Subject: RE: tradition reintroduced (was: Canons of Criticism)

From: Jean VALENTIN <[email-masked]>
Date: Mar, 16 Sep 97 22:33:42 +0200

Though I have refrained from commenting on the KJV-issue until now, there 
are several remarks that I would like to share about it with the members 
of the list, as some of the points made by the adherents of these 
theories seem, to say the least, quite inconsistent to me.

First. There is something quite illogical in the whole thing. I remark 
that KJV-onlyism comes most frequently from the side of hard 
fundamentalists. Such people usually have an anti-catholic and 
anti-orthodox position, usually expressed in a polemical (if not frankly 
aggressive) way. Their way of making theology and using the sources is: 
the Bible only, no tradition ("sola scriptura" in its most extreme form). 
No tradition whatsoever. And what do I see in Helge's argumentation? 
Tradition reintroduced! God has miraculously preserved a certain form of 
text, which we should follow blindly! This is nothing else than 
tradition... But what tradition then! Not the venerable tradition of the 
Fathers of the early centuries, but a tradition going back, and not 
earlier than, the XVIth century. And, amusingly, a tradition taking its 
roots in the humanism of the western XVIth century. BTW let's remind that 
Erasmus never became a protestant, even though he had many contacts with 
the leaders of the Reformation. No doubt that if the hard-core 
fundamentalists and KJVists of today met a man like Erasmus living in our 
century, they would call him an apostate ecumenist or something like 
that, and would directly reject his text...

Secondly. Tradition, and also the tradition of the text, has always been 
diverse. As the diversity of the text-types reflected in Greek and 
versional manuscripts show, there is in the Holy Gospel a core of truth 
that always finds its expression in the diversity of cultures and of 
theological approaches. The need of having a single text to be followed 
at whatever cost may be comforting to some simple believers, but the 
richness of God is manyfold, and that finds its expression also in the 
texts that are transmitted to us in the diversity of the living 
tradition. Diversity is inherent to christianity - though some will 
probably disagree with this, if we believe God is a Trinity, then 
diversity is part of His essential attributes... Negating diversity is 
negating God. This is why fundamentalism is a _heresy_ to me, as it is 
not rooted in the triune nature of God.

Thirdly. If KJVism is right, then we have to wrestle with some more 
questions - and they have already been raised by participants of the 
list. What about the believers that did not have the chance of being born 
in or after the XVIth century? They had no access to the "real" text? But 
then God has not preserved the text for them... Where was his providence 
in all that time? Was He sleeping ?
This idea of the providence of God caring for the good text being 
transmitted is illogical too, for during many centuries the text was not 
available to anyone. Very strange providence indeed, that left millions 
of believers with "wrong" texts. And of course, but this is going 
off-topic, it goes together with the myth of those marvellous Reformers 
who gave finally gave us the "true" Gospel that was forgotten before, for 
centuries, in East and West! Let's not be so naive and illogical! I can't 
believe that for fifteen centuries of Christian history there was no text 
to trust and no Gospel to believe...

Once again, what's too simple is wrong... Now I go back to my manuscripts 
and I hope `that next time, I will resist the temptation of voicing my 
convictions again on a list that is supposed to discuss books and 
variants. If I offended anyone, please forgive me and let us keep our 
humour.

Jean V.

_________________________________________________
Jean Valentin - Bruxelles - Belgique
e-mail: [email-masked]
_________________________________________________
"Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complexe est 
inutilisable"
"What's too simple is wrong, what's too complex is unusable"
_________________________________________________

---

From: "Ronald L. Minton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 08:50:02 -0500 (CDT)

On 16 Mar -1, Jean VALENTIN wrote:
> fundamentalists....

Thanks for the note, but I do want to say that the modern KJVO movement
does not have factual claim to historical fundamentalism.  To quote Doug
McLachlan, President of Central Seminary in Minneapolis, _The Bible
Version Debate_, 1997, p. 4 (for information contact  [email-masked]) 

"There is no evidence that previous generations of fundamentalists
have used the translation issue as a hallmark of an authentic kind of
fundamentalism."

--
Prof. Ron Minton: [email-masked]   W (417)268-6053  H 833-9581
Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803