The low-key battle for the text of the Bible
Ov. 8-07 To Use Only Sustainable Bible Translations
Ov. 8-08 To Request Additional Resources using New King James Version
Ov. 5-36 To Affirm Inspiration and Authority of Mark 16:9–20
The problems addressed by these three overtures share a common root cause. 8-07 and 8-08 both point out that Crossway, the owner of the English Standard Version (ESV) of the Bible have repeatedly revised the English translation of the text and intend to continue to do so. The LCMS through Concordia Publishing House (CPH) uses the ESV in the production of worship materials. CPH has been given permission by Crossway to continue to publish materials without these changes, but problems with this situation still remain. Individuals who purchase personal copies of the ESV to go along with the worship materials will find that they increasingly mismatch the version in worship materials. Also, those personal copies of the ESV will contain changes to the Bible made by outside entities that are not vetted by the LCMS.
But these issues are only a symptom of an underlying problem. Why does Crossway periodically revise their English version of the Bible? Ov. 8-07 points out that some changes are made for contemporary or political reasons. This is only part of the story. Ov. 8-08 provides a link to a statement by Crossway itself regarding the ESV text. https://www.crossway.org/articles/crossway-statement-on-the-esv-bible-text/ In it Crossway explains:
Our goal at Crossway remains as strong as ever to serve future generations with a stable ESV text. But the means to that goal, we now see, is not to establish a permanent text but rather to allow for ongoing periodic updating of the text to reflect the realities of biblical scholarship such as textual discoveries or changes in English over time. (Emphasis mine.)
They are telling the truth that the ESV as a translation reflects “the realities of biblical scholarship.” The biblical scholarship that the ESV reflects is in the form of modern textual criticism. Textual criticism is not an inherently bad thing. Before the printing press, the Bible existed in the form of handwritten manuscripts. When these manuscripts contain minor differences, some study and judgment has to be made as to what is the correct reading should be. This type of study and determination is basic textual criticism. As with most academic disciplines, the underlying assumptions a scholar brings with him as he studies a problem matters a great deal on how he goes about his determination.
A modern textual critic who is trying to be unbiased and objective may approach the problem by thinking it is his job to recreate the New Testament essentially from scratch based on the textual evidence (ancient manuscripts) that still exist today as if the Bible were like any other book. But are their methods really unbiased? Modern textual critics heavily emphasize the earliest manuscripts possible on the assumption that since they are early they are more likely to represent the original readings. However there are traps that you have to look out for. In an academic study random samples are typically the best way to get an objective picture of what is going on.
A study of the ancient manuscripts that still exist in the year 2026 are very far from a random sample of the total number of manuscripts that existed in those ancient times. They represent a biased sample consisting of all the manuscripts from those time periods that have survived centuries and centuries of time and still exist today. When studying data that originates from samples that have survived an ordeal, you have to keep in mind the phenomenon of survival bias. Suppose a wartime military decided to begin requiring troops to wear helmets. Afterwards they are surprised to find out that reports of troops returning with head injuries have greatly increased. The knee-jerk reaction would be to conclude that the helmets are somehow causing head injuries. In reality, more troops are surviving their injuries instead of dying on the battlefield, and this is what is causing the increased reporting of head injuries from troops that return alive. So the correct conclusion is that the helmets are doing some good. Ancient manuscripts are similar. They have survived the ordeal of time. The reasons that these samples have survived has to be carefully considered otherwise incorrect conclusions may be reached.
The oldest form of biblical manuscripts that exist today are in the form of papyrus fragments. This type of material really only survives this long in hot, dry climates. The existing papyrus fragments do not represent a random sample of papyrus manuscripts that existed in those days, they are a biased sample of manuscripts from hot and dry geographical regions. What about manuscripts that are not quite so old? Is there a reason one manuscript might survive and another not? One reason a manuscript may survive is if people took extra special care of it, treating it like a museum piece almost from the beginning. Another reason might be that people just did not use it as a Bible. They did not open it up and read from it. They did not use it to make copies of other Bibles. They did not check other copies of the Bible against it. Why not? Perhaps that Bible sat on a shelf and was not used because it was not known as a particularly good Bible.
This is to point out that even the assumptions and methods of modern textual critics that are trying to be fair and unbiased can be questioned. Not all modern text critics try to be unbiased. Other modern textual critics are openly skeptical and are working under the assumption that orthodox Christians deliberately inserted minor changes here and there under the noses of everybody in order to make the Bible appear more orthodox than it really is. The ESV and other modern translations reflect the changing opinion from both these types of modern textual critics as to what the Bible actually is. This is what Crossway means when it says “But the means to that goal, we now see, is not to establish a permanent text but rather to allow for ongoing periodic updating of the text to reflect the realities of biblical scholarship such as textual discoveries or changes in English over time.”
Is there a better way to look at the problem? Certainly. The modern textual critic who is trying to be fair an unbiased it treating the Bible as if it were any other book. But it is the Bible. It was originally inspired and the Christian Church has existed for the entirety of the existence of the New Testament manuscripts. The Church was there to faithfully pass down the true word of God from one generation to the next. The Church was there when those papyrus fragments were fresh papyrus manuscripts. The Church did a good job in keeping it all straight. Modern textual critics are trying to second-guess them using very small and biased sample sets that still exist over a thousand years later.
Bible translators from the era following the Reformation such as Martin Luther and the King James translators were working from a reliable Greek New Testament text handed down by the Church. That Greek text itself went through a certain amount of appropriate basic textual criticism, but not of the overly skeptical variety. There is no need to continue to question the Greek text they were using, but modern translations constantly do just that. We can thank modern scholars for their work in preserving, cataloging, and comparing the ancient manuscripts, but we by no means need to follow along with their ever-changing opinions as to what the text of the Bible really is.
Overture 5-36 To Affirm Inspiration and Authority of Mark 16:9–20 is exposing another one of those problems. The inspiration and authority of Mark 16:9–20 is being questioned in modern times because of the assumptions and methods of the text critics mentioned earlier. The overture is correct in calling for the Synod to affirm those verses as inspired and authoritative. The overture was officially referred to seminary faculty for review.
A note about the New King James Version (NKJV). The NKJV was translated from the same Reformation-era Greek text as Luther and the KJV used, but it reflects modern textual criticism in its own way in the form of a multitude of distracting textual footnotes. Fans of the NKJV should check out the Simplified King James Version (SKJV). It is quite new, but from what I can tell is pretty fantastic.
At this convention, the concerns raised by these overtures regarding the text of scripture were not considered in any way, although one might think these are issues a convention would be interested in. Ov. 5-36 was referred to seminary faculty in Omnibus A. The reasons for not considering 8-07 and 8-08 were given in resolution 8-05A which also commended CPH for a job well done managing Bible translations. Resolution 8-05A was passed in a group as part of the consent calendar as an uncontroversial commendation type resolution. The details regarding the reasons to decline the overtures were not actually considered. I hope this is not the end of the issue and more is done to quit following the changing opinions of modern scholars as to what the text of the Bible should be.
If you would like to know more, I encourage you to look up the work of the late Dr. Theodore P. Letis. Here is an old interview with Issues Etc. from somewhere around the year 2000.