|
|
|
- Preaching
the Living WORD through the Written WORD - 2 Tim 4:2 - |
|
|
|
“HOW
WE GOT OUT BIBLE” (PART
1 - INSPIRATION) Pastor I. INTRODUCTION A. The Bible is an interesting subject and
almost everyone has an opinion on it. Some good, some not so good, and some
are downright erroneous. Is the Bible the basis for belief and behavior for
mankind, or is it a well-preserved folklore? B. One such disclaimer is Rev. John Shelby
Spong, who says, Can modern men and women continue to pretend that
timeless, eternal, and unchanging truth has been captured in the words of a
book that achieved its final written form midway into the second century of
this common era? (Rescuing the Bible From Fundamentalism). C. How does one determine if the Bible we
hold in our hands is really God's Word or not? How were these early writings
compiled and on what basis? In addition, how do we know that the Bible we
purchase from the shelf of a Christian bookstore is the same as when it was
first penned? We will attempt to answer these questions in the following
study. D. There
are three major parts to the subject, "How We Got Our Bible." The
first part is Inspiration, the second is Canonization, and the third is
Transmission. Inspiration is how God gave His Word to man. Canonization is
how man collected God's Word. Transmission is how man transmitted that word
to succeeding generations. II. DEFINITION OF INSPIRATION A. Inspiration is the first and most
important part of this study. Furthermore, Canonization and Transmission are
hinged upon Inspiration. Without Inspiration, not only would it be pointless
to go on in our study, but the other two parts would not even exist.
Inspiration, simply defined, tells us how God gave us His Word. B. The
Webster's Dictionary defines inspiration this way concerning sacred
revelation, a divine influence or action on a person believed to qualify
him or her to receive and communicate sacred revelation. C. A
better definition of Inspiration is found in the Scriptures, particularly in
2Ti 3:16, where it says, All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable
for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness. D. The word, "inspired," is the
Greek word, theopneustos and literally means, "God-breathed"
(theos - God & pneustos - spirit or breath). The
idea is that the Scriptures have been God-breathed which means they originate
from God and comprise His inerrant Word. E. Definitions for Inspiration are: 1. The Bible is God's Word in the sense that
it originates with Him and is authorized by Him. (Geisler and Nix, "General
Introduction To The Bible", p.28) 2. Inspiration (God-breathed), emphasizes
the exhalation of God, hence, spiration would be more accurate since it
emphasizes that Scripture is the product of the breath of God The Scriptures
are not something breathed into by God, rather, the Scriptures have been
breathed out by God (Moody
Handbook of Theology) 3. Inspiration
is God's superintending of human authors so that, using their own individual
personalities, they composed and recorded without error in the words of the
original autographs His revelation to man. (Ryrie, Basic Theology) 4. We
believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the verbally
inspired Word of God, the final authority for faith and life, inerrant in the
original writings, infallible and God-breathed ( 2Tim. 3: 16-17; 2 Peter 1:20,21). (GBC
Doctrinal Statement) III. EXTENT OF INSPIRATION A. To what extent are the Scriptures
inspired? What books or what parts are inspired? The extent of inspiration
reaches to every word of Scripture. . B. Jesus taught us the extent of inspiration
in Mat 5:18, For truly 1 say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not
the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is
accomplished. C. The
extent of inspiration in Scripture is found in the "smallest
letter." The smallest letter would represent the smallest letter in the
Hebrew alphabet (yod or jot). The "smallest stroke" would be the
little brush stroke, that resembles a horn (lit.), used to distinguish Hebrew
letters. D. This
verse teaches us that every word of the Bible is inspired and is attributed
as God's Word. In fact, even the smallest letter will be fulfilled before
heaven and earth disappear. IV. PROCEDURE OF INSPIRATION A. A question that is always raised is,
"How can it be God's Word if men wrote it?" B. First
of all, God indeed did write down His Word with His own finger. In Ex. 31:18,
God inscribed the Ten Commandments on two tablets of stone by the
"finger of God". C. Secondly, God also dictated the Scriptures
to Moses when God said, "Write these words down" (Ex. 34:27). D. The
two examples teach us that the finished product of Scripture is equivalent to
God's Word. However, the procedure of inspiration is a little different than
the last two examples though the outcome is the same. E. Through the process of inspiration, the
Scriptures were written by the use of the writer's own personality and
circumstances, yet he was guided by the Holy Spirit. F. 2Pe
1:20-21 teaches us how the Scriptures are God's Word even though He used
human agents, But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is
a matter of one's own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made
by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. G. Men
of God (prophets and apostles) were moved by the Holy Spirit to speak
and write (Rom 1:2) God's Word. H. The
word "moved" (pheromenoi - pres pass part -lit.
"being carried along"), was used in regards to ships that were
moved and carried by the gusts of wind. In the same way, the "holy men
of God" (literally) were mysteriously prompted and moved to write God's
Word, while at the same time maintaining their personalities and
circumstances. The final result was the inerrant, and infallible Word of God
(cp. 2Pe 3:15-16). V. AUTHORSHIP OF INSPIRATION A. One passage that is very important when
discussing the authorship of Inspiration is, 1Th 2:13. This verse calls
Scripture the "word of God," For this reason we also constantly
thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you
accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of
God, which also performs its work in you who believe. B. There
are three interesting points in this verse. First of all, the Thessalonians
were receptive to Paul's message from the Scriptures as the Word of God. Some
people do not receive the Bible as God's Word; they view the Bible as any
other ordinary book with contradictions and errors. C. Secondly,
the Thessalonians did not accept the Scriptures as the "word of
men." In other words, even though it was written by men, they believed
God watched over the writing of His Word. The finished product was not man's
thoughts, but rather God's thoughts and very words. Paul confirmed that in
reality (alethos - truthfully), it actually is the Word of God. D. Thirdly,
Paul says that it is God's Word that is, "at work in you who
believe." The Word of God alone is "living and active" (Heb
4:12; Eph 6:17b; Joh 15:7). Certainly some of the writings of men inspire us,
but it is only God's Word that is inspired (God-breathed). In addition, it is
only God's Word that changes our lives completely, giving us life through the
message of Christ's death on the cross (In 5:24; 6:68; Rom 10:17). VI. CONCLUSION A. Since inspiration is the most important
part to the subject, "How We Got Our Bible", we must have an
undeniable faith that the Bible is God's Word. Not only is it imperative for
this study, but it is preeminently paramount for the Christian Faith. B. Take away
inspiration out of the Bible and you are only a small step away from denying
Christ's death for sinful man. Take away Christ's death for sinful man, and
you take away the only name under heaven given to men by which he must be
saved. “HOW WE GOT OUR BIBLE” (PART
2 - CANONIZATION) Pastor I. THE
DEFINITION OF CANON A. Once
inspiration is determined as a foundational tenet, then we can begin to look
at canonization. Simply put, canonization is how man collected the inspired
Word. Inspiration has to do with the Bible’s authority, while canonization
has to do with the Bible’s acceptance. In other words, canonization is
concerned with the recognition and collection of inspired Scriptures. B. What exactly does canon mean? “Canon” comes from the Greek word kanw,n kanon, and literally means a rod or bar, straight or
measuring. 1. It
was used for staves to preserve the shape of the shield. It was also used as
a rule or straight-edge by shipbuilders and carpenters. a) [It
is used] in shipbuilding and house-building, and many other branches of
wood-working. For the artisan uses a rule (kanon), I imagine, a lathe,
compass, a chalk-line. (Plato
Philebus 56b) 2. This
Greek word very possibly came from the Hebrew word hn<q' qaneh, which means reed. In Ezek 40:3 it is
used as a “measuring rod.” 3. Later, the word took on the metaphorical
meaning rule as a “standard or norm”. The apostle Paul used this word in
Galatians 6:16 to represent a “rule” or “standard” by which to walk. a) Peace
and mercy to all who follow this rule (kanon), even to the 4. From
there, the word’s meaning was extended in the early Christian era when it was
applied to “authoritative Scriptures”. The first clear statement where kanon
was used for the authoritative Scriptures appears as early as A.D. 350 by
Athanasius. a) ...it
seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and
having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in
the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine...[in the same letter, Athanasius pronounced
all 27 books of the New Testament as canon in A.D 367] C. After that
time, the word “canon” was emphatically applied to the authoritative and
inspired Scriptures. The use of “canon” was expanded to other meanings such
as the “registrar of Roman Catholic saints” and also “church teaching”.
However, the real impact of this word upon history and religion surrounds its
meaning concerning which writings are recognized as inspired and those which
are not. D. Canon then means the standard by which the
Church regards books of the Bible as authoritative and divine. II. GOD IS THE
DETERMINER OF CANON A. Before going
any further, we must grasp one very important concept. That being the fact
that God was the “determiner” of canon, while man is simply the “discoverer”.
What exactly is meant by that? A book is determined canonical not because the
church or any man deems it so, rather it is canonical because God inspired
it. B. Determining which books are inspired was
God’s responsibility. God either inspired a particular book or he did not. It
is not as though the church or any man came along and said, “Oh I like this
one, it shall be called inspired (canon)”, or “This book inspired me, so
let’s call it inspired (canon)”. C. Thus, it could be said that the church is: 1. not
the “determiner” of canon, but the “discoverer” of canon; 2. not the “mother” of canon, but the
“child” of canon; 3. not the “regulator” of canon, but the
“recognizer” of canon; 4. not the “judge” of canon, but the
“witness” of canon. D. The
authority of the Scriptures is not founded, then, on the authority of the
Church: It is the Church that is founded on the authority of the Scriptures. (Louis Gaussen, Theopneustia, p.
137.) III. THE CHURCH IS
THE DISCOVERER OF CANON A. The next
question is, “What standard(s) did the church or men use to discover canon?”
While a list of standards was never found from the early church Fathers, we
can deduce certain principles used by them. There are at least five
questions: Is the book…? 1. Authoritative
- did it come with the authority of God, i.e. “thus saith the Lord”? 2. Prophetic - was it written by a man of
God, i.e. God’s mouthpiece? 3. Authentic - did it teach the truth about
God, i.e. His character and will? 4. Dynamic - did it have life-changing
power, i.e. “living and active”? 5. Received - was it accepted by God’s
people, i.e. true believers? B. The
characteristics sought by these questions were the earmarks of inspired
books. If they were apparent, the book was accepted. If they were absent, the
book was rejected. If they were not apparent, the book was doubted until it
was fully tested.
(Geisler and Nix, General Intro to the Bible, 138) C. The five questions discussed in detail for
discovering canon are: 1. Authoritative a) The
first question is, “Was it authoritative?” This is perhaps the most important
and fundamental question of them all. If a writing is not authoritative, it
does not mean that the book is useless, but it dogmatically is not the Word
of God! b) Some of the characteristic phrases that
qualify a writing as authoritative were: (1) “thus
saith the Lord” (KJV; 415 times in OT; Exo 4:22 cp. 5:1; Jdg 6:8; Isa 7:7; Ez
2:4...122 times) (2) “And the word of the Lord came to...” (103
time in OT; Isa 38:4; Jer 1:2) (3) “God spoke...” (Ex 3:14; Jonah 4:9) c) When
dealing with the canonicity of some of the prophets, where these phrases were
used, it hardly became necessary to look for other characteristics of
canonicity. On the other hand, some books were rejected by all, on the basis
that they had no such authoritative phrases, such as the Pseudepigrapha
(non-canonical writings with falsely accredited authors). d) It was with this same principle that some
doubted the book of Esther. For there is no mention whatsoever of the name of
“God” in the book of Esther, let alone the phrase, “thus saith the Lord”.
However, after much scrutiny the early church Fathers were convinced that
Esther was canon based upon the other standards, and thus its authority was
accepted. (1) In
a brief defense of Esther, even though God’s name is not used, His hand and
providence were manifested on behalf of the Jewish people. (2) Secondly, some claim that the reason God’s
name was left out was because being exiled, the covenant name of God was not
associated with the Jews anymore. (3) Others claim that God’s name was not
mentioned to protect it from pagan plagiarism by the substitution of a
heathen god. (4) An interesting note by W.G. Scroggie claims
that the name Yahweh (YHWH) is found acrostically in the book in such a way
that it is beyond probability that it was a coincidence.) (5) The book of Esther has brought both comfort
and conviction to the people of God, and has been accepted as a divinely
inspired book. e) The
bottom line is, however, that the cautiousness of the early church Fathers,
actually confirmed that these men included no book that God wanted excluded
from canon, and included only those which they were sure were authoritative. 2. Prophetic a) The
next question for the standard for canon was, “Was it written by a man of
God?” b) This is a vitally crucial basis in
discovering who actually penned the words of God. As already mentioned from 2
Peter 1:20-21, prophets, were men of God, who were “carried along” and moved
by the Holy Spirit to write God’s Word. These words did not originate (they
were not from the prophet’s own” interpretation” or lit. “unraveling or
disclosure”) from these men, but these men were specially called by God to be
the vehicle of them. c) This explains the many instances in the
Old Testament where the phrase is used, “and the word of the Lord came
to....” There were only certain men chosen by God to whom His actual word
came to. d) However, to give credence and
infallibility to God’s Word, God proclaimed a prophetic test. This test would
sort out the true from the false prophets. The test was that everything this
prophet said must absolutely come to pass. If it did not, the false prophet
was stoned because he did not carry God’s infallible Word. (1) NAU
Deu 18:20 'But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which
I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other
gods, that prophet shall die.' 21 "You may say in your heart, 'How will
we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?' 22 "When a prophet
speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come
true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken
it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him. e) This
test accomplished two things. One it assured the people which was God’s word
and which was not. (The original concept of canonization began with God!).
And two, it gave the people confidence to obey God’s Word. In fact, once the
people knew it was God speaking through the prophet, they were accountable to
obey, because they were in every sense, obeying God. (1) NAU
Deu 18:19 'It shall come about that whoever will not listen to My words which
he shall speak in My name, I Myself will require it of him. f) This
same principle was recurrent in the New Testament with the apostles. They
were to be the spokesmen of God’s infallible Word. They, like the prophets,
had God’s exclusive truth. Bearing this in mind, what a powerful statement it
was for Peter to make about Paul’s writings. (1) NAU
2Pe 3:16 as also in all his [Paul’s] letters, speaking in them of these
things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and
unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. g) So,
according to Peter, Paul’s writings were equivalent to divinely inspired
Scriptures. But this was not only true for Paul, but also for Peter, John,
Matthew, James and Jude. It would also include Mark and Luke, who, although
not apostles, were under the tutelage of the apostles and chosen by God to be
a vehicle for His inspired Word. 3. Authentic a) The
next standard of canon is authenticity. The question that the Early Church
Fathers asked was, “Does this book tell the truth about God, Christ, man,
salvation etc?” If the book did not completely agree with other revealed
truths from God’s Word, it was rejected. b) This close scrutiny was passed on from the
apostles themselves, who were always defending the truth. John gives clear
instructions to “test the spirits” in light of their present day false
prophets. (1) NAU
1Jo 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see
whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the
world. c) This
discernment for God’s revealed truth was naturally handed down to the early
church. A clear example of this is with the Bereans who respectfully
“examined” Paul’s teaching to ensure that he was an apostle with God’s truth. (1) NAU
Act 17:11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for
they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily
to see whether these things were so. d) Without
a doubt, the seed was planted for the Early Church Fathers to be on guard
when it came to accepting anything as God’s truth. Their motto was kind of
“If in doubt, throw it out”, a policy that we would be wise for using in
today’s church. Not for determining canon, that has been done for us, but
rather for discerning truth from false doctrine. 4. Dynamic a) Yet
another standard was applied to ascertaining canon from non-canon writings.
This standard was a question of dynamics. The question that could have been
asked was, “Does this book come with the power of God?” In other words, God’s
Word is dynamic; it is “living and active”. b) That means God changes lives through His
Word by the power of His Spirit. If that could not happen, then a book was
rejected. This was recognized by Paul when he wrote to Timothy: (1) NAU
2 Timothy 3:15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings
which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith
which is in Christ Jesus. (a) An
interesting note is that the Greek word for “able” here in this passage is dunamai
which means ability or power. We get our English word “dynamite” from this
word. (b) The Scriptures have dynamic power because
they are inspired by God and it is the instrument used by the Holy Spirit
(Eph 6:17; Ps 19:7) to change the lives of believers. And as Paul shares with
Timothy, the Scriptures enable man to know God’s plan for salvation. c) A
book cannot have the power to change lives or convert the soul if the book
contains errors. Many passages in the Bible are written in a “cause and
effect” formula. Only a Sovereign God has the ability to bring about such
effects. Man often attempts to diagnose life, but unless he is using God’s
Word as a guideline, he is shooting in the dark. d) But only heaven will reveal the untold
number of martyrs and of troubled believers that have been comforted,
solaced, and encouraged through the Scriptures. Geisler and Nix state it
well: (1) A
message of God would certainly be backed by the might of God. 5. Received a) The
capstone of all these standards would be in the reality of whether or not a
book has been received by the people of God. The question that could have
been asked was, “Has this book been accepted generally by the people of God?” b) First of all, when speaking of the people
of God, what is meant, is the true believing church. We certainly would not
include heretical groups or unbelievers, such as Marcion the Gnostic,
(100-160)who rejected the Old Testament and almost all of the New Testament
(a revised Luke and ten of Paul’s epistles, but not the Pastorals). And as
already sited, Peter, writes of
unbelievers who reject the Scriptures (2 Pet 3:15). c) Secondly, all non-canonical books were
more or less rejected by this standard. If a book did not stand the test of
time and acceptance, it was eventually rejected. Initially, the books were
accepted by the recipients, such as in the case of the Thessalonians. (1) And
we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God,
which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it
actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe. (1
Thessalonians 2:13). d) As
these books were cherished and collected, they were also copied and passed on
to succeeding generations. Over a period of time, some of these books, were
universally accepted. (1) Most
of the canon was well known and in use nearly two centuries before (2) …some [early church] Fathers and canons
recognized almost all of the books before the end of the second century, and
the church universal was in agreement before the end of the fourth century. (Geisler & Nix, General Intro to
the Bible; pg. 291). (3) Irenaeus (c. A.D. 170), [was] the first
early [church] Father who himself quoted almost every book of the New
Testament. (ibid. pg.
292). (4) Clement of e) Some
books were so unanimously accepted that when men like Marcion opposed them,
they were met with fierce and instantaneous opposition. (1) In
like manner, too, he dismembered the Epistles of Paul...and also those
passages from the prophetical writings which the apostle quotes... (Iraneus,
Early Church Fathers, Vol 1, p 726) (2) At least as early as A.D. 140 the heretical
Marcion accepted only limited sections of the full New Testament canon.
Marcion’s heretical canon, consisting of only Luke’s gospel and ten of Paul’s
epistles, pointed up clearly the need to collect a complete canon of New
Testament Scriptures.
(Geisler & Nix, General Intro to the Bible; pg. 278) f) These
standards then, were the earmarks for the early church with which to
recognize the books God had inspired and those which He had not. When
discovered, they were added as the authoritative, prophetic, dynamic,
authentic and accepted canon, namely the Word of God.
“HOW
WE GOT OUR BIBLE” (PART
3 - TRANSMISSION) Pastor I. INTRODUCTION A. From
the original autograph to the modern Bible extends an important link in the
overall chain from “God to us” known as transmission. (Geisler & Nix, General Introduction
To the Bible) B. It provides a credible answer to the
question: Do Bible scholars today possess an accurate copy of the autographs?
(ibid) C. In support of the integrity of the
transmission, an overwhelming number of ancient documents must be presented. (ibid) D. There are not only countless manuscripts
to support the integrity of the Bible (including the Old Testament since the
discovery of the E. For the New Testament, beginning with the
second century ancient versions and manuscript fragments and continuing with
abundant quotations of the Fathers and thousands of manuscript copies from
that time to the modern versions of the Bible, there is virtually an unbroken
line of testimony. (ibid) F. In fact, it may be concluded that no major
document from antiquity comes into the modern world with such evidence of its
integrity as does the Bible. (ibid) II. ORIGINAL
AUTOGRAPHS A. “Original
autographs” are the very originals that were penned by the prophets and
apostles or their amanuenses (i.e. scribal secretary - Jer 36:27; Rom 16:22;
Gal 6:11). These are the writings that were under the divine process of
inspiration. When the autographs went from the originals to copies, the
process is not called, “inspiration,” but “transmission.” Therefore, the
divine process of inspiration only applies to the original autographs. B. It is almost universal among evangelical
orthodox individuals and churches to make such distinction in their position
and doctrinal statements. 1. We
do not assert that the common text, but only that the original autographic
text, was inspired.
(Archibald A. Hodge and Benjamin B. Warfield, Inspiration, pg. 42) 2. The original autographs of the Scriptures
were infallibly correct.
(John R. Rice, Our God-Breathed Book -- The Bible, pg. 88) 3. We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old
and New Testaments to be the verbally inspired Word of God, the final
authority for faith and life, inerrant in the original writings, infallible
and God-breathed. (II Tim. 3:16-17; II Peter 1:20,21). ( 4. “All Scripture is given by inspiration
of God" (2 Tim.3:16), by which we understand that holy men of God
"were moved by the Holy Spirit" to write the very words of
Scripture (2 Pet.1:21). This divine inspiration extends equally and fully to
all parts of the sixty-six books of the Bible as it appeared without error in
the original manuscripts (Jn.10:35; Mt.5:18). ( 5. Thus, the orthodox doctrine that the
Bible is the infallible, inerrant Word of God in its original manuscripts has
maintained itself from the first century to the present. (Geisler, N. L., & Nix, W. E.
(1996, c1986). A General Introduction To The Bible, pg. 156). C. The copies
that we possess cannot be technically said to be inspired. However, because
we possess copies of the inspired original that are 98-99.9% pure, our copies
can be considered “virtually” inspired. 1. The
Bible obviously did not come to us in its present form. Rather, as God
inspired its human authors His words were written down in scrolls. These
original manuscripts (or autographs as they are sometimes called) contained
no errors, presenting perfectly the Word of God. However, there are no known
originals left. What we possess today are thousands of copies of the original
manuscripts (this includes fragments, which in some cases may contain only a
verse or two). The problem is that while the manuscripts we study today agree
to an incredible extent there do exist differences. (Rev. Gary Gilley, Southern View Chapel) 2. It is comforting to note, however, that
scholars estimate that the text we have before us is between 98 and 99.9%
pure — exactly as originally written. Only about 50 readings of any
significance is in doubt, and none of these affect any basic doctrine. So we
can have complete confidence in our text. (Rev. Gary Gilley, Southern View Chapel) 3. Strictly speaking, only the
"Autographs" (the original documents penned by the biblical
authors) are inspired. (Copies of the original documents are VIRTUALLY
inspired to the extent that they accurately reflect the original
documents--and the evidence indicates that they DO accurately reflect the
original documents to a very high degree.) (Ron Rhodes, The Complete Book of Bible Answers) 4. No one manuscript or translation is
inspired, only the original. However, for all intents and purposes, they are
virtually inspired since, with today's great number of manuscripts available
for scrutiny, the science of textual criticism can render us an adequate
representation. Therefore, we can be assured that when we read the Bible we
are reading the inspired Word of God. (Josh McDowell, Don Stewart, Reasons Skeptics Should Consider
Christianity) III. PRESERVATION
OF TRANSMISSION A. The Old
Testament manuscripts fall into two general periods of evidence. 1. The
Talmudic Period (c. 300 B.C.–A.D. 500) a) By
the time of the Maccabean revolt (168 B.C.), the Syrians had destroyed many
of the existing manuscripts of the Old Testament. b) The Talmudic period produced many
manuscripts which were preserved in synagogues and by private owners. c) In addition, The Dead Sea Scrolls (c. 167
B.C.–A.D. 133) have made an immense contribution to Old Testament critical
study. 2. The
Masoretic Period (A.D. 500-1000) a) Masoretes
are Jewish textual scribes of the fifth through ninth centuries A.D. who
standardized the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, which is therefore called
the Masoretic Text. b) The Masoretes understood the significance
of God’s revelation to man in the form of the Scriptures. Because of such
understanding, they were meticulous in copying the Scriptures. In fact, they
had incorporated rules to guarantee that there were no errors in the
transmission process. Samuel Davidson, in “The Hebrew Text of the Old
Testament, p. 89, writes of these rules: [1] A synagogue roll must be written on the
skins of clean animals, [2]
prepared for the particular use of the synagogue by a Jew. [3] These
must be fastened together with strings taken from clean animals. [4] Every
skin must contain a certain number of columns, equal throughout the entire
codex. [5] The
length of each column must not extend over less than 48 nor more than 60
lines; and the breadth must consist of thirty letters. [6] The
whole copy must be first-lined; and if three words should be written without
a line, it is worthless. [7] The
ink should be black, neither red, green, nor any other colour, and be
prepared according to a definite recipe. [8] An
authentic copy must be the exemplar, from which the transcriber ought not in
the least deviate. [9] No
word or letter, not even a yod, must be written from memory, the scribe not
having looked at the codex before him. . . . [10]
Between every consonant the space of a hair or thread must intervene; [11]
between every new parashah, or section, the breadth of nine consonants; [12]
between every book, three lines. [13] The
fifth book of Moses must terminate exactly with a line; but the rest need not
do so. [14]
Besides this, the copyist must sit in full Jewish dress, [15] wash
his whole body, [16] not
begin to write the name of God with a pen newly dipped in ink, [17] and
should a king address him while writing that name he must take no notice of
him. B. The New
Testament manuscripts fall into four general periods of evidence. 1. 1st-3rd
Cent. a) The
first three centuries witnessed a composite testimony as to the integrity of
the New Testament Scriptures. Because of the illegal position of
Christianity, it cannot be expected that many, if any, complete manuscripts
from that period are to be found. (Geisler, N. L., & Nix, A General Introduction To The
Bible). b) Therefore, textual critics must be content
to examine whatever evidence has survived, that is, nonbiblical papyri,
biblical papyri, ostraca, inscriptions, and lectionaries that bear witness to
the manuscripts of the New Testament . (ibid.) 2. 4th-5th
Cent. a) The
fourth and fifth centuries brought a legalization of Christianity and a
multiplication of manuscripts of the New Testament. (ibid.) b) These manuscripts, on vellum and parchment
generally, were copies of earlier papyri and bear witness to this dependence.
(ibid.) 3. 6th-10th
Cent. a) From
the sixth century onward, monks collected, copied, and cared for New
Testament manuscripts in the monasteries. (ibid.) b) This was a period of rather uncritical
production, and it brought about an increase in manuscript quantity, but with
a corresponding decrease in quality. (ibid.) 4. 11th
Cent on a) After
the tenth century, uncials (“inch high” formally printed large letters) gave
way to miniscules (small cursive letters), and copies of manuscripts
multiplied rapidly.
(ibid.) C. Comparison to
Classical Greek Manuscripts a) The
classical writings of b) The abundance of biblical evidence would
lead one to conclude with Sir Frederic Kenyon that “the Christian can take
the whole Bible in his hand and say without fear or hesitation that he holds
in it the true word of God, handed down without essential loss from
generation to generation throughout the centuries.” (ibid.) c) Or, as he goes on to say, The number of
manuscripts of the New Testament, of early translations from it, and of
quotations from it in the oldest writers of the Church, is so large that it
is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is
preserved in some one or other of these ancient authorities. This can be said
of no other ancient book in the world. (ibid.) “HOW
WE GOT OUR BIBLE” (PART
4 - TRANSLATION) Pastor I. GREEK
MANUSCRIPTS A. Four Main
Branches Of Manuscript Traditions 1. As
the church became more established, certain definable New Testament manuscript
traditions tended to become the standards within more or less defined areas. (Gilley, The Bible Translation Debate) 2. These became known as
"text-types" and there were four of them (ibid.). a) The
Byzantine text: Preserved by the b) The
Western text: Sprang from fairly undisciplined scribal activity, and
therefore, considered the most unreliable of the "text-types” (ibid.). c) The
Alexandrian text: Prepared by trained scribes, most likely in d) The
Caesarean text: Probably originated in B. Two Major
Texts of Controversy (Textus Receptus vs. Wescott and Hort) 1. Textus
Receptus (KJV) a) In
1516, Erasmus, a Roman Catholic Priest and humanist, was pressured into to
finishing a Greek text in order to be the first Greek text published. b) Erasmus was only able to acquire about six
Byzantine manuscripts (out of thousands and none of which was written before
the sixteenth century) from which to groom a reliable Greek text. c) After its first publishing, Erasmus and
others would end up revising the text many times. d) In 1611, The KJV was translated from one
of Erasmus’ revisions. e) In 1633, another revision was published
by Erasmus, which contained the words, “Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus
receptum: in quo nihil immuta tum aut corruptum damus.” (“The reader has
the text which is now received by all, in which we give nothing changed or
corrupted.” cf. Metzger, The Text of
the New Testament, p. 106.) Thereafter, this newest revision of the Greek NT
was coined, the "received text," or the "Textus
Receptus." (1) Note
that it was not “received” in the sense that God was putting his stamp of
approval upon this Greek revision alone. (2) It was received in that it was considered
the standard text of that time. f) Two
points of interest (1) Erasmus
had no Greek manuscripts for the last six verses of Revelation, so he
back-translated from Latin to Greek. (2) Erasmus, included in later revisions, the
phrase written by a scribe in the margin of 1Jo 5:7-8, the Father, the
Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (a) A.T.
Robertson comments: (i) The
last clause belongs to verse 8. The fact and the doctrine of the Trinity do
not depend on this spurious addition. (in loc. Word Pictures) (ii) Some Latin scribe caught up Cyprian's
exegesis and wrote it on the margin of his text, and so it got into the
Vulgate and finally into the Textus Receptus by the stupidity of Erasmus (ibid.). (b) John
MacArthur Jr. comments: (i) These
words are a direct reference to the Trinity and what they say is accurate.
External manuscript evidence, however, is against them being in the original
epistle. They do not appear in any Gr. mss. dated before ca. tenth century
a.d. Only 8 very late Gr. mss. contain the reading, and these contain the
passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the
Latin Vulgate. Furthermore, 4 of those 8 mss. contain the passage as a
variant reading written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript. (ii) No Greek or Latin Father, even those
involved in Trinitarian controversies, quote them; no ancient version except
the Latin records them (not the Old Latin in its early form or the Vulgate).
Internal evidence also militates against their presence, since they disrupt
the sense of the writer’s thoughts. Most likely, the words were added much
later to the text. There is no verse in Scripture which so explicitly states
the obvious reality of the Trinity, although many passages imply it strongly. 2. Wescott
and Hort (Most modern translations) a) In
1881, after about thirty years of labor, B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort
published a famous Greek New Testament. b) Westcott and Hort, liberal scholars,
argued that the later manuscripts (Byzantine) were inferior to the older
manuscripts (Alexandrian). (1)
In their work, the scholars used manuscripts that dated back to the second
century, some 600 years earlier than anything used by Erasmus. As a basis
they used two manuscripts — the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus. These works are
believed by many to be the finest and most complete NT manuscripts known to
exist. (Gilley, The
Bible Translation Debate). c) While
neither text is without flaw, most modern translators have chosen Westcott
and Hort because of the careful scholarship in light of recent discoveries.
In all fairness to Erasmus, a large amount of manuscripts were unavailable to
him because they had not been discovered. Had they been available to Erasmus,
there is little doubt that he would have scrutinized and evaluated them all
as did Westcott and Hort. d) When the actual variations between the
Textus Receptus, Westcott and Hort, and the 26th edition of the
Nestles-Aland Greek texts, the vast majority of variations are so minor that
they are not even translatable, (the most common is the moveable “nu”, which
is akin to the difference between ‘who’ and ‘whom’). (1) Dan
Wallace comments: (a) When
one compares the number of variations that are found in the various MSS with
the actual variations between the Textus Receptus and the best Greek
witnesses, it is found that these two are remarkably similar. There are over
400,000 textual variants among NT MSS. (b) But the differences between the Textus
Receptus and texts based on the best Greek witnesses number about 5000—and
most of these are untranslatable differences! In other words, over 98% of the
time, the Textus Receptus and the standard critical editions agree. 3. Conspiracy
Theories a) There
are legitimate questions as to which Greek text is the most reliable. b) However, the question must be answered by
legitimate and careful scholarship in view of all the evidence. Not by sharp
disagreements based on emotions and over-biased preferences that lead to
conspiracy theories. (1) Honest
disagreement still remain concerning which Greek NT is superior. However,
among those who love God’s Word there is no conspiracy or attempt to corrupt
the Word of God. I believe that all manuscripts can be used and studied, and
as was stated earlier, we can have complete confidence in the Bible that is
in our hands. (Gilley,
The Bible Translation Debate) (2) Those who vilify the modern translations
and the Greek texts behind them have evidently never really investigated the
data. Their appeals are based largely on emotion, not evidence. As such, they
do an injustice to historic Christianity as well as to the men who stood
behind the King James Bible. These scholars, who admitted that their work was
provisional and not final (as can be seen by their preface and by their more
than 8000 marginal notes indicating alternate renderings), would
wholeheartedly welcome the great finds in MSS that have occurred in the past
one hundred and fifty years. (Dan Wallace) II. MODERN
TRANSLATIONS A. Historical
View of Bible Translation 1. Up
until the twentieth century, there has been only one identifiable philosophy
of Bible translation, namely a literal translation of the original Hebrew and
Greek texts. 2. Around the middle of the twentieth
century, a new philosophy emerged. This philosophy attempted to reproduce not
the words of the original text but the thoughts and ideas. The leading
proponents behind this philosophy were Kenneth Pike and Eugene Nida. B. Philosophies
of Bible Translations 1. The
name of the historical philosophy of translation is called, “Formal
Equivalence” which seeks to carefully translate word-for-word. It is also
known, as “Literal Translation.” 2. The name of the more modern philosophy is
called, “Dynamic Equivalence.” This philosophy seeks to capture the thoughts,
meanings, and ideas of the original texts. “Dynamic Equivalence” was the
impetus for translation on the mission fields and was carried over to the
retranslation of the English Bible. 3. Another philosophy of translation is
called, “Paraphrase” which is simply a restatement of a text in another form
or other words, often to clarify meaning. 4. Still another philosophy is called, “Free
Translation” which seeks to combine word-for-word and thought-for-thought
translations (i.e. NET Bible). C. Pros and Cons
of Formal Equivalence (FE) 1. Pros a) FE
assures the reader that the translation is as close to the original as is
allowable in translating from one language into another. b) FE allows the reader to interpret the
meaning of the original text and not the translators for him. c) FE assures theological precision in
preserving theological concepts through theological vocabulary. d) FE eliminates the need for translation
correction in teaching and preaching. e) FE assures the original author’s
scholarship and literary style (i.e. play on words) 2. Cons a) Sometimes
translating word-for-word can create greater ambiguity with idioms and
colloquialisms. b) If the translation is too difficult
because it is literally translated, then there will be less interest to read
it. c) Unless an individual is a bible student,
he may have difficulty interpreting Scripture accurately. D. Pros and Cons
of Dynamic Equivalence (DE) 1. Pros a) DE
changes words that are deemed old-fashioned or difficult into more
contemporary and colloquial language. b) DE simplifies difficult metaphors into
direct statements for the reader’s understandability. c) DE turns long choppy sentences into
shorter comprehensible sentences. d) DE reduces the level of vocabulary to a
level suitable to the ability of today’s readers 2. Cons a) If
original writers would have wanted their text simplified, they could have
written it differently. b) If God would have wanted the original
writers to write differently, they he would have moved them to write
differently. c) Not all scholars agree on the meanings of
words so there can be multiple translations and interpretations. d) E. Problem
Examples 1. Rom
1:5 a) Through
him and for his names sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people
from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith (NIV). b) Jesus was kind to me and chose me to be
an apostle, so that people of all nations would obey and have faith (CEV). c) Through Christ, God has given us the
privilege and authority to tell Gentiles everywhere what God has done for them,
so that they will believe and obey him, bringing glory to his name (NLT). d) Rom 1:5 through whom we have received
grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the
Gentiles for His name's sake, (NASB) 2. John
6:27 a) .
. . for on Him the Father, even God, has set His seal (NASB) b) . . . . because God the Father has set His
seal on Him (NKJV). c) For on him God the Father has set his
seal (ESV). d) On him God the Father has placed his seal
of approval (NIV, TNIV) e) . . . . for on him God the Father has set
the seal of his authority (REB). . . . because God the Father has given him
the right to do so (CEV). f) For God the Father has sent me for that
very purpose (NLT). g) He and what he does are guaranteed by God
the Father to last (The Message). 3. Ps
1:1 a) …nor
standeth in the way of sinners (KJV, NIV, ESV, RSV, ASV, DBY) b) … Nor stand in the path of sinners (NASB, NKJ, c) … stand in the pathway with sinners (NET) d) … take the path that sinners tread (NRS) e) … stand around with sinners (NLT) F. Conclusion 1. Based
on the Scriptures own teaching, it would support word-for word translations a) If
“every word of God” is tested and tried, then translations should reflect the
equivalent of every word (Pr 30:15). b) If Jesus declared that every jot and
tittle would be fulfilled, then translations must make sure that every word
is translated word-for-word (Mat 5:18). c) Man lives by every word of God (Mat 4:4). d) The Bible’s words are spirit words and
words of life (Joh 6:63; Deut 32:46-47). e) Man is not to add to the Scriptures (Deut
4:2; 12:32; Pr 30:6; Rev 22:18-19) 2. Expositional
teaching and preaching would support word-for word translations. 3. We must also realize that no translation
is a 100% word-for-word translation. It simply would be unreadable. 4. There are times when all versions must
adjust to idioms. 5. It may be helpful at times for the Bible
Student to read various translations to know about different views on a
particular passage. 6. Furthermore, we must be careful that we
do not blow the Bible version debate way out of proportion and neglect the
great duty to read the Scriptures daily. G. Addendum:
Identification of Philosophies of Translation in English Versions 1. Formal
Equivalence (Essentially word-for-word) a) NASB—New
American Standard Bible b) ESV—English Standard Bible c) KJV—King James Version d) NKJV—New King James Version e) RSV—Revised Standard Version f) NRSV—New Revised Standard Version 2. Dynamic
Equivalence a) NIV—New
International Version b) TNIV—Today’s New International Version c) NLT—New Living Translation d) CEV—Contemporary English Version e) GNB—Good News Bible 3. Paraphrase a) NTME—The
NT in Modern English (Phillips) b) TLB—The Living Bible c) TM—The Message d) TSB—The Street Bible |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
