Does Final Authority Exist?
Textus Receptus Debate: Dr. James White & Dr. Peter Van Kleeck
This is an interesting debate in that it points out a lot of the presuppositional issues regarding preservation of scripture, and Textual Criticism’s role in the church. Dr. White is the proponent of recovering the original text with ‘science’ while Dr. Van Kleeck thinks it is done providentially through the Spirit bearing witness to the church; I.e . Naturalism vs supernaturalism. They must both appeal to God’s providence in preservation just at different points. Van Kleeck frames his theory around God’s providence through his people and highlights the reformation. White appeals to providence as a saving device for his theory when challenged by textual experts and highlights scholarship since the late 1800’s. Kleeck opens up stating that Whites normal approach to his debates with unbelievers is ‘evidential’ and this is wholly inadequate when it comes to bible doctrines like creation and the flood the resurrection and in this case the preservation of scripture.
Van Kleeck makes the following points to open (20 min): We must consider the bibles say so regarding itself; and the Reformers regarded the TR (Textus Receptus) as equal to the autographs. He also applies a probability quotient (Bayes’ Theorem) that loses me, but that’s me. He concludes the probability is high supporting the TR however by applying this theorem.
White opens with his ‘tried and true’ historical/empirical approach to establishing the bible going back to his KJVO Controversy days. That God preserved a treasure trove of manuscripts supporting the New Testament text and therefore all we need to do is give guys like him and Dan Wallace access to the manuscripts and they will figure out the variant readings with a high degree of probability using various methods. Methods that Bart Ehrman uses and the overwhelming majority of Textual Critics worldwide to conclude that the New Testament original text cannot be reconstructed; only the ‘earliest form of the text’ and nothing prior. (start 8:18 here) Also, leading Ehrman to conclude that White and Wallace use a double standard. They do; a natural and a supernatural one. (I believe both men agree with this supernatural claim over against the naturalistic conclusions of Ehrman and company- Article X We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original. We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.) White asks the question ‘What did the original authors of the NT actually write?’ And presumes it can only be answered historically and empirically, when it actually cannot, as Ehrman and Wallace (see 1:39:30 here) both demonstrate. How variant readings arose and how they were distributed through history is inevitably theory bound. White and Wallace assure us that no essential doctrine is affected by the variants (well, except the idea of final authority and the doctrine of the bible and its preservation- Gen.3:1).
White points out that unlike the Quran the New Testament was freely transmitted or distributed and not under strictly controlled editing. This free transmission allowed for more variants since scribes were not professionals but more importantly it prohibited any editing or alterations by a single editing body. This is true and in accord with the great commission. (Mt.28:17-20) Why not just stop there and conclude God preserved the original readings because he promised and because of the impossibility of the contrary? And that the variants prove there was no controlled editing. But White contends that if only the reformers had Textual Science and all the new discoveries (like scribal habits) they would not have needed (apparently) to prematurely conclude that they had any ‘final authority’ like a Greek and Hebrew text (e.g. here- note #4-5, 8) before critics such as himself brought more light on the issue. Light as that no text or manuscript can be final authority only a constantly evolving body of scholarship can occupy that position.
White criticizes Van Kleeck's interpretation of Matt.5:18 ‘jots & tittles’ as applying to preservation. Noting that the copying machine wasn’t invented until 1949. Thus, no manuscript would be a photocopy of the original, although White thinks that scholars will produce the equivalent eventually... before heaven and earth pass away. (Dan Wallace doesn’t think we can ever arrive at the definitive text in every particular. 1:39:35 here)
Van Kleeck in his rebuttal points out that the entire question regarding variant readings is probability based and White has no basis for criticizing his use of Bayes’ Theorem. Van Kleeck calls White to task over his ‘free transmission’ view of scripture among Christians (not secularists) which should not be used in a naturalistic formulation. Instead, Christians can point to the Spirit inwardly compelling his people (see confessions) as evidence of how the scriptures were preserved before papyrologists ‘graced the church’. Van Kleeck points out that older does not equal more accurate with manuscripts. This is something Ehrman challenged White with in their debate. (18:30 min. mark) Ehrman also asked White in the same debate (13:57) what information about a first century scribe could someone derive from an accurate 4th century scribe. The question is almost rhetorical but White thinks he has answers. But really, a professional scribe accurately copying a text can’t give a lot of information about a non-professional scribes accuracy 2 or 3 hundred years before him. Ehrman and White do agree (as in his KJVO book, pg.42, 152) that the earliest scribes were the worst because they were not professional, and the conditions were very stressful. So, the earliest known manuscripts were closer to the time when copyists made the most mistakes...(Here, starting at 1:10 min mark.)
Van Kleeck criticizes White as using the argument about reliability by referencing the time frame between the oldest known copy and the time it was supposedly written. Van Kleeck states PhD. Textual critics say, ‘don’t use this argument’ which conflates textual reliability with historical reliability. A larger number of manuscripts and an earlier date do not equate to more reliability of the original text. Van Kleeck argues that the canon the reformers received consisted of a text (the TR). He makes the point that you can’t separate these ideas like White insists. That White doesn’t know what he doesn’t know about what manuscripts the churches had all through the ages and cannot conclude things about them. And finally, that White’s naturalistic methodology is just like Ehrman's. He ends his rebuttal by saying, “I just don’t doubt my bible enough” to satisfy White and scholarship in general.
White follows up rejecting the idea that the church received a text in the reformation (TR) or any other time (assuming by a council). He contends that you can’t just “pray about it” when it comes to textual manuscript evaluation. White thinks that God preserved his words through a genealogical history of manuscripts, a Greek manuscript tradition analyzed by a “priestly scientist” class (Doug Wilsons phrase) tinkering (White and Ehrman's term) but that does not equate to any naturalism. Although he does not refer to the actual bible to make this case. White says that the longer Mark ending and the woman caught in adultery story have no doctrinal significance (again, other than the doctrine of preservation of scripture I might add).
Digression
If you take an Evangelical textual scholar like Wallace and an apostate Agnostic textual scholar like Ehrman what will their agreement look like? For example, Wallace and Ehrman agree that Matthew copied Marks gospel and ‘cannibalized it’ (50:06-30 here) changed it and the copy of Marks gospel that Matthew cannibalizes is not a perfect copy of Mark. (2:02:30 here) Does this sound like a high view of scripture? Wallace excitedly broke the news in the Ehrman debate (Ehrman was unaware) that the oldest manuscript was a newly analyzed fragment of Mark’s gospel from the first century (2:04:40 here) dated by a papyrologist of an unimpeachable reputation (and here) which turned out to not actually be true (as White admits here) much to Wallace’s chagrin. Wallace concludes that based on history and textual criticism that he doesn’t know nor do other scholars what the original text says nor will they this side of heaven. (1:39:50 here) It sounds like he concurs with Ehrman that only the earliest form of the text (not the original autographs) is possible to reconstruct. This is the high watermark of that discipline. Where is presuppositionalism when you need it?
P52 is the oldest manuscript fragment and has a wide range of dates. Codex Washingtonensis is an example Wallace brings up of a manuscript being dated anywhere from late 4th to early 5th century some scholars have it earlier where other scholars date it much later to the 7th century (28:38-29 here). There is subjectivity involved in analyzing the dates and so this science is not nearly as exact as physical sciences. (Hard vs soft sciences or matter vs. minds.) To quote Wallace “there is no perfect manuscript” they all have corruptions. (39 min here) Therefore, we cannot found the authority of the bible on textual (soft) science anymore than we can found infallibility on probability.
Wallace gives an example of 2 variants (of Rom.5:1) that are based on one Greek letter (as here 1:16:14) and either reading fits and makes sense, so how do you know what the original says. Van Kleeck would say that it is not up to the individual to decide for himself but that the church would decide collectively by reason of use of a text containing the reading (I would add in contrast to holding a council like Rome). White would theorize similarly to Wallace and come up with a probability reason for why one variant should be preferred. This creates second-class scriptures that aren’t ‘as infallible’ as other readings without variants. Another example Wallace gives Rom.8:1 (40:32 here). He says the shorter reading is more likely because the early manuscripts have ‘solid date and character’, ‘pretty good genealogical solidarity’ and ‘helpful geographical distribution’. This combined with the considerations of what the author was ‘likely’ to have written and what the scribes were ‘likely’ to have copied, the shorter variant was probably the original reading. Of course, it is hard to follow this with ‘Thus saith the LORD’. This way of speaking is also foreign to any New Testament person including the scribes and Pharisees when discussing the Old Testament scriptures.
Ok, back to the debate. At the Q & A point the dissension becomes more apparent. Van Kleeck asks White if any verse in the body of the Nestle/Aland 28th addition critical Greek text is equal to the autographs. White says that the autographic readings are contained either in the body or in the footnotes. White contends that the readings that have no variants in history (that he is aware of) given that there is no evidence of a break in the transmission of the text are equal to the original readings (scripture founded upon empiricism). Van Kleeck presses and asks if White would abandon that stance on any verse were sufficient manuscript evidence discovered? White says “it’s extremely unlikely that would happen” and that we have not yet encountered anything like that. Van Kleeck keeps pressing and White keeps dragging his feet to answer decisively. The answer is yes if he wants to appear consistent to the Ehrman's of the world and not appear compromised to the believers, which is why Van Kleeck picked that question. Van Kleeck proceeds to show how White disagrees with the experts in other fields that he is not an expert in.
White challenges Van Kleeck over whether the church has always had the TR readings to which he says yes but not always between two covers. White presses Van Kleeck to give historical data proving this for each century. Van Kleeck admits he cannot through the centuries give unbroken genealogical connections, but this does not disprove the argument. White presses him on this and Van Kleeck gives an example that there is no manuscript attestation for 6 chapters of Mark in the first 4 centuries, but this is not evidence against it. White points out that Van Kleeck claims the church received the TR readings and White asks when and where. Van Kleeck can’t give him specifics. (Again, I would add by reason of use and not a council.) Van Kleeck says their disagreement is that White approaches the issue naturalistically (evidentialism) but does not hold this same standard to most of his other beliefs even when experts tell him too. White insists that there must be a history of the manuscript readings, Van Kleeck insists that just because we don’t have it doesn’t mean people in the past didn’t have it... again, we don’t know what we don’t know.
White argues that the TR in Eph.3:9 (as in his Riddle debate) has one manuscript reading and all other manuscripts have a different reading on one word. He asks Van Kleeck if this type of evidence (single manuscript) carries the same level of authority as the resurrection of Christ. Van Kleeck responds that White misunderstands him, and he is submitting to the historical church receiving the TR and not that he personally decides which word is the best reading for variants. The story of the woman caught in adultery, or the longer Mark ending is not decided to be scripture based on personal manuscript analysis but rather the Spirit working through the church to receive it. Van Kleeck proceeds to argue that White is assuming that the church must decide on these variants now not considering the manuscripts that previously existed across time (he doesn’t know what he doesn’t know). Yet White insists that we make a decision based on what the church has right now as if the church has only been able to decide right now and no future discovery is to be anticipated. The vast majority of the manuscripts throughout history are lost. Van Kleeck briefly brought up presuppositionalism but I think he should press this with White who himself claims to be a presuppositionalist. Which method is consistent with presuppositionalism? Clearly not White’s evidential historical method.
White continues pressing Van Kleeck about how infallible readings emerged in the TR tradition with fallible men and fallible methods. The question could be asked of himself as well. Van Kleeck says this is not merely a historical question. The Q & A goes on and is entertaining, but for time's sake here I will shorten this.
Tenacity indicates the variants or corruptions were preserved along with the actual original readings. How are the tares supposed to be separated from the wheat? When there are differences, who and how do we decide what is final authority? Van Kleeck says the church by the Spirit as a whole over time by reason of use. I agree using presuppositional argumentation. White says experts in textual criticism and papyrologists tell the church what to use. Van Kleeck says ‘use textual criticism as an apologetic supplement but not as an authority over scripture’.
But what say ye?
These are the video references:
How Badly Was the New Testament Corrupted? | Daniel Wallace at SDSU
Daniel Wallace — The Basics of New Testament Textual Criticism
#76 Debate Bart Ehram vs Daniel Wallace Is The Original New Testament Lost 2011
