also means that they were available to and used by the Reformation Fathers like Luther and Calvin (a point James White acknowledges). This traditional text, furthermore, was the basis for all the Reformation translations of Scripture, including those made in English, which predated the KJV (e.g., the Geneva Bible of 1560). By further implication, this also means that it was the received text that was available to and used by the Westminster Divines who composed the Westminster Confession (1646), the Congregationalists who composed the Savoy Declaration (1658), and the Baptist Fathers who composed the 2LBCF 1689.

e. The ESV rendering of Psalm 145:13 is based on a single Hebrew manuscript.

f. The ESV rendering of 1 Samuel 6:19 is a conjecture based on no Hebrew manuscript.

g. If the evangelical church depends on the most current version of the modern critical text as the basis of its translations (as does the ESV), then it will be relying on a perpetually unstable text that will change with each new edition produced by the secular Bible Societies.

h. If the evangelical church is dependent on United Bible Society and the Deutche Bibelgesellschaft produced modern editions of the original language texts for its translations, then it is handing over stewardship of the text of Scripture to the secular academy that will include non-believers, liberal Protestants, and (now, in the case of the German Bible Society) Roman Catholics, who do not hold a high view of the authority and infallibility of Scripture.

i. The modern academic text guild (represented by influential scholars like B. Ehrman, and D. C. Parker) has completely abandoned any effort to find the “original text” of Scripture in favor of post-modern efforts to embrace the “living text” of Scripture. To continue to defend and rely upon the modern critical text is to place the text of Scripture into the hands of these men and their disciples whose influence will be felt in its future editions.

JTR

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Andrew Fuller: The Influence of the Presence of Christ on a Minister

I’ve added another message to the Andrew Fuller Library on sermonaudio.com. The message is The Influence of the Presence of Christ on a Minister (2 Timothy 4:22). Fuller concludes the message by reminding pastors that the presence of Christ will be the thing that will sustain them in trials:

It is this that will sustain your heart under trials.—You are aware you must expect these. You will see things in your people towards God that will grieve you. This will enable you to reprove them in love. You will see things in them towards each other that are decidedly wrong. This spirit will cause you to be a peace-maker. You will experience painful things towards yourself: some will not receive your doctrine; some will misconstrue your conduct, and pervert your statements: but if the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, you will not sink under the heaviest trials. You may have to lament your want of success. But go on, and be of good cheer. If the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, though Israel be not gathered, you shall not go unrewarded.

Monday, March 28, 2011

Rejoinder to Jamin Hubner: Part 4

Note to readers: I have added the label "Jamin Hubner"at the end of this and the other rejoinders in this series. If you click on the "Jamin Hubner" button, you can read all the rejoinders in this series.

This is the fourth part of a rejoinder to Jamin Hubner’s series of responses to my blog article, “Three Basic Challenges to the ESV.”

This part four rejoinder corresponds to and flows Hubner’s part four response.

The focus of this rejoinder is Hubner’s response to my third basic challenge to the ESV relating to the underlying original language texts from which it is translated.

Hubner begins by claiming he cannot understand why anyone would have concern with the modern critical Greek NT text as expressed in the NA 27th ed. and the UBS 4th ed. I will explain my concern in greater detail below.

Next, Hubner takes issue with my statement that the ESV abandons the traditional (received) text of Scripture as used by “the Protestant Reformers.”

He asks, “Which ‘received text’ is Riddle referring to?” In answer, let me say that by “received text” I am referring to the original language texts of Scripture that have been most widely accepted and used by the church throughout its history. From a confessional perspective, we can speak of these texts being providentially preserved (see the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, I.VIII which affirms that the Scriptures are “by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages”). This includes the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible and the received text of the Greek New Testament, preserved in the vast majority of extant ancient manuscripts of the Bible. With the technological revolution of the printing press these texts were published and widely circulated for the first time during the Reformation era. In the NT, in particular, there were some slight modifications made in various editions of these printed editions, perhaps the most significant being the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7-8) in the third edition of Erasmus’ Greek NT (1522), but, all in all, the variations among the printed versions of the received text are minor. Printed editions of the received text provided a stable text as the basis for Protestant Bible translations, teaching, and preaching.

The Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible can be found in modern editions of the Biblica Hebraica Stuttgartensia. The Trinitarian Bible Society also prints the Bomberg/Ginsberg edition of the Hebrew Bible (Masoretic text) first published by Daniel Bomberg in 1524-25 and edited by David Christian Ginsberg in 1894. As for the New Testament, the Trinitarian Bible Society publishes an edition of the received text that follows Beza’s 1598 Greek NT and was edited by F. H. A. Scrivener and published by Cambridge Press in 1894 and 1902. One can also consult Zane C. Hodges and Arthur Farstad, eds., The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, second ed. (Thomas Nelson, 1985) and Maurice Robinson and William G. Pierpont, eds. The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform 2005 (Chilton 2005).

It is an uncontroverted fact that the ESV is based on modern critical texts, not the traditional texts (the Masoretic Hebrew Text of the Old Testament and the received text of the New Testament) from which the translations of the Reformation era were made in the various “vulgar” European languages (German, English, French, Spanish, Italian, Hungarian, etc.). With regard to English, in particular, all of the Reformation era translations were based on the traditional, received original language texts. These include Coverdale’s Bible (1535); Matthew’s Bible (1537); the Great Bible (1539); the Geneva Bible (1560); Bishop’s Bible (1568); and the KJV (1611). The ESV, however, follows in the tradition of the English Revised Version (1881) and the RSV (1952) by departing from the Reformation era texts and basing its translation on the most current modern critical text, which significantly depart from the received text.

At this point let me offer an important aside on the general method of Hubner’s argument which I (and likely others) find confusing. As I stated in my first rejoinder, it is sometimes hard to know whether Hubner is responding to my article on the ESV, to my review of Alan J. Macgregor’s book Three Modern Versions, or directly to the arguments made in Macgregor’s Three Modern Versions (which I believe he has encountered primarily in extended quotes in my article and review and not by reading Macgregor directly). Confusion comes when Hubner presents his posts as responses to my ESV article, but then he attacks positions and arguments I did not advocate in that article, but which he assumes I (or Macgregor) hold or make relating to the KJV. This confusion is particularly evident in Hubner’s part four response.

Here is an example. In my ESV article I state that, “the ESV is not based on the traditional texts of Scripture that were used by the Protestant Reformers in their vernacular translations….” Note: I am discussing the ESV. Hubner quotes this passage and responds: “and how is it that this text is used ‘by the Protestant Reformers,’ since neither Luther, Calvin, or Zwingli lived when it came into existence around 1611?” Hubner is discussing the KJV. Furthermore, he apparently mistakenly believes that the received text did not come into existence until the KJV translation. The traditional text, however, was around long before the KJV (Erasmus’ first edition of the Greek NT came out in 1516 and Bomberg’s Hebrew Bible in 1524-25, some 75-100 years before the KJV; see the list above of English Bibles prior to the KJV that relied on the traditional text). This point is even conceded by James White in the quote that Hubner cites to refute my position (!): “Everyone admits that the Greek text utilized by Luther in his preaching and by Calvin in his writings was what would become known as the TR.” My concern is that the ESV is not based on this text. It has followed in the path of translations that have abandoned this text in favor of the modern critical text.

Next, Hubner cites the examples I offered of places where the ESV’s divergence from the traditional text might be observed. Again, my article was very brief (just c. 1,600 words) and the four examples (Psalm 145:13; Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53-8:11; Acts 8:37) were meant to be illustrative and not exhaustive. Many, many more might be offered (a more extensive list of differences between the traditional text of the NT and the modern critical text can be found in the Trinitarian Bible Society tract “A Textual Key to the NT”).

Hubner begins by saying, “Clearly, the ESV engages in textual criticism. But, wouldn't we hope so?” My stated concern here, however, is with the text used by the ESV, not the discipline of textual study per se (though I have some thoughts on that subject too, as you might imagine).

Hubner next shares several presuppositions with which I would differ:

First, he assumes that the last 400 years have seen “the greatest discoveries of NT manuscripts” (presumably Codex Sinaiticus and various papyri) and that these justify the usurpation of the traditional text by the modern critical text. I believe that Hubner vastly overestimates the significance of these finds and underestimates the degree to which faithful reformation era scholars were familiar with nearly all the textual issues under discussion in our day. As E. F. Hills observed: “Indeed almost all the important variant readings known to scholars today were already known to Erasmus more than 460 years ago and discussed in the notes (previously prepared) which he placed after the text in his editions of the Greek New Testament” (The King James Version Defended, pp. 198-199). The Reformers knew about pertinent textual issues like the pericope adulterae and the ending of Mark, but they chose to follow the traditional text. One might also compare here Harry Sturz’s book The Byzantine Text-Type (Thomas Nelson, 1984) in which he examines the modern papyri finds and finds support for the traditional (Byzantine) text.

Second, Hubner assumes that no reasonable person could possibly believe that the pericopae adulterae (John 7:53-8:11) is part of the text of Scripture. He asks, “And, is Riddle really suggesting the pericope in John 7:53-8:11 was in the original?” My scandalous answer is, “Yes, I am suggesting this.” Calvin agreed when he stated in his commentary on this passage that “as it has always been received by the Latin Churches, and is found in many old Greek manuscripts, and contains nothing unworthy of an Apostolic Spirit, there is no reason why we should not apply it to our advantage.” Hubner adds, “It would be interesting to see the textual reasons for this conclusion, given that it isn't found in any the earliest manuscripts (2nd-4th century), or any of the 4th century codices, or in most of the early church fathers, etc.” The marginal note on John 7:53 in the NKJV states that the modern critical text “brackets 7:53 through 8:11 as not in the original text. They are present in over 900 mss of John.” For one cogent defense of the integrity of this passage in the NT, see Hills’ discussion, including his review of references to this passage in Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, the Didascalia (Teaching) of the Apostles, the Apostolic Constitutions, Eusebius, and Pacian (pp. 150-159).

Next, Hubner raises four questions or statements:

“First of all, what does Riddle mean by ‘traditional text’?” For an answer, see my response above.

“Second, why does a departure from this ‘traditional text’ ought to raise considerable alarm?” (sic; I take him to be asking, “Why should a departure from this ‘traditional text’ raise considerable alarm?”). He claims I gave no reasons for this alarm and ends with a confusing accusation that I have offered this critique of the ESV “in an effort to uphold the superiority of one 400 year old Anglican translation.” Once again, my article addresses the ESV not the KJV. My argument is about the ESV’s departure from the traditional text of Scripture not from the KJV translation. To make matters worse, he then clearly attempts to disparage the KJV by misidentifying it as a “400 year old Anglican tradition.” First, the traditional text predates the KJV translation. Second, though its origin was in the Protestant Church of England, it became the Bible of choice in the English speaking world among men of all denominational and confessional perspectives (including those who could hardly be accused of being “Anglican,” from Bunyan to Spurgeon to Lloyd-Jones).

“Third, this entire paragraph [cited from my ESV article] is a bad argument.” Again, the whole ESV/KJV confusion arises, but we will proceed. Hubner here claims that those who oppose new translations based on the modern critical text (like the ESV) would also have opposed the KJV translation of 1611. He misses this key point: The KJV was a new translation, but it was not done on the basis of a new text! The KJV was based on the same text used to translate the Geneva Bible and all the other Reformation era English translations! The concern I raise in my article is not with new translations but with new texts! Am I worried about what new editions of the modern critical text might do with the Bible? Yes, I am. More on this in point four below.

Finally, Hubner asks, “Fourth, what is meant by ‘the secular academy,’ and is not this association argument just as invalid as the first regarding the copyright-holder of the ESV?” Let me be clearer than I could in my brief article. By “the secular academy” I mean those who teach in religion departments in public and private universities, who associate in professional academic societies (like the AAR and SBL), who influence liberal Bible societies across the world, and who are not confessional Christians and members of Biblical local churches. The text of the Bible has been taken out of the hands of the church and placed into the hands of the academy (and Bible Societies and publishers). I think it should gravely concern the church, for example, that Ehrman has taken over editorial work on Metzger’s influential The Text of the New Testament. Will he chair a new revision of the UBS Greek NT? Will he write or edit the next Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament? What about the Deutche Bibelgesellschaft which will produce the next edition of Nestle-Aland? Are Reformed and evangelical believers really going to look to liberal mainline European Protestant and, now, even Roman Catholic scholars in Germany to define for us the text of Scripture? If you submit to the modern critical text, this is, in effect, what you are doing.

Ronald Reagan once said that the most terrifying words in the English language are, “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.” I think we could paraphrase that and say the most terrifying words for the faithful church would be, “I’m from the academy, and I’m here to help.” Or especially, “I’m from the academy, and I’m here to fix your text of Scripture.”

After the four questions or statements above, Hubner cites another paragraph in my article in which I raise a specific danger about relying on modern critical texts. Namely, the result is guaranteed textual instability. Again, even though my point in the citation is about the text of the ESV (and I never even mention the KJV!), Hubner launches into another attack relating to the KJV, projecting arguments upon me again that I did not make in this article. His comments here once again also reflect misunderstanding about the fact that the KJV was a new translation, but it did not offer a new text. My point in challenge three is that the ESV is based on a new text.

He concludes this section by asking, “In sum, on what grounds does Riddle assert the KJV AV 1611 as the ultimate reference point in evaluating all other translations and editions of the NT?” I hate to be redundant, but to cite Reagan once more, I would have to say to Mr. Hubner, “There you go again.” We might well have a discussion on why one might choose the KJV as “the ultimate reference point” for English translations based on the merits of its text, translation, history, etc. (as Macgregor does in Three Modern Versions), but that is not the point I am making in this article. My article is about the ESV not the KJV.

Hubner next throws out a specific reference to the text and translation of Revelation 16:5 in the KJV and NKJV. Again, this would make for an interesting discussion, and I believe there is, without doubt, a more credible case that can be made for the KJV/NKJV rendering of this verse than Hubner is aware, but, in the end, it is not germane to our discussion of the ESV. I might also add here that in my ESV article I cited the ESV’s decision to depart from the Masoretic text of Psalm 145:13 by adding a line supported by only one Hebrew manuscript. In his zeal to discuss the KJV, Hubner seems to have ignored the focus of my article, the ESV, including my specific reference to Psalm 145:13. Along these lines, I might cite similar issues in the ESV. The RSV/ESV rendering of 1 Samuel 7:19, for example, provides a reading (“seventy men”) that is not supported by any Hebrew manuscript (the MT here reads “seventy men, fifty thousand” and translations based on the traditional text typically render it as “fifty thousand and seventy men” (NKJV; cf. Geneva Bible, KJV; note: the NASB also reads, “50, 070”; see my posts on the text and translation of 1 Samuel 6:19:  part one; part two; part three).

More KJV refutation comes when Hubner states that I am operating under two assumptions: “(1) we cannot improve upon the AV 1611, (2) we should not attempt to improve upon the AV 1611 (lest we be ‘unstable’). Both are false.” Again, Hubner foists these assumptions regarding the KJV upon me rather than addressing my stated concerns about the text of the ESV. Note that he confuses my point on instability as relating to the KJV translation and not to the text of Scripture.

He refutes the first supposed “assumption” by citing White’s “definitive work on the subject.” I guess the KJV can be improved upon but not White’s “definitive” The KJV Only Controversy! Clearly, not all see White’s work as “definitive” (for one critique, see, e.g., Theodore Letis’s review of White’s book in The Ecclesiastical Text, pp. 222-229). In truth, White’s work is either ignored or dismissed as irrelevant in the secular text critical academic guild. Evangelical text critics like Daniel Wallace (see my critique of Wallace here:  part one; part two; part three; part four; part five) and popular apologists like White are defending a vision of text criticism (the search for the original autographic text) that has been abandoned by the postmodern academy which now no longer searches for a fixed autograph but sees the “texts” (plural!) as a “moving stream” (J. N. Birdsall) or a “living text” (see David Parker, Living Texts of the Gospels [Cambridge, 1997]). The definitive current textbook on academic textual criticism, David Parker’s An Introduction to Manuscripts and Their Texts [NB: the plural] (Cambridge, 2008), does not include a single reference to Wallace or White in its index.

Hubner refutes the second supposed “assumption” by saying that the “clear attitude” of “any Christian” should be that we wish to “improve” both the text and translation of the Bible. The very modern idea that we need to “improve” the text of Scripture is, however, the very notion I would wish to challenge. Hubner begs the question.

Hubner concludes:

"As it has been demonstrated in this blog series, all three of the "challenges" of the ESV are based on bad arguments, half-truths, and the lack of facts. None of them stand. As such, the ESV should not be placed beneath the AV 1611 in terms of importance, accuracy, and edification for the church, nor should the ESV be dismissed in general as a liberal or untrustworthy translation - anymore than should the KJV."

I will leave it to the readers of this interchange to determine if my brief blog article “Three Basic Challenges to the ESV” is, in fact, “based on bad arguments, half-truth, and lack of facts.” I believe that the three challenges I originally articulated concerning the ESV remain unshaken:

1. The ESV has a National Council of Churches copyright.

2. The ESV is not, in fact, a new translation but an evangelical revision of a notoriously liberal one.

3. The ESV is based on the modern critical Greek text.

I believe that all three of these challenges should be seriously considered by believers and churches as they evaluate whether to make use of the ESV at the pulpit, lectern, or pew.

JTR

The Creation's Groaning

I was back in Romans yesterday at CRBC.  The message was "The Creation's Groaning" (Romans 8:18-23).  Along the way I reflected on the fact that the creation "was made subject to vanity, not willingly" (v. 20) through man's sin.  I was also able to cite two Puritans who offer interesting reflections, drawn from this passage, on what the perspective of the creation might be toward sinful man.  Here's an excerpt from the message:

Did you ever consider the fact that the creation has a legitimate reason to hold a grudge against you and it may even now be welling up with hatred toward you not merely for what you have done to it but for the way you continue to act toward your Lord?

The old Puritans sometimes wrote about this. A few years back I read an abridgement of Joseph Alleine's book An Alarm to the Unconverted titled Wake Up and Live! One section of the book is titled “The whole world is against you.” Alleine tells his readers:

It is a solemn thought to think that you are a burden to creation. If inanimate creatures could speak, the food on your plate would cry out to God, ‘Lord, must I nourish this person and give him strength to dishonor you? If you would only give me permission I would choke him!’ The very air that you breathe would say, ‘Lord, must I give this woman breath so that she can blaspheme your name, insult your people, and engage in corrupt speech? Just give the word and I will make sure she never breathes again.’ Even your regular means of transport would complain, ‘Lord, must I help him on his way to commit yet more sins against you?’ If you do not belong to Jesus Christ, the earth groans under you and hell groans for you until death shall satisfy both. While the Lord remains against you, you can be sure that all his creatures—in heaven and on earth—are against you. You cannot be at peace with what God has made if you have not found peace with God himself (p. 63; see this post).

Thomas Boston in Human Nature in Its Fourfold State, likewise, warns:

Your meat, drink, and clothes, grudge being serviceable to the wretch that has lost God and abuses them to His dishonor. The earth groans under you: yea ‘the whole earth groaneth, and travaileth in pain together,’ because of you and such as you are (Rom 8:22) (p. 175).

Why don’t men think this way today? Because we have taken the wound of our sin lightly. The secular environmentalist wants to hug trees. The Christian considers that the trees probably would like to bash in our brains with their branches.

JTR