Does the textual basis of your Bible translation matter? This, on the one hand, friends, is a very easy question to answer because everything should matter to the Christian, as it is written in 1 Corinthians 10, in the verse 31, whether therefore ye eat or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. do all to the glory of God. Eating? Yes. Drinking? Yes. So how much more? The sacred task of transmitting God's originally inspired words into the languages of the peoples of the earth. There is, I would suggest, nothing more important, nothing matters more than having and hearing the words of the living God, and most of you, I trust, know that already. So my purpose this afternoon is not so much to convince you, but to help you, to equip you to convince others, and this, friends, will prove to be no easy task, because we are living in a day in which nothing seems to matter much to anyone anymore. Truth, ethics, morality, common courtesy, Good manners all have been swallowed up by the nihilistic black hole of the modern self. Shakespeare saw it coming. He wondered whether our lives might be nothing but a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Nietzsche also announced its unwelcome revival or arrival at the turn of the 20th century. He wrote, Nihilism stands at the door. And here we are so many years later, well past that sad fact. As I said, no one cares much about anything anymore. So when it comes to this vital question of the textual basis of our modern translations, we need to help people care. We need to help people care. But first let's define our terms. There's at least one technical term in the question at hand. Does the textual basis of your Bible translation matter? And that technical term would be this, textual basis or text base, as we used to say. This technical term refers to the printed edition of the Hebrew Old Testament or the Greek New Testament from which a translation is made. But if you mention that to your average person on the street, you can probably stand back and watch their eyes glaze over. Most people today, it needs to be admitted, are not interested in ancient history. They are not interested in ancient languages. We just have to acknowledge that as one of the first challenges that we will face as we witness to people. When you bring up the concept of the text base of a translation, you are in fact bringing up some 3,000 years worth of world history. The process of divine inspiration, that is God breathing his word onto the sacred page, occurred over a period of about 1,500 years with some 40 different men writing at different times in different places. It then took approximately the same period of time, 1,500 years, for these writings to be compiled and printed into that single volume between two covers that we know today as the Word of God, the Holy Bible. So the question of a textual base is inescapably historical. And I would also tell you that it's inherently complicated. Because while the miracle of divine inspiration was immediate, God moving men as they wrote. The process of preservation was neither miraculous nor immediate. It's a matter of what we call divine providence, but we'll come back to that in due time. That technical term, textual base, it's now been defined, so let's consider our options for such. The options for a text base. When it comes to the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, most scholars are agreed that the Old Covenant scribes did a very good job They were very faithful stewards or custodians of the sacred writings. Romans chapter 3 and the verse number 2 confirms that God had assigned them this task, this duty, unto them were committed or entrusted the oracles of God. So even today, as manuscripts and scrolls and copies continue to be discovered, most scholars marvel at their accuracy. And for this reason, the text base of the Hebrew Old Testament has not really been a matter of much debate. That does, however, seem to be changing in our day. The Old Testament of the English Standard Version, for example, references several non-Masoretic readings and sources, such as the Greek Septuagint, the Syriac the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Vulgate, and this development of them referencing such sources should not surprise us because it is perfectly consistent with what modern scholars believe concerning the text of the Greek New Testament. They do not believe that an infallible edition exists. That is why so many editions have been printed and continue to be printed to this day. And there are many to choose from, but most of them are essentially irrelevant because they have never even been used as the base for any popular translation. Most of these editions exist purely as an item of scholarly interest. But when it comes to the mainstream options, the mainstream editions, there are practically speaking only four. First is the received text. This was the text base that was published in the era of the Protestant Reformation. It began with Erasmus, it was then edited by churchmen like Stephanus and Beza and the Elsevier family, and its latest printed edition was edited by Frederick Scrivener. This is the text base that underlies all Protestant and Reformation translations like the German Lutheran Bible, the Tyndale Bible, the Authorized Version, the Spanish Reina Valera Version, and more. This is the text base that God used to free and deliver his church from the captivity, the Babylonian captivity of Romanism, and to establish it over four continents. The received text is the text of Protestant Christianity and the text of Western civilization. And after nearly four centuries of unchallenged acceptance, and notably, as Western civilization began to crumble, it was then that a new text base was introduced, and it is commonly called the critical text, the modern critical text. Now, personally speaking, I like to refer to the critical text as the minority text, because its new and improved readings were drawn primarily from only two main sources, the Vatican and Sinai codices. The architects of this new text base, Westcott and Hort, they hated the received text, They called it villainous, they called it vile, and we have to admit that they largely succeeded in displacing it. Their new text was marked by their new and improved readings, they would like to think, and they either deleted or cast doubt upon many of the received readings of the Word of God, like the doxology at the end of the Lord's Prayer. the account of that woman who was taken in adultery, the resurrection appearances and ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ at the end of Mark's gospel, the three heavenly witnesses of Saint John, and more could be added. This text base then evolved over the next century. It is continuing to evolve and it is available today printed in two scholarly handbooks, the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament and that of the United Bible Societies. So we have the received text of the Protestant Reformation. We also have now as an option the critical text of Westcott and Hort and those who followed him. And now to the third option. After watching a century's worth of tinkering, With this new critical text, there were conservative scholars who began to re-examine the matter and question, really, the entire approach, wondering, why give preferences to these minority readings? when the majority of extant manuscripts agree so often. And this resulted in a new text base, if you're counting, it is number three, which is called the majority text. It's commonly called the majority text. And it was printed in a couple different editions in the 1980s and the 1990s. Now, as for today, scholars are not yet satisfied with any of the aforementioned options for textual base, so they continue to work. And they are currently working on yet another text base that's projected to be completed within the next decade. This fourth option will be called the Editio Critica Maior. Maior means major, so for the sake of memory, you can think of it as the major text. So these are the main options when it comes to mainstream editions of the Greek New Testament. You have the received text and the critical text. You have the majority text and of course this forthcoming major text. For the sake of thoroughness, and so that I do not get criticized by those who oppose, I could make mention of other editions like the Tyndale House Greek New Testament, or Family 35, or the new Statistical Restoration New Testament. But let me remind you of what I previously said. Most of the printed editions of the Greek New Testament have never been used as the text base of any popular or well-known translation. So again, most of them exist as items of scholarly interest. when it comes to those that have been used and have actually been made, made it to the market as a translation. Those translations that have been mass produced, that you can buy today, that you will find in people's hands, that you will find in the pews of the church. These are based primarily on the received text or the critical text. And that simplifies this discussion greatly. But it does not simplify it entirely, because there is also a dirty little secret when it comes to Bible translations, and it is this. None of them follow a single text base. None of them. Now, it's not really a secret because the translation committees acknowledge and admit this in the introduction or the preface of the translation, but most people do not read the introduction or the preface of their translations, so they miss it. So let me take a few minutes to address this matter because it seriously complicates our work as those who would defend the true text. Translators as textual critics. We have translators serving as textual critics. It would be very convenient, when it comes to the question of text base, if we could just answer the question, does it matter? Yes, it matters very much, and you have only two options. And most people think this way. I've heard it. You'll have one man say, I'm a received text man, so I use the authorized version. And the other guy will say, well, I'm a critical text guy, so I use the NIV or the ESV. But sorry, it's not that simple. Because again, no English translation that I know of follows any single manuscript or any one printed edition of the Greek New Testament 100% of the time. Instead, translation committees effectively establish for themselves a new base text while translating. They engage in the science of text criticism while translating, which results in a unique or a new text base. Now, we who prefer the textus receptus already know this. It is no surprise to us. It is no secret to us. And that is why we are happy to refer to the authorized version as an independent variety of the Textus Receptus. And that, by the way, in my opinion, is the best answer you can give to the now infamous question, which TR? We should just answer honestly and say the authorized version. It's an independent variety of the Textus Receptus. And some will object and say, well, that's blurring the line you see between text and translation. But I answer, that is inevitable. Because again, all translators do text criticism while translating. Let me prove it. The preface to the New International Version says its New Testament is based on the latest editions, note the plural, the latest editions of the Nassau-Alland United Bible Society's Greek New Testament. It then admits, quote, the committee has made its choices among the variant readings, end quote. That's translators. doing text criticism. We see the same thing in the preface of the English Standard Version, the ESV. It first admits divergence from the Old Testament Masoretic text. It admits divergence. And then, quote, in a few difficult cases, end quote, in the New Testament, it admits to following a Greek text different from the text given preference. Now, the text given preference for the ESV was NA27, and a clear example of deviation from that text is found in the fifth verse of Jude, where ESV says that Jesus, rather than the Lord, delivered the people. out of Egypt. That was a text-critical decision made by the translating committee, and again, it should not surprise us because they admitted in the preface their willingness to do that. Now, 11 years later, the NA28 caught up They adopted, it adopted the Jesus reading, so it's no longer technically a divergence, but the point still stands. Translators do textual criticism while translating. There simply is no denying it. And those who are in the know do not bother denying it. It is common knowledge amongst the text-critical intelligentsia But that's not our mission field as Christians. Our mission field is filled with ordinary people who, as I said, either don't read or do not understand the preface or the introductions to their preferred translations. So we need to stay focused on how to reach them, how to reason with them, So let me move on now to some more practical points. Really, just a few minutes on getting people to care. Getting people to care about this vital question. I have been witnessing to people for many years, decades, and I can tell you from personal experience, it does not even occur to most people to ask or ponder the question, does the textual basis of my translation matter? Most people have simply inherited the Bible that they use, some inherited from their parents, some inherited from the pastor, some inherited from the church pew. It's there, so this is what I use. But sadly, there are just as many who did not inherit their Bible translation from a trusted source, like parents or a pastor, but who are rather manipulated into purchasing it through the disgraceful scam and sham of modern Bible marketeering. Manipulated is modern man. So how do we get ordinary people to slow down and to step back and to ponder this question, to study the matter? Let me first suggest what not to do. Don't be rude. If you walk up to someone and you look at their Bible, And you say, hey, what do you have there, a fake Bible? What is that, the new ignorant version? We used to make up names like that in seminary. What is that, the substandard version, the English substandard version? Why don't you throw that thing in the trash and get a real Bible? If you approach people and speak that way, all you've really done is trash the conversation. So don't be rude. Also, let me suggest this. Don't be weird. Imagine walking up to a stranger and saying, hey, did you know that some of the variant readings in the extant manuscripts of the Greek New Testament can be traced back to Valentinian Gnostics in the second century AD? Yes, it's perfectly true. We could talk about that. But is that where you begin when you're speaking with people that just don't know? I would suggest not. In my experience, I have found that most Christians, especially those who have little or no knowledge about the science of textual criticism, they already agree with us. And they agree with us almost instinctively. They believe in God. And they believe that God wrote the Bible. They believe, therefore, that it's perfect. And most already accept the received readings again, even instinctively. And this is where I oftentimes begin. I ask the person, how does the Lord's prayer end? And they know, thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory. I asked them, did an angel stir the waters at the pool of Bethesda? And they say, yes, of course. That's why the man needed to get there. So quickly, they know. I asked them, did Jesus say to the adulterous, go and sin no more? And they say, of course, that's the good news of the gospel. I asked them, did Jesus pray from the cross? Father, forgive them. And most Christians will say, yes, of course. Now, why do most Christians say yes to these now disputed readings? It's because Christ promised that his sheep would hear, that his sheep would recognize his voice. This is the work of the Holy Spirit, and I would encourage you to begin there. Let a spiritual and instinctive agreement be established, and then perhaps tell them. You know, some modern versions disagree. You might want to check yours when you get home. And perhaps they will. Perhaps then they will have some interest. Perhaps then they will begin asking questions. But this is where another complication will arise. With so many voices in the world, the complication is this, to whom shall I listen? There used to be a time when Christians would ask their pastor when they had questions about the Holy Bible. Those days are over and most people now go directly and immediately to the Internet. As an experiment, I asked Google, does the textual basis of my translation matter? And I received over 37 million results in half a second. I didn't bother clicking any of the hyperlinks because I knew what I would find there. I knew, rather, who I would find there. Summarized in the style of the old tinker of Bedford, I knew I would find first Mr. Ignorant. And that's not an insult. Ignorance just means you don't know, and there are many who don't. Mr. Ignorant is there, but he has no idea what he's talking about. Ignorance is extremely common when it comes to this subject of New Testament textual criticism. After all, it's covered very early in seminary, usually in the very first semester, and it's not even given a whole semester. It's covered early in the first semester when students are learning two new languages at the same time, feeling the full weight of their academic undertaking. The subject is complicated. The subject, I will admit, is dull. The subject is technical. technical. So most students simply do this. They memorize what they need to memorize in order to pass the test so they can move on to other things. Then years, maybe decades later when they're asked about this subject, they just repeat what perhaps they can remember. Even though the information might be entirely out of date at that point, like for example the importance of assigning text types to different readings, it's Mr. Ignorant. But then we see the opposite in Mr. Militant. Mr. Militant. Many hyperlinks will lead to his door because he usually has a blog or a YouTube channel or at least makes a good effort as being omnipresent or appearing omnipresent on the online discussion forums and chat rooms and he typically knows his stuff much more so than Mr. Ignorant. He's quick to call out inconsistencies in the modern text-critical method. He cites evidence from antiquity, and unfortunately, however, he also likes to call people names, like liberal, unbeliever, heretic. And in this, Mr. Militant actually does more harm than he does good, though he shares much good information. He does harm because he alienates and offends people, so much so that he sometimes makes people regret the day they even ask the question, does the textual basis of my translation matter? And thus wounded, the average online inquirer will move on and usually fall right into the arms of our next fellow. We'll call him Mr. Ambivalent. His answer to the question of text base is essentially this. Yes, of course it matters. But not really that much. I mean, it's nothing I would lose sleep over, he will say. And I say essentially this is his answer because he always has much more to say than that. Much of it will sound very scholarly. All of it will sound very, very pastoral. He'll say, for example, Yes, there are different text bases. And there are many, many differences between them, but very few, if any of them, affect translation. After all, we're really only talking about less than 2% of the entire Greek New Testament, less than 2%. And in terms of what you might actually notice while reading your Bible, things that affect translation, there are only two big passages, that's all, just two big passages. So again, there are differences, but they're not that big. And here's his best line. None of the differences affect any doctrine. Not one of them. So again, don't lose sleep over it. That's Mr. Ambivalent trying to wave the matter away. But if it won't go away, sometimes he snaps and turns into Mr. Antagonist. Despite all the assurances offered by Mr. Ambivalent, sometimes it's the same person, oftentimes. You know, despite all these assurances, most Bible believers believe that 2% of the New Testament is enough to ask about. And most think that only two big passages, 12 verses each, most think, well, that's enough to be concerned about. So they keep looking for answers. And hopefully, eventually, and hopefully, they find people like us. People who simply believe what most Christians used to believe, namely, that the received text and the authorized version are trustworthy reproductions of the inspired original. We believe that. And Mr. Antagonist is offended by that. He thinks it's extreme as a position. He thinks it's potentially dangerous as a doctrine. Therefore, he takes a decidedly militant stance against it. And he even starts calling us names like traditionalist or absolutist. He mocks us as a tiny fringe movement. And sometimes he even prays. Against us. He takes up imprecations against us, praying that our days be few. Why? The antagonist does this, I think, in order to prejudice people against our position. Because he knows that we have the most appealing answer when it comes to the question of which text base is best. Again, we simply believe what most Christians used to believe. We simply believe what most Christians, I think, already are inclined to believe in their heart. Namely, that God did not inspire his word and then abandon it. He did not abandon it to his enemies, or to incompetent scribes, or to the cruel vicissitudes of time. He rather preserved it and protected it, and so superintended the process of transmission, that today we could hold in our very hands what the apostles actually wrote. That God would do this, inspire and then preserve his word, that God would do this, it makes perfect sense to most Christians. It makes perfect believing sense. So really all we need to do, I think, is affirm people in what they're already inclined to believe. And again, I think this is easy enough because when you think about it, it's simply a matter of necessity. It's a matter of promise. It's a matter of providence and ultimately a matter of stewardship. And I'll close on those four points. First, it's a matter of necessity. The Bible says God's appointed means for the salvation of the elect is the Bible. Psalm 19 and the verse 7 says, the law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. Nothing else in this world has been appointed as the means of conversion. Nothing else in this world has that power. It is the law of the Lord alone that is perfect, converting the soul. 2 Timothy 3, 15 says, it is the holy scriptures that are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. No other writings in this world can. So, the necessary conclusion, we find it written in Romans 10, 17. So then, faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Having and hearing the word today is simply a matter of necessity. And this makes perfect sense to most Christians. But this is also where the critics aim to confuse, and they will agree with all of those verses, but then reinterpret and say, yes, but by word, we do not mean black marks on a white page. We mean the message. The doctrine, not the actual words on the page. And they can say that, but Jesus disagrees. Which also makes this a matter of promise. What did God promise to his people? What did God promise that we would have as the church? A general message? A fine set of doctrines? Or words? made of actual letters, made of actual pen strokes, even of jots and tittles? You know the answer. Mark well the words of your Savior. Matthew 5 in verse 18, verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law. till all be fulfilled. Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled. And to this minute level of perfection, the law itself testifies. Again, Psalm 19, verse 7, saying the law of the Lord is perfect. And Psalm 12, and the verse 6, the words of the Lord are pure words. God, what did he promise? He promised us a pure word. Why then would we ever expect something less? Again, most Christians don't. It's a matter of necessity. It's a matter of divine promises kept. And here though, we can acknowledge that God keeps his promises in different ways. Sometimes he fulfills his promises through miracles, and sometimes through contingency of second causes, but when it comes to preserving his word and keeping that promise, this question at hand becomes a matter of providence, a matter of providence. God's providence, for those who do not have a working definition, is his most holy, wise, and powerful, preserving, and governing all His creatures and all their actions, and Scripture support this doctrine, saying, by Him all things consist. He upholds all things by the word of his power. And by all things, the scripture means all things, and we truly do affirm all things, even large things, huge things, from the rise and fall of earthly empires, the Bible says, he removeth kings and setteth up kings. We affirm that this providence governs large things, but also small things. seemingly insignificant things, even as Jesus said, are not two sparrows sold for a farthing, and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your father. This, brothers and sisters, is God's general providence. But the Bible also makes a distinction and invites us to make a distinction, speaking not only of God's general providence, but of God's special providence. Jesus, in fact, mentions that in the very next verse. After talking about the sparrows, he says, but the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Your head. While God's general providence is exercised over all the world, every single day, every single second, affecting all of God's creatures, his special providence is specially exercised over his kingdom. and over his church, and over his children, so that they, so that we, so that you might have all things necessary for life and godliness, namely his holy word. Oh, it should then appear as a great absurdity to the Christian. a great absurdity to the believing mind that God in his providence would cause the sun to rise each day and stop the seas at the shore but not keep his word pure or entire. It's a great absurdity because again this is a matter of simple necessity and of divine promise and of special providence there is at least one problem when it comes to divine providence, and it's a problem with us, not with God. And the problem is this, the hand that governs all is invisible. So we might wonder, where do we look to see the works of the Lord? Where do we look to see God's hand at work? Do we look perhaps to the ivory league institutions and academies and colleges? Do we look perhaps to the publishing companies and industry? Do we look perhaps to computer algorithms and experts? Let me rather suggest a better option. Let us look to the church of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, which the Bible affords this notable title in 1 Timothy 3.15. What is the church? The house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. Look there, Christian, and what you will find is that this topic of textual base is ultimately a matter of stewardship. A matter of stewardship. As previously mentioned, under the Old Covenant, God assigned the responsibility of keeping and copying and caring for the Old Testament scriptures. He assigned that responsibility to the Jews. Unto them were committed the oracles of God. In the New Covenant, this responsibility was then transferred to the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ, as is intimated in that title, pillar, ground of the truth. But here is the sad and great irony I have noticed when it comes to modern and even evangelical textual critics. When it comes to the Old Testament, even the most skeptical of scholars will admit the Jewish scribes were excellent stewards of their text. And in saying that, they are saying essentially this, well done, thou good and faithful servant. But when it comes to the stewardship of the New Testament, The New Testament church, they essentially say, thou wicked and slothful servant. And that is no exaggeration or false accusation because modern scholars believe that the New Testament as we have it today is riddled with errors. Some accidental, some intentional. But when it comes down to statistics, they agree with Dr. Bart Ehrman, Quote, there are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament. End quote. Again, so to the church under age, they say, well done, thou good and faithful servant. But to the church of the new covenant, which was built upon better promises, which is purchased with the precious blood of Christ and baptized by the power of the Holy Ghost, they say, thou wicked and slothful servant, that offends me. And it should offend you too, because Jesus loved the church and loves it today. He loved the church and gave himself for it. He so loved the church that he purchased it with his own precious blood. He promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. And he even promised that whatever it bound on earth will be bound in heaven. Jesus set up the church in this world as a pillar and ground of the truth. And he promised to lead it into all truth. And I believe he did just that in history providentially and through the presence and the power of his Holy Spirit. And this can be observed so that even as heretics infiltrated the church in the very first two centuries, trying to corrupt the scriptures, trying to falsify the sacred writings, the church stood fast and was found faithful, found faithful as a steward. Then as the emperors arose in the third century, confiscating and burning every Bible they could find, the church stood fast and by God's grace was found faithful. Faithful as a steward. When the inquisitors were then dispatched in the 12th and 13th and 14th and 15th century to do the same, to confiscate and destroy the sacred writings, the church stood fast and again was found faithful. Faithful as a steward. And even as the papist scholastics worked tirelessly to discredit the sacred text of the Protestant Reformation in the 16th and 17th centuries, what do we find? We find that the church stood fast and was found faithful. Faithful as a steward. And finally, as the post-Enlightenment rationalists of the 18th and 19th century essentially went back to square one, knowing that infiltration is more effective than opposition, and that corruption of the text is more efficient than the destruction of the text, Well, I hate to say it, but the conclusion of that chapter of ecclesiastical history is yet to be written. And that's why we're here today, friends, defending the traditional text and our common version. And this we do in hope. that the church will soon, once again, and someday soon, hear those words of blessed commendation. Well done. Well done, thou good and faithful servant. Oh, may it be so. Amen.