|
The Biblical
Defence for the Verbal, Plenary Preservation of God’s Word
Thomas M. Strouse
Problems with Modern Versions
Advocates of the modern
translations movement (ASV, NASV, NIV, NEB, RSV, etc.) hold to the
conceptual view of inspiration. They believe that God inspired His
divine concepts and then preserved these concepts in the extant
Manuscripts (MSS). Consequently, through the science of textual
criticism, man can restore the approximate wording of the original text.
Since the concepts are inspired and preserved, the exact words
representing these concepts may not be available and may vary. Hence,
the modern versions and their underlying Hebrew and Greek texts do not
contain all of the original words from the Lord, but textual critics may
eventually restore the autographa (original text) wording. Dr. Ken
Barker, general editor of the NIV, reflects this uncertainty about the
NIV text, saying:
"The Greek text used ...
was an eclectic one. Where existing manuscripts differ, the translators
made their choice of readings according to accepted principles of NT
textual criticism. Footnotes call attention to places where there was
uncertainty about what the original text was. The best current printed
texts of the Greek NT were used." (Preface, NIV)
Furthermore, many of the
modern translations follow the United Bible Society Greek New Testament
(26th edition) which incorporates errors in Matthew 1:7, 8, 10. In this
passage of Christ's royal lineage, the Textus Receptus (TR) Greek text
of the King James Version (KJV) properly includes the kings Asa and Amon.
However, the UBSGNT reads Asaph (the psalmist) for king Asa and Amos
(the prophet) for king Amon. Admittedly, these are errors in the text
the modern translations follow, and some of them ignore their own text
and translate this passage accurately as in the KJV.
In a word, the modern
versions do not have all of the words of the Lord and some alleged words
are erroneous. Is it any wonder that many Christians have grave concerns
about modern versions? Incidentally, these grave concerns are reflected
by the fact the KJV outsells all other translations.
The Doctrine of Providential Preservation
The Bible translation
controversy is not about the science of textual criticism or extant MSS,
but it is about the Lord Jesus Christ's promise to preserve His inspired
words. The Bible teaches not only the verbal, plenary inspiration of the
autographa, but also the verbal, preservation of the autographa. Bible
believers accept passages such as 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:21 as
clear declarations of the verbal, plenary inspiration of the autographa.
Is there not a Biblical
warrant for Christians to expect the verbal, plenary preservation of the
inspired autographa? Indeed, Christians in every generation have had the
expectation to have access to all the words of the autographa.
For instance, Christ
reiterated the Old Testament command of Deuteronomy 8:3 by stating, "It
is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that
proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Matthew 4:4). The expression "every
word" translates panti remati, and it specifically refers to each
and every word. Where are these very words by which man is to live?
Again, Christ implied the
preservation of His very words as a standard of future judgment by
stating, "The word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the
last day" (John 12:48). The expression "the word" translates ho logos
and it refers to the totality of Christ's words (cf. verse 47). Where is
the totality of Christ's words by which man will be judged some day?
Based on verses such as these, the Christian has a Biblical warrant for
expecting to have all of the words of Christ. These passages demand
faith in the Lord's providential preservation of His inspired autographa.
John 17:8
The clearest passage on
Christ's providential preservation of Scripture and man's responsibility
in receiving it is John 17:8, "For I have given unto them the words
which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely
that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send
me."
This passage teaches that
Christ's responsibility before the Father is to give His believers the
Father's words. Several questions must be answered. What and where are
these words? Has Christ fulfilled His responsibility in preserving the
Father's words? Obviously, the answer to the first question is that the
Father's words are all the Old Testament and New Testament Scriptures.
The second question must be answered in the affirmative. Christ has the
power, character and means to preserve the Scripture. By faith in
Christ, Christians have the warrant to expect to have all the words and
every word of God preserved for them.
This passage also teaches
the Christian's responsibility toward Christ's preserved words of the
Father. Christ states that believers "have received them." The word
"received" translates elabon which is a 3rd person, plural, 2nd aorist,
indicative active verb from lambano and it means "take" or "receive."
The believer's responsibility is not to restore the 4th century text
(i.e., Westcott and Hort) through the science of textual criticism
(advocates of modern versions), but to receive the providentially
preserved words of Christ. When the doctrine of the preservation of
Scripture is rejected or downplayed, all that is left is man's imperfect
and rationalistic efforts. Historically, believers have always had a
"received text," which name they ultimately gave to the 1633 Greek text
of the Elzevir brothers (i.e., Textus Receptus), confirming their belief
in the doctrine of the providential preservation of Scripture.
“My Sheep Hear My Voice”
Christ not only teaches
that He will preserve the words of the Father, but also that believers
will hear His voice (John 10:27). Where is the voice of the Lord Jesus
Christ? HIS VOICE IS HIS WORDS. The Lord has given believers the means
by which to verify the "received words." Believers, indwelt with the
Holy Spirit, "hear" and know which words are Christ's "received words."
Furthermore, according to John 10:5, believers "know not the voice of
strangers." Consequently, believers not only recognise a "received
text," but believers also reject the voice of strangers ("rejected
text"). Applying the teaching of these verses to the version debate, one
must conclude that the Lord has preserved His words in a "received text"
and that believers will hear the voice of the Lord in this text. This is
why Christians have maintained that the Textus Receptus is the voice of
the Lord and that the variants in the modern versions are the voice of
strangers. Why have Christians defended the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7,
8) through the ages in spite of sparse manuscript evidence? Believers
accept this passage as the received words of the Father because they
hear the Lord's voice.
Conclusion
Christ promised to
preserve every word of the original text for believers. Believers
recognise the "received words" and verify them by "hearing" the Lord's
voice. This is subjective, but so are all other approaches. The
subjectivism of the received text approach leads to certainty; the
subjectivism of the critical text approach leads to uncertainty. The
controversy around the version issue focuses on either faith in Christ's
preservation or faith in man's textual criticism techniques. Where has
the reader placed his faith?
Dr. Thomas M. Strouse is the dean of
Emmanuel
Baptist Theological Seminary, Newington, Connecticut, U.S.A.
- Published in
Bible Witness,
Vol 2 Issue 4 (October - December 2002)
Top
/ Back
|
