WM 168: Q & A (NKJV, Ward, PIA), then review of Boyce on PA

Earlier this week, I posted WM 168: Q & A (NKJV, Ward, PIA), then review of Boyce on PA. Listen above.

Here are a few links to resources noted in this episode:

Part One: Following up with Correspondence:

On the NKJV:

You can order Alan J. Macgregor, Three Modern Versions:  A Critical Assessmentof the NIV, ESV, and NKJV (The Bible League, 2004) here.

Check out the articles page on the TBS website. If you scroll down to the section on "English Versions" you will find five articles on the NKJV.

Dane Johannsson also has this podcast on the NKJV.

On Mark Ward's Which TR? article:

See Ward's lecture, An Evaluation of Confessional Bibliology (September, 2019).

Read Ward's Which TR? article from DBTSJ (2020) here.

Read my blog post on WM 140: Responding to the "Which TR?" Objection here.

Listen to WM 140 here:

On the PIA and debates on text:

Look here for the PIA's list of public debates (none of which, according to the titles, give singular, sustained focus to defending his rejection of any specific TR text).

Part Two: Review of Introduction to Stephen Boyce on the PA:

Read Boyce's full article here.

Listen to my full debate with Boyce on the PA here:

Blessings, JTR

WM 141: Resource: TBS Statement of Doctrine of Holy Scripture

WM 141: Resource: TBS Statement of Doctrine of Holy Scripture is posted. Listen here.

In this shorter episode, I offer a reading of the Trinitarian Bible Society's statement on Scripture first adopted in 2005 (read it here). I mentioned this in WM 140. It was noted by Jonathan Arnold at the Text and Canon Conference (listen to his conference talk here). Very helpful resource.

JTR

Word Magazine # 62: Sermon Review: Ending of Mark.PartThree: Internal Evidence

WM # 62 continues my review of the 2012 sermon by Pastor Carey Hardy on the ending of Mark.  WM # 60 dealt with preliminary issues, WM # 61 with external arguments.  With this episode we turn to Hardy’s internal arguments against the authenticity of the Longer Ending (LE) of Mark 16:9-20.  He has a three pronged attack:  vocabulary, style, and content.

I.  Vocabulary Arguments:

Hardy begins by noting there are 15 words in the LE that do not occur elsewhere in Mark.

Response:

1.  This number is deceiving, because some words are necessarily unique due to the narrative context.  Examples:  “the eleven” (v. 15); “snakes” (v. 18); and “deadly poison” (v. 18).

2.  Also, some of the supposedly unique words in the LE appear in a related form elsewhere in the Gospel.  Examples:

The verb “to go” [poreuomai] appears three times in the LE (vv. 10, 12, 15) and nowhere else in Mark.  However, it appears in a compounded form multiple times in Mark.  The verb “to go out” [ekporeuomai] appears eleven times and the “to go into” [eisporeuomai] appears eight times.

Likewise, the verb “to accompany” [parakaloutho] appears only in Mark 16:17, but the related verb “to follow” [akoloutho] appears sixteen times in the rest of Mark.

3.  Any analysis of vocabulary in the LE must compare the passage to others in Mark of similar size.

Lunn does this in his book The Original Ending of Mark (see pp. 120-127).

If one does this he finds other passages in Mark with similar rates of unique words.  So, Lunn finds:

Prologue (Mark 2:1-11):  17 words

The parable of the tenants (Mark 12:1-11):  19 words

Apocalyptic Discourse (Mark 13:14-23):  15 words

Anointing at Bethany (Mark 14:1-9):  20 words

With regard to the verb “to go” [poreuomai]:  Again, it may only appear in its uncompounded from in the LE but it is used in compounded forms multiple times in Mark.  Furthermore, when we compare the other Gospels and Acts we find a similar pattern.

II.  Style Arguments:

These include:

1.  Challenges related to the connection/transition between 16:8-9.

Why does an abrupt masculine pronoun appear in v. 9 after the appearance of the women in v. 8?

Response:

I note Lunn’s discussion of “participant reference” in Mark and point out that this construction is actually consistent with Markan style (see Lunn pp. 174-180).

2.  Description of Mary Magdalene in 16:9.

Why do we have a further description of Mary in 16:9 when she has already appeared in Mark, including in 16:1?

Response:

I note Lunn’s discussion (pp. 140-141).  Lunn cites possible parallels between vv. 1-8 and vv. 9-20, which would include a parallel reference to Mary in vv. 1, 9. He also suggests that such “delayed descriptions” are actually typical of Biblical narrative.

3.  The use of the conjuction kai:

Response:

 Same arguments regarding vocabulary apply.

4.  Some claim the LE has a “prosaic style” versus the “graphic style” of the rest of Mark.

Response:

This judgment in subjective.

III.  Content Arguments:

1.   There no fulfillment of the references to Jesus’ appearances to his disciples in Galilee in the LE (see Mark 14:28; 16:7).

Response:

I note we might assume Mark implicitly understood that his readers would understand that one of the resurrection appearances in the LE was set in Galilee.

Lunn appeals to the possibility of “telescoping” (see pp. 319-325), but I am less inclined to adopt this due to the challenges it brings to upholding the historical reliability and infallibility of Scripture.

Again, we moderns cannot always grasp the literary method of ancient authors.  I also draw a comparison to Acts where it is said Paul will stand before Caesar (see Acts 25:10-12; 27:24) but the book ends without ever narrating this in detail.

Finally, those who hold that Mark ends at 16:8 likewise have no explanation for the Galilee predictions and, what is worse, assume a narrative with NO resurrection appearances.

2.  The LE as a summary of the endings of various other Gospels.

Response:

This view accepts the modern historical-critical view of a lack of essential unity in the Christian tradition.

It fails to explain why the LE does not, in fact, provide detailed literary or content parallels to the other Gospels if it is merely a spurious scribal creation.

It does not consider the possibility that Luke might have borrowed from Mark 16:12-23 in order to construct the Emmaus Road narrative in Luke 24.

The LE makes use of general Greek terms (v. 20) not limited to other NT authors (like Paul).

3. The supposed harshness of Jesus’ rebuke of the disciples in 16:14.

Response:

But, it this rebuke any worse than that given to Peter in Mark 8:33?

Does not Matthew 28:17 also say that some disciples doubted?

Is not the language here (“unbelief” and “hardness of heart”) distinctly Markan?

4.  The sign references in 16:17-18, especially snake handling and drinking poison, are out of place for Mark.

Response:

This is addressed to the apostles (see vv. 14 “the eleven” and v. 15 “And he said unto them [the eleven]”) and is actually a key passage in support of the cessationist view, which limits such signs to the apostles and the apostolic age.

The laying of hands on the sick was done by Jesus (see Mark 5:23; 6:5; 8:23, 25) and naturally done by the apostles and their associates (like Paul in Acts 28 and possibly Ananias in Acts 9).

The reference to serpents and poison is not a “bizarre promise” but a pledge of providential protection.

Lamar Williamson in his commentary on Mark:  “Taken seriously, however, these verses promise that those who give themselves to costly, self-denying announcement of the gospel in the world today will find their faithfulness confirmed in tangible ways” (as cited in Lunn, p. 355, n. 57).

IV.  Conclusions:

The argument against the LE based on internal evidence is not convincing.

Seven problems with those who reject the LE based on “Internal Evidence”:

1.   Their arguments are often subjective.

2. Their arguments are often circular, based on their presupposition that the LE is not authentic.

3.  They often fail to compare the LE to passages of similar size in Mark.

4.  They often fail to compare the LE to similar patterns in the other Gospels.

5.  They are reliant on a small sample writing size.

6.  They do not consider the possibility of authorial variation in writing style.

7.  They do not consider the possibility of the LE’s use of Christian sources and common traditions to account for variation.

JTR

Vince Krivda: Which Textus Receptus?! A Response to Mark Ward's Critique of Confessional Bibliology

My friend Vince Krivda has written a solid and detailed response to Mark Ward's "Which TR?" objection to the Confessional Text position. He shared this with me in August, and I am just getting around to doing a post on it. Sorry for the delay. You can read the full article here on academia.edu.

The conclusion to the paper begins:

Although Ward’s paper is to be welcomed for thoughtfully engaging CB, his insistence to forge the position as a kind of KJV-Onlyism is overreaching. If anything, his argument is a sure warning for CB proponents not to fall into the motions of KJV-Onlyist tendencies that ignore the slight differences in the micro-TR editions or to view Scrivener’s GNT as a diplomatic text. Perhaps, besides any typographical misprints, the latest Scrivener revision is a perfect replication of the authentic NT texts. But to assert so dogmatically risks the type of special pleading that Ward accuses CB proponents of committing because it is not a claim that is necessitated by the position. Rather, CB proponents may pragmatically appeal to the Scrivener GNT prima facie, recognizing that any defeaters to this position are not sufficient to upset the authority of the macro-TR or its baring on matters of faith and practice. 

Glad to see Vince makes use and reference to some of my material in WM 140: Responding to the "Which TR?" Objection and that he pointed out Ward's reluctance to engage with it.

Enjoy, JTR

WM 140: Responding to the "Which TR?" Objection

WM 140: Responding to the "Which TR?" Objection has been posted. Listen here.

In the chapter “Why Not the Textus Receptus” (pp. 87-91) in his Introduction to the Greek New Testament Produced at Tyndale House, Cambridge (Crossway, 2019), Jongkind poses a version of the “Which TR?” objection.

Is this challenge an insurmountable defeater for the TR position?

Jongkind’s Objections:

Jongkind begins, “Before we start discussing the Textus Receptus we should clarify which printed Greek NT we are talking about” (88).

He makes reference and brief comparisons to the printed editions of Stephanus (1550) and Elzevir (1624, 1633).

He adds, “Each of these printed Greek New Testaments has some problems, though most of these are minute” (88).

He lists three examples:

First: Revelation 7:7 involves the spelling of the name Issachar. He gives the variants as Isaschar and Isachar. The differences is one letter (sigma). Jongkind does not tell us in which printed editions he located this variation.

Second: Revelation 8:11 reads το τριτοv in Stephanus (1550), while Elzevir (1633) has το τριτον των υδατων.

Third: 2 Peter 1:1 reads σωτηρος in Stephanus (1550) and Elzevir (1633), but σωτηρος ημων in Elzevir (1624). BTW, Scrivener (1894) also reads σωτηρος ημων, though Jongkind does not mention this.

He then writes: “I give these examples to demonstrate that even if one holds to the originality of the Textus Receptus, one cannot avoid the critical task of having to judge which wording to accept. Admittedly, there is a difference in the scale of the critical task, but it is not a difference in kind.” (88).

Toward some general principles in response to the “Which TR?” challenge:

Let me offers some responses, since we do indeed have no desire to avoid making an informed and reasonable determination when such slight differences are discovered between the various editions of the TR.

First, it is important to point out that there is no single “perfect” printed edition of the TR. This does not mean, however, that the various printed editions of the TR taken collectively fail to provide for us a reasonable and reliable witness to the received text.

At the Text and Canon Conference Jonathan Arnold made mention of the TBS’s helpful “Statement of Doctrine of Holy Scripture” which, for the NT, refers to the received text as “a group of printed texts” adding that “the scope of the Society’s Constitution does not extend to considering the minor variations between the printed editions of the Textus Receptus.”

Second, we should not let the fact that such minor variations exist among the various printed editions of the TR overshadow the fact that those editions are overwhelmingly uniform and, particularly so, with regard in those places where there are major differences with the modern critical text. All the classic Protestant printed editions of the TR, for example, include the doxology of the Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6:13b), the traditional ending of Mark, “the only begotten Son” at John 1:18, the PA, Acts 8:37, “God was manifest in the flesh” at 1 Timothy 3:16, the CJ, etc.

As for the remaining minor variations, each of these, should be evaluated on a case by case basis. If this is done, I believe that most of them will be easily resolved, while only a few will call for more careful deliberation.

Let me lay out at least four tentative principles for how this might be done:

First: The various printed Greek editions of the TR should be consulted.

If this is done, one may find that a variant is discovered in only one or two printed editions (perhaps due to a printing error) and a determination can quickly and easily be made in favor of the dominant reading.

The editions which should be primarily consulted are the classic Protestant ones of Stephanus and Beza, based on Erasmus' foundational work. The Elzevir editions should also be consulted, but with the understanding that they appeared after most of the translations of the TR had first been made into the modern languages of Europe.

Second: The early vernacular translations based on the printed editions of the TR, as well as original language editions and other versions, should be consulted.

If this is done, one may find that a variant is found in only one or two translations and a determination can quickly and easily be made in favor of the dominant reading.

Third: If available, early annotations and commentaries made by the editors of the printed editions of the TR and/or by the early translators of the versions may be consulted.

This would include the annotations of Erasmus and Beza.

Fourth: With regard to extremely minor variations in spelling, word order, definite articles, separation of words, and collective possessive pronouns it should be determined whether the detected difference makes any significant impact in determining the conceptual meaning of the reading.

In such cases, consultation with the early versions will be helpful, as it may be determined that the variant has no impact on the conceptual understanding of the text.

“Scale” versus “Kind”?:

Let me also address the assertion of difference in “scale” versus “kind.” Jongkind says that the differences in the printed edition of the TR are only ones of “scale” and not “kind.” The implication is that deliberating among the minor variations in the printed editions of the TR is no different than the deliberations made by modern text critics using reasoned eclecticism. They are of the same “kind” and, therefore, offer no greater degree of epistemological certainty. But is this, in fact, the case?

I would counter, to the contrary, that I do not think that the variations in the printed editions of the TR could be said to be equitable (of the same “kind”) with those variations encountered using the modern text critical method. The differences within the printed editions of the TR and the differences within the various modern critical text reconstructions is one both of “scale” AND “kind.”

Key to this is the fact that the variants found among the printed TR editions are necessarily and historically limited. There will not be previously unknown printed editions of the TR discovered in the sands of Egypt or the caves of the Dead Sea. Modern text critics may suggest it is unlikely that there will be any major finds of Greek manuscripts that will profoundly alter the modern critical text in the next five hundred years or beyond, as does Peter J. Williams when he writes, “If discoveries in the future are anything like discoveries in the last five hundred years, then we do not expect editions of the Gospels to change much” (Can We Trust the Gospels?: 116). Still, the method must inherently affirm its openness to the possibility of radical alteration of the text. Thus, the modern critical text can never attain the measure of stability and confidence that is assured by the adoption of the Textus Receptus.

To compare, therefore, the variations in the printed editions of the TR with the variations found in the mass of existing Greek manuscripts, versions, Patristic citations, lectionaries, etc. not to mention those that are, at least conceptually, still to be found, is to compare apples with oranges.

Jongkind’s three examples:

Let’s return to a brief and tentative examination of Jongkind’s three examples:

BTW, notice that all three of his examples come from those parts of the NT where the manuscript evidence is latest and weakest: the catholic epistles and Revelation.

First: Revelation 7:7 involves the spelling of the name Issachar. He gives the variants as Isaschar and Isachar. The difference is one letter (sigma). Jongkind does not tell us where he located the variation.

A quick check reveals that Stephanus (1550) reads ισαχαρ as does Scrivener (1894).

I assume that the other variant is in one or both of the Elzevir editions.

This would fall under the category of principle four above, a minor spelling variation that makes no significant impact on the conceptual understanding of the text.

My hunch would be that if we were to check the various versions we would find that they would offer a translation that favors Isachar (without the sigma) and this is the proper reading.

Second, Revelation 8:11 involves a more significant difference. Should the text include the genitive plural των υδατων modify the nominative noun το τριτον?

Jongkind notes that Revelation 8:11 reads το τριτοv in Stephanus (1550), while Elzevir (1633) has το τριτον των υδατων.

Let’s look at the larger context of the clause in dispute in several printed editions:

Revelation 8:11 in Stephanus (1550): και γινεται το τριτον εις αψινθον

Literally: “and the third part became into wormwood [bitterness]”

Revelation 8:11 in Elzevir (1633): και γινεται το τριτον των υδατων εις αψινθον

Literally: “and the third part of the waters became into wormwood [bitterness].”

To follow our tentative principles above, we would begin by comparing the printed TRs. I found that Erasmus, like Stephanus, had only το τριτον, while Beza (assuming it is the same of Scrivener) like Elzevir has το τριτον των υδατων. There does not seem to be a predominant reading.

Next, I go to the early versions based on the printed TR and other evidences.

Again, this sketch is tentative and limited.

I found that Tyndale (1534) follows the reading of Erasmus and Stephanus: “and the third part was turned to wormwood.”

But the other versions seemed predominantly to follow Beza and Elzevir:

Luther (1522): “Und der dritte Teil der Wasser wurde zu Wermut”

Reina-Valera (1569): “Y la tercera parte de las aguas fué vuelta en ajenjo”

Károlyi Gáspár (1589): “változék azért a folyóvizek harmadrésze ürömmé”

Geneva (1599): “And that third part of the waters became wormwood”

King James Version (1611): “and the third part of the waters became wormwood”

It appears that the predominant reading as evidenced by the versions favors το τριτον των υδατων, and I would suggest that this is the proper text.

Third, 2 Peter 2:1 reads σωτηρος in Stephanus (1550) and Elzevir (1633), but σωτηρος ημων in Elzevir (1624). BTW, Scrivener (1894) also reads σωτηρος ημων, though Jongkind does not mention this.

The question is should there be a first person plural genitive pronoun ημων following σωτηρος.

Again, it might help to look at the larger context for the passage in several printed editions:

2 Peter 1:1b in Stephanus (1550) and Elzevir (1633): εν δικαιοσυνη του θεου ημων και σωτηρος ιησου χριστου

Literally: “in [through] the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ”

2 Peter 1:1 in Elzevir (1624) and presumably Beza [as in Scrivener (1894)]: εν δικαιοσυνη του θεου ημων και σωτηρος ημων ιησου χριστου

Literally: “in [through] the righteousness of our God and our Savior Jesus Christ”

In this case we might also profit from consulting and comparing the printed Greek editions of the TR, where we find again that Erasmus is in harmony with Stephanus.

Next, we consult the versional evidence (see below).

As we do so we also notice that this variant seems to fall under the category of principle four since the variation does not impact the concept conveyed. A translator might well render either text with the same translation.

A quick survey of the versions finds that none duplicate the pronoun whatever text they might have used:

Tyndale (1534): “in the righteousness that cometh from our God and saviour Jesus Christ”

Luther (1522): “die unser Gott gibt und der Heiland Jesus Christus”

Reina-Valera (1569): “en la justicia de nuestro Dios y Salvador Jesucristo”

Károlyi Gáspár (1589): “a mi Istenünknek és megtartónknak Jézus Krisztusnak igazságában”

Geneva Bible (1599): “by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ”

King James Version (1611): “through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ”

This survey indicates that no version uses the first-person plural possessive pronoun with both nouns “God” and “Savior.” Most explicitly apply it to “God” and at least one to “Savior” (KJV). All seem to assume it is collectively applied to both nouns. The best text then would seem to be that in Scrivener (Beza): εν δικαιοσυνη του θεου ημων και σωτηρος ημων ιησου χριστου,since it allows for the pronoun's explicit application to either the noun and its collective application to both.

The study of these three examples demonstrates that the vast number of variations in the printed editions of the TR are far from insuperable if they are examined on a case by case basis. All the same, we readily admit that there are some variants which will present special difficulties, though Jongkind does not raise any of these particular objections (like Rev 16:5). In the end, once more we can affirm that these minor differences are not the same either in “scale” or “kind” with those encountered by those using the modern reconstruction method.

Conclusion:

In the end the “Which TR?” objection is by no means a defeater for the Confessional Text position.

JTR

Word Magazine # 47: Gilbert and "Silly Statements" on the NT Text

That's right, back to back Word Magazines!  I have posted audio for WM # 47: Gilbert and "Silly Statements" on the NT Text.  Below are my notes:

On Monday, February 9, 2016 a blog post appeared on the Neo-Calvinistic Gospel Coalition website, titled, “Debunking Silly Statements about the Bible.”   The article is written by  Greg Gilbert, pastor of Third Avenue BC in Louisville, KY, the author of several books published by Crossway, a protégé of Mark Dever, and a regular 9 Marks ministry contributor.  A note at the end of the article explains that the post is an excerpt from Gilbert’s book Why Trust the Bible? (Crossway, 2015) and first appeared on the 9marks.org website.

The post is presented as a defense against “silly” attacks on the Bible like that which appeared in the notoriously flawed 2014 Newsweek article by Kurt Eichenwald which assailed the authenticity and authority of the text of the Bible as “copies of copies.”

It is Gilbert’s article, however, that has itself now come under fire for more than its fair share of factual problems and “silly” statements about the text and transmission of the Bible.

For some of these criticisms, see the comments (especially the post by James Snapp, a restorationist pastor well-informed on text matters and an intrepid defender of the Longer Ending of Mark) under the original posting.

Peter Head’s Evangelical Academic Critique:

More substantially, see the critique offered by Peter Head in a February 10  Evangelical Text Criticism blog-post and the comments.  Head, a Cambridge fellow whose area of study is text criticism, does not mince words in his review which begins, “Unfortunately all around (for the author, Greg Gilbert, his book, the Gospel Coalition) this post contains a number of Silly Statements about the Bible. Christians who want to defend the Bible have a responsibility to know what they are talking about.”  Head picks out seven problematic passages from only the first half of Gilbert’s article.  Here is a summary of what Head sees as problematic in Gilbert’s article and his responses:

1.  Gilbert talks about the Biblical original being written on paper.

Head:  “I think if we find a biblical manuscript on paper we can be 100 percent certain it is not the original.”

2.  Gilbert says we have 5,400 mss. going back to the third century or earlier.

Head:  Less than one per cent of the mss. we have go back “to anything like the third century” or earlier.

3.  Gilbert says there is only a gap of 45-75 years between the writing of the NT books and the mss. we have of those books.

Head:  “This is also potentially misleading. If we date P46 to around AD200 then we are looking at more like 140-150 years for the Pauline letters. For Mark we might have a gap of 200 years. For John perhaps 45-75 years works, but not for any other portion of the NT. Generalisations are not helpful.”

4.  Gilbert cites Codex Vaticanus as an example of a ms. in continuous use and suggests, “it’s well within the realm of possibility that we have in our museums today copies of the originals.”

Head:  Vaticanus is not a good example of continuous usage and:  “Nothing in this suggests that we have immediate copies of the originals in our museums, and as far as I am aware no one has ever argued such a case in any scholarly publication. Wishing doesn’t make it so.”

5.  Gilbert argues that the “gap” between the writing of NT books and the earliest mss. is not so great.  Also, the NT is better attested than other ancient works.  Gilbert says that we have only 8 copies of Thucydides' Peloponnesian War and the earliest is 1,300 years after the work’s writing.

Head:  “I really wish people wouldn’t keep saying this sort of thing. It is nonsensically ill informed. In fact there are 99 early mansucripts of Thucydides' PW, mostly papyrus, some of which go back to the third century BC, dozens from the first and second centuries (LDAB).”

6.  Gilbert discusses variants and argues they are over-counted by inclusion of versions and patristic citations.

Head:  “I’m really not sure where to start on this. It is nonsense from beginning to end.” He adds that Gilbert’s analysis “is completely vacuous. It suggests a lack of understanding of how the standard critical editions actually work, and no one who works with manuscripts would think like this.”

7.  Gilbert argues that the NT variants that do exist in the mss. are not widespread but are only found “in a few isolated places.”

Head:  “This is so wrong. I doubt this person has ever read a manuscript.”  He adds:  “The claim that textual variants within the New Testament ‘tend to cluster around the same few places in the text over and over again’ is not supported by any sort of reality.”  Head suggests opening any critical edition of the NT where one will find textual variants cited in the apparatus on every page.

Robert D. Marcello’s Evangelical Apologetic critique:

Adding to the critical pile-on to Gilbert’s article, on February 12 Robert D. Marcello, Research Director for the Center for New Testament Manuscripts, posted a critique of Gilbert’s article on Dan Wallace’s blog.

Here is a summary of Marcello’s five points of critique:

1.  Likely due to attempting to write on a popular level, Gilbert says the NT was originally written on paper rather than papyrus.

2.  Gilbert’s reference to Vaticanus and continuous use is a “false analogy.”  His claim that we have copies in museums that come directly from the originals is dubious.  Less than 1% of the mss. we have are within few generations of the originals.

3.  Gilbert’s discussion of the number of variants is wrong-headed.  Even conservative scholars acknowledge myriads of variants in NT mss. (not including versions and patristic citations).

4.  Gilbert’s statement that we have c. 5,400 NT mss. is too low.  The current number is c. 5,839 (5,600 at minimum).

5.  The “most egregious error” Gilbert perpetuates a common evangelical apologetic regarding variants [traced to Neil Lightfoot’s How We Got the Bible], wrongly arguing that the variant accounts do not refer to “unique readings” when, in fact, they do.

Marcello concludes:  “There is ample evidence to support the claim that the text of the New Testament is both reliable and stable. At the same time, we don’t need to appeal to false claims of bad counting or incorrect numbers to muster that evidence. These “Silly Statements” need to end if we are ever going to provide solid evidence for the reliability of the text.”

A Confessional Critique of Gilbert:

As noted above, Head and Marcello have pointed out the factual problems with Gilbert’s article (book section).  Most importantly, they expose the problems with what we might call the “old evangelical” defense of the reliability of the text of the NT.  Evangelical apologist cannot get way with saying things like:

(1) We have thousands of early mss. of the Greek NT, when, in fact, only 1% come from the third century or earlier.

(2) Our thousands of NT mss. are superior to the  transmission of other works of antiquity.  This is true in many cases, but in some the transmission is comparable.

(3) The number of variants in the NT mss. can be dismissed or minimized.

This works in the evangelical “echo-chamber” but is less effective outside those circles.  It is not surprising perhaps that these kinds of arguments are found in a 9-Marks, neo-Calvinist author where insular and circular conversations are common (Dever endorses Gilbert, who endorses DeYoung, who endorses Dever, who endorses  Gilbert….).

Beyond the critiques offered by Snapp, Head, and Marcello, we can approach our critique of Gilbert’s article (book section) from another angle.  It fails not only due to factual problems but also and more importantly (IMHO) due to theological problems.

He is attempting to defend the reliable transmission of the Bible based on a restorationist approach rather than a confessional and preservationist approach.

Gilbert asks a good question:  “Are we left simply to give up and admit that all we have are a bunch of useless copies of copies of copies of copies, and that we’ll never have confidence what we have is what the authors actually wrote?”

But his apologetic answer is that we can have confidence (at least to a limited degree) in scholarly ability to reconstruct the original text (behind this, of course, is the modern notion of the elusive inerrant autographa).  This is why he rushes to defend gaps, variants, etc.  He does not defend the providential preservation of the autographa via the apographa, the view reflected in the Westminster CF and the 2LBCF-1689.  At core, then, Gilbert’s views on the text of Scripture reflect the weaknesses of those who are evangelical Calvinists but not confessional Calvinists.

Thus, Gilbert asserts his confidence in the restorationist approach:  “And for another thing, it turns out it’s precisely the existence of those thousands of copies, from all over the Roman Empire and with all their variations, that allows us to reconstruct with a huge degree of confidence what the originals said.” I find it striking that he puts “a huge degree of confidence” in italic.  This is one of the chief problems with the restorationist model.  It does not even see absolute certainty as a conceivable goal.

Later Gilbert compares restoration of the text as like solving a “logic puzzle.”  He adds:

That’s exactly the kind of work scholars have done for centuries on the fragments and manuscripts of the New Testament available to us. The puzzles they face, of course, are far more complicated than these simple examples, but you get the idea. By comparing the ancient copies we have, and thinking carefully about why certain changes or errors might have been made by copyists, scholars reach highly confident conclusions about what the original documents said. It’s not a matter of guesswork or magic, much less of assumption or simply “making things up,” but rather of careful deductive reasoning.

He assures the reader:

Of course you’re free to disagree with any one of the conclusions those scholars reach; Christians have fun arguing about this kind of thing all the time.

And he concludes:

And far from diminishing our ability to identify what the originals said, the vast number of existing copies actually allows us to deductively reason out, to a high degree of historical confidence, what John, Luke, Paul, and the other writers actually wrote.

Note again the emphasis on “a high degree of historical confidence.” 

Here is the problem: What do we do if one scholar reconstructs the text in one way and another scholar reconstructs it in another way?  Which side do we choose?  Who has the competence to make this decision?  Can you make this decision without knowing Greek, studying mss., etc.?  Is it a personal and individual choice for every Christian to make individually?  A decision to be made by a committee of scholars?  An ecclesial decision?  If so, by each local church?  By a body of churches (synod, association, denomination)?  What of the catholic (universal) church?  At root here is in fact a crisis of epistemology and authority for evangelicals who have embraced the modern critical text and the restorationist method.

There is an alternative:  confessionalism.

JTR