Critique of Jack Sin's article "A Grave Matter"

Based on the article “A Grave Matter” by Jack Sin, we can summarize and critique his views on the Byzantine Text, the Textus Receptus (TR), and the Alexandrian Text, particularly in relation to modern KJV-onlyism and Perfect TR positions. "A Grave Matter" could be downloaded from https://www.lifebpc.com/images/stand/Rev%20Jack%20Sin%20-%20A%20Grave%20Matter.pdf

---

📌 SUMMARY OF JACK SIN’S POSITION

1. Byzantine Text as "Kept Pure in All Ages"

Jack Sin affirms:

“We believe in God’s sovereign, perpetual and full preservation of the body of the Byzantine or Traditional complete family of texts... kept pure through the ages by the providence of God...” (p.4)

He views the Byzantine Text (the textual tradition underlying the TR and KJV) as superior, trustworthy, and providentially preserved. However, he does not claim it is perfect in every detail.

2. Critical of Perfect TR and KJV-onlyism

He explicitly rejects the doctrine of a perfect TR:

“There are approximately 30 revisions of the TRs since Erasmus... none of them are perfect.” (p.2)

Likewise, he notes:

“The TR underlying the KJV is a subset of the Byzantine family... NOT synonymous.” (p.4)

He criticizes those who claim the TR used in the KJV is exactly the perfect Word of God.

3. View on Alexandrian Texts

He refers to the Alexandrian text-type as:

“inferior Alexandrian text type” (p.4)

Though he does not go into extensive detail, he clearly disregards the Alexandrian manuscripts (like Codex Sinaiticus or Vaticanus) due to theological bias and their divergence from the Byzantine tradition.

---

🔍 CRITIQUE OF JACK SIN'S ARTICLE

✅ Positive Aspects

a. Rejects Extremes

Jack Sin wisely rejects KJV-onlyism and Perfect TR doctrines, which lack both biblical and textual support. He aligns more with a providential preservation view consistent with the Westminster Confession of Faith, which does not teach that one printed edition is perfect.

b. Honest Textual Nuance

He acknowledges variant readings, typographical errors, and the non-perfection of the TR, quoting E.F. Hills and Dean Burgon to support a more balanced bibliology:

“We do not, by any means, claim perfection for the Received Text.” — Dean Burgon (p.6)

c. Upholds Reformed Tradition

By anchoring his views in the Westminster Confession and historical Reformed theology, he shows continuity with the historic Protestant understanding of Scripture preservation — not in one edition, but in the totality of faithful manuscripts.

---

❌ Weaknesses in His View

1. Overstates Byzantine Text Superiority

Calling the Alexandrian text “inferior” lacks nuance. Many Alexandrian manuscripts (like Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus) are the oldest extant witnesses to the New Testament and often agree with early church quotations.

To call them inferior based solely on theological alignment is circular reasoning:

• Early does not equal corrupt.

• Many textual scholars see value in weighing both Byzantine and Alexandrian readings, based on internal and external evidence.

2. Equivocates on “Preservation”

He affirms preservation of the Byzantine family, but this still begs the question:

• Which manuscripts exactly?

• If no single TR is perfect, and the Byzantine manuscripts differ among themselves, what is the exact preserved text?

This position, though moderate, still assumes an idealized text exists — without being able to define it.

3. Dismissive toward Modern Textual Criticism

He does not interact with reasons scholars use Alexandrian readings (e.g. shorter, more difficult readings are often considered more original; fewer harmonizations; older witnesses). His rejection of Alexandrian texts is theological, not evidential.

---

📚 THEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL CLARITY

✦ Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF I.8)

“...the Old Testament in Hebrew... and the New Testament in Greek... being immediately inspired by God and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages...”

• This affirms providential preservation, not perfect replication.

• It does not support the idea that a single printed edition (like TR or KJV) is perfect.

✦ KJV Translators

“We never thought... that we should need to make a new translation... but to make a good one better.”

• They explicitly did not claim perfection for the KJV or its Greek source (TR).

• They welcomed improvement and valued other versions.

---

❌ PROBLEMS WITH KJV-ONLY / PERFECT TR PROPONENTS

1. Ahistorical

   • The KJV and TR are not fixed entities. The TR has multiple versions, and the KJV itself was revised several times (e.g. 1611, 1769).

   • The idea of a perfect TR or perfect KJV is a modern invention, unknown to the Reformers or the KJV translators.

2. Unscriptural

   • No Bible verse names the KJV or TR as the perfect preserved form.

   • The Bible was preserved through many manuscripts, not one translation or edition.

3. Divisive and Uncharitable

   • Such views often cause church splits, unnecessary division, and harsh polemics, as Jack Sin rightly observes.

---

🧠 CONCLUSION

Jack Sin offers a balanced and thoughtful critique of extreme positions such as KJV-onlyism and Perfect TR advocacy. His defense of the Byzantine tradition, though overstated at times, is careful not to dogmatize. He upholds:

• Providential preservation of Scripture (not perfection in one edition)

• Respect for the KJV without idolizing it

• Unity and charity over theological aggression

Where he falters is in prematurely labeling Alexandrian texts as "inferior" without engaging the evidence. However, his appeal for honesty, humility, and biblical fidelity is commendable.

🔎 Summary:
❌ KJV-onlyism and Perfect TR are historically inaccurate and theologically ungrounded.
✅ God's Word is preserved through the faithful transmission of all sound manuscripts, not frozen in one translation or edition.
✔ Jack Sin’s position reflects a more Reformed, careful bibliology — one that allows for scholarly integrity and pastoral unity.