This is an essay that I wrote for a class at Big Sky Bible Institute all the way back in 2008.
When trying to determine
if the Bible can be trusted,
the first thing we must do is examine the scriptures and decide for
ourselves if they contain any errors. But first, what is the definition
of an error?
What Is an Error?
An error is essentially something that is
stated incorrectly, or a statement that exists which is in direct
contradiction to a known fact. However, apparent errors in grammar or
spelling do nothing to erode scriptures reliability, for grammar and
spelling are simply human conventions, things that humans have come up
with, and which are subject to change over the course of time.
Also,
phenomenological language and figures of speech do not constitute errors
in scripture. All languages have examples of figures of speech and
phenomenological language, and there is no reason that they could not be
included in the scriptures as well.
For instance, in Joshua 10:13, it states
that “the sun stood still.” Now, does that really mean that the sun
stood still? Well, it cannot have, as we know for a fact that the earth
is constantly rotating, creating the illusion of the sun rising in the
east and setting in the west. A more accurate assessment would have been
“the earth ceased to rotate on its axis,” or something of that nature.
So then, what about these so-called
errors? Some people hold the opinion that Exodus 33:20 and Exodus 33:11
contradict each other by saying that on the one hand, no one can see God
and live, and on the other that God talked with Moses face to face. In
actual fact, “face to face” simply is a phrase that is intended to show
that they were talking personally, and that Moses could see some of
God’s glory, but not actually God himself. Some people claim that there
are contradictions in the Mosaic Law, while most of those examples have
to do with what the Israelites were to do in the wilderness compared
with how they were to act in the promised land.
Inerrancy
However,
I firmly believe that scripture is inerrant. “Inerrant,” as defined by
the American Heritage Dictionary, means “incapable of erring,
infallible” or “containing no errors.” The implications of this is that
God gave the whole Bible to us through the people who wrote it down (2
Peter 1:20-21). The Bible was “God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16), and as
such, it is without error in any of the assertions that it makes in the
original documents. They have “adequately and accurately” written
everything that God’s Holy Spirit gave them to write. By adequately and
accurately, I mean to say that they did not mess anything up, and that
it was recorded with the correct language in order to be “…everything we
need for life and godliness…” (2 Peter 1:3).
Errors have come down through the
process of copying and translation, and some things have gone missing.
However, I believe, and I think it is supported by scripture (see
above), that in the original documents, the Bible was inerrant. This
idea of inerrancy is basically a logical conclusion based on God’s
character, and what He has revealed about Himself in Scripture. In 1st
John 5:20, it states that God is true, and this truth must extend to his
words laid down in the Bible, as it says in Titus 1:2 “…God, who does
not lie….” Furthermore, in John 17:17, it explicitly states that “…your
word is truth.” While it may not be entirely legitimate to argue the
case of the Bible’s inerrancy from the Scriptures themselves, one must
also at the same time realize the implications of a Holy Bible with
major errors in it.
There are several differing opinions concerning inerrancy:
1. Some people hold absolute
inerrancy, which essentially says that even the smallest minutia
contained within the original text was true.
2. The full inerrancy view states
that the Bible is completely true, but that it is not specifically
written with scientific and historical data in mind, but that when it
makes assertions about those topics, those assertions are true.
3. Limited inerrancy states that
the biblical writers were correct on all matters pertaining explicitly
to faith, but that they were limited in regards to anything else,
including historical events and scientific data.
4. And the most loose view of
all, is that of inerrancy of purpose. It puts forth the opinion that the
Bible is inerrant in its purpose to bring people to a saving knowledge
in Jesus Christ, but that beyond this, it is more or less worthless.
As I see it, the third and fourth views
on inerrancy are entirely wrong, and holding such opinions could be
dangerous indeed. I believe that I fall somewhere in between the views
of absolute and full inerrancy, as I believe that God would not let
simple mathematical mistakes, for instance, be recorded in the
scriptures needlessly. However, I would be leery of the assertion that
the Bible can verify and make sense of all of the minutia that it
contains. While it is possible that all of the minutia is correct, we
may not have been provided with all the knowledge that we need at this
time in history to determine how it is, in fact, proved correct.
How, then, did the Old Testament come down to
us living in the 21st century? The Old Testament originally came from
the Jews. It was, and still is, their holy book, their revelation from
God, which is written down in the TaNaK in Hebrew, and was translated
into Greek in the Septuagint. The Jewish oral tradition also passed down
the view of our modern 39 books of the Old Testament, in a slightly
merged form of 24. Josephus records that the Jews kept to a list of 22
holy books, which, in actual fact, equals the 39 books currently held in
the protestant Old Testament. So, Christians carry the same general
view of the Old Testament, but they also add the New Testament to it to
make up what is called the Bible.
The TaNaK
The
Jews called the Old Testament the TaNaK. They derived the name from the
three different sections that it is made of. The first section is the
law, which in Hebrew is “torah,” thus the “T.” Secondly, “the prophets”
in Hebrew is “”nebi’im.” The prophets are further divided into two
subcategories: the Former Prophets and the Latter Prophets. The “K” in
“TaNaK” is “kethubim,” which means “the writings.” The writings are
further divided into the three subcategories of poetry, the 5 megilloth
(rolls), prophecy, and history. Included in all of these categories are
the books that currently make up the protestant Old Testament, and this
is the only version that I think is canonical.
The Biblical Canon
So
how can I be so sure that these are the only books that are canonical?
Well, firstly, these are the ones that were passed down through Jewish
tradition, and are the ones included in the TaNaK. The fact that the
Jews considered these books to be the Holy Scriptures for many hundreds
of years is a very significant piece of evidence to support the view
that these are, in fact, inspired. The Baba Bathra puts forth the view
of 24 slightly merged books which equate to the 39 currently used.
Secondly, the original version of the
Septuagint consisted of these books. Other books crept in further down
the road, but there is significant evidence pointing to the fact that
the Septuagint originally consisted of the books found in the TaNaK.
Thirdly, Josephus records the fact that
the Jewish Scriptures consisted of 22 books, which is simply a list of
the books in the TaNaK with a couple of the books merged together. In
reality, he was listing all of the same books.
Also, the Jewish oral tradition only includes the books found in the TaNaK, and none of those found in the Apocrypha.
Fifthly and most importantly, Jesus
Christ has made two references to what the accurate canon of the Bible
consists of. One of the references appears in Luke 24:44 where He says
“Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of
Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” The Law, the Prophets, and the
Psalms all refer to the three different sections of the TaNaK, thus
giving those books credibility as the true canon. An even more blatant
reference appears in both Matthew 23:35 and Luke 11:50-51. Matthew 23:35
reads: “And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been
shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of
Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the
altar.” Jesus is saying here that they will be responsible for all of
the innocent people who were killed from Abel (Genesis) all the way
through Zechariah (Chronicles, the last book of the TaNaK).
Now, there were many more righteous
people killed during Maccabean period after Zechariah and before Christ
came, but they were not held responsible for them. This is a direct
reference to which books are truly canonical: The TaNaK, and not the
Apocrypha, which was more or less written during the Maccabean period.
In a nut shell, Jesus is saying that you will not be held responsible
for those books! They are not revelation from God!
The Apocrypha
The
Apocrypha started creeping into the Septuagint sometime before 400 AD,
because the Christians at the time had very little contact with Jewish
people. Some of them may had never even met a Jewish person, and so the
Old Testament canon began to see some additions.
At first this may have been due to the
fact that these books were included just as interesting reading, and as
an aid in understanding the background of the times. However, they
really started becoming considered part of the canon of the western
church when St. Augustine forced Jerome to include them in his
translation called the Latin Vulgate. Jerome did not want to include
them, but as St. Augustine controlled the western church, he had little
choice. The Latin Vulgate was the official version of the western church
for over 1,000 years, and eventually there was a papal decree that made
the Apocrypha a mandatory part of the Roman Catholic canon. So, there
is nothing to lead me to believe that these books were the inspired word
of God.
Transmission
The books that make up the Old and New Testament canon were transmitted down to today’s Christians in quite different fashions.
The Old Testament
was mainly transmitted via professional scribes who copied it. Many of
the people of the time were not capable of reading and writing, so there
were people specifically trained to copy the scriptures. These people
were called scribes. This was their occupation, and as such they did a
high quality, professional job. There were very stringent guidelines in
place dictating how exactly the scribes were to go about copying the
scriptures. For instance, they had to count all of the letters on a
completed page, to verify that they had done an acceptable job. If they
had more than three errors per page, they were required to start over.
This ensured a very, very accurate transmission of the Old Testament
down to current times.
On the other hand, the New Testament has had a much more convoluted
transmission to modern times. No one is currently in possession of a
copy of any of the New Testament autographs. However, many copies are
still in existence. Unlike the Old Testament, the New Testament books
were copied by many, many people creating over 5,400 currently in
existence, which is many more than the number of Old Testament
documents.
However, the fact that many different people were allowed to copy the
documents created many more errors as they were copied and copied again.
But, the fact that we have so many copies in existence negates this
problem, as the scholars are able to compare all of the documents and
get a very accurate idea of what the original autographs contained.
Textual Criticism
Now, there has to be a method of deciding which readings of the various
texts are contradictions, and which were in the original autographs.
This method is called “textual criticism.” Textual criticism, as defined
by the American Heritage Dictionary is “The study of manuscripts or
printings to determine the original or most authoritative form of a
text, especially of a piece of literature.”
To do a textual criticism one must first look in a Greek New Testament
for a passage that is debatable. Second, look at the footnote for the
passage in question, and note the letter grade (A, B, C, D) that the
editors provided on the reliability of the reading. Then, examine the
different manuscripts listed for evidence for the provided reading and
against the provided reading. Basically, one must compare the three
different types of evidences: the actual manuscripts, the early church
fathers, and the other early versions/translations.
The most authoritative by far are the actual copied Greek manuscripts
that are still in existence. Those must be evaluated on which family of
documents they came from (Alexandrian being the best, Western being
second best, and Byzantine being the worst) and the age of the document
(the older the better). After that, move on to the early church fathers
and the other early versions/translations. That is a brief summary of
textual criticism.
Textual Criticism Case Study
I did a short textual criticism of 1 Peter 5:14. The word “amen” was in
question, and the provided reading omitted the word. I checked, and the
reliability of the given rating was only a “C” on the A-D scale (“A”
being the best). Either way it is read, the editors really are not
completely certain. I checked the end of 2nd Peter, and it included the
word “amen,” but in brackets, to show that it also was in question.
Both the omit side and the add side had many documents from the
Alexandrian family, and a couple from the Byzantine family. The dates on
those documents ranged from the 4th century at the earliest all the way
up until the 11th or 12th centuries at the latest. The division of
dates was more or less equal for both sides of the argument. I arrived
at the conclusion that it was difficult to tell which was the original
reading in the autograph, but that if I had to choose one, I would
probably choose to omit the “amen” (because that’s what the editors
did).
Textual criticism is crucial, because it can help us decide if the
translators did an accurate job with the text. Now, there are many, many
different translations, and some people have been known to present the
view that because there are so many, it is impossible to know what the
Bible truly says. That view is false!
Wycliffe and Tyndale
Due to the language that this paper is being written in, the development
of the English translations are the ones that will be covered in
detail. The first English translation was made by Wycliffe in 1380, and
updated in 1388. Wycliffe faced a great deal of persecution during the
making of his translation. The church wanted to keep power in the hands
of the priests and keep the common people in the dark.
Tyndale faced many of the same problems that Wycliffe encountered. He
wrote his first translation in 1526, and the second version in 1530.
Tyndale is talked about much more frequently than Wycliffe due to two
reasons: Wycliffe wrote in middle English, Tyndale wrote in modern
English; and Wycliffe translated from the Latin Vulgate, Tyndale
translated from the Hebrew and Greek. The main point of interest are the
manuscripts that they translated from. Since Tyndale translated from
the original languages, his version was significantly more
authoritative. The text was only translated once instead of twice.
After the Tyndale Bible, there were three more versions that came in
rapid succession: the Coverdale Bible, the Matthew Bible, and the Great
Bible. It is believed that the head translators for the Coverdale and
Matthew Bibles were contributing translators under Tyndale. Coverdale
was very influential in creating many different translations of the
Bible. The Great Bible was made on request of the king at that time,
because he wanted a very big Bible. Just a little later in 1960, the
Geneva Bible came out, and this translation became very, very popular.
It was the main Bible of choice all the way up until the Authorized
Version of 1611.
The King James Version and the Majority Text
The Authorized Version is known today as the King James Version of the
Bible. At the time, the King James Version was a very good translation.
It was the most commonly used Bible for almost 400 years, and as such,
made a very huge impact on the Christian world.
Measured on today’s standards, however, the KJV has one major flaw. The
KJV was translated from what is called the “majority text,” which is a
small collection of 12 texts from the medieval era. Today, there are so
many more manuscripts that have been discovered, many of them predating
the medieval documents by many hundreds of years. The NKJV and KJII as
well as the KJV still use the majority text to this day. To do so when
there are so many manuscripts which are more authoritative is not a wise
decision.
Versions Based on the Eclectic Text
The majority of the modern versions today use what is called the
“eclectic text.” The eclectic text is based on a greater number of
manuscripts, most of which are significantly older than those used in
the majority text. A popular example of an eclectic text is the USB
Greek New Testament.
Several of the other popular examples of recent translations based on
the eclectic text are the NASB and the NIV. I personally have grown up
using the NIV, and it most definitely has its pros and cons. The version
with the second highest sales (after the KJV), the NIV is an excellent
version if you wish to read a Bible with language that flows really well
and that can be used for study as well.
However, the NIV is what is called a dynamic equivalent. Unlike the KJV
and the NASB, it is not translated word-for-word. The translators worked
the version to make it flow better, and during that process, there are
many instances of where the NIV is not very faithful to the literal
understanding of the Greek text. The more time that I spend in Bible
college, the more errors are becoming painfully obvious in the NIV.
Sometime in the near future I am going to invest in an NASB. The NASB is
considered by many to be one of the most accurate literal translations
of the Bible in existence today. The KJV is a very literal translation,
but it is in a language that, ultimately, no longer exists, and is based
on documents that are not as authoritative as those the NASB is
translated from.
However, what the NASB gains in accuracy, it loses in flow. From the
passages that I have read from it and what I have heard from others, in
its extreme efforts to correctly mirror the original texts, it has
become very choppy in the English.
So what translation is best? That is more-or-less a matter of personal
opinion, but I personally am tending to think that owning both the NASB
and the NIV (and possibly the Message) would be the best combination
available; but to each his own.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this paper is not nearly an exhaustive look at the Bible.
On the contrary, it hardly scratches the surface of whether or not the
Bible can be trusted. However, the inerrancy of scriptures due to divine
inspiration is a major argument in favor of Biblical trustworthiness.
There is an overwhelming amount of evidence to support the view of 39
books in the Old Testament canon, as are included in the Protestant
Bible. Due to the processes that were involved, and the number of copies
that have been uncovered, we can be quite certain that both the Old and
New Testaments have been transmitted down to modern times in a very
reliable fashion.
Due to the fact that textual criticism is no longer an absolute mystery,
it is possible to determine with reasonable certainty whether or not
the readings provided by modern translations do justice to the original
documents.
Finally, the evolution of the current English versions leave us
confident in the fact that today there are more accurate translations of
the Bible in existence than in any other time in history.
In actual fact, the Bible can indeed be trusted!
Works Cited
- Lecture at Big Sky Bible Institute by Dr. Paul D. Wegner
