Testing the Conspiracy Theory: "Orthodox" vs. "Non-Orthodox" Variants in Jude

I am a Byzantine-priority New Testament prof who had the privilege of being mentored by Dr. Maurice Robinson to a certain degree at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary (Dr. David Alan Black was my doctoral advisor). I have a forthcoming article in TC (I think the next issue, in a few months), so I have begun "dabbling" a bit in Textual Criticism.

 Recently I had the privilege of being interviewed by Mark Ward on textual variants in Jude.  The video can be viewed here. This video was based off of a paper I presented at the Bible Faculty Summit in 2022, entitled "Testing the Theological Conspiracy Theory: Utilizing Jude as a Test-Case for the 'Heretical Alexandrian' and 'Suppressive Orthodox' Positions on Deliberate Corruption in Textual Transmission."

The paper itself interacts with both KJV-onlyists and Bart Ehrman's Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. The paper can be viewed on Google Drive here. I have also uploaded it to Academia.edu. The paper is way too snarky (and just a bit too sarcastic) for me to attempt to publish, but it still has some important data that's worth putting out there.

The basic premise of the video interview is "sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander," in that KJV-onlyists delight in criticizing Westcott and Hort and the various critical texts and translations based on them for either altering doctrine or downplaying it. Yet in doing so, they ignore the many places where the critical actually contains "theological truth" (using KJV-only logic) that the TR lacks. Acts 4:25, for starters (just compare the KJV and the ESV; isn't the Holy Spirit kind of important?). The methodology is flawed, because as soon as one declares that good theology (including what is included or excluded) is an important, if not the most important factor in determining the correct reading, then the entire book of Jude should be accepted in the critical texts (specifically the NA28, SBL, and newer Tyndale), not the TR.

Now, to be clear, because I am Byzantine-priority, I do not accept the critical text readings as original in Jude, when they differ from the Byzantine. My point is that if we take KJV-only arguments regarding theology in the variants at face value, then we would be forced to favor the critical texts. Also, in the paper, I argue that Ehrman's methodology also runs into some issues regarding the consistency of scribal habits (though I am not the first to point this out). It's also deliciously ironic to compare Ehrman vs. the KJV-onlyists on John 1:18, since they both agree that deliberate theological change has occurred, and they both blame the Gnostics, and they both agree on the same reading!

In a nutshell, then, there are somme inconsistencies in both the "evil, heretical Alexandrian corrupters" and the "bullying Orthodox corrupters" viewpoints (to be a bit snarky), and the epistle of Jude, in my opinion, makes this point quite clearly.

My commentary on Jude for the Lexham Research Commentary series should be coming out on Logos sometime early next year. At one point in it I compare every single place where 8 different modern Greek New Testaments differ (minus simple spelling variations), though this is hardly anything comparable to what Tommy Wasserman has done in his monograph on Jude (which I draw from for my paper).

The KJV-Parallel Bible resource: A Hearty Endorsement

I am pleased to announce the completion of the KJV Parallel Bible project by Logos scholar Mark Ward. The website can be found here, and I am putting it up as a permanent link on my sidebar for this blog, in addition to sharing it with all my students. Check it out!

The resource, in a nutshell, is the complete side-by-side comparison of the King James Version with what the KJV would look like if it were based on the Nestle-Aland critical text.

Thus all students, pastors, and laymen and laywomen can see for themselves what difference the differences make. This is a remarkable and highly useful resource for those of all textual views. I would agree with Mark that what stands out from this project is how much both sides actually agree rather than disagree (check out 1 Corinthians 15, for example: there is no difference until verse 20!!). 

Now, I speak as a broadly-based "Byzantine" text guy (which, I would argue, includes the TR as a "branch"; thus I generally prefer the TR over any critical Greek edition of the NT); however, I would also remind any KJV-only advocates that claiming that the critical text omits doctrine is a double-edged sword: please examine, for example, John 1:18 (the critical text clearly says Jesus is God!) and Acts 4:25 (the KJV omits the Holy Spirit). Now in both cases I actually prefer the Byzantine reading (which is the same as the KJV reading), but my point is that it is circular reasoning to accuse the critical text of "heresy" while ignoring such passages where the critical text contains something the KJV omits.

Ultimately, the Gospel is still the Gospel in both the critical text and the KJV (once again, check out 1 Corinthians 15). In fact, I would suggest that the devil, when attempting to harm the Christian faith, makes less headway with ancient scribes and copiers than he does with cults like the JW. For example, the heresy in the New World Translation's John 1:1 is not the result of textual variants, but of a theologically-oriented faulty translation meant to reflect JW christology (for those who can read Greek: read through the entire chapter and note the inconsistency of the NWT when translating an anarthrous theos).

Anyways, back to my endorsement. Mark Ward and those who helped him deserve our hearty congratulations for this awesome resource, a resource that IMO stands as a testament to the incredible divine preservation of God's Word.