# An Inconsistency



## Ravens (Feb 7, 2008)

I was reading Rev. Webb's concerns about WTS today and something occurred to me. This thought of mine mostly concerns conservative seminaries, broadly considered, that might be on the "slide" to liberalism. I am not saying that I garnered all of that from Rev. Webb, nor am I saying that WTS is definitely headed that way; I know nothing about the situation. But it made me think about the phenomenon of evangelical higher institutions of learning. And as I see it, more often than not, a school is confessional, or, if not confessional, at least solidly conservative. Then their minds are either corrupted from the simplicity of Christ by the subtlety of the serpent, _or _ the lure of being "respectable" in the eyes of worldly, established scholarship is too great. Either way, the "fudging" starts.

And usually that fudging, from the little I've garnered and experienced (from reading others, and from my experience in a Nazarene college), begins with talk of redactors, redactions, multiple editors, editing over time, etc. 

Now, this thought I've had isn't directed against outright liberals. Nor is it directed towards consistent conservatives. Nor is it directed towards the handful of people (if any) that advocate multiple redactions/redactors in the Old Testament, and still use a Byzantine, Majority, or TR Bible (leaving the differences between the latter aside). Nor is it directed towards those who use the CT or eclectic text, and yet hold a conservative view of inspiration _sans_ endless unknowable redactions.

*Anyway, the point (since I forgot to make one thus far):*

If those at WTS, or any other conservative institution, who believe that the Old Testament or any part thereof, came to its final received form through the process of many redactions made by the believing people of God, were consistent, then wouldn't they use a Byzantine text?

Now, granted, I don't think that the Byzantine text suffers from redaction. I think it is the authentical word of God. But, _they_, as a matter of rule, see the Byzantine/Majority/TR text as the redacted text, whereas the CT or Eclectic Text is the inspired, authentic form.

So, to be consistent, shouldn't those who claim to hold both a conservative view of inspiration, _and_ multiple redactions in the text, locating inspiration in the "received form", be consistent? 

And would not consistency either rest in two things:

1) The redactions made in the Byzantine textform [from their mindset] were made by the believing people of God, and it was this form that was most widely received in the church; ergo, the "final product", regardless of redactions, is the inspired word of God. So advocate Byz./MT/TR Bibles in more "scholarly" institutions.

_or_

2) Try to find the "critical form" or "eclectic" form of the Old Testament, specifically the Torah, pre-redactions [from their mindset], just as we try to find the CT and eclectic text today, and literally do away with the rest, just like they do away with large portions of the Byzantine textform because, for all intents and purposes, it came from an ecclesial redaction [in their worldview; not mine].

Am I making sense? That's not totally thought out or developed, and I imagine that there are holes in it, but does anyone see what I am trying to get at? Do not ostensibly conservative men who hold to redactions, editors, and an OT text that "evolved" over time, and yet try to hold a unified OT, do exactly the *opposite* thing when it comes to the issues of NT text and canon? 

I'm interested in feedback and correction.

Blessings!


----------



## KMK (Feb 8, 2008)

Very interesting thoughts, Joshua. Much to ponder...


----------



## Ravens (Feb 8, 2008)

Well, judging by the responses: Apparently not.



I have problems explaining things. That's really just a thought I wish I could have "used" in class when I was in a "college on the slide". I.e., why the obstinate unanimity of support given to CT Bibles, when, in our Old Testament classes, you locate the inspired form in the redacted and canonically received text. It seems to be a double-standard, and would only be applicable to a slim number of university professers "on the slide." 

But I still think its somewhat applicable.

I might be wrong.


----------

