Trading Truth for Certainty

P46 - one of the earliest New Testament Manuscripts dating from 175-225AD

I listen fairly regularly to James White's YouTube channel, The Dividing Line. For those who don't know, Dr White is an American Reformed Baptist best known for his apologetics ministry and his many debates with Mormons, Muslims, Roman Catholics and others. One area where White has debated many times is King James Onlyism. This is a spectrum of views prevalent in certain sections of American evangelicalism ranging from the belief that the King James Version is the only translation we should use because it is the best, through to more whacky views such as the KJV was itself inspired by God and therefore takes precedence even over the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. 

James White has argued against these views for many years and his book, The King James Only Controversy is a leading work in refuting such views. I commend that book to you if this is an area you are concerned about. White defends the scholarly eclectic Greek New Testament text that underlies most modern translations since 1881, over the Textus Receptus of the 15th century on which the King James Version was based.

In a discussion on King James Onlyism, James White used a phrase that has stuck with me since I heard it. He said that those who defend the King James Version and the Textus Receptus Greek text underlying its New Testament have traded truth for certainty. 

What an interesting concept! Trading truth for certainty. I think White is correct in pointing his finger right at this spot on KJV Onlyism. The issues are complex, but in essence, a theme emerges in most KJV-only advocates. They believe the text of Scripture is God-breathed and therefore infallible and inerrant. And these beliefs are good and true—and shared with almost all evangelicals including James White and myself. But there's a problem. 

The fact that for the first 1500 years of its existence, the text of the New Testament was copied by hand, first from the original autographs (the actual manuscripts written by the apostles) and then onwards, copies from copies, to produce thousands of copies of the New Testament used all over the churches of Africa, Asia and Europe. Indeed, it wasn't till the invention of the photocopier in 1949 that human beings had the capacity to reproduce exactly a written text from one copy to another. Each time a document, particularly a lengthy document like a book, is hand copied, even when done with great care, mistakes are made. It is unavoidable.

At the present time we have over 5000 of these ancient manuscripts still in existence and no two copies are identical. This means that the Greek text of the New Testament has many textual variants or readings in certain verses. Far from being a source of disappointment or doubt, this is actually a wonderful example of God's providential care of the text of the Bible. These 5000 Greek manuscripts, as well as thousands of manuscripts in Latin and other ancient languages, some of almost all the New Testament, some fragments of just a few verses are a tremendous witness to the true text of the New Testament. The New Testament is by far the best attested work of antiquity, but there are still textual variants that exist.

I don't want to overemphasise these differences. Most variants do not affect the meaning, especially in English translation, because most variants are things like word order, spellings, and omissions or additions of words that don't affect or even show up in translation. We can be certain of around 98-99% of the text of the New Testament. But that leaves 1-2% where the variants do reflect differences in meanings that would affect translations.

The King James Version, translated in 1611, was based on the Textus Receptus - the form of the Greek text published in the 16th century. That Greek text reflected the Greek manuscripts Erasus, Stephanus and Beza had to work with at that time. And it is in the main a Greek text reflected in the majority of Greek manuscripts in existence, but most are late in date, from around 1000-1400 AD.

In centuries after the KJV was published, many earlier manuscripts have been discovered. Though there are fewer of them, we now have manuscripts that go back to the 3rd or 4th century AD, some as early as maybe a hundred years after the apostles wrote the originals.

The questions for textual scholars is always "What did the apostles actually write?" Although I'm simplifying a bit, in general the issue is whether the correct reading in a textual variant is to be found in a smaller number of early manuscripts, written closer to the time of the apostles, or in the larger number of later manuscripts, written nearly a thousand years or more later. The scholarly decision on these issues can be difficult and complex, involving careful detective work both on external evidence—the age and quality of the manuscripts themselves—and internal evidence regarding the language itself, to decide what was the most likely original text based on many different factors.

Now, here is where the issue of trading truth for certainty comes in. The KJV-only advocates want to be absolutely certain of the content of their God-breathed, infallible text, and so they basically say that textual questions were settled in the Textus Receptus. They tend to argue that God providentially arranged that text to be the basis of the translations produced at the Reformation (including the KJV though it was a bit later) and regard other variants as deviant.

So they can have a text with certainty. But in doing so they having traded off against truth. For the truth is that the textual variants do exist, and the fact is that the earlier manuscripts though clearly bearing witness to largely the same New Testament text, does tend to be slightly shorter and contain perhaps more "difficult" readings.

Perhaps a few examples might be helpful at this point to show the kind of differences that exist. In these examples "TR/MT" means the Textus Receptus or Majority Text and "CT" means the eclectic Critical Text with the key words in bold.

Matthew 6:13 (The last part of the Lord's Prayer):

TR/MT: "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For yours is the kingdom, the power and the glory forever. Amen."

CT: "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil." (Omits the rest of the verse)

John 1.18

TR/MT: "No one has seen God at any time. The one and only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, has made him known."

CT: "No one has seen God at any time. The one and only [who is] God, who is in the bosom of the Father, has made him known."

John 3:13

TR/MT: "No one has ascended to heaven except him who descended from heaven, even the Son of Man, who is in heaven."

CT: "No one has ascended to heaven except him who descended from heaven, even the Son of Man." (omits the last phrase)

1 Timothy 3:16

TR/MT: "Great is the mystery of godliness: God was revealed in the flesh..."

CT: "Great is the mystery of godliness: [He] who was revealed in the flesh..."

There are hundreds of similar textual variants throughout the New Testament. Most modern translations include one reading in the main text and one or more variants in footnotes, allowing the reader to see the main variants and decide which they think was the original reading. We can be reasonably certain that the original is either in the main text or the footnotes. This option essentially trades certainty for truth. The alternative, as advocated by many in the KJV-only side of the debate, is to just have the KJV text with no textual variants in footnotes, choosing an apparent certainty over the truth.

As I believe I will have made clear, I think we should favour truth over a false or apparent certainty.

An Argument for "Functional Equivalence" in Bible Translation

Mark Strauss is an American New Testament scholar who serves on the translation committee for the New International Version (NIV). In this lengthy article, he argues persuasively for Bible translations using a functional equivalent methodology for translation, or at least for avoiding pure formal equivalance in translation, which fail to convey the true meaning of the biblical text.

This is a long read, but well worth it: http://www.bible-researcher.com/Strauss.LiteralFallacy.pdf

I have always enjoyed reading the NIV which I thintk usually strikes a good balance between accuracy and comprehensibility for a wide readership. Not surprisingly this is the kind of translation Dr Strauss believes should be our main Bible translation for personal reading and church use. Having said that, he is also clear there is a place for more "formal equivalent" translations that tend to stick closer to the words of the original Hebrew and Greek, though often not conveying the meaning as clearly to the English reader.

Dr Strauss is also co-author, with the late Gordon Fee, of How to Choose a Bible Translation for All Its Worth which is a book-length exploration of Bible translations in English and the pros and cons of the translation philosophies that underlie our translations.

What's in a Name? A Christmas Reflection

“She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” All this took place to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us). (Matthews 1:21-24, ESV)

In Western culture the choice of a baby’s name can be affected by all kinds of factors. Family tradition is one that is important within my own family. I was named after my father, who was named after his uncle. My son has my name as his middle name to carry on the tradition. This results in multiple people within the family having the same first name. For other people, the chosen name reflects the parents’ favourite actors, singers or sports stars. Other people try to choose a name that will make their child stand out from the crowd. Some celebrities take this to extremes and seem to come up with names that try to be as outlandish as possible.

By contrast, in the Bible, the names given to children are often full of meaning, somehow seeming to capture something of the character of the recipient, or at least reflecting something about them or the events surrounding their birth. That goes all the way back to Adam himself (‘adam’ in Hebrew means ‘man of earth’ or ‘earthling’ we might say). Think of Abraham (‘father of many nations’), Isaac (‘laughter’ – remember when Sarah laughed at the idea she would conceive a baby?), Moses (‘to draw out’ as he was taken from the Nile), or David (‘beloved’).

No name in the Bible is more rich with meaning than the name the angel told Joseph to name Mary’s baby boy. ‘You shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins’ (Matthew 1:23).

The name we read in our bibles as ‘Jesus’ is a Greek form of what was a common name for Hebrew boys at the time, Yeshua or as we normally find it in English, Joshua. It is a meeting with a profound meaning: ‘Yahwah saves’ or ‘Yahweh is salvation.’

Verse 23 explicitly links the reason for his name to his mission to save God’s people. Never was a name more apt. As the angels told the shepherds, ‘For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord’ (Luke 2:11, ESV).

Beyond the fact that Jesus was given his name because he is the Saviour, the name hints at another truth. That he is Yahweh himself—he is God, born in a stable in Bethlehem.

The New Testament as a whole teaches this same truth. Jesus is God and it is only as God become a human being that he can achieve salvation for this people. Another Christmas reading is John 1, where it is made very clear that Jesus (whom John calls ‘the Word’) is God:

‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth’ (John 1:1, 14, ESV).

This is why Matthew recognised the prophecy in Isaiah 7 referred to the incarnation as well, that Jesus is ‘Immanuel’ which means ‘God with us.’

God is with his people this Christmas and always. The question for each of us is this: are you one of his people? Are you one of those he came to save? The only answer and assurance the Bible gives is this: ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved’ (Acts 16:31) and as Jesus himself said, ‘Whoever comes to me I will never cast out’ (John 6.37b, ESV).

May the Christ of the manger, the cross, and the empty tomb be yours this Christmas and forever.

My Kindle Books

I have some books and booklets available on Kindle covering a range of topics. Please have a look at them and feel free to purchase, review or recommend them to others. 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Singing-Hymns-Reformed-Worship-Miller-ebook/dp/B07S2V6DJ5/

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B086WRGBNX

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B08T6T5R4M

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Women-Church-Leadership-Reformed-Egalitarian-ebook/dp/B09GNQYT5Z/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/My-Moments-Days-Reflections-Christian-ebook/dp/B0DGBRGZRZ/

 

Loyal Love

 I always enjoy the material from The Bible Project and this short video on a key Old Testament word, chesed or khesed, is no exception.

The word is a rich one, with English translations employing a wide variety of options to try to capture the scope of this rich Hebrew word.

The word occurs nearly 250 times in the Old Testament. Just within the King James Version alone, it is translated as: 'mercy' (149 times), 'kindness' (40 times), 'lovingkindness' (30 times) and 'goodness' (12 times) and several other variants.

Modern versions also utilise many different renderings to try to capture the sense of the word. If we look at a single test verse, 1 Kings 8:23, it reads (my translation): 'And he said, O Yahweh, the God of Israel, there is no God like you, in heaven above or on earth below. You keep covenant and lovingkindness [chesed] with your servants who walk before you wholeheartedly.'

In other versions, the word in bold 'lovingkindess' is rendered:

• mercy (KJV, NKJV)
• lovingkindness (ASV, NASB95)
• loyalty (CEB)
• steadfast love (RSV, NRSV, ESV)
• love (NIV, Good News)
• gracious love (ISV)
• loyal love (Lexham, 
• faithfulness (NASB)
• covenantal loyalty (NET)
• unfailing love (NLT)
• kindness (LSV)
• constant love (REB)
• loving-commitment (The Scriptures)

 From these a number of elements are clear enough:

• There is an element of emotion conveyed by 'love' and 'kindness'.
  
• There is an element of commitment conveyed by 'loyalty' and 'faithfulness'
• There is an element of constancy. This love is 'steadfast', 'unfailing' and 'constant'
• There is an element of this love being undeserved. It is 'gracious' and 'merciful'

That this is the love that God has for his people. This is his covenant love. It is no mere cold legal agreement - it is a loving commitment. It never fails. God remains faithful and loyal to his covennat promises at all times. And perhaps most wondrous of all, it is a love that we can never merit or deserve. 

This Old Testament language carries over in the New Testament concept of agape love. It is the same love Paul spoke about in 1 Corinthians 13 where we could easily substitute the Old Testament concept of chesed for the word agape in Greek which Paul used:

'Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends.' (1 Cor. 13:4-8, ESV)

Pentecost

The Spirit of God had been active in the world since the beginning of creation. In the second verse of the Bible we read: 'The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters' (Genesis 1:2). Throughout the Old Testament and the Gospels, the Holy Spirit is mentioned numerous times. So, the coming of the Holy Spirit upon the believers on the day of Pentecost was not the coming of someone who had never before been active on earth.

What was different about the coming of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost was not so much the fact that the Holy Spirit came to people, not so much the fact of his coming, but the permanence of his coming. At other times, the Holy Spirit came upon believers at significant times in their spiritual life. Indeed the Holy Spirit was seen to alight on the Lord Jesus at his baptism (Mark 1:9-11) when Jesus began his public ministry. What was different about the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost was that the Spirit now came upon all believers—'they were all filled with the Holy Spirit' (Acts 2:4) and that the Holy Spirit now came to make his home inside believers, coming alongside them and residing in them as the helper, guide, comforter and advocate (the 'paraclete' that Jesus promised his people—John 16:7).

The Holy Spirit does not only work in the hearts of some who believe in Christ. He is with and in everyone, including you, if you trust and follow the Lord Jesus.

This is not something to make us worried or afraid. It is something to rejoice in. In the coming of Christ, he is Emmanuel, 'God with us'. In the coming of the Holy Spirit, he is 'God in us.' And so we can know we are never far from God because God is never far from us. Indeed, he is as close to us as the minds in our heads and the hearts in our chests. And he is in us to work God's love and holiness in us, to make us more and more like the Lord Jesus. So, let us welcome him afresh today and seek to follow his guiding light in us as he helps us better understand the Word of God and the Saviour to whom the Scriptures testify.

Why did God create the World?

 John Piper offers a God-glorifying answer to this profound question in the following sermon:

 

https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/why-did-god-create-the-world

Is the Righteousness of God the Gift of Righteousness?

Is the Righteousness of God the Gift of Righteousness?

Another interesting article on the "righteousness of God" - a key phrase, especially in Paul's Letter to the Romans.

I think the view Bird explains here is probably the correct one. The phrase means "a righteous status from God." Bird's article gives those of us who take this, the classic Protestant line, some food for thought though!

Is the Righteousness of God, God's Covenant Faithfulness?

Is the Righteousness of God, God's Covenant Faithfulness?

Anyone vaguely familiar with the New Perspective on Paul and N. T. Wright's views on 'the righteousness of God' in Paul's letters (specifically Romans and Galatians) will find this article by Michael F. Bird interesting.

The King Rises

Christ is risen! He is risen indeed!

With these words, Christians all over the world will begin the celebration of Easter.

Please read Luke 24:1–12

Most Jews in New Testament times probably believed in resurrection, which is the concept that the dead will rise in their bodies from the grave to have a new life with God. But what they believed in was a general resurrection of all the dead at the end of time. No one expected that for one man the resurrection would happen, not at the end of the world, but right in the middle of human history.

But early on the Sunday morning, on the third day after Jesus was crucified, died and was buried, that's exactly what happened. When it did, nothing would ever be the same again.

In the evangelical tradition, the focus tends to be on the cross rather the resurrection. Yes we believe in the resurrection and we focus on the bodily resurrection in contrast with the liberals who deny it. But I don't think we actually grasp the importance of the resurrection all that well. If we're not careful the resurrection can become merely the happy ending after Good Friday, the evidence that the sacrifice of the cross worked. Yet in New Testament terms the cross and resurrection go together as parts of Christ's saving work.

We need to really take hold of this: Christ's death took our sins away, but Christ's resurrection brings us new life. Salvation in biblical terms is about far more than sin management or sin removal, it is about transformation from what we were to what we will be. For that we need more than pardon or forgiveness, amazing though these blessings are. We need to draw new kind of life, eternal life, from Christ's own resurrection life. That's what happens when enter into a living relationship with the risen Christ. When we believe in him, we enter into union with him, so that his death becomes ours and takes our sins away, and his resurrection life becomes ours as well. When that life flows into us, it begins a process of changing us from the inside out. We start to become the kind of people God always wanted us to be. We need more than for the slate to be wiped clean. We need to replace the slate altogether with a new iPad. And that's what the resurrection means in spiritual terms for us.

Paul wrote in Romans 4:25 (Good News Bible): "Because of our sins he was given over to die, and he was raised to life in order to put us right with God."

Happy Easter to all my readers!