Thursday, March 31, 2011

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?

No comments: