John MacArthur ministry's presentation of the controversy

Now I want to try to address a discussion of the Bible versions from John MacArthur's ministry. This is in four parts, the first being the one I linked here.

Grace Community Church regularly receives letters from “Grace to You” listeners all over the country who react to statements in the radio broadcasts that better and older texts differ from those used for the KJV and conclude we teach that the Greek manuscripts on which the KJV is based are inaccurate. They ask, “If the King James Version is not the most accurate translation of the Bible, then which translation is and why is it regarded so?” [my emphasis]

Already the discussion is skewed in the usual way. The problem begins with the implicit denial of what the listeners rightly deduce from the radio broadcasts, that to say that "better and older texts differ from those used for the KJV" does in fact imply "that we teach that the Greek manuscripts on which the KJV is based are inaccurate."

We are now going to be taken down the usual primrose path in which it is going to be maintained that No, they are not saying the KJV texts are inaccurate, NONE of the texts are really inaccurate, there are merely many different choices available among different acceptable traditions.

Your average Christian intuits that this makes no sense but by the end of the discussion will most likely either be thoroughly mystified out of maintaining his reasonable intuition, or be thoroughly indoctrinated into the convoluted reasonings that support the modern versions while pretending not to reject the KJV.

When it is said that "better and older texts differ from those used for the KJV" what ELSE should an attentive intelligent listener conclude BUT that there are better texts and therefore more accurate translations? And in fact if you spend any time reading up on these things you will certainly find that many defenders of the new versions DO treat the KJV as seriously inaccurate and ready for the trash heap -- well, it IS the reasonable conclusion from the claim that there are older and better manuscripts. AND you will find that among those who accept these arguments there are few (I suspect none really) who choose the King James FOR ITS ACCURACY, but prefer and even recommend one of the modern translations. Any who do retain the King James do so only from habit or personal preference, and must always have the nagging sense that the choice is inferior.

I want to be very clear that I am not accusing anyone of deception. I do not mean to imply that I think John MacArthur or any of the others who argue this way intend to deceive, and this includes a long list of eminent preachers whose Bible-based teachings are rightly appreciated across the country and even the world. I simply want to be as clear as I can that this argument is seriously flawed and deceptive in itself although this is generally not recognized by those who accept it. Those who hold this position do sincerely believe that the KJV is God's word while also believing there are better Greek texts, and that the issue is complicated and therefore easy to misunderstand.

They haven't recognized that you can't have it both ways. IF THERE ARE IN FACT "OLDER AND BETTER MANUSCRIPTS" than those used for the KJV, OF COURSE the logical implication is that the KJV should be abandoned in favor of better translations from the better manuscripts. OF COURSE! And OF COURSE a serious Christian would want to know which is the VERY best of the translations. But instead he's going to be taken on a roundabout trip in which two seriously different manuscript traditions are not going to be directly recognized as contradictory but are going to be upheld as acceptable, although the "older and better" tradition will of course as usual emerge indirectly as superior and his questions will not REALLY be answered.

The fact is that only one manuscript tradition can logically be acceptable because there ARE such contradictions, and my argument is, as always, for the tradition underlying the KJV. The claim for the "older and better manuscripts" is false, they are not older in the sense of representing the originals, but only in the sense of being physically older than the majority that have survived the ravages of use over time, and they are certainly not better but in fact a horror of corruption, as amply demonstrated by J W Burgon.

But let's go on with the discussion, which I'm only going to quote spottily. Here they are listing some "facts" about the Greek manuscripts that are currently available:

3. God never promised the perfect preservation of the original manuscripts, but He did promise to preserve their content, as evidenced in Numbers 23:19, Isaiah 55:11, and Matthew 5:18. The content is preserved within the body of currently existing manuscripts.

In principle this is true, and if the collection of existing manuscripts had not been currupted from 1881 on with the inclusion of corrupted texts it would continue to be factually true as well. Unfortunately the content is seriously different between the manuscript tradition that underlies the KJV and the supposedly "older and better" texts that began to be used from 1881 on. The differences are NOT negligible between the two traditions. Whole familiar passages that are included in the KJV are not present in the new texts, and some wording is different enough to convey a different meaning altogether.

4. There are differences among the existing original language manuscripts of both the Old and New Testaments. These differences are the source of the controversy.

Yes, but this obscures the fact that the differences among the traditional texts underlying the KJV (thousands of manuscripts collectively known as the "Byzantine" line, sometimes the "Majority" text, sometimes the Received Text or Textus Receptus) are extremely minor compared to SOME of the differences between that tradition and the manuscripts that were the basis of the Revision of 1881 (a total of I believe FIVE manuscripts as against the thousands of the Received Text tradition, TWO of which were elevated to extreme prominence though they differed from each other quite drastically -- known as Vaticanus and Sinaiticus). It is these very few Alexandrian type manuscripts that differ so extremely from the traditional text that are falsely regarded as "older and better" and are now incorporated into ALL the modern English Bibles to one extent or another.

Poor Dean Burgon. He spent the last years of his life applying his prodigious scholarship, his superior understanding of Greek, his highly refined discernment of excellence in the English language and in spiritual things as well, to trying to warn the Church away from these interlopers, yet the Church foolishly rejected his superior judgment.

But I digress.

5. Far more manuscripts are in existence today for the New Testament than for any other piece of ancient literature. There are at least four Scripture manuscript families that are widely recognized. They include the Alexandrian Text, the Western Text, the Caesarean Text, and the Byzantine, or Majority, Text.

This list may itself be misleading, as all are listed as if they were choices on a salad bar, but the Alexandrians are represented by very few manuscripts and are the ones called "older and better" that are really corrupted; as Burgon points out, the "Western text" is a complete invention by Westcott and Hort; the term "Majority text" is generally rejected by supporters of the King James Bible -- "Traditional Text" says it better; and as for the "Caesarean text," it looks like another fictional category:

Here's a comment on this from The Bible Researcher:

In recent years many scholars have expressed doubts about the existence of a "Caesarean text..." More recently, Kurt Aland has expressed an even more skeptical opinion. He acknowledges only the Alexandrian and Byzantine text-types. While the "theoretical possibility" of a Caesarean text-type "must be conceded," Aland says that it is "purely hypothetical."

Back to the discussion:

7. Textual variations are almost always incidental and do not significantly affect the meaning of Scripture. Once the easily explained variants are removed, 99.9 percent of the text of our Bible can be confirmed as accurate without reservation.

Unfortunately the phrase "the text of our Bible" implies that the distinctions I'm trying to keep on the table here do not exist, as if there is really nothing but one Bible text. And here's the usual apologetic for the new versions:

9. No doctrine in all of historic orthodox Christianity is dependent upon the solution to any one textual variant.

As if the accuracy of the text of the Bible has only to do with the main doctrines and not the truth of the whole text, the "every word of God" by which we are to live.

Now they are going on to consider what seem to be the different positions on this controversy:

1. ”King James only”

2. “Majority Text only”

3. “Thorough going eclectic”

4. “Westcott Hort”

5. “Balanced eclectic”

I can't comfortably place myself anywhere on this list.

I'm not KJVO because I don't start from the premise that the King James is perfection in itself or "inspired" by God, it's merely the only English Bible we have today that is trustworthy because all those that have any influence whatever from the Alexandrian texts and Westcott and Hort's English substitutions are untrustworthy and unworthy.

Perhaps the closest is "Majority Text only" -- though I'd rather call it the Traditional Text -- as I do regard that family of manuscripts to be the legitimate line and everything from the Alexandrian line to be false, but I think it's probably clearer to define my position in terms of my REJECTION of Westcott and Hort and the Alexandrians.

And I have some objections to how this position is represented too:

The second approach is the “Majority Text only” school. This reasonable approach, championed by Zane Hodges, professor of New Testament and Greek at Dallas Theological Seminary, also promotes the King James Bible. The Dean Burgon Society was recently formed to advocate this position, and Thomas Nelson Publishers of Nashville issued the New King James Version under the academic leadership of Dr. Arthur Farstad with this position in mind.

As I understand it the Dean Burgon Society was formed decades ago, not exactly "recently," and the New King James Version incorporates hundreds if not thousands of English words different from those of the KJV but identical to Westcott and Hort's gratuitous choices in their Revised Version, plus notes galore that imply the superiority of the corrupted Alexandrian texts.

The “Majority Text only” approach argues that God preserved His Word in the text which is found in the largest number of manuscripts. Because the largest number of manuscripts is found in the Byzantine, or Majority, family, this family is considered by supporters of this approach to most accurately represent the autographa. The King James Bible is based upon the “textus receptus” (TR), a segment of the Byzantine family of manuscripts.

The Byzantine family in general and the Textus Receptus in particular are "considered by supporters of this approach to most accurately represent the autographs" NOT simply "because the largest number of manuscripts is found in this family" but because their great numbers reflect a long history of transmission, showing the church's preference for them down through the centuries. That is, the numbers themselves are not the reason for preferring them, but their quality is considered to be evidenced BY the great number that have survived, by comparison with the paltry few from the Alexandrian tradition that have survived to the present -- tucked away in dark corners yet.

I'm not entirely clear exactly what the Textus Receptus is. In some descriptions it's a particular subfamily of manuscripts from which the King James translators selected readings -- out of the whole Byzantine family. Sometimes it sounds like it is an artificial manuscript made up specifically of their chosen readings. Yet apparently they included readings that aren't to be found in the Textus Receptus. The KJV readings were of course those the translators judged for one reason or another to best represent the intended meaning, whether they were selected from a majority of manuscripts or a minority or from who knows where, and it seems to me those readings ought to be taken particularly seriously because of the high quality of the men who did that work. Sometimes the KJV is criticized for its deviation from the majority or even from any known text, but I think this misses the point -- we need to know something of the basis for their judgments. They didn't operate in a vacuum, they were of the highest quality of scholarship and their judgments have to be taken seriously.

More later.