IN responding to Dr Stafford Carson (January 5), we notice that at least the tone is more positive regarding the remarkable degree of agreement between the large number of manuscripts available in contrast to the impression of wholesale confusion that Prof White’s article (December 29) could create.
Nevertheless, we disagree with his defence of the English Standard Version (ESV) of the Bible and its use of the minority Alexandrian manuscripts compared to the Byzantine manuscripts and the ‘Received Text’ used by the KJV.
He focuses on John 7:53-8:11 and rejects its authenticity, even though it is referred to by a number of early writers such as Papias (d. 150 AD).
Also, Augustine (c400AD) refers to its removal from some manuscripts by those afraid of its message of forgiveness. Even a recent scholar like Dr W Hendriksen, who shares Dr Carson’s approach to the text, does not reject it. Perhaps, however, we will make little headway quoting authorities on individual passages.
The basic question is: how does God preserve His word? This is a matter that all Christians can consider and is not confined to the experts.
Dr Carson states that no key doctrine is lost by following the ESV-type of text. We agree that it is certainly unfair, for example, to assume that someone disbelieves the doctrine of Christ’s atonement because he follows this text in omitting the words ‘through his blood’ in Col 1:14, since this same phrase is used in the undisputed Eph 1:7 and the doctrine of the atonement is taught in many currently undisputed places in the Bible. One doctrine is affected, however, and that is the doctrine of Scripture itself.
To illustrate this historically, when the 17th Century Westminster Assembly made references, in the proof texts to their Confession of Faith, to Mark 16:9-20 (questioned by the ESV) and included the conclusion of the Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6:13 – rejected by ESV) in their Shorter Catechism, they thought they were quoting Holy Scripture whereas Dr Carson must think them mistaken. But this is not just about history.
What of us today? If, as Prof K E Gephart states, “The number of extant manuscripts…of the Greek NT continues to grow with new discoveries” and we never actually ‘arrive’, then does Dr Carson not see a problem with this open-ended approach? We can never know what further subtraction (or even addition) future discoveries may demand. What does Dr Carson understand by the statement that God has kept the Scriptures “pure in all ages” (Westminster Confession 1:8)? For our part, it means that the text is to be sought in those manuscripts that have a history of accessibility by the Church, not those that have lain in obscurity for generations. This limiting factor is essential.
The Rev David Silversides is a member of the General Committee of the Trinitarian Bible Society and a minister at Loughbrickland Reformed Presbyterian Church.