PUBLICATIONS
THE BURNING BUSH
Volume 13 Number 2, July
2007
CANON, TEXTS, AND WORDS: LOST AND FOUND OR PRESERVED AND IDENTIFIED?
Jeffrey Khoo
INTRODUCTION
The Judeo-Christian Bible comprising
the Old Testament (OT) and the New Testament (NT) Scriptures is usually
discussed in terms of its respective canons, texts, and words in the
original languages. As seen in our previous discussion, 1
there is no issue with the divine inspiration of the Scriptures in the
original writings or autographs. The issue today involves the transmission
of the Scriptures from the time they were originally written until the
present day. Since the autographs, the original scripts written by the
original writers themselves, no longer exist, having long perished, can
Bible-believers today say they have in their possession the very same
Scriptures or Words that God had originally given by divine inspiration?
Many modern pastors and scholars deny
that there exists such an infallible and inerrant Bible today. Although
they may believe in the Verbal Plenary Inspiration (VPI), they do not
believe in the Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) of the Holy Scriptures. In
their minds, the inspiration of the Scripture is a miracle from God, but
the preservation of Scripture is man’s work without any special
superintendence or intervention by God. 2
Such a view is held nowadays by those who call themselves "Reformed." The
"Reformed" pastors and teachers of today actually speak in a Bibliological
tongue that is strange to the ears of the Reformed scholars and Reformation
saints. This strange understanding of the Bible that is far removed from
the Reformed faith concerns looking at the infallibility and inerrancy of
the Bible only in terms of (1) its divine inspiration and not divine
preservation, and (2) its autographs and not apographs.3
In view of the current fallacious
paradigm and ignorant confusion over the nature of the Sacred Scriptures of
yesterday and today, it is the intention of this paper to recapture the
true Biblical teaching and Reformed thinking of the Scriptures, that (1)
the verbally inspired Scriptures are verbally preserved by God and God
alone; and (2) the supremely authoritative Scriptures are the extant
infallible apographs and not the non-existent autographs. As such (1) the
inspired Scriptures were never lost but always preserved without any
corruption or missing words; (2) the Sacred Scriptures are always
infallible and inerrant, and supremely authoritative not only in the
days of the Reformation, but also today—Sola Scriptura!
This paper seeks to identify where and
what the infallible and inerrant Scriptures are in terms of their Canon,
Texts, and Words.
CANON
The word "canonicity" comes from the
Greek kanon which means "a straight rod," or "a measuring rule."
When applied to the Scriptures, it means the standard list of divinely
inspired books—the Word of God—which serves as the only
authoritative basis for the faith and practice of the Church.
Old Testament Canon
By the time of Jesus Christ, the OT
Canon was already completed and identified. The Jews regarded the 39 books
of the Tanakh—the Hebrew OT Canon comprising the Torah (Law),
the Nabi’im (Prophets), and the Kethubim (Writings) to be
nothing short of the direct utterance of the Most High—absolutely
infallible and supremely authoritative. These 39 books were recognised as
the divinely inspired books for they came during the period of Biblical
revelation—the period between Moses (1450 BC) and Malachi (450 BC).
|
OLD TESTAMENT CANON AND BOOKS |
|
Canon |
Books |
Period |
|
Torah (Law) |
Genesis |
15th Century BC
|
|
Exodus |
|
Leviticus |
|
Numbers |
|
Deuteronomy |
|
Nabi’im (Prophets)
|
Joshua |
15th – 14th Century BC |
|
Judges |
14th – 11th Century BC |
|
1 Samuel |
12th – 11th Century BC |
|
2 Samuel |
11th – 10th Century BC |
|
1 Kings |
10th – 9th Century BC |
|
2 Kings |
9th – 6th Century BC |
|
Isaiah |
8th –7th Century BC |
|
Jeremiah |
7th – 6th Century BC |
|
Ezekiel |
6th Century BC |
|
Hosea |
8th Century BC |
|
Joel |
9th Century BC |
|
Amos |
8th Century BC |
|
Obadiah |
9th Century BC |
|
Jonah |
8th Century BC |
|
Micah |
8th Century BC |
|
Nahum |
7th Century BC |
|
Habakkuk |
7th Century BC |
|
Zephaniah |
7th Century BC |
|
Haggai |
6th Century BC |
|
Zechariah |
6th Century BC |
|
Malachi |
5th Century BC |
|
Kethubim (Writings) |
Psalms |
11th – 10th Century BC |
|
Job |
20th – 16th Century BC |
|
Proverbs |
10th Century BC |
|
Ruth |
13th – 12th Century BC |
|
Song of Solomon |
10th Century BC |
|
Ecclesiastes |
10th Century BC |
|
Lamentations |
6th Century BC |
|
Esther |
5th Century BC |
|
Daniel |
7th – 6th Century BC |
|
Ezra |
6th – 5th Century BC |
|
Nehemiah |
5th Century BC |
|
1 Chronicles |
11th – 10th Century BC |
|
2 Chronicles |
10th – 6th Century BC |
The identification of the OT Canon is
given by the Author of the Canon Himself—the Lord Jesus Christ—in Luke
24:44,
And he said unto them, These are the
words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things
must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in
the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
The Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the
Psalms/Writings make up the 39 books of the OT Canon that Jesus regarded as
the very Word of God. Note that there is no mention of the Apocrypha—the 14
books 4 written during the 400 "silent
years" of the inter-testamental period when there was no prophetic voice
until John the Baptiser came onto the scene. The Westminster Confession of
Faith (WCF) acknowledged the traditional and ecclesiastical view that the
apocryphal books were not divinely inspired but merely human books with
some historical value, but no spiritual or doctrinal value whatsoever:
The books commonly called Apocrypha,
not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the
Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to
be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings (I:III).
It is a Biblical fact that God had
intended a fixed number of 39 divinely inspired OT books to serve as the
supremely authoritative Standard of faith and life for the Church. If there
is such a divinely ordained set of canonical books for the OT, surely a
similar set of canonical books can be expected for the NT.
New Testament Canon
The Lord Jesus Christ in fulfilment of
the Tanakh—the OT Canon—was born of a virgin, lived a sinlessly
perfect life, died on the cross for the sins of the world, was buried, and
on the third day rose from the dead just as the OT Scriptures had
predicted. His life and work on earth marked the beginning of the New
Covenant period of a better administration of the Covenant of Grace which
called for an NT Canon to regulate the life and faith of New Covenant
saints.
At Pentecost, God did not present the
Bible to the New Covenant Church as a complete whole. The NT Canon like the
OT Canon required a period of time for its inscripturation and completion.
This period of divinely inspired inscripturation occurred during the time
of the Apostles of Jesus Christ. It began with the Gospel of Matthew in AD
40 and ended with the Revelation of John in AD 90.
Since Jesus gave no explicit word
concerning the number of NT books and their specific identities, how did
the Church finally arrive at the 27 books? It is a question that needs to
be answered today especially when the Church is being attacked by
pop-modernism that questions the authenticity and certainty of the 27 books
that form our NT Canon. Dan Brown’s bestseller—The Da Vinci Code—for
instance speaks of the newly discovered Gnostic Gospels of Nag Hammadi as
the authentic and authoritative NT books. Brown dismissed the Four Gospels
of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in the NT Canon today as fabricated
accounts of the life of Christ produced in the time of Emperor Constantine
(4 th century AD). According to him,
these Four Gospels should be rejected and replaced by the Gnostic Gospels.5
In other words, the true Gospels were once lost but are now found!
This begs the question of whether the
Church has been reading from the wrong Gospels all these centuries. Were
the true books about the life of Christ lost very early and now found? Or
were the true books the ones that God has preserved from the beginning, and
received by the Church from the time they were written until today? By
virtue of God’s promise of the preservation of His words in Psalm 12:6-7,
Matthew 5:18, 24:35, John 10:35, and 1 Peter 1:23-25, we believe the latter
to be true—that the all-powerful Author of the Christian Scriptures has
supernaturally and continuously preserved His words throughout the ages,
and kept them pure and uncorrupted, available and accessible to His Church,
so that His people might appeal to them as their supremely authoritative
Canon or rule of faith and practice without any doubt or uncertainty.
Nevertheless, Brown’s pop-modernistic
attack on the Scriptures does great damage to the testimony of the
Scriptures and of the Church. Ben Witherington III highlighted the serious
implications of Brown’s canonical-critical book:
The issue of canon—what books
constitute the final authority for Christians—is no small matter. If the
critics are correct, then Christianity must indeed be radically
reinterpreted, just as they suggest. If they are wrong, traditional
Christians have their work cut out for them, because many seekers remain
skeptical of claims to biblical authority. 6
To put it bluntly: No Canon, no Christ;
no Canon, no Gospel!
Was the Biblical Canon falsified and
the Christian Gospel fabricated? There was in fact no "orthodox"
fabrication of the Gospels as posited by Brown but the very opposite.
History reveals the unorthodox corruption of the Scriptures by Alexandrian
heretics who denied and attacked the full deity of Christ. 7
It is a fact that shortly after the inspired NT books were completed,
spurious books claiming inspiration were also written (eg, Acts of Paul,
Revelation of Peter, Epistle of Barnabas, Gospel of Peter, Gospel of
Thomas, Acts of Andrew etc).8 The contents of these false books do not fit
the nature of divinely inspired writ. They are filled with myths and even
blasphemous stories of Christ. The born again and Spirit indwelt believer
can tell straightaway that these books are not of God (John 16:13, 1 Cor
2:12-14, 1 John 2:27). The early believers had long rejected them as
spurious.
So how was the NT Canon arrived at? The
Canon was arrived at by the ecclesiastical consensus of God’s people who
were indwelt and led by the Holy Spirit (John 16:13). The Council of
Carthage (AD 397), chaired by the pre-eminent early church father and
theologian—Augustine—identified the sacred books by name. There were
exactly 27 of them.
|
NEW
TESTAMENT CANON AND BOOKS |
|
Canon |
Books |
Date |
|
Gospels
|
Matthew |
AD 40 |
|
Mark |
AD 45 |
|
Luke |
AD 45-55 |
|
John |
AD 70-90 |
|
History |
Acts |
AD 62-64 |
|
Epistles
|
Romans |
AD 55 |
|
1
Corinthians |
AD 54 |
|
2
Corinthians |
AD 55 |
|
Galatians |
AD 49 |
|
Ephesians |
AD 60 |
|
Philippians |
AD 60 |
|
Colossians |
AD 60 |
|
1
Thessalonians |
AD 50-51 |
|
2
Thessalonians |
AD 50-51 |
|
1
Timothy |
AD 62 |
|
2
Timothy |
AD 63 |
|
Titus |
AD 62 |
|
Philemon |
AD 60 |
|
Hebrews |
AD 60-65 |
|
James |
AD 40-44 |
|
1 Peter |
AD 63 |
|
2 Peter |
AD 63-64 |
|
1 John |
AD 80-90 |
|
2 John |
AD 80-90 |
|
3 John |
AD 80-90 |
|
Jude |
AD 60-70 |
|
Apocalypse |
Revelation |
AD 90 |
The Canon of NT books above was no
innovation, but an official statement of what the Church by ecclesiastical
consensus had already accepted as inspired Scripture by virtue of its
divine origination. The WCF states:
We may be moved and induced by the
testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy
Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the
doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the
scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full
discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other
incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are
arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of
God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the
infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of
the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts (I:V).
The NT Canon is under attack today like
never before. Bible-believing Christians ought not to be naïve but to put
on the whole armour of God (Eph 6:11-18). We ought to realise that truth is
ascertained by spiritual knowledge, and we need to pray for the Holy Spirit
to guide us into all truth (John 16:13).
TEXTS
The texts of the Holy Scriptures refer
to the copies of the Scriptures which come either in handwritten or in
printed form.
Old Testament Text
The OT Scriptures were first given to
Israel—God’s chosen nation. Romans 3:1-2 tells us that God had committed to
the Jews the safekeeping and copying of the Holy Scriptures. Knowing well
the divine nature of the Scriptures, that the words of the sacred pages
were the very words of the Almighty God, they copied the Scriptures with
great precision and accuracy employing the following rules:
(1) The parchment must be made from
the skin of clean animals; must be prepared by a Jew only, and the
skins must be fastened together by strings taken from clean animals.
(2) Each column must be no less
than 48 and no more than 60 lines. The entire copy must be first lined,
and if three words were written in it without the line, the copy was
worthless.
(3) The ink must be of no other
color than black, and it must be prepared according to a special
recipe.
(4) No word or letter could be
written from memory; the scribe must have an authentic copy before him,
and he must read and pronounce aloud each word before writing it.
(5) He must reverently wipe his pen
each time before writing the word for "God," and must wash his whole
body before writing the word "Jehovah," lest the holy name be
contaminated.
(6) Strict rules were given
concerning the forms of the letters, spaces between letters, words, and
sections, the use of the pen, the color of the parchment, etc.
(7) The revision of a roll must be
made within 30 days after the work was finished; otherwise it was
worthless. One mistake on a sheet condemned the sheet; if three
mistakes were found on any page, the entire manuscript was condemned.
(8) Every word and every letter was
counted, and if a letter were omitted, an extra letter inserted, or if
one letter touched another, the manuscript was condemned and destroyed
at once. 9
These very strict rules of
transcription show how precious the Jews had regarded the inspired words of
God, and how precise their copying of these inspired words must have been.
Such strict practices in copying "give us strong encouragement to believe
that we have the real Old Testament, the same one which our Lord had
and which was originally given by inspiration of God." 10
The present confusion in identifying
the Hebrew Scriptures is not with the traditional copies which God has kept
pure without corruption by His special providence, but with the printed
editions of the Hebrew Text which comes in two types: (1) the Hebrew
Masoretic Text—Ben Chayyim (1524-25), and (2) the Biblia Hebraica—Kittel
(1937) and Stuttgart (1967/77).
The Ben Chayyim Text is the faithful
text that follows the traditional and providentially preserved manuscripts.
This Hebrew Text underlying the KJV is totally infallible and inerrant. The
Ben Chayyim Text is published today by the Trinitarian Bible Society (TBS).
TBS considers the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text to be the definitive Hebrew
Text for today. 11
The Kittel and Stuttgart texts, on the
other hand, display a critical apparatus that is filled with conjectural
emendations that come from modern scholarship. These modern critical texts
are the texts that underlie the NASV, NIV, and NKJV. The Kittel and
Stuttgart texts contain 20,000-30,000 suggested corrections or changes to
the OT Scriptures. 12 Many of these
recommended corrections are unwarranted because they come from the Dead Sea
Scrolls (DSS), or the Samaritan Pentateuch which trace their origins to
heretical sects (eg, Essenes and Samaritans, cf John 4:22), and dubious
translations like the Septuagint (LXX).13 The textual-critical apparatuses
found in these critical texts cause the Bible student to doubt God’s Word.
They cause him to question whether he has indeed all the words of Scripture
and whether the words of Scripture can be trusted as being altogether
true—the very words of God—verbally inspired and preserved (Matt 5:18)?
From personal experience, having practised the textual-critical methods of
modern scholarship at both Bible College and Seminary levels, I can testify
that such critical devices in the modern texts not only cast doubt on God’s
Word, but also distract from a reverent and faithful study to a prideful
and judgmental study of the Holy Scriptures.
In light of the Biblical doctrine of
the divine, verbal and plenary preservation of the Scriptures,
Bible-believing students would do well to stick to the providentially
preserved line of traditional Hebrew manuscripts and text which is the Ben
Chayyim Masoretic Text—the Text that underlies the time-tested and time-honoured
KJV—over against the new and critical line of modernistic texts that are
behind all the modern English versions.
New Testament Text
The NT Scriptures were written by the
Apostles of Jesus Christ under divine inspiration (2 Tim 3:16). The NT
Scriptures were then committed to the care of the NT Church comprising born
again believers who were loyal to both the Living Word and the Written
Word. Just like the OT Scripture, the Lord has also promised to preserve
the inspired Greek words of the NT Scripture. Three times Jesus said,
"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" (Matt
24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33).
The NT autographs in time became
apographs for they were copied and circulated to all the NT churches for
their meditation, application and edification. As the Church grew, the
copies multiplied. There are over 5000 extant NT copies today. These 5000
plus manuscripts are classified under two categories: Alexandrian and
Byzantine. 14
|
TWO
STREAMS OF TEXTS AND VERSIONS |
|
Text |
Preserved
Byzantine/Majority/Received Text
Every word preserved |
Perverted
Alexandrian/Minority/W H Text
Many words excised |
|
Thrust |
Spirit
of the 16th Century Reformation |
Spirit
of 19th-20th Century Modernism |
|
Translators |
Martyrs
and Reformers—Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, and KJV men |
Money-Makers, Liberals, Ecumenists, and Neo-Evangelicals |
|
Technique |
Verbal
Equivalence—word for word translation |
Dynamic
Equivalence—thought for thought interpretation |
|
Translation |
Protestant Reformation Bible—the AV/KJV is the best. Vital doctrines
fully preserved |
Ecumenical and Modern Versions. Vital doctrines (virgin birth, deity
of Christ, blood of Christ, Trinity, ecclesiastical separation)
attacked |
The Byzantine manuscripts come from the
region of Byzantium or Constantinople, the capital of the Eastern or Greek
Empire (AD 295-1453). The majority of the 5000 plus extant NT copies are
Byzantine manuscripts. These manuscripts were faithfully copied and
continuously used by the Church. They reflect uniform readings. Although
there were minor variations, these were easily rectified by a simple
comparison of the manuscripts. 15 The
Lord has certainly kept these manuscripts pure and uncorrupted throughout
the centuries. The Church recognised them to be the inspired and preserved
manuscripts, and received them as the Holy Scriptures. These handwritten
copies were finally put into print in the 15th century upon the invention
of the printing press. During the Protestant Reformation, the Lord
specially raised up Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza to prepare the Byzantine
manuscripts for print. The printed Greek text eventually became known as
the Textus Receptus—the Text received by all. This is the Greek text that
underlies the KJV and all the other Reformation translations.16
The Alexandrian manuscripts come from
Alexandria, Egypt. These manuscripts are in the minority, and they reveal a
corrupt hand. 17 The most notorious of
these minority manuscripts are the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus.
The Codex Sinaiticus was discovered by Tischendorf in St Catherine’s
monastery in Egypt in 1844 while the Codex Vaticanus was kept in the
Vatican library and found in 1481. Both these manuscripts were dated to
about AD 350. Since they were such old manuscripts, and regarded by
Westcott and Hort to be closest to the autographs, they were hailed as the
best manuscripts in existence. Westcott and Hort then proceeded to revise
the Textus Receptus based on their textual-critical theory that the older,
harder, and shorter readings of the Alexandrian manuscripts were better. In
1881, they published their new but mutilated text which changed the
traditional Received Text in nearly 10,000 places.18
God did not allow such an attack on His
preserved words to go unchallenged. He raised up a most worthy scholar in
Dean Burgon to expose the corruptions of the Alexandrian manuscripts on
which Westcott and Hort built their revised Greek Text. Burgon, by a
diligent study of the primary sources and a careful investigation of the
facts, rightly judged the Alexandrian manuscripts to be among the
most scandalously corrupt copies
extant: exhibit the most shamefully mutilated texts which are anywhere to
be met with: have become, by whatever process (for their history is
wholly unknown), the depositories of the largest amount of fabricated
readings, ancient blunders, and intentional perversions of Truth, which
are discoverable in any known copies of the Word of God. 19
Since 1881, the corrupt Westcott-Hort
text has unfortunately become the standard text for modern translations of
the Bible. 20 Are the Alexandrian
manuscripts so reliable? The Alexandrian manuscripts and the Westcott-Hort
text that underlie the modern versions of the English Bible are today being
questioned by their very editors—Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland—who wrote,
"In the twentieth century the papyri have eroded the dominance of the
uncials, and a group of minuscules presently under study promises to
diminish it further."21 One such papyrus is the Magdalen GR17 or "Jesus
Papyrus" which consists of three fragments containing Matthew 26:7-8,
26:10, 14, 15, 22, 23, 31, 32, 33. It is a very early, first century (AD
60) manuscript. The last four words of Matthew 26:22 (legein auto
hekastos auton) in the GR17 agree with the Textus Receptus over against
the Westcott-Hort and modern critical texts (legein auto heis hekastos).22
Another evidence of the antiquity and authenticity of the Textus Receptus
comes from the Chester Beatty Papyri which are early 3rd century fragments
and they agree with the Traditional or Byzantine Text. Papyrus p75 contains
the ascension of Christ (Luke 24:51) which was omitted in the Westcott-Hort
Text and modern versions like the NASV.23 Now, the 26th edition of the
critical text of Nestle and Aland has put the ascension verse back into the
original text bringing it to conformity with the inspired and preserved
Textus Receptus underlying the KJV.24 All such findings confirm Dean Burgon’s observation all along—the Alexandrian/Minority/Westcott-Hort texts
are the heretically corrupted texts, but the Byzantine/Majority/Received
texts are the divinely preserved texts.25
It is tragic that in many Bible
Colleges and Seminaries today, the genealogy of the NT apographs follows
the textual-critical paradigm invented by Westcott and Hort who had
introduced an imaginative transmission history of the NT Text that is
vastly different from the Biblical truth of VPP that is taught by the
Author of the Scriptures Himself in His forever infallible and inerrant
Word (Ps 12:6-7, Matt 5:18, 24:35, John 10:35, 1 Pet 1:23-25). Far Eastern
Bible College (FEBC), despite fierce local and foreign opposition to her
VPP belief, remains steadfast in its defence of God’s forever infallible
and inerrant Word. The 100% inspired Word of God are in the 100% preserved
words of the Hebrew Masoretic Text (Ben Chayyim), and the Greek Textus
Receptus (Stephanus, Beza, Scrivener) underlying the time-tested and time-honoured
King James or Authorised Version. 26
WORDS
The words of the Scriptures are
important (Deut 8:3, Matt 4:4, Luke 4:4). God uses His words to communicate
His Truth so that we might know who and what He is and how we might be
saved through Him. The Bible clearly tells us that it is God’s written
words (pasa graphe—"All Scripture") that are inspired (2 Tim 3:16),
and from these inspired words come all the doctrines that are sufficient
and profitable for the spiritual growth and maturity of the believer (2 Tim
3:17). The Bible also clearly says that God Himself will preserve all His
inspired words to the jot and tittle without the loss of any word, letter
or syllable (Ps 12:6-7, Matt 5:18, 24:35).
Old Testament Words
Now if we have the inspired, infallible
and inerrant words of God today preserved in the traditional and
Reformation Scriptures, then how do we explain the differences or
discrepancies found in the Bible especially those found in 1 Samuel 13:1, 2
Chronicles 22:2, and many other places. Can these be due to "scribal
errors"?
Since God has preserved His inspired
words to the last iota and no words are lost but all kept pure and intact
in the original language Scriptures, we must categorically deny that our
Bible contains any mistake or error (scribal or otherwise). But it is sad
that certain evangelicals and fundamentalists would rather choose to deny
the present infallibility and inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures by
considering the "discrepancies" found in 1 Samuel 13:1 and 2 Chronicles
22:2 and other like passages to be actual instead of apparent
discrepancies, and calling them "scribal errors."
A denial of the verbal preservation of
the Scriptures will invariably lead one to believe that some words of God
have been lost and remain lost leading to a "scribal error" view of the OT
Scriptures. For instance, W Edward Glenny denies that God has perfectly
preserved His Word so that no words have been lost. He says, "The evidence
from the OT text suggests that such is not the case. We might have lost
a few words …" 27 Based on his "lost
words" view of the Bible, he was quick to point out "obvious discrepancies"
in the OT like 2 Chronicles 22:2. He pontificates,
In 1 Chronicles 8:26 [sic], the KJV
states that Ahaziah was twenty-two when he began to reign; the parallel
in 2 Chronicles 22:2 says that he began to reign at the age of forty-two.
... These obvious discrepancies in the KJV and the Hebrew
manuscripts on which it is based show that none of them perfectly
preserved the inspired autographa. 28
Now, know that 2 Chronicles 22:2 reads
"forty-two" in the KJV and RSV. A number of the modern versions like the
NASV, NIV, and ESV read "twenty-two" instead. So which is the original,
inspired reading: "forty-two" (in KJV, and RSV), or "twenty-two" (in NASV,
NIV, and ESV)? In making such a textual decision, we must have a perfect
standard, and that infallible and inerrant standard is the inspired and
preserved Hebrew Scripture, and not any translation ancient or modern.
It is significant to note that every
single Hebrew manuscript reads "forty-two" (arebba’im wushetha’im)
in 2 Chronicles 22:2. There is no evidence of lost words—every word to the
letter is preserved, and reads precisely as "forty-two" as accurately
translated in the KJV and RSV. If every Hebrew manuscript reads "forty-two"
in 2 Chronicles 22:2, then on what basis do the NASV, NIV, and ESV change
it to "twenty-two"? They change "forty-two" to "twenty-two" on the basis of
the Septuagint (LXX) which is a Greek version of the Hebrew Scripture just
like the NIV is an English version of it. In other words, they use a
version or translation to correct the original Hebrew text! Should not it
be the other way round?
Why do they do this? They do this
because of their fallacious assumption that (1) God did not preserve His
words perfectly, (2) lost words exist in the Hebrew text, and (3) 2
Chronicles 22:2 is an "obvious" discrepancy (cf 2 Kgs 8:26). Thus, Glenny
and all such non-VPPists are quick to use a fallible translation (eg, LXX)
to correct the infallible Hebrew Text! This is no different from someone
using the NIV today to correct any part of the Hebrew Text according to his
whim and fancy! But Glenny calls it "conjectural emendation" which sounds
scholarly but colloquially it means—"Suka only, change!" Can a
translation be more inspired than or superior to the original language
text? Can a translation or version (whatever the language) be used to
correct the Hebrew? Glenny’s method of explaining such "obvious
discrepancies" in the Bible is troubling for it displays (1) a sceptical
attitude towards the numerical integrity of God’s Word, (2) a critical
readiness to deny the present inerrancy of Scripture in historical details,
and (3) a lackadaisical approach towards solving difficulties in the Bible
by conveniently dismissing such difficulties as "scribal errors."
A godly approach is one that
presupposes the present infallibility and inerrancy of God’s Word not only
when it speaks on salvation, but also when it speaks on |