A
Review of Jack Sin’s Article, "A Grave Matter: Verity, Sagacity and
Clarity in the Textual Debate"
Biak Lawm Thang
Introduction
"A Grave Matter: Verity, Sagacity and Clarity in the Textual
Debate" is an article written by the Rev Dr Jack Sin, pastor of
Maranatha Bible-Presbyterian Church, Singapore.1
Rev Sin wrote this article with a concern over the
textual issue being debated among Bible-Presbyterian churches in
Singapore, which he sees as causing "grievous events," "devastating
disunity and heated disagreements within the churches, Christian
families and kindred friends." The problem caused by this debate, we
are told by Rev Sin, goes beyond a local level and affects foreign
missions. Under these circumstances, therefore, his purpose is to
offer "an objective and biblical appraisal" of that textual debate.
This is a noble goal, for the Christian must always be "objective
and biblical" in his approach to all things, but whether Rev Sin
himself has fulfilled this or not remains to be seen.
On "Honesty" in "Biblical Scholarship"
Rev Jack Sin called for "honesty" in "biblical scholarship"
particularly in the area of the New Testament Greek Text debate.
This is certainly commendable, and it may be added that honesty must
be cultivated not only in this area but also in all areas of
Christian living (Rom 12:17; 2 Cor 8:21; Phil 4:8; 1 Pet 2:12; Matt
5:37; 2 Cor 1:7; Jas 5:12).
But what does Rev Sin mean by "honest biblical scholarship"? An
analysis of his entire paper shows that what Rev Sin means by
"honesty" in the NT textual issue is to conclude that all the words
of God are not preserved exclusively in the Textus Receptus (TR)
underlying the King James Version (KJV) but in "all the
providentially preserved Majority or Traditional or Byzantine Greek
manuscripts of over 5,000," and his contention that the divine,
perfect preservation of God’s words in the Greek New Testament
underlying the KJV cannot be biblically or theologically proven.
Rev Sin believes that the Byzantine family of manuscripts, not
the Alexandrian family, preserves the words of God. But it may be
observed that when it comes to the Greek printed texts that
represent those over 5,000 manuscripts, his commitment to "honesty"
has made him unable to know or identify the inspired and preserved
words in the various editions of the TR. At this point, he disagrees
with Dr Edward F Hills whom he appears to follow since he quotes him
frequently as an authority, for Hills had no problem identifying the
Greek Text of the KJV to be God’s approved Text. A portion
from Hills which Rev Sin failed to quote, though he should have in
the quest for "honesty" in biblical scholarship, reads,
But what do we do in these few places in which the several
editions of the Textus Receptus disagree with one another? Which
text do we follow? The answer to this question is easy. We are
guided by the common faith. Hence we favor that form of the
Textus Receptus upon which more than any other God, working
providentially, has placed the stamp of His approval, namely the
King James Version, or, more precisely, the Greek text
underlying the King James Version.2
It is a fact that there exists variant readings in the Greek
manuscripts that number over 5,000 and that even in the TR editions
there are a few minor differences. This is admitted by those who
believe in the doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) for it
is a fact, and hence it is wrong to imply otherwise. Yes, Hills (and
others as well) does recognise the existence of those variants and
the difficulty in making a textual decision in certain cases, yet he
does not stop there, for a specific identification of the text is
necessary if every word of God is to be authoritative, and he did
identify the KJV Greek Text to be the God-approved Text as the above
quotation shows. For practical purposes, others like the Trinitarian
Bible Society (TBS), which has been quoted by the Rev Sin as another
authority, also uses the KJV Greek Text as edited by F H A
Scrivener.3 What the VPPists believe is no
different. The VPPists believe that out of the several editions of
the TR, the TR underlying the KJV is the best and purest for it
perfectly preserves all the words of God originally given
by divine inspiration. As such, holding the TR of the KJV in our
hands, we can say without apology, "This is the very Word of God."
(Note that the issue is not about translations, but the Bible in the
original languages.)
Such a Bible position means that there is no need for the Bible
scholar to practise textual criticism. The Bible scholar or student
can confidently use and devote his time to the sincere exposition of
the truth of God’s words, not doubting the text at all. Hills is
thus an "honest" textual scholar, for though he recognises the
difficulty in the textual issue, he calls on Christians to be guided
by "the logic of faith" to identify specifically the Greek Text of
the KJV to be the God-approved Text in the light of God’s special
providence. Is this not precisely what has always been taught by
VPPists? "Honesty" in the textual debate should not fail to mention
Hills’s precise identification of the providentially preserved and
authentic Text to be the Greek Text of the KJV.
Rev Sin’s quotation of J W Burgon also appears to lack "honesty."
Although he pays tribute to Burgon for his defence of "the historic
faith and the Bible," his quotations contain only a few portions of
Burgon’s inconsistent statements on the textual issue. Many good
points Burgon made about the TR in opposition to the Alexandrian
manuscripts are not made known to the readers. "Honesty" in biblical
scholarship should be unbiased in the assessment of the issue
at hand by presenting the necessary facts so that the readers
can judge for themselves.
On Plurality of Manuscripts and Singularity of Text
Rev Jack Sin provides a clarification of his and Maranatha BPC’s
position on the textual matter, which denies the VPP position. He
believes that the perpetual preservation of God’s words lies in the
plurality of Byzantine-type manuscripts. He went on to say that
"the TR underlying the KJV does NOT fully represent the full body of
the providentially and perpetually preserved Byzantine or
Traditional (or sometimes called Majority) Text." While this may
sound appealing, it must be pointed out that this position
essentially leads to uncertainty about textual variants, whereas the
VPP position identifies exactly where and what the inspired words
are by the logic of faith.
Moreover, this question must be asked: On what basis does Rev
Jack Sin base his plurality of the Byzantine manuscripts position
over the TR position? He has failed to provide even a single
testimony in the infallible Scriptures to support his plurality of
manuscripts position which has perpetually failed to identify
the precise text or words of God. This means that Rev Sin still has
to play the subjective and rationalistic game of textual criticism
before he can proceed to do his exegesis, at least in some areas.
How then can he claim that his position is "objective and biblical"?
A person may believe whatever he wants, but the important question
is: Is it proven or justified by the Holy Scriptures? Having
rejected the biblical passages of Psalms 12:6-7, 19:7, 119:89,
Isaiah 40:8, Matthew 5:18, 24:35, 1 Corinthians 13:8 which teach the
doctrine of VPP either explicitly or implicitly, Rev Sin is left
without any biblical basis for his position. If this is so, then he
has arrived at his conclusion by means of his subjective
interpretation or view of the Greek manuscripts, and not on any
objective, biblical or exegetical grounds!
The most important thing in the textual issue (and in all other
matters as well) is that no one should build his faith on the
fallible authority of men, but on the infallible authority of the
Holy Scriptures. However appealing a certain position might appear,
if it is not squarely built on or concretely substantiated by
Scripture, then it is only an opinion void of authority. A
child of God must rest his faith on the testimony of the infallible
Scripture and on it alone. Is belief in the present or rather
the forever perfection of the words of God biblical? These
passages Deuteronomy 8:3; Psalms 12:6-7, 19:7, 119:89; Proverbs
30:5; Matthew 4:4, 5:18, 24:35; Luke 4:4, 16:1, 21:33; John 10:35
say "Yes."
Failing to substantiate his position from the infallible
Scriptures, Rev Sin appealed to human authority. The authorities he
quoted include the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF),
International Council of Christian Churches (ICCC), Trinitarian
Bible Society (TBS), and Pensacola Christian College (PCC). It must
be pointed out that no human authority is exempt from making
mistakes. Admittedly it is not uncommon in theological debates to
quote human authority, and it is certainly justifiable if the
quotation is made within the boundaries of the Holy Scriptures which
are our sole and supreme authority of faith and practice. But the
question that needs to be raised is: Did Rev Sin quote correctly in
the right context for the right purpose? One finds it difficult to
say yes. For instance, the TBS identifies the texts it accepts as
the true texts: "The Trinitarian Bible Society recognises and
receives the Masoretic Hebrew and Greek Received Texts as
providentially preserved and authentic." As to the qualities of
these texts, the TBS says, "These texts of Scripture reflect the
qualities of God-breathed Scripture, including being authentic,
holy, pure, true, infallible, trustworthy, excellent,
self-authenticating, necessary, sufficient, perspicuous,
self-interpreting, authoritative and inerrant (Psalm 19:7-9, Psalm
119). They are consequently to be received as the Word of God (Ezra
7:14; Nehemiah 8:8; Daniel 9:2; 2 Peter 1:19) and the correct
reading at any point is to be sought within these texts."4
This is a fine statement based on Scripture and it does not
contradict the VPP position. To insinuate otherwise would suggest a
lack of "honesty" and a failure to be "objective." A close study of
the other authorities he quoted will find them to be quite in line
with VPP.
On Other Language Bibles and Other Matters
Rev Jack Sin rightly notes that "no translation of one language
to another will ever be perfect." It should also be noted that no
VPPist would assign perfection to a translation. The whole issue is
all about the Bible in the original languages. VPP is not against
other language Bibles which have been faithfully translated from the
providentially preserved Masoretic Hebrew Text and Greek Textus
Receptus.
Rev Sin’s admonition to avoid "excessively emotive" tone in the
defence of God’s Word, however, is instructive and should be taken
to heart. Words or tone, which may cause offence unnecessarily, when
the truth can be presented otherwise without compromise, should be
carefully avoided. The defence of God’s Word should be carried out
by presenting the truth as clearly as possible without any
compromise and yet in love, meekness and in all wisdom so that it
may have its full effect (Eph 4:2; 1 Pet 3:15; Col 1:28).
Caricature, insinuation, misrepresentation and disparagement should
have no place, for they will only blind the truth, and thus do no
service to the cause of the truth.
Rev Sin’s mention of the problem of "NPP" (New Perspective on
Paul) and "the Human Quest for Perfection" is entirely irrelevant to
the current textual debate. One wonders why such mention is made at
all. Neither is Rev Sin clear about the reason why he brings up
these two categorically different matters. Is it an attempt to put
VPP in the same box? One hopes not.
Conclusion
Rev Jack Sin’s expressed intention to assess the textual issue
"objectively" and "biblically" with the spirit of "honesty" is
surely commendable. Every theological issue must be appraised
objectively and biblically. However, after analysis, the paper gives
one the impression that the Rev Sin has fallen short of his noble
goal, for he has no biblical authority for his own plurality of
manuscripts position over against the perfect preservation of
words position of VPPists which he is attempting to refute.
Neither was he entirely fair in his quotation of the works of others
nor unbiased in his presentation of the opposing view. His appraisal
which is destitute of biblical proof, citing only human authorities
with partial quotations, cannot be considered "biblical," or
"objective" or "honest."
Since Rev Sin’s position is without biblical proof, he should not
put in a bad light the VPPists who are able to support their
position from Scripture, for that is a disservice to the cause of
Christ. He should not engage in the unfruitful and unedifying work
of criticising and disparaging the doctrine of VPP which is built
upon the infallible testimony of the Scripture itself, but should
rather re-examine his own position whether it is really tenable or
found wanting when weighed on the biblical scale. Any position which
lacks basis from the infallible and inerrant Scriptures needs urgent
and serious re-examination. Only God’s Truth will stand forever,
"For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth" (2 Cor
13:8).
Notes
1 http://www.maranatha-bpc.com; http://www.lifebpc.com/ourstand/Rev
Jack Sin - A Grave Matter.pdf.
2 Edward F Hills, The King James Version Defended (Des
Moines, Iowa: The Christian Research Press, 1984), 223, italics
added. Take note also that Hills uttered these words at the
concluding part of his treatise.
3 Trinitarian Bible Society, "Statement of Doctrine of Holy
Scripture," http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/statement.pdf,
6.
4 Ibid, 4.
Biak Lawm Thang (MDiv 07, ThM 08) is a lecturer at the Far
Eastern Fundamental School of Theology, Yangon, Myanmar.
|