The Letter and the Spirit

But when that one should come—the Spirit of Truth—he will guide you into all the truth. John 16:13

In the 19th and early 20th centuries most New Testament textual scholars freely acknowledged divine involvement when discussing not only the inspiration of the Greek New Testament but a divine providence that had preserved the biblical text throughout the centuries of manual transmission.¹This article was originally presented in fuller form at the ETS 70th Annual Meeting, November 15–17, 2018 in Denver, Colorado.

The Neglect of the Holy Spirit

More recently, however, such divine oversight has become a missing factor in the discipline of New Testament textual criticism: most current handbooks make no mention of God, inspiration, preservation, or the role of the Holy Spirit—even among works from professed evangelical believers. Metzger and most other contemporary textual critics make no mention in their textual studies of divine inspiration, the providential activity of God, or the role of the Holy Spirit in preserving the biblical text.

As David Parker notes, theological affirmation has become disconnected from the “science and art” of New Testament textual criticism: “Any theological a priori, which says this or that about the New Testament . . . is an arbitrary attempt to impose dogma on reality”²D. C. Parker, “Textual Criticism and Theology,” ExT 118 (2007): 588.—even while theological handbooks freely discuss such matters.

Yet for the evangelical, John Skilton wrote in 1946 that “God’s Word has been preserved throughout the ages in an essentially and remarkably pure form”—a statement that parallels F. J. A. Hort’s comment in 1882 that “Variations are but secondary incidents of a fundamentally single and identical text.”³John H. Skilton, “The Transmission of the Scriptures,” in Ned B. Stonehouse and Paul Wooley, eds., The Infallible Word: A Symposium by the Members of the Faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary, 2nd ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1967), 164; B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek, vol. 2: Introduction and Appendix (London: Macmillan, 1882), 564–565. Contemporary works nevertheless tend not to apply theological concepts directly to the matter of New Testament textual criticism, even if such tacitly undergird the text-critical field itself.

But why should any real separation necessarily exist between the respective concepts? Perhaps it is as James Borland suggests: “Young evangelical exegetes do not want to seem out of step with the assured results of modern textual criticism which accept questionable postulates.”⁴James A. Borland, “The Preservation of the New Testament Text: A Common-Sense Approach,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 10 (1999): 48. One therefore has to wonder why there should be an apparent capitulation to a secular approach when endeavoring to determine the proper form and content of the New Testament text. In effect, a general “neutrality” tends to predominate among most contemporary textual critics, evangelical or otherwise.

Although theological misappropriations often appear in comments on New Testament textual criticism—particularly among the movements that effectively avoid scholarly interaction by restricting authenticity to a particular form of the text found in early printed Greek or English editions—this merely shows that the theological envelope must not be pushed too far. Even when the Holy Spirit is acknowledged in regard to textual preservation, the level of influence and the degree of precision that preservation entails remain matters for discussion. As even the former evangelical Bart Ehrman has noted, “The evidence must lead to the doctrine, not vice versa.”⁵Bart D. Ehrman, “New Testament Textual Criticism: Quest for Methodology” (MDiv Thesis, Princeton Theological Seminary, 1981), 48.

The Spirit’s Place

The simple recognition of what God has permitted to take place by the more natural means of transmission remains far superior to expecting or proclaiming a perpetual miracle throughout transmissional history. As F. H. A. Scrivener noted, “We may confidently pronounce beforehand, that such a fact could not have been reasonably anticipated, and is not at all agreeable to the general tenour of God’s dealings with us,” and that for Scripture we should “recognize the more fully its general integrity in the midst of partial variation.”⁶F. H. A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 2 vols.; 4th ed. rev. by Edward Miller (London: George Bell and Sons, 1894), 1:2–3, 7.

While we should therefore recognize and grant guidance by “the Spirit of truth” in relation to “all the truth,” the fact remains that the precise wording of the New Testament text frequently diverges. Even in the quotation from John 16:13 cited at the head of this essay, the final clause of that segment (“he will guide you into all the truth”) has seven differing phrasings among the Greek manuscripts and two additional phrasings exclusive to the Old Latin and Vulgate, even while each variant provides an almost identical declaration. Combining the data from multiple editions, one finds the following among Greek and Old Latin/Vulgate manuscripts:⁷Data is taken from SQE¹⁵, UBS^3–5 and NA^26–28. UBS^4–5 erroneously cites Θ for two different readings (the error not reproduced here).

Such a variety of reading in one short phrase informs us about both the role of the Holy Spirit in relation to textual preservation and the nature and task of New Testament textual criticism in general. Obviously, the preservational role of the Holy Spirit is neither absolute nor specifically miraculous, but occupies a passive and apparently minimalist role rather than an active or observable divine interference within the transmissional process.

Related

• 
  Illustration by Peter Gurry. Images from Wikimedia Commons
  Providence and Preservation

  The different methods and modes of divine providence help us better understand God’s role in the Bible’s preservation.

  Richard Brash

Avoiding Extremes

A proper evangelical position regarding the purpose and role of the Holy Spirit in relation to the providential preservation of the New Testament text therefore must stand firmly between two extremes:

• At one extreme is an abandonment of scientific textual criticism, placing one’s trust instead in either questionable early printed editions that freeze and isolate the text in various “received” forms, or in the presumed text that underlies a particular (KJV) English translation.
• At an opposing extreme is a capitulation to modern or postmodern secularism, emphasizing a prevailing doubt and uncertainty regarding the basic integrity and reliability of the text of Scripture, thus effectively excluding God and the Holy Spirit from any role whatever in relation to New Testament textual criticism.⁸While Dan Wallace has suggested that some pro-Byzantine positions are driven by a “quest for certainty,” it generally appears that both modern and postmodern textual criticism are driven by an inverse “quest for uncertainty.” As Komoszewski, Sawyer, and Wallace note, “Postmodern skepticism is the new dogma.” J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, and Daniel B. Wallace, Reinventing Jesus: What The Da Vinci Code and other Novel Speculations Don’t Tell You (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2006), 260. So also Jakob van Bruggen: “In the realm of modern textual criticism all types of searchers and skeptics are given a place, but that those who revert to a former certainty are disqualified as renegades” Jakob van Bruggen, The Ancient Text of the New Testament (Winnipeg: Premier, 1976), 13.

By overemphasizing the role of the Holy Spirit, textual criticism as a discipline ceases to function for any actual purpose. By minimizing or eliminating his role, the text-critical field becomes indistinguishable from that underlying any other ancient work of antiquity. Either extreme creates a theological inconcinnity for the evangelical that fails to comport with acceptance of divine involvement in regard to the initial inspiration and preservation of the biblical text along with its establishment as canon so as to be an authoritative and God-breathed (θεόπνευστος) standard for church doctrine and practice.⁹As Michael Kruger has observed, “If God intended his people to have his Word, then it is reasonable to think that he providentially oversaw the entire process so that his Word was faithfully delivered.” Michael J. Kruger, “Do We Have a Trustworthy Text? Inerrancy and Canonicity, Preservation, and Textual Criticism,” in John MacArthur, ed., The Inerrant Word: Biblical, Historical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspectives (Wheaton: Crossway, 2016), 315.

Giving Providence its Proper Place

A more excellent way should exist for the evangelical scholar that avoids both extremes: while divine inspiration by the Holy Spirit and the resultant, inerrancy, infallibility, and canonical status of the New Testament books should be affirmed, the evangelical scholar should also acknowledge the providential work of the Holy Spirit regarding the transmission and preservation of the text through human agency of various theological or even non-theological viewpoints. As David Dockery has noted: “At every point in the transmission, translation, preservation, and canonicity of the Bible we [evangelicals] see God’s providential hand at work.”¹⁰David S. Dockery, The Doctrine of the Bible (Nashville: Convention Press, 1991), 100; emphasis added.

One therefore should accept theologically that the Holy Spirit continues to work in the background, with the ultimate goal of preserving his inspired and authoritative New Testament text in a form that guarantees its general reliability, even while various human scholars attempt to establish a more precise form of that text by eliminating, correcting, and repairing the errors and intentional variations that developed over the centuries.

As John H. Skilton pertinently stated long ago,

We must look for such grounds for the acceptance or rejection of variant readings as God has provided and seek to glorify him by arriving at the truth in the manner which he has made available to us . . . . We may receive benefits from the working of the Holy Spirit in us, but we ought not to expect that the necessity for consecrated scientific investigation will be removed.¹¹Skilton, “Transmission,” 170–171.

Ultimately, the role of the Holy Spirit in New Testament textual criticism remains that promised in John 16:13—the Spirit is there to “lead” and “guide” (ὁδήγειν) the evangelical believer in a manner consistent with the Spirit’s guidance and leadership in all other areas of Christian faith and practice.¹²As J. L. Dagg noted, “We are able, in every case, to determine the correct reading, so far as is necessary for the establishment of our faith, or the direction of our practice in every important particular.” J. L. Dagg, A Manual of Theology (Harrisonburg VA: Gano, 1982 rep. ed. [1857]), 24–25. Such involvement by the Holy Spirit permeates and undergirds the labors of the evangelical Christian scholar, even when the various text-critical theories and practices might appear identical to those of various non-evangelical or even non-Christian scholars. As Skilton further explains,

The conservative scholar, [with his] . . . . reverence for the Scripture and his labors on the text will be used by God in the preservation and transmission of his Word . . . . In God’s providence men may glorify him by textual studies and may aid in the preservation of his Word in a form of exceptional purity.¹³Skilton, “Transmission,” 169, 194–195.

The evangelical scholar thus should seek wisdom from the Holy Spirit while making judgments on textual variants based on the available external and internal data. The evangelical thereby honors the Holy Spirit who not only has inspired the Holy Scriptures, but continues to guide the textual researcher “into all truth.”¹⁴As Merrill Parvis noted: “The New Testament is the Church’s Book . . . . In the last analysis it is the tradition of the Church and not the vagaries of our own scholarship which must determine the contents of that Book.” Merrill M. Parvis, “The Goals of New Testament Textual Studies,” Studia Evangelica VI (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1973), 403.

Evidence of Providence

Given that the Greek New Testament tends to maintain an approximately 94% identity of reading among all editions, regardless of theory, text-type, or favored manuscripts, such a strong textual base should cause the evangelical scholar seriously to consider the role of the Holy Spirit in regard to the establishment and preservation of his inspired text. Even among the circa 6% of variation that remains, the evangelical can affirm a general Spirit-based oversight, given that most variant readings either do not affect the meaning and interpretation of the text, or are readily resolved by reasonable principles of evaluation.

As Greg Bahnsen suggests, “By His providential control God . . . . provides for the essential accuracy of the Bible’s copying.”¹⁵Greg L. Bahnsen, “The Inerrancy of the Autographa,” in Norman Geisler, ed., Inerrancy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979), n.p. (electronic edition). Such “providential control” requires no direct or miraculous intervention, but only capacities granted to well-prepared human agents, who themselves (knowingly or unknowingly) labor under the providential care and generally invisible influence of the Holy Spirit himself.

In particular, the primary establishment of the text does not depend upon one’s view of inerrancy or providential preservation, nor should text-critical decisions reflect an a priori choice on the basis of theological considerations that merely attempt to sidestep difficult interpretative problems. The actual data and legitimate text-critical principles cannot be bypassed or nullified for particular theological or pro-inerrantist gain, but remain applicable to the determination of the most likely New Testament autograph reading at any point. As the present writer noted on the ETC blog, inerrancy is not the “overriding master for establishing the text, but rather a hermeneutical servant when dealing with the interpretation of the text as previously established.”

Such a scenario for the evangelical merely recognizes the Bible and the New Testament in particular as primarily theological works that were canonically recognized as authoritative and intended for the doctrinal and practical instruction and guidance of those who have comprised God’s Church through the centuries. It is therefore quite reasonable that evangelicals should reflect upon the providential role of the Holy Spirit as they evaluate the existing manuscript, versional, and patristic data while endeavoring to establish the NT text in its most accurate form. For the evangelical, the benevolent providential guidance of the Holy Spirit in New Testament text-critical research overshadows the establishment of the NT text, in a manner not requiring direct miraculous intervention.

Cautions

Even so, a few cautions remain for the evangelical textual critic. These include the following:

• An avoidance of dogmatic assertions that particular debatable readings must be precisely those that God has inspired.
• Not granting an unnecessary capitulation to various subjective elements, whether evangelical or otherwise;¹⁶A. J. Brown, “The believer [at times] imposes his ‘orthodoxy’ on the text of Scripture . . . . basing the Scripture upon his own subjective ideas as to what the Scripture ought or ought not to contain. In this sense his ‘faith’ undermines the objective character of the written Word as the revelation of God.” A. J. Brown, “Faith and Textual Scholarship—Some Attitudes Reconsidered,” Trinitarian Bible Society Quarterly Record, 489 (October 1984): 14. Cf. Parvis, “Goals,” 401, “It is, of course, inevitable . . . that there should be an element of subjectivity in any critical endeavor. But there is a grave danger today of producing a text which will satisfy no one but the editor himself.” and
• Not allowing complex and contradictory explanations to resolve problematic readings when other perhaps less preferred variants might permit a far simpler explanation.

The evangelical scholar should cautiously oppose such potentially attractive alternatives and thereby avoid text-critical doublethink when dealing with textual alteration. Theology should derive from the text as established; one cannot simply shape the text to fit one’s theological presuppositions. Although theology remains a factor when interpreting the data within a particular presuppositional framework, if a person’s theological views distort an honorable and fair assessment of the evidence, the results will have been forced to fit the theology, regardless of data to the contrary. As Dan Wallace’s former student, Bill Brown, has observed: “Nothing ruins consistent textual criticism like a theological a priori.”

Since no textual critic—evangelical or otherwise—possesses the Urim and Thummim so as to make an absolute determination in regard to a plethora of variant units, the evangelical scholar should consider the resolution of textual variation as a matter based on constant prayer, having a confidence that the Holy Spirit will continue his underlying providential guidance, leading the believing textual critic to a goal transcending what might be weighed under various secular methodological approaches. As Brittany Melton pertinently stated in an Old Testament context: “Divine providential guidance can be perceived only in retrospect.”¹⁷Brittany N, Melton, Where is God in the Megilloth? A Dialogue on the Ambiguity of Divine Presence and Absence, Oudtestamentische Studiën/Old Testament Studies 73 (Leiden: Brill, 2018), 146.

Conclusion

The evangelical practitioner of New Testament textual criticism has no need either to fear or exclude the Holy Spirit when engaging in the practice of the discipline.¹⁸Cf. Daniel B. Wallace and M. James Sawyer, eds., Who’s Afraid of the Holy Spirit? An Investigation into the Ministry of the Spirit of God Today (Dallas: Biblical Studies Press, 2005). Although one should avoid the “theological argument” approach when attempting to establish the New Testament text, at the same time one must not abandon the evangelical theological perspective. The evangelical textual critic can thus affirm in one domain with David Sorenson that

God in his providence has allowed the preservation of his inspired words by human means in a manner such that the text thereby preserved remains wholly sufficient and authoritative regarding all matters necessary for salvation, doctrine, instruction, reproof, application, and a prophetic perspective, along with commands requisite for conduct and morality as such relates to his Church, comprised of those believing in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.¹⁹David H. Sorenson, Touch Not the Unclean Thing: The Text Issue and Separation (Duluth: Northstar Baptist Ministries, 2001). Note that Sorenson stands clearly within the TR/KJV-only camp.

And equally, though coming from a different perspective, the evangelical textual critic can affirm with Kenneth W. Clark:

The Bible is for us the word of God, our chief guide for the salvation of humanity . . . . We who are Christians perceive in it, above all other writings, man’s only hope of life. It is with this book that the textual critic deals. This is the book whose true text he seeks, and whose transmission from generation to generation he studies to understand.²⁰Kenneth W. Clark, “The Manuscripts of the Greek New Testament,” in Merrill M. Parvis and Allen P. Wikgren, eds., New Testament Manuscript Studies: The Materials and the Making of a Critical Apparatus (Chicago: University Press, 1950), 1. Clark notably represents a far more liberal theological perspective.

And so may it be.

The text of manuscript 579 reads πᾶσιν not πάσῃ at John 16:13. An earlier version of this article mistakenly listed it with both.

Notes

• 1
  This article was originally presented in fuller form at the ETS 70th Annual Meeting, November 15–17, 2018 in Denver, Colorado.
• 2
  D. C. Parker, “Textual Criticism and Theology,” ExT 118 (2007): 588.
• 3
  John H. Skilton, “The Transmission of the Scriptures,” in Ned B. Stonehouse and Paul Wooley, eds., The Infallible Word: A Symposium by the Members of the Faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary, 2nd ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1967), 164; B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek, vol. 2: Introduction and Appendix (London: Macmillan, 1882), 564–565.
• 4
  James A. Borland, “The Preservation of the New Testament Text: A Common-Sense Approach,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 10 (1999): 48.
• 5
  Bart D. Ehrman, “New Testament Textual Criticism: Quest for Methodology” (MDiv Thesis, Princeton Theological Seminary, 1981), 48.
• 6
  F. H. A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 2 vols.; 4th ed. rev. by Edward Miller (London: George Bell and Sons, 1894), 1:2–3, 7.
• 7
  Data is taken from SQE¹⁵, UBS^3–5 and NA^26–28. UBS^4–5 erroneously cites Θ for two different readings (the error not reproduced here).
• 8
  While Dan Wallace has suggested that some pro-Byzantine positions are driven by a “quest for certainty,” it generally appears that both modern and postmodern textual criticism are driven by an inverse “quest for uncertainty.” As Komoszewski, Sawyer, and Wallace note, “Postmodern skepticism is the new dogma.” J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, and Daniel B. Wallace, Reinventing Jesus: What The Da Vinci Code and other Novel Speculations Don’t Tell You (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2006), 260. So also Jakob van Bruggen: “In the realm of modern textual criticism all types of searchers and skeptics are given a place, but that those who revert to a former certainty are disqualified as renegades” Jakob van Bruggen, The Ancient Text of the New Testament (Winnipeg: Premier, 1976), 13.
• 9
  As Michael Kruger has observed, “If God intended his people to have his Word, then it is reasonable to think that he providentially oversaw the entire process so that his Word was faithfully delivered.” Michael J. Kruger, “Do We Have a Trustworthy Text? Inerrancy and Canonicity, Preservation, and Textual Criticism,” in John MacArthur, ed., The Inerrant Word: Biblical, Historical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspectives (Wheaton: Crossway, 2016), 315.
• 10
  David S. Dockery, The Doctrine of the Bible (Nashville: Convention Press, 1991), 100; emphasis added.
• 11
  Skilton, “Transmission,” 170–171.
• 12
  As J. L. Dagg noted, “We are able, in every case, to determine the correct reading, so far as is necessary for the establishment of our faith, or the direction of our practice in every important particular.” J. L. Dagg, A Manual of Theology (Harrisonburg VA: Gano, 1982 rep. ed. [1857]), 24–25.
• 13
  Skilton, “Transmission,” 169, 194–195.
• 14
  As Merrill Parvis noted: “The New Testament is the Church’s Book . . . . In the last analysis it is the tradition of the Church and not the vagaries of our own scholarship which must determine the contents of that Book.” Merrill M. Parvis, “The Goals of New Testament Textual Studies,” Studia Evangelica VI (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1973), 403.
• 15
  Greg L. Bahnsen, “The Inerrancy of the Autographa,” in Norman Geisler, ed., Inerrancy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979), n.p. (electronic edition).
• 16
  A. J. Brown, “The believer [at times] imposes his ‘orthodoxy’ on the text of Scripture . . . . basing the Scripture upon his own subjective ideas as to what the Scripture ought or ought not to contain. In this sense his ‘faith’ undermines the objective character of the written Word as the revelation of God.” A. J. Brown, “Faith and Textual Scholarship—Some Attitudes Reconsidered,” Trinitarian Bible Society Quarterly Record, 489 (October 1984): 14. Cf. Parvis, “Goals,” 401, “It is, of course, inevitable . . . that there should be an element of subjectivity in any critical endeavor. But there is a grave danger today of producing a text which will satisfy no one but the editor himself.”
• 17
  Brittany N, Melton, Where is God in the Megilloth? A Dialogue on the Ambiguity of Divine Presence and Absence, Oudtestamentische Studiën/Old Testament Studies 73 (Leiden: Brill, 2018), 146.
• 18
  Cf. Daniel B. Wallace and M. James Sawyer, eds., Who’s Afraid of the Holy Spirit? An Investigation into the Ministry of the Spirit of God Today (Dallas: Biblical Studies Press, 2005).
• 19
  David H. Sorenson, Touch Not the Unclean Thing: The Text Issue and Separation (Duluth: Northstar Baptist Ministries, 2001). Note that Sorenson stands clearly within the TR/KJV-only camp.
• 20
  Kenneth W. Clark, “The Manuscripts of the Greek New Testament,” in Merrill M. Parvis and Allen P. Wikgren, eds., New Testament Manuscript Studies: The Materials and the Making of a Critical Apparatus (Chicago: University Press, 1950), 1. Clark notably represents a far more liberal theological perspective.