I had a scrambled egg moment.
Posted on 12/11/2015 2:00:41 PM PST by SeekAndFind
If you're looking for a way to critique the authority of Scripture, there are seemingly endless options. There are historical critiques (e.g., many of these books are forgeries). There are logical critiques (e.g., the Gospels contradict themselves). There are moral critiques (e.g., God is immoral to order the slaughter of entire cities). And there are hermeneutical critiques (e.g., no one can agree on what the Bible means).
In recent years, however, a more foundational challenge has arisen. All of the above critiques are essentially the same; they all argue the words of the Bible are not true. But this newer and more foundational challenge is not about whether the words of the Bible are true, but whether we have the words of the Bible at all.
At the core of this challenge is the fact that we only have handwritten copies of these books we treasure. And, in reality, we only have copies of copies of copies. And given that scribes made mistakes, and that the transmission process was imperfect, how can we be sure that these texts have been preserved? How can we be sure we actually have the words of Scripture?
Bart Ehrman's best-selling book Misquoting Jesus focuses on this issue as it pertains to the New Testament text:
What good is it to say that the autographs (i.e., the originals) were inspired? We don't have the originals! We have only error-ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them . . . in thousands of ways.
If Ehrman is correct, then he has uncovered the single thread that would unravel the entire garment of the Christian faith. There is no need to critique the content of the New Testament if we don't even have the New Testament.
But is this argument cogent? I think not. There are two places it can be challenged: (1) the role of the autographs and (2) the degree of corruption in the extant manuscripts.
Ehrman's focus on the autographs (or the absence of them) is not unusual in modern critiques of biblical authority. However, this sort of argument often creates the impression (even if it is unintentional) that the autographs are the original text—almost as if the original text were a physical object that has been lost.
But the original text is not a physical object. The autographs contain the original text, but the original text can exist without them. A text can be preserved in other ways. One such way is that the original text can be preserved in a multiplicity of manuscripts. In other words, even though a single surviving manuscript might not contain (all of) the original text, the original text could be accessible to us across a wide range of manuscripts.
Preserving the original text across multiple manuscripts, however, could only happen if there were enough of these manuscripts to give us assurance that the original text was preserved (somewhere) in them. Providentially, when it comes to the quantity of manuscripts, the New Testament is in a class all its own. Although the exact count is always changing, currently we possess more than 5,500 manuscripts of the New Testament in Greek alone. No other document of antiquity even comes close.
Even though we do not possess the autographs, textual scholars have acknowledged that the multiplicity of manuscripts allows us to access the original text. Eldon Jay Epp notes, “The point is that we have so many manuscripts of the NT . . . that surely the original reading in every case is somewhere present in our vast store of material.”
Gordon Fee concurs: “The immense amount of material available to NT textual critics . . . is their good fortune because with such an abundance of material one can be reasonably certain that the original text is to be found somewhere in it.”
Of course, one might wonder why God chose to preserve the text in this manner. Why not just preserve the autographs? Why didn't God just allow Christians to keep the autographs sealed away in a vault somewhere? For one, it is historically unlikely that the autographs could have survived until the present day, especially if they were being regularly used.
But it is also possible that God may have not wanted the autographs to survive. One can imagine how easily (and quickly) such documents would become objects of veneration, if not worship. They might have become the equivalent of Gideon's ephod (Judges 8:27)—a good gift the people begin to treat as an idol.
Of course, we cannot know for sure why God providentially did not preserve the autographs. But, in one sense, it is fitting. It reminds us that the Word of God, like God himself, is not bound to a physical location or to a physical object. It is a Word that is not contained. It is a Word that goes forth.
If, as we have seen, there are good reasons to think that the original text is preserved across the entire manuscript tradition (as opposed to being contained in a single manuscript), then there is still the question of how we identify the original text. How do we distinguish the original text from textual changes or corruptions? Can this even be done?
Ehrman would suggest it cannot. The reason for his skepticism is that the copies we posses are “error-ridden” and contain “thousands” of differences. In other words, the manuscripts are in such poor shape, so full of corruptions, that no methodology could extract the original text from them.
Again, this is a vast overstatement. While there are certainly many, many textual differences (hundreds of thousands, in fact), the key point is that the vast majority of these scribal changes are minor and insignificant—e.g., spelling mistakes, use of synonyms, and word-order changes. In the end, these do not substantively change the meaning of the text.
Of course, there are more substantive textual changes (much fewer in number) that do affect the meaning of the text. But these changes would only be a problem if we could not identify them as changes. Or to put differently, these kinds of variants would only be a problem if we could assume that every one of them was as equally viable as every other.
Thankfully, textual scholars can determine, with a relative degree of certainty, which of these readings were original and which were not. There are still some gray areas, some instances where a choice between variants is unclear. But, generally speaking, we can have confidence that the words we read are the words of the original authors.
Historically, Christian affirmations of biblical authority are often expressly restricted to the “autographs.” And there are obvious reasons for this view. Biblical authority does not apply to whatever a later scribe might happen to write down—it applies to what the biblical authors actually wrote.
But does the lack of autographs mean such affirmations of biblical authority are meaningless? No, because the authority does not reside in a physical object, but in the original text. And the original text has been preserved in another way, namely through the multiplicity of manuscripts.
Michael J. Kruger is president of Reformed Theological Seminary's Charlotte, North Carolina, campus, where he also serves as professor of New Testament. He is the author of Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books (Crossway, 2012). He blogs regularly at Canon Fodder.
RE: You want the authentic Bible? The real thing? It’s the King James Bible!
What about the Bible in other languages? Do they base their translation on the KJV?
I think you misunderstood me. The reason that I wrote it was fundamental that there be one holy catholic apostolic church from the First Century until this hour is precisely because the Messiah promised to build His church, not to write His Bible (yes, I know Revelation is an exception and full of works, works, works).
Thanks for that response.
My point was that if they want to question one, shouldn’t they question them all ?
Why the focus on only the Bible ?
That may be true.
I found that even with the various versions, the alternative meanings of words, the multitude of translations, that the message is quite simple and obvious, but our quest for details and facts leads us astray.
I was under the impression that the books of the bible were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and that the King James Bible is a translation of these books into English.
This is perfectly on topic. With a little Star Wars thrown in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpFHfHXicNs
The ones that are translated from the KJV...And that happens to be most all of the Protestant translations...
There are two lines of manuscripts extant...One line originated from the area of Antioch, Syria where people were first called Christians...
There are 5,500 plus of those manuscripts that agree with each other over 95% of the time...Those are the manuscripts that were used to write the KJV...The Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts almost exclusively match those KJV sourced manuscripts...
The other line of manuscripts one which all other English bibles come from and are Catholic bibles...The manuscripts from those bibles originated in Africa...They are called the Septuagint...
There are approximately 250 of those manuscripts extant...They disagree with each other in over 3000 places...Portions of those manuscripts have been erased and words put in their place...Words have been written over...They are covered with notes from many different authors...
Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Did God lie??? I don't think so...I believe God preserved his words in the English language thru the English speaking people...God used that bible to bring about the Reformation bringing untold hundreds of millions of people to God thru Jesus Christ...That bible has been translated into more foreign languages and distributed thru out the world more than all the other bibles combines...
I can't prove that bible is the word of God that God preserved...But I don't have to...In fact, it's better that I can't...
In addition to Sola Scriptura we have Sola King James, and yet your Protestant/Evangelical brethren have forsaken the King James (Authorized) Version for evey new version sold under the sun. It is irrational to imagine that almost fifteen and sixteen centuries passed since the Ascension of the LORD Jesus Christ into to heaven until the Christian Religions was "re-formed" and a pure Bible was translated under the authority of King James to be preserved in English. Yet if the "re-formation" of the Christian Religion did not have a pure Bible, did not have true Apostles, and did not exist from the First Century until this very hour, then the "re-formation" is illegitimate, as is Mormonism.
They do question them all. They put them through the fire of authenticity. Especially a Group of writings that declare the words came from GOD, and ARE WHO HE IS.
[for lurkers] Jesus is the New Testament AND the OLD Testament in the flesh. JESUS IS GOD. He obeyed every law, He fulfilled every obligation, He is the epitome of God’s laws for us. In doing so He shows us who the Father is in relation to us. We can know God as our FATHER because Jesus showed us that side of Him. Jesus did not show Jesus the avenger of the innocent or the Judge on the throne or the ruler of the world who yields a rod of iron for our own good.
It is who He is and was and will be but He had to obey every iota of the Law so that He could be perfect and sacrificial. Only then could Jesus take our punishment. Only then could we see God in person.
Oh my. Hell is seeing God and not being forgiven. Hell is what happens to people when they don’t accept the gift. They see God for eternity. It is His righteousness that burns. You know how people react to others who are nice and they spit on them because they see themselves in truth? That is what it is. There is no good in them anymore and they can only hate, be jealous, envious, angry, spiteful, murderous, sadistic, selfish, satanic.
The Bible is burning those who are not believers. It is hated. It is mocked. The haters must prove it false because it is the TRUTH and it reveals their true selves. Just like it does believers but while we are healed by it they continue to die.
Sorry, that’s how my mind works.
Coming from a religion that was created from and exists on human philosophy, reason, logic I am not surprised you think that way...Christianity is not built upon 'human rational thought' but it is built upon the words of God...
The Jews have had a 'pure' bible since God spoke to Moses and he started recording it...
And no, the Christian religion wasn't reformed...It is the false Catholic religion that was reformed...
The real problem with The Bible (and similar religious books) is not what is in the book, it is that each of our minds works differently. Each has different 'knowledge' and each 'thinks' something different than others.
The Bible may be close to perfect, the people who read and interpret it are not. Therein lies the confusion.
Well, after the first paragraph I had what I call a spiderweb moment. When I have those I generally gather scattered info and converge it. With the Bible, if those thoughts are not checked against the WHOLE Bible then we are in danger of adding to scripture. Every believer should be checking what is taught against what has been said by God. No listening to clips and thinking the whole scene is being witnessed. I love my concordance.
I had a scrambled egg moment.
Do you follow a pure Bible from the Jews, or ignore it ? Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. Thus saith the LORD, Keep ye judgment, and do justice: for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed. Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil. Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree. For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off. Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people. The Lord GOD which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him.
Exodus, Catholic chapter twenty, Protestant verses eight to eleven, Isaiah, Catholic chapter fifty six, Protestant verses one to six,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James
Do I believe it??? Of course...Do I mistakenly believe it applies to me as a Gentile Christian??? Of course not...
It works every time, across many genres.
The only way the process can not avoid ruination (arrival at some other, less than originally desired final result destination) is when valid information is allowed to enter into the process which does not support the beginning premises (from where one began backing towards the desired ending summation).
We must not allow that to occur.
Are you listening to your uncle Screwtape, Wormwood? This is important. We must not allow the family business be diminished in any way.
Well stated.
It also should be noted that in God’s Plan for all humanity, He could have chosen to communicate by means of golden tablets, or Divine Commands audible to the entire planet, but instead He chose to communicate His WORD by means of human communication.
Jesus Christ is perfect body, soul, and human spirit. His Word is communicated and identified with Him.
Likewise, in this Church Age, believers have been elected, exercised faith, and upon the call, their faith alone in Christ alone was made efficacious for God the Holy Spirit to create a human spirit in the believer and for God the Father to create life in that new human spirit, ergo regenerated life.
As believers we have a human spirit, which is now to dwelling place of God the Holy Spirit, who now sanctifies our thinking, our soul, which is still badly scarred from our past thinking when we weren’t yet saved.
The Gospel is the power of God.
Rom 1:16-17
(16) For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
(17) For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
It is rather odd to argue that everlasting does not apply to one simply because one is a Gentile.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.