A Gener neral I ntro ntroduc ductio tion to the Bible Revi vis sed and Expande E xpanded d NORMAN L . GEIS GEI SL ER and WI L L I AM E. NIX (c)1968, 1986 by NORMAN L. GEISLER AND WILLIAM E.N E. NIX
A ll right rightss reserved. reserved. No No part part of this this book ma may be reproduce reproduced d in in any any ma manner nner whatsoe whatsoever ver withou withoutt written permission from the authors except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles
Foreword to the Revised Edition
This This book is a lifet lifetime ime inv investment. It is one of the top fift fifteen books that ought to be in every Christian’s library. For nearly two decades and twenty printings this work has been the standard in the field. It has had a significant influence in my own life, as well as the lives of scores of thousands who have purchased the book. What is now even better is that General I ntroducti ntroduction on has has bee been thoroughly thoroughly revi revise sed, d, expande expanded, d, and updated updated.. The There is really no book like like this one on the market that covers the whole gamut of topics ics in bibliology, including inspiration, Apocrypha, the process of copying, and the multitude of Bible ble trans transllation tions. s. If I f you want want to to know how we got got our Bi Bible ble, how we know know which which books books belong in it, how we can be sure it was copied accurately, and the history of modern translations of the Bible,then this book is a must. Norma orman L. L. Ge Geisle sler and and Wil William E. N Niix combi combine ne thei their acade academ mic background backgroundss a and nd a generation of teaching in Bible, history, and apologetics to put together a most
throughout these pages expressed in the assertion that Christ is the key to canonicity.’’ Modern odern schola scholarship rship tha that gives gives se seri rious ous consi considerati deration on to the the attitude ttitudeand tea teaching ching of J esus concerning these problems related to the Bible deserves commendation. SAMUEL J. J . SCHULTZ
Pr eface to the Revi vis sed Edi E diti tio on
Since the first edition of A General Introduction to the Bible (1968), significant developments have necessitated a more thorough treatment of the questions about the inspiration, authority, and inerrancy of Scripture. The discoveries at Ebla and Nag Hamadi have occasioned additional discussion relating to the canon and text of Scripture. This This revise ised and expanded editio ition n of Gen f Gene eral I ntr ntroduc oducti tion onhas has been reorganized into four sections: inspiration, canonization, transmission, and translation. In addition to revising and updating all of the chapters, some completely new chapters have been added (chaps. 8 and 9). Several chapters have been substantially enlarged (chaps. 1, 2, 3, 7, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 21, 22,
The The Structure and Divis ivisio ion ns of the Bible Bible AND I TS T ESTAMENTS: DEFINITIONS T HE BIBL E AND
EANI NG OF OF “BIBLE” MEANING The The word Biblecan Bible can rightfully claim to be the great-grandson of the Greek word biblos, which was the name given to the outer coat of a papyrus reed in Egypt during the eleventh century B.C.. The plural form of biblos is biblia, and by the second century A.D. Christians were using this latter word to describe their writings. Biblia gave gave bi birth to the L atin tin word of the same spelling, biblia, biblia, which was in turn transliterated into the Old French biblia by the same process. The modern English word Bibleis Bible is derived from the Old French, with the A ngl nglicized cized endi nding. ng. The T he word is is thus thus the the product product of four stage stagess of transl transliiterat teratiion and and
In the Old Testament Christ hrist is: in shadow in pictures in type in ritual latent prophesied implicitly revealed
In the New Testament Christ is: in substance in person in truth in reality patent present explicitly revealed
AND I TS A NCIENT F ORMS T HE BIBL E AND
ORM HEBREW FORM Proba Probabl bly y theearli rliest di divisi vision on of the Hebrew brew Bi Bible ble was was twofold: twofold: the L aw and and the
K ahle, eds., eds., Biblia Hebraica and and K . El Elliger ger and and W. Rudol udolph ph,, eds., eds., Bibli Biblia a He Hebraica Stut Stuttg tgarten artensia sia.. This is not the arrangem arrangement ent as it appe appears ars in in Al Alfred Rahlfs, Rahlf s, ed., Septuag Septuagiinta: Id est est Vetu Vetuss Tes Testam tamentum entumgraece iux iuxta ta LXX L XX inter nterpretes. pretes.
Some Some bel believe athree threefold old divi divisi sion on may be impli plied in in the the words of J esus sus in in Luke Luke 24:44: 24:44: “Al “A ll the thing thingss which which are are writte written n abou aboutt Me M e in in thelaw of Mose osess and and the the Prophets Prophets and and the the 9 Psalms must be fulfilled.” Phil Philo, the J ewish wish phi philloso osoph phe er at Al Alexand xandri ria a, allude uded to a thre three efold old divi divisi sion on of the Old Old Te Testam stament, and and Flavius vius J ose oseph phus us divi divide ded d the the twentytwenty-two two books of of the Hebrew Scriptures into three sections, saying that the twenty-two books “contain the records of all the past; . . . five belong to Moses, . . . the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life.” 10 Perhaps the earliest testimony to a threefold division, however, comes from the prologue to Eccl Eccle esia siasticus sticus,, which which rea reads, ds, ““.. . . my my grand grandffather ther Je J esus, sus, after devoti devoting ng him himse sellf espe specia cially to 11 the reading of the law and the prophets and the other books of our fathers. . . .” The modern threefold classification, with eleven books in the Writings, stems from the Mishnah (Baba
The The order of the books varies ies in the early canonica ical lis listts, but the grouping ing of the books 13 remains the same throughout. The accompanying chart illustrates this arrangement, which contains the same content but a different total than its Hebrew counterpart. The The Law Law (P entateuch) ch)—5 P oetry oetry— —5 books books 1. Genesis 1. J ob 2. Exodus 2. Psalms 3. Leviticus 3. Proverbs 4. Numbers 4. Ecclesiast E cclesiastes es 5. Deuteronomy 5. Song of Solomon History—12 Prophets—17 Books books
6. Philippians 7. Colossians 8. 1 Thessalonians 9. 2 Thessalonians 10. 1 Timothy 11. 2 Timothy 12. Titus 13. Philem P hilemon on PROPHECY—1 book 1. Revelat R evelation ion
7. 3 J ohn ohn 8. J ude
ORM L ATIN FORM The The grouping ing of books in the La Lattin Bible Bible (th (the Vulg Vulga ate) follo follow ws that of the Septuagint int (LX (L X X ), or G k versi versi . J , who tra l ted ted the the L tin tin Vul Vul te (c. 383-40 383-405), 5), was f ili
5 6 7 8
Gospels Acts Epistles Revelation
Manifestation of Christ Propagation of Christ Interpretation and Application of Christ Consummation in Christ
Downward Look Outward Look Upward Look Forward Look
TRUCTURE AND DIVISIONS IV ISIONS OF OF THE BIBLE S TRUCTURE In the Old Testament, the books of the law lay the foundation for Christ in that they revea reveal how God chose chose (Genesi nesis), s), rede redeemed (Exodus (Exodus)), sa sancti nctiffied (Le (L eviti viticus cus)), guide guided d (Numbers), and instructed (Deuteronomy) the Hebrew nation, through whom He was to bless all nations (Gen. 2:1-3). The historical books illustrate how the nation was being prepared to carry ca rry out its its rede redem mptive ptive mi miss ssiion. In I n order order for for thechose chosen nati nation on to be full ully prepa prepared for the task, task, it i t had had to conqu conque er its its la land (J oshua oshua--Ruth), uth), to beestabl stabliishe shed und unde er its its first fi rst king king,, Saul (1 (1 Samue Samuell), and later ter to expand expand its its em empire pire unde underr Da David vid and and Solom Solomon on (2 Sam Samuel uel 1 Ki K ings 10).
Down through the centuries the Bible has been subdivided into sections and has had several different arrangements of its books. The Hebrew Bible came to have a threefold divi divisi sion on (La (L aw, Proph Prophe ets, ts, and and Writi Writing ngs), s), so cate catego gori rize zed d accord accordiing to the the off officia cial posi position tion of of the write wri ter. r. However, owever, begi beginni nning ng with with the the Septua Septuagint gint and and continui continuing ng in the the L atin tin and and modern odern English translations, the Old Testament has been given a fourfold topical structure. The New Tesstament was also Te lso give iven a fou fourfold fold topica ical arrangement of Gospels, ls, Act Acts, Epis Episttles les, and Revelation. When viewed carefully, those sections of the Bible are obviously not arbitrarily put togethe together. r. Instea nstead, they form form a meaningful ningful and purpose purposefful whole whole, as they they convey convey the progressive unfolding of the theme of the Bible in the person of Christ. The law gives the foundation for Christ, history shows the preparation for Him. In poetry there is an aspiration for Christ and in prophecy an expectationof expectation of Him. The Gospels of the New Testament record the historical manifestation of Christ, the Acts relate the propagationof propagation of Christ, the Epistles
Melchım ̄ A
Basileon G
RegumI II
1 K ings
Basileon D
RegumI V
2 K ings
Parralipo Pa lipomenomI
1 Chr Chronicle icless
Parralipo Pa lipomenom II
2 Chr Chronicle icless
(Kings; kingdoms) Melchım ̄ B (Kings; kingdoms) Dibrê hayyāmım Paraleiponemon A ̂ A (The (Theaffa ff airs
[words] of the day) Dibrê hayyā
̂
Paraleiponemon B
(Salvation) Yô˒ēl (J ehova hovah h is God) Amos (Burden)
Ioel
Ioel
J oel
Amos
Amos
A mos
Obdiou
Abdias
Obadiah
Yônah (Dove)
Ionas
Ionas
J onah
Mık̂ āyāhû (Who
Michaias
Michaeas
Micah
˒ôbedyâ
(Servant [worshiper] of Jehovah)
HAI EPISTOLAI Pros Romaious Pros Korinth K orinthiious ous A Pros Korint K orinth hious ous B Pros Galatas Pros Ephesious Pros Philippesious Pros Kol K olos osss ssa aeis Pros The Thessalon lonike ikeis A
EPISTOLAE Ad Romanos [I] Ad Corinthios
EPISTLES Romans 1 Corinthians
[II [II] Ad A d Corinth Corinthiios
2 Corinthians
Ad Galatas Ad Ephesios Ad Philippenses
Galatians Ephesians Philippians
Ad Col Coloss osse ense nses [I] The Thessalon lonice icenses
Colossians 1 The Thessalon lonian ians
behalf.1 The starting point for such an examination, then, is the claim of inspiration as it is asserted by the Bible, and the procedure will be to study that claim in the light of the phenomena of Scripture. ESCRIPTI ON OF OF I NSPIRATION BIBLICAL DESCRIPTION Th T he Biblic iblica al Termino inolo log gy There is some confusion over the doctrine of inspiration that that is is due due to the the very very term term itse itsellf. I n order order to cla clarif rify this this possi possibl ble e conf confusi usion three three term termss nee need to be distinguished. First, “inspiration,” derived from inspirare( inspirare (L atin), tin), means “to brea breathe 2 upon upon or into into som some ething thing.” .” A ccording ccording to theOxford the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) this notion is used as early as the time of Geoffrey Chaucer (c. 1386) and by others there after. By extension the term is used of analogous mental phenomena; hence a sudden spontaneous idea is called an “inspiration.” Theologically, “inspiration” is often used for the condition of being directly under divine influence and it is viewed as the equivalent of the Greek term theopneustia, or its adjective theopneustos (cf. 2 Tim. 3:16).
of the mind of God. The sacred Scriptures are the “God-breathed” revelation of God which result in their practical outworking in life (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Th T he Biblic iblica al Data This brings the subject to the biblical teaching itself. 6 Some prominent New Testament passages set the stage for for the discussion of inspiration. 1. I n 2 Timothy 3:16-17 theapostl postle e Paul decl decla ares that that “al “alll Scri Scriptu pture re is inspi nspired red by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” There are four key terms crucial to a proper exegesis of this passage. The first term is “all” ( pasa). This term can be translated “every” or “a “all.” I t is is not esse essenti ntia al that that one term term is is bette betterr than the other other because because both ref refer to the entire canon of the Old Testament, which Timothy had known from his youth (cf. v. 5). The The second term is “script ipture” ( graph his means a “wri “writing ting”” or “wri “written tten docum document.” It I t is is graphē ). ̄ This clear from the usage of this term that the locus of inspiration is in the written record rather
f. The use of theopneustos as an attributive would leave open the possibility of some uninspired “ graphē ,” ,” which is contrary to the meaning of “all scripture” (as discussed above). Fourth, grammatically the word “profitable”’ (ophelimos) can either mean the Scriptures are inspired because they are profitable (attributive) or the Scriptures are profitable because they are inspired (predicate). The context, however, would confirm the conclusion that the Scriptures are profitable because they are inspired. Thus, they are useful because of what they are: their intrinsic quality produces results. Hence the translation “All Scripture is inspired” shows that becausethey because they are God-breathed, they are therefore useful (ophelimos) for the work of the ministry, not the reverse. reverse. Some implications of this translation of 2 Timothy 3:16 may be drawn. a. Ins I nspi piration ration dea deals with with the the obje objective ctive te text of Scriptu Scri pture, re, not the the subj subje ective ctive inte intenti ntion on of the
a. God God someti sometim mes spoke to the prophets by ange angells, as He He did did to Abraha Abraham m in Gen Genesi esiss 18 and and to Lot L ot in in Gene Genesi siss 19. 19. b. God also spoke to the prophets in dreams (Dan. 7:1; cf. Num. 12:6). c. Som Some etim times God use used d visi visions ons,, as He did did with with Isa Isaiiah and and Ezekie zekiel (Isa (I sa.1: .1:1; 1; Ezek. Ezek. 1:1; 8:3; 11:24; 43:3; cf. Hos. 12:10). d. On occasion God used miracles to speak to the prophets for instance, Moses and the burni burning ng bush bush (Ex. (Ex. 3:2); 3:2); Gi Gideon’ deon’ss ent ente erprise rprise (J udg.6:37); udg.6:37); and and J onah’ onah’ss expe experi rie ences nces (Jona (J onah h 1:1; 4:6 ff.). ff.). e. Even nature was used to speak to the psalmist (Ps. 19:1). f. Sometimes God spoke in an audible voice (1 Sam. 3:4). g. No doubt the most common method God used was the inner voice of the individual’s conscience and communion with God. That is probably what is most often meant when the prophets prophets write write,, ““A And the the word word of the L ord came unto me sa sayi ying. ng. . . .”
We are to think of the Spirit’s inspiring activity, and, for that matter, of all His regular operations in and upon human personality, as (to use an old but valuable technical term)concursive term) concursive;; that is, as exercised in, through and by means of the writers’ own activity, in such a way that their thinking and writing wasboth was bothfree free and spontaneous on their parta part and divinely elicited and controlled, and what they wrote was not only their own work but also God’s work.8
God prepared the prophets by training, experience, gifts of grace, and, if need be, by direct revelation to utter His word. “By it [inspiration], the Spirit of God, flowing confluently with the providentially and graciously determined work of men, spontaneously producing under the Divine directions the writings appointed them, gives the product a Divine quality unattainable by human powers alone.”9 In ins inspi piration, ration, then, then, God God is is the prim primary ca caus use e, and the the prophets are the secondary causes. Thus the divine influence did not restrict human activity but rather enabled the human authors to communicate the divine message accurately. 3 Scriptural authority is the final product of God’s causality and the prophetic agency. Hence,
synonyms in the Old and New Testaments, these terms convey the idea of “the removal of obstacles to perception,” or “the stripping away of that which keeps one from seeing an object as as it it is.” is.” Thi T hiss noti notion on was was conta contaiined ned in in the the La Latin tin revelare(to revelare (to reveal), from which the 13 English word revelation is derived. I n othe otherr words, revel revelation tion invol involve vess “discl “disclosu osure” re” rathe ratherr than than “discove “discovery. ry.”” As A s it it rela relates tes to Scriptu Scri pture, re, al all these these term termss refer to a divine disclosure. disclosure. Some Sometim times it it ma may be a discl disclosu osure re of a pe person (as in Christ, Christ, theL iving ving Word Word of God, God, Ga Gal. 1:6), while at other times it may be of propositions (as in Scripture, the thewritten writtenWord Word of 14 God, J ohn 10:35). 10:35). In the the ul ultim timate se sens nse e, God give gives therevel revelation tion or discl disclosu osure re of truth; truth; man can have have an an inte interpreta rpretatition on or discovery discovery of that that truth. Some schola scholars,such rs,such as John J ohn Ma Macquarr cquarriie and Le Leon Morr Morriis, have attem ttempted pted to exten extend d revel revelation tion to the experi xperie ences nces of bel believers in in subsequent generations, calling it “repetitive revelation” as opposed to “primordial,” “cla “class ssiica call,” or “f “forma ormative tive”” reve revellation tion in in the the Script Scripture ures. s.15 However, such a view not only confuses revelation and interpretation, but it also broadens the locus of revelation from the
WHAT IS I NSPIRED, THE WRITER OR HIS WRITINGS? Although the biblical concept of inspiration has been outlined in general, several important portant que questions stions must ust be discu discuss sse ed abou aboutt ins inspi pirati ration on in in parti particul cula ar. I s it it the write writers, rs, thei their idea deas, thei their wri writiting ngs, s, or a combina binatition on of these these which which is is ins inspi pired red?? A s was was me mentione ntioned d above above,, inspiration certainly includes the man and his ideas, but it must not exclude his writings. Ja J ames Orr belie liev ves that “ins inspira iration ion belon longs prima imarily to the person and to the book only as it 18 is the product of the inspired person.” Other theologians would reverse that opinion, asse sserti rting ng,, “P “Prope roperl rly y spea speaking king,, inspi nspirat ratiion perta pertaiins to the holy holy Scri Scriptu ptures res the themse sellves. ves. It ma may 19 be said, however, that the writers too were inspired by God.” Regardless of which position is primary, it must be held that the person as well as his pen is under the direction of the Holy Spirit in the total process of inspiration. Nevertheless, the New Testament reserves the word “inspiration” only for the product of that process, that is, the writings, or graphē (2 Tim. 3:16).20 Failure to ma make tha that disti distincti nction on le leads some some schola scholars, such as as Paul Paul J .Achte .A chtem meier and and
If every word of the Bible is inspired, does every copy, translation, or version of the Scriptures necessarily have to be inspired too? There are some who think so. But, here again, two extremes must be avoided.“Every avoided.“Every translation is inspired in the same sense as the original.” original.” Thi T hiss extrem extreme posi position tion was was he held by by the J ewish wish phi philosophe osopherr Phi Phillo in in the the first centu century ry of the present era. He said of the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, known as the Septuagint, that the translators “under inspiration, wrote, not each several scribe something different, but the same word for word, as though dictated to each by an invisible prompter.” Dewey M. Beegle reflects a similar view when he writes, “There is no evidence to show that that the the apostl postle es d de enie nied the the inspi nspirat ratiion of the L X X. . . . The correct infere inference nce,, therefor therefore e, is is that in spite of some mistakes, all reasonably accurate translations of Scripture are inspired.”24 This position, as can be seen, necessitates the recognition of errors (errancy) in inspiration, because some errors of copyists have obviously crept into the Scriptures. 25 If this this
Others have noted that God could have avoided the worship of the originals by simply preserving a perfect copy.27 But He He has has not se seen fi fit to do even even thi this. s. It I t see seems more more lilikely kely that God did did not pres prese erve the the origi origina nalls so no no one could could tam tamper per wi with the them. I t is is practi practica callly impossible for anyone to make changes in thousands of existing copies. The net result, however, has proved to be profitable insofar as it has occasioned the very worthwhile study of textual criticism. Another valuable side effect of not preserving all the copies from error is that it serves as a warning to biblical scholars not to esteem paleographic, numeric, or other trivia over the essential message of the Scriptures.28“Only the autographs were actually inspired, good copies are accurate.” accurate.” I n see seeking king to avoi avoid d thetwo extremes of either ther an unattainable original or a fallible one, it must be asserted that a good copy or translation of the autographs is for all practical purposes the inspired Word of God. It may not completely satisfy the scholar who, for technical purposes of theological precision, wants both the correct text and the exact term in the original language, but it certainly does suit the preacher and
given by biblical scholars, is “We don’t know.” It must be asserted that God inspired the Scriptures even if we cannot ascertain exactly how He di did it. it. J ust be because cause man does does not know how God created the world from nothing does not mean it is unreasonable to believe that He did did so so (cf. (cf. H He eb. 11:3) 11:3).. LLiikewise kewise,, ign ignoran orance ce of themeans use used by by the Holy oly Spiri Spiritt to produce produce an infant in the virgin’s womb does not mean that the biblical teaching about the virgin birth of Christ hrist (Luke (L uke 1:26-38) mus mustt be rej reje ected. cted. Some attempted explanation Several solutions have been suggested for this problem, all of which have their own inherent difficulties. 1. One sugge suggesti stion on is that that God di dictated ctated the words words to the the prophets, prophets, who acted as recording recording secretaries (see chap. 10). Although this may explain how every word was inspired, it would not explain how or why so many distinctly individual traits of the various human writers are so apparent in the Scriptures or why the biblical writers themselves claimed to have used human sources for some of their information (see chap. 3). Mechanical word-for-word
inability to understand a mystery does not render ineffective God’s ability to accomplish one. Thu Thus, it would seem that, by the activit ivity y of the Ho Holy ly Spirit irit and through the ins instrumentality lity of the prophe prophets, the infall nfallibil bility of theScriptu Scri ptures res was was ef effected cted (John (J ohn 10:35), 10:35), even ven thoug though h thi thiss is is admittedly a great mystery. A close parallel The inspiration of the Bible is not the only mystery in Scripture. The incarnation of Christ affords an excellent illustration of the divine and human sides of Scri Scripture. pture. Both the Savior Savior and the the Scripture Scripturess have have hea heavenl venly and earthly rthly natures. natures. And A nd both both are are united in a common medium of expression, one personal and the other propositional. Christ is a thea theanthropic nthropic Pe Person, and the the Bible ble is a thea theanthropic nthropic Book. Book. In both the human side side is perf perfe ect, as is is thedivi divine ne.. J ust ust as as it it is is unorthod unorthodox ox to try to expl expla ain awa away y the divi divine ne nature nature of 31 Christ in order to understand His human nature (as did the Arians), or to sacrifice His true human nature in order to explain His divine nature (as did the Docetics),32 so it is wrong to deny that the words of Scripture are both divine and human in their nature. The mistake is in
as claimed in the Bible must be understood in the phenomena of inspiration. What the Bible says sa ys abou aboutt itse itsellf shoul should d be be unde understood rstood in lilight ght of what what the the Bible ble shows shows in in itse itsellf. In I n order order to demonstrate the divine authority of the Scriptures, it must be shown that the Bible has a divineclaim divine claimcorroborated corroborated by a divinecharacter divine character and supported by divinecredentials divine credentials.. For the present, however, discussion is limited to the general claim and character of inspiration (see chaps. 11 and 13). ECLARATI ONS S AND I MPLICATIONS A BOUT I NSPIRATION SOME BIBLICAL DECLARATION It is is sometim times obje objected cted that that it it is is a “circul “circula ar argument” to refe refer to bibl bibliica call passa passage gess in in support of biblical claims. But that objection is unfounded for several reasons. (1) Practically, Practically, there is no better place to begin than with what is self-claimed. (2) Legally, Legally, a man can testify in his own behalf in a court of law. Why should not the Bible be permitted to witness in its own behalf? (3) Logically, Logically, the claim is not being used to support itself, but as a point of departure to study itself. The claim for inspiration within the Bible itself includes
8.
Occasi Occasional onally the write writers rs were were even told told to “not omi omit a word” word” (J (J er. 26:2), 26:2), and J ohn even ven pronounced an anathema upon all who would add to or subtract from the “words “wordsof of the book of this prophecy” (Rev. 22:18-19).
9.
Thevery The very words uttered by men in the Old Testament were considered to be God’s words by the New Te T estam stament write wri ters. rs. It may may be an acad acade emic option option to deny deny that that the Bibl Bi ble e cla claims “verbal inspiration” for itself, but it is clearly not a biblical possibility.
10.
It is identified with God’s words. The words of the writers of Scripture are used interchangeably with what “God said.” This gives rise to the expression “What Scripture says, God says.” Sometimes the Old Testament gives what the human author said, and the New Tes Testam tament ent quotes the statem statement ent as what what “G “God said.” said.” At other tim times the Old Old Testa Testam ment ent records what “God says” and the New Testament quotes that text as what the human author says. Thus, what the author says and what God says are used interchangeably, as the
these words: “Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold” (Acts 1:16). It has final authority Thebibli biblica call write writers rs and and J esus sus Hi Himse sellf cla claim tha that the the writte written n word is thefi the fin nal arbi arbitrator trator in ma matters tters of faith and and practi practice. ce. Je J esus quote quoted d the Old Ol d Te Testam stament Scriptures with finality when resisting the tempter (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10). He used the Old Tesstament decisiv Te isive ely to settle the question ion about the resurrection ion in His answer to the Pharisees (21:42) and in vindicating His authority to cleanse the Temple (Mark 11:17). Paul used the Scriptures as the basis for his arguments with with the the J ews (Acts (A cts 17:2) 17:2).. Pe Peter ter decl decla ared that “the untaught and unstable distort [Scriptures] . . . to their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:16). 3:16). In I n fa fact, the fina fi nallity that that is is base based d on the verbal verbal inerr nerra ancy of the Old Ol d Te Testam stament as as the the word of God “is demonstrated by New Testament arguments which rest on a small historical deta detaiil (Heb 7: 7:4-10), 4-10), a word word or phrase phrase (A cts 15: 15:13-17), 13-17), or even the dif difference betwee between n the 5 singular and the plural (Gal. 3:16).”
1. The The New Testament is “Sc “Script ripture re..” Stated in logical or syllogistic form, this argument is as follows: All “Scripture” is inspired (2 Tim. 3:16). The The Ne New w Te Tesstament is also lso “Script ipture” (1 Tim. Tim. 5:18; 2 Peter 3:16). The Therefor fore, the Ne New w Te Tesstament is ins inspire ired. The The use of the word Scripturehas Scripture has a distinct and technical sense in the New Testament, as may be readily seen by its specialized application. The term is reserved in its definitive and articular sense for only the authoritative and canonical books of Holy Writ. For the devout although though converted converted Je J ews who wrote wrote the the book bookss of the New Te Testam stament to descri describe be any any other books by this techni technica call word amounts ounts to cla claiming ins inspi pirat ratiion for for them them. A s a matter tter of fact, that is precisely what Peter does claim for Paul’s epistles when he writes, “Our beloved brother Paul . . . wrote to you . . . as also in all his letters . . . which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures” Scriptures” (2 Peter 3:15-16). Here Paul’s writings are
and prophets are classed together, as are their revelations and writings, as Paul declared: “By revelation there wrote before in brief. And by referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ.” To summarize ize, then, it is suggested that: All “prophetic writings” are inspired (2 Peter 1:20-21). The The Ne New w Te Tesstament is a “prophetic writin iting g” (Re Rev v. 22:18; Eph Eph. 3:5). The Therefor fore, the Ne New w Te Tesstament is ins inspire ired. 3. The The New Te Tesstament is the “W “Wo ord of God God.” A further implication is that boththe both the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God. The Old Testament is called “the Word of God” by Je J esus sus (Ma (M att. 15:6; 15:6; J ohn 10:35). 10:35). L ikewise kewise,, the New Te Testam stament write writers rs consi considered dered it to be “the Word of God” alongside the Old Testament (cf. 2 Cor. 4:2; Heb. 4:12; Rev. 1:2). Hence the argument may be summarized as follows: The The Word of God God is ins inspire ired (Joh (John 10:35).
varia variations tions betwe betwee en the the books of K ings ngs and and Chronicl hronicle es in in the their descri descripti ption on of identi dentica call events, vents, 10 yet there is no contradiction in the story they tell. If such important utterances as Peter’s confession of Christ and the inscription on the cross (cf (cf.. Ma M att. 27:37; Ma M ark 15:26; 15:26; Luke L uke 23:38; J ohn 19:19) and and such such perm perma anent nent and and speci specia al laws as the one “written with the finger of God” can be stated in different ways, then there should be no problem in extending to the rest of Scripture a diversity of expression within the concept of a verbal inspiration. Th T he use of ind individ ividu uality lity and pers rso onalitie litiess Inspi nspiration ration does does not excl exclude udethe use of different personalities, with their own literary styles and idiosyncrasies, in recording the writte written n word of God. To To observe observe this, one nee need only compa compare re the the powe powerf rful ul style style of Isa I saiiah with with the the mournful toneof J eremiah in in the Old Old Te Testam stament. In I n theNew Te T estam stament, Luke L uke 11 manifests a marked medical interest, J ames is is d diisti stinctl nctly y practi practica call, Pa Paul is the theolog ologiica call and pole polemica call, and J ohn has has an an obvi obvious ous sim simpli plicity. city. God God ha has comm communi unica cate ted d through through a multi ultipl pliicity city
Contemporary meteorologists still speak daily of the times of “sunrise” and “sunset.” The Scri Scriptures ptures say say that the Queen ueen of Sheba “cam “came from rom the ends ends of the ea eart rth” h” (M (Matt. 12:42). 12:42). Because cause “the ends ends of the earth” wa was only only several several hundred hundred miles away, away, in i n Arabi Arabia a,14 it is appa apparent rent that that this this is is another another exam exampl ple e of the use of phenom phenomen enal al langua anguage ge.. In I n lilike man manne ner, r, on the Day of Pentecost ntecost there there were were peopl people e “from “from every every nation nation unde under heaven” heaven” (A (A cts 2:5). 2:5). T The hese se nations are identified in Acts 2:9-11, and they do not include all the world literally (e.g., North and and South Am America rica are excl exclude uded). d).T Thus, hus, universa universall langua nguage is use used d in in ageographical a geographical15 sense and is to be taken phenomenally to mean “the then-known world.”16 The Bible was written to a nonscientific people in a prescientific age, and it is not reasonable for one to say the the Bible is scien scientif tifiica callly incorrect; incorrect; it is merely scientifically impreciseby imprecise by modern standards. But, in sacrificing scientific precision, the Bible has gained a perfection by its universality and simplicity of style. The The Bible Bible also lso uses round numbers (e. (e.g., 1 Chr Chron. 19:18; 21:5). It may be imp imprecise ise fro from
but is not always correct on historical matters. They say the Bible can always be relied on in the spiritual domain, but not always in the scientific area. They came to this conclusion because they believe that “it is the intention of the Holy Spirit to teach us how one goes to heaven, and not how the heavens go.”17 This position is inadequate for several reasons.
Inspiration includes everything the Bible teaches.
1. The Bible teaches only truth (J ohn 17:17), 17:17), but but it it conta contaiins some lies lies,, for example, Sata Satan’ n’ss lilie e (Ge (Gen. 3:4; 3:4; cf. cf. Joh J ohn n 8:44) 8:44) and and Rahab’ hab’ss lilie e (J osh. osh. 2:4). Ins I nspi pira rati tion on covers covers the the Bible fully and completely in the sense that it records accurately and truthfully even the lies and errors of sinful beings. The truth of Scripture is to be found in what the Bible reveals not in everything it records. records. Unless this distinction is held, it may be incorrectly concluded that the Bible teaches immorality because it narrates David’s sin (2 Sam. 11:4), that it promotes polyga polygam my becau because se it records Solom Solomon’ on’ss (1 Ki K ings 11:3), 11:3), or that that it it asse asserts rts athe atheismbecau because se it quote quotess the fool as sayi saying ng “there “there is is no God” (Ps. 14:1) 14:1) I n ea each case case the interpret nterprete er of Scriptu Scri pture re
event. If I f one deni denie es that that the literal teral space-ti space-tim me even eventt occurre occurred, then there there is is no basi basiss ffor or believing the scriptural doctrine built upon it. 4. J esus ofte often n ma made a di direct compa compari rison son betwee between n im important portant spiri spiritua tuall truths and and Old Old Tesstament events He presented as hist Te istorica ically true. For For ins instance, using ing a strong compariso ison Je J esus said, id, “ J ust as J onah was threedays days and three nights nights in in the bel belly of the seamonster, so shall the Son of Man be threedays days and and threenights nights in in the hea heart of of the earth” (Matt. 12:40). Both the occasion occasion and and the manner nner of of that that compa compari rison son ma make it it cle clear that Je J esus was was af affirmi rming the histori historici city ty of J onah onah in in conne connecti ction on with with the the truth about bout Hi His dea death and and res resurrect urrectiion. He He certainl ce rtainly y was not sa saying ying,, ““JJ ust ust as as you be believe tha thatt mythol mythology ogy abou aboutt Jona J onah, h, so I would would lilike to to tel tell you abou aboutt the histori historici city ty of My dea death and and resu resurrecti rrection.” on.” I n thesa sam me way way that that Je J esus sus close closelly associ associa ated ted the the literal teral truth abou aboutt Hi Himse sellf with with tha that of J onah, onah, He He a allso conne connected cted the the truth of His literal second coming (cf. Acts 1:10,11 ) to the literal truth about Noah’s flood. He said, “The coming of the Son of Man will be ju be jusst like like the days of Noah” (Matt.24:37).
boil a kid in its mother’s milk would have the same meaning if it appeared in a cookbook, although the significance of the passage is obviously enhanced by its being in God’s Book. L ikewise kewise,, the meaning ning of the exhortation xhortation not to mi mix wool wool and lilinen nen would would me mean the sa sam me thing in a home economics or textiles book, even though it would have no religious significance in that setting.20 2. It is not the purposes of the biblical authors that are inspired; the propositions of Scripture are inspired. The locus of inspiration is in the written text (2 Tim. 3:16), not in the author’s uthor’s mind be behind hind the text. text. It is is the the words words tha that are are insp inspiired (1 Cor. Cor. 2:13), 2:13), not me merel rely y the idea deas behi behind nd them them. J ust as as bea beauty is is in in the pai painting nting and and not behi behind nd it, it, even so so me meaning ning is is expressed in the words of Scripture and not behind them. Hence, it is both wrong and inappropriate to look for the purpose(s) of authors behind their words. Their purposes are expresse xpressed d in in the theiir proposi propositions tions.. It I t is is incorrect incorrect to se seek the intenti ntention on of bibl bibliica call write wri ters rs beyond beyond their writings; their intentions can be found in their written affirmations. Their meaning is
mothers’ others’ tummies.” T Tha hatt is is not not fa false se,, but it it is is truth adapte dapted d to the the chil child’s d’s le level. A few years years later, when the child asks how the baby got there, it would also be true to say, “Daddy placed a seed there and it grew.” Neither is this the whole story, but at least it is not the stork story, which is false. God uses anthropomorphisms when speaking to man ( anthropos), but He does not use myths (2 (2 Peter Peter 1:16). 1:16). I n short, short, God ada adapts pts Hi His truth to lilimited ted hum human unde understandi rstanding, ng, but He never accommodates Himself to human error. The The biblic iblica al view iew of ins inspira iration ion “does not assert that prophets and apostles les were infa infallib llible le,, nor that in their own learning they were exempt from limitations imposed by their cultures. What it asserts, rather, is that the writers did not teach the doubtful views of the cultures in which they lived.”23 I n fact,there fact,there is is abunda abundant nt evi evide dence nce in the New Tes Testam tament ent that that Jes J esus us never never accommodated Himself to the false beliefs of His day. Some of the following examples will serve to illustrate. 1. J esus sus rebuke rebuked d those those who bel believed ved “tradi “tradition” tion” rathe ratherr tha than the Word Word of God God (Ma (M att. 15:115:1-3). 3).
“Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall not pass away” (Matt. 24:35). Finally, Je J esus said He only taught what the Fat Father gave Himto teach: “I sp speak these thing ings as the Father ther taug taught ht Me” (J (J ohn 8:28). He He also asse asserte rted, d, “I ca can n do do nothi nothing ng on My My own ini inititia ative tive . . . beca becaus use e I do not not se seek My M y own wil will, but the the wil will of Him who se sent Me” (J (J ohn ohn 5:30). 5:30). In His Hi s g grea reatt prayer prayer toward toward theend of His ea earthly rthly mi ministry nistry Je J esus sus sa said, “The “T he words whi which Tho Thou gavest Me I ha have give iven to them” (Joh (John 17:8). Aga Again He said, id, “I ha have give iven them Thy Thy word” (J (J ohn 4). What What Je J esus sus sai said is is what what He He recei received ved from from the Father. ther. Hence, nce, to say say Chri Christ st was misinformed is to charge God the Father with misunderstanding and error. So although Je J esus may have been limit limite ed in His human understanding ing regarding ing iss issues about which ich He did not speak, there was no limitation of His authority on the matters He did address. AND CONCLUSION SUMMARY AND
The The Bible Bible claim laimss to be the verbal, infa infallib llible le,, and ine inerrant Word of God God. Bec Because divin ivine e
messianic chain, namely, the ancestors of David the king, Boaz and Ruth (4:21; cf. Matt. 1:56). 1 and 2 Samuel The books of and 2 Samuel, which were originally one book, have many references to the voice of God. Through Samuel, the traditional author of the book, these these books record, “A “A nd the L ord sai said to Sam Samuel uel”(1 ”(1 Sam Sam. 3:11). 3:11). “T “Thus hus the word word of Sa Samuel uel cam ca me to al all Isra srae el” (4:1). (4:1). The T hen n 1 Chroni hronicle cles 2 29:29 9:29 adds, dds, “The “Theacts of K ing David, David, from from first to last, are written in the chronicles of Samuel the seer, in the chronicles of Nathan the prophet, and in the chronicles of Gad the seer.” This support indicates the books are prophetic, and hence authoritative. 1 and 2 Kings These books have no explicit claim to inspiration. Tradition ascribes themto Jere J erem miah the prophet (Bab (Baba a Bathra 5a) 5a), whi which ch would would autom automati atical callly assum assume themto be prophetic. The emphasis on the divine ministry of the prophets, and the prophetic vie viewpoint wpoint of the books of Ki K ings, ngs, would would conf confirm the tradi tradititiona onall vie view that that some prophe prophet wrote
Proverbs This book is introduced as “The proverbs of Solomon” (1:1). That Solomon
claims these words of wisdom to be the Word of God is evident when he writes: “Have not I written to you excellent things of counsels and knowledge, to make you know the certainty of the words of truth, truth, that that you ma may correct correctlly answe answerr to him him who sent sent you?” (22 (22:20– :20–21 21). ). I t wil will be remembered that Solomon’s wisdom was God-given for that very purpose—to help his people people (cf. (cf. 1 Ki K ings ngs 3 3:9 :9 ff ff.). .). Prove Proverbs rbs 25 25 and and foll ollowing owing are “proverbs “proverbs of Solom Solomon on whi which . . . Hezekia zekiah, ki king of J uda udah, transcri transcribe bed” d” (25 (25:1) :1) but but are are none nonethel theless Solom Solomon’ on’s. s. Proverbs Proverbs 30 30 and and 31 each claim claim in the the first verse verse to be be an “oracl “oracle e,” or “uttera “utteranc nce e” (N (NK J V ) from God (cf (cf.. 2 Chron. 9:29). Ecclesiastes This book has clear and authoritative exhortations (cf. 11:19; 12:1, 12) which lead to this definite conclusion: “When all has been heard . . . fear God and keep His commandments because this applies to every person”(2:3). That is, the teaching of this book claims to be the word from God on the subject.
Another reason may be found in their natureIt is only the historical and poetical
books that do not contain direct statements as to their divine origin; all of the didactic books do have have an an expl expliicit cit “thus sa says the L ord.” ord.” The The obvious obvious rea reason tha that the histori historical cal and poeti poetical cal books do not is that they present what God showed“ showed“ (History) rather than what God said” said” (L aw and and Proph Prophe ets).N ts).Nonethe onethelless, there there is is an an im impli plicit cit dida didacti ctic, c, “thu “thuss sa says ys the L ord,” even in the historical and poetical books. History is what God said in the concrete events of national life. Poetry is what God said in the hearts and aspirations of individuals within the nation. Both are what God said, just as much so as the explicit record He spoke through the law and the other didactic writings.
Trad Tra ditio ition nal write riters of the books were men accre red dite ited of God with ith pro rop phetic ministries Solom Solomon, on, who is is credited credited by Je J ewish wish traditi tradition on with with writi writing ng Song of Solom Solomon, on,
Proverbs, roverbs, and and Eccle cclesia siastes, stes, had had God-given od-given wisd wisdom om (1 Ki K ings ngs 4:29). Furthe Furtherm rmore, ore, he he fulf ulfilled the qualification for a prophet laid down in Numbers 12:6: one to whom God spoke in visions
Th T he cla laim imin the La Law w for ins inspirat iratio ion n Thebooks books of Exodu Exoduss (32:16), (32:16), Le L eviti viticu cuss (1:1),
Numbers (1:1), and Deuteronomy (31:26) all make an explicit claim to inspiration. Genesis alone has no such direct claim. However, Genesis too was considered to be part of the “book of Moses” (cf. Neh. 3:1; 2 Chron. 35:12) and by virtue of that association has the same divine authori uthority. ty. Wha Whate tever ver hol holds ds for one book holds holds for all of them them. In I n othe other words words,, a cla claim by or for one book in this canonical section is thereby a claim for all of them, since they were all unified under a title such as the book of Moses or the law of Moses. Th T he cla laim imfor the La Law w Throughout the remainder of the Old Testament, in an unbroken succession, the law of Moses was enjoined on the people as the law of God; Moses’ voice voice was was hee heeded ded as as God’ God’s. s. J oshua oshua bega began n his his mi ministry nistry as Mose Moses’ s’ succe successor ssor by sayi saying ng,, “T “Thi hiss book of the law shall not depart from your mouth . . . that you may be careful to do according to al all tha that is is writte written n in in it” it” (J (J osh. osh. 1:8). I n Jud J udge gess 3:4, 3:4, God God te teste sted the the people people of Isra srae el to know know whether whether the they y “woul “would d obey obey the comm commandm andmen ents ts of the L ord, ord, whi which ch He He had had comman commande ded d thei their
of the L aw and and theProphets rophets tha that Je J esus sus sai said consti constitute tuted d “all “all the Scriptu Scri ptures res”” (L uke 24:27). 24:27). Jo J osephus plac laced Dan Daniel iel (wh (which ich was lat later in the “Writin iting gs”) in the “Prophets” section ion of his day (Against (Against Apion 1.8). So whatever alternate (or later) manner of arranging the Old Tesstament books int Te into three section ions may have exist isted, it is clea lear that the usual arrangement was was a twofol twofold d divi division sion of L aw and and Prophets Prophets (which (which incl includ ude ed the the books la later ter to be known as as “Writings”) from late Old Testament times through the “intertestamental” period and on into the New Testament era. FOR I NSPIRA NSPIRATI TI ON I N THE OL D T ESTAM ESTAM ENT AS A WHOLE T HE CLAI M FOR
Thr Throughout the for foregoing ing disc iscussion ion runs the concept that a writin iting g was conside idered the Word of God if if it was was writte written n by by a prophe prophett of God. I n order, order, therefor therefore e, to see see that that theOld Old Tesstament as a whole claim Te laimss to be the Word of God God, it must be determine ined what is meant by a prophet and a prophetic utterance.
shal shall not add add to the the word word which which I am comm commanding nding you, nor take away away from from it” it” (D (Deut. 4:2). 4:2). Micaia caiah the the prophet prophet confi confirme rmed the the sa sam me: “A “A s theL ord lilives, what what the L ord says says to me me, that I wil will spe speak” (1 Ki K ings ngs 22:14). 22:14). The nature nature of theprophe prophetic tic mi ministry, nistry, then, then, was to be the voice voice of God to men. en. And that that voi voice ce had had to be heed heeded ed;; the prophets prophets demande anded d that the nati nation on give give obedi obedie ence to the their me messa ssage ge as to God Him Hi mse sellf (cf. cf. Isa I sa.. 8:5; 8:5; Je J er. 3:6; Ezek. Ezek. 21:1; Am A mos 3:1) 3:1).. Thu Thus, the Old Te Tesstament concept of a prophet was one who served as a mouthpiec iece of God. Aa A aron was to be be a “prophe “prophet” t” for for Mose M oses, s, and and Mose Mosess was was told, told, “H “He shal shall be as a mouth for you, and and you sha shall be as God to hi him” (E (Ex. 4:16 4:16)). Edwa Edward rd J. J . Y oung oung sum summarizes rizes wel well the nature of the Old Testament prophet when he writes, “We conclude, then, that upon the basis of the Old testament usage, the nabhi was a speaker who declared the word that God had given him.”9 TTERANCE” THE WHOLE OLD TESTAMENT IS A “PROPHETIC U TTERANCE The The prophets were the voice ice of God God not only in what they said but in what they wrotea wrote as
distinction between the prophetic office and the prophetic gift, it in no way affects the prophetic function, which was possessed by all of the Old Testament writers. THE WHOLE OLD TESTAMENT IS THE WORD OF GOD To summarize ize the for foregoing ing disc iscussion ion, it may be contended that: A ll “propheti “propheticc utteran utterance ces” s” are are the the Word Word of God. A ll the Old Ol d Te Testam stament Scripture Scripturess are are “propheti “propheticc utterance utterances.” s.” The Therefor fore, all the Old Te Tesstament is the Word of God God. I n othe other words words,, if i f the whole whole Old Old Te Testam stament is is a prophe prophetic tic writi wri ting ng,, as it it cla claims to be be and the New Testament says it is (cf. 2 Peter 1:20), and if all “prophetic writing” comes from God, then it follows that the whole Old Testament is the Word of God. AND CONCLUSION SUMMARY AND
An examination of each book of the Old Testament reveals either a direct or an indirect
1.
I n Matthew tthew 21:42 J esus charges charges the Phari harise see es sa sayi ying, ng, “Di “Did you never never rea read d in the Scriptures?” Scriptures?” The question implied that they were ignorant of their own sacred authority, the Old Testament.
2.
I n Matthew tthew 22:29 J esus answers nswers the the Sadduce Sadducee es in like manner, nner, sayi saying, ng, “Y ou are mistaken, staken, not understanding the theScriptures Scriptures or the power of God.”
3.
On the the eve of Hi His betraya betrayall, in in Matthew tthew 26:54, 56 56 J esus refe refers to the Old Ol d Testam stament Scriptures as He says, “But all this has taken place that the Scriptures of the prophets may be fulfilled.”
4.
L uke 24 is a crucia crucial passa passage in the prese present discuss discussiion, for for Je J esus not only only ope opened ned to the disciples “theScriptures “the Scriptures”” (v.32), but theScriptures the Scriptures are described as everything written about Christ hrist “in “in the the L aw of Mose osess and and the the Prophets rophets and and the the Psa sallms” (v. (v.44 44). ). Earli rlier in i n thi this sa sam me
12.
In a number ber of New New Tes estam tament ent passa passage gess the word word Scripture(singular) Scripture (singular) refers to a particular secti se ction on or quotati quotation on from from the the Old Old Te Testam stament: Luke L uke 4:21; 4:21; J ohn 13:18; 13:18; 17:12; 17:12; 19:24, 19:24, 28, 28, 37; 37; A cts 1:16; 1:16; 8:32 8:32,, 35; J ames 2:8, 23; 4:5; 1 Pe Peter ter 2:6. In summary, J es esus us and and theNew Testa Testam ment ent wri writers referred referred to the compl complete Hebrew ebrew canon of thei their day, day, includ ncludiing theL aw and and Prophets Prophets (or, theL aw, Proph Prophe ets, and and Psa sallms), as ins inspi pired red,, unbreakable, authoritative in disputes, prophetic of Christ, given by the Holy Spirit through the prophets, and, in effect, the very Word of God God.. T I S WRITTEN” “I T Other captions closely allied to the word for Scriptures ( graphē ) are forms of the verb “to write” ( graph graphō) and “it is written” ( gegraptai gegraptai). These expressions occur about ninety-two times in the New Testament in direct reference to the Old Testament. 2 A lthough though the vast majority of the references are to specific passages in the Old Testament, in terms of
“THE L AW” Although the termLa term Law w was often reserved for the first five books of the Hebrew canon as a shortened form of the expression “the law of Moses,” it was sometimes used to refer to the Old Ol d Te Testam stament as as a whol whole e. I n fa fact, theuseof theword for for other other than than theMosa osaiic wri writing tingss demonstrates that they too were considered to have equal authority with the great lawgiver’s writi writing ngs. s. Ma Matthew tthew 5:18 use uses “La “Law” in in paral paralllel reference reference to “La “L aw or the the Prophets” rophets” (v.7). (v.7). In In Jo J ohn 10:34 J esus says to the J ews, “Ha Hass it not been writt itten in your La Law w?” jus just prior ior to quoti quoting ng Psa Psallm 82:6. 82:6. Si Similarly, rly, J ohn 12:34 12:34 use usess “the “the L aw”; J ohn 15:25, 15:25, “thei “their La L aw”; “your L aw” appe appea ars in in John J ohn 18:31; 18:31; and and Acts Acts 25:8 25:8 ref refers to“ theL aw of theJ ews.” Pa Paul’ ul’s epi epistl stle es make broad usage usage of the term, term, as he appl appliies it to the Gentil Gentiles, who “do “do not have have the L aw” (Rom. om. 2:14), spe speaks of the“works “works of theL aw” (3:20 (3:20)), the “righ “ri ghte teous ousne ness ss whi which is is base based d on the L aw” (10 (10:5) :5),, and and cite citess Isa Isaiiah 28:11-12, 28:11-12, af after ter the introducti ntroduction on “In “In the the L aw it it is is writte written” n” (1 Cor. 14:21). 14:21). Hebrews brews 10:28 10:28 refers to “theL aw of Mose oses.” s.” T Thu hus, s, by exte extens nsiion, the term term La Law w,
On one occasi occasion on Je J esus sus use used stil still anothe nother phrase phrase that that incl includ ude es thetotal totality of theOld Ol d Tesstament, when He accused the J ews of the guilt of “all the righ Te ighteous bloo lood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah” (Matt. 23:35; cf. Gen. 4:8; 2 Chron. 24:20-22). 24:20-22). Because cause A bel bel’s d de eath was was at at thebegi beginni nning ng of Old Ol d Te Testam stament hi history and Zechari Zecharia ah’s h’s at at the end, the phrase phrase “from “from Abe Abell to Ze Zechari charia ah” is is somewha ewhat akin akin to the 6 expression “from Genesis to Revelation.” Previous discussion (chap. 1) has indicated that the Hebrew canon contained twenty-two (or twe twenty-f nty-four) books in in Ne New Te Testam stament tim times. J esus and the the apostle postles referred to that that collection of books by various titles, all of which are reducible to the simple formula “the inspired Word of God.” The terms they used to identify the Old Testament as the authoritative God-given guide for mankind shows that the entire Hebrew canon was held to be for them the very Word of God. EFERE NCES TO SECTI ECT I ONS ONS OF THE OL D T ESTAMENT NEW T ESTAMENT REFERENCES
of its books known and used used by Je J esus and and the the first fi rst century century church, wa was conside considered red to be be the the inspired Word of God. NEW T ESTAMENT REFERENCES TO THE I NDIVIDUAL OL D T ESTAMENT BOOKS
The There are many refer ferences to the authority ity of the Old Te Tesstament as a whole, le, but the particular references to the individual books and events of the Old Testament are even more illuminating in their bearing on both authority and authenticity, because of their specific and def definiti nitive ve na nature. ture. A s a res resul ult, t, the foll ollowing owing di discuss scussiion wil will be treated ted unde underr those two hea heads. ds. UTHORITY OF OLD TESTAMENT BOOKS NEW TESTAMENT REFERENCES TO THE AUTHORITY Not only does the New Testament lend support to the claim of inspiration of the Old Tesstament as a whole, Te le, and for for each of its its two section ions, but it provide ides a dire irect confirm firmation ion for the authority of most of the individual books of the Old Testament, as may be seen in the following sample survey.
1 and 2 Kings These hese are quote quoted d in in Rom Romans 11:4: 11:4: “I have have kept kept for for Mysel M yselff se seven ven
thousand thousand men who have have not bowed bowed the kneeto Ba Baal” (cf (cf.. 1 Ki K ings 19:18, 19:18, whe where re God God repl replies to Elijah). 1 and 2 Chronicles Although these these books books are are not quoted quoted in in the New Tes Testam tament, ent, events events from rom themare authe authenti nticate cated. d. Am A mong those events events are are the slayi slaying ng of Zecha Zechaririah ah (2 Chron. Chron. 24:20-22; cf. Matt. 23:35) and Solomon’s building the Temple (Acts 7:47-48; cf. 2 Chron. 6:1-3; 1 K ings ngs 8:178:17-27). 27). Ezra-Nehemiah There here is is one quota quotatition on in in the the New Te Testam stament, in in John J ohn 6:31, 6:31, from from Nehemiah 9:15: “He gave them bread out of heaven to eat” (however, there are similar passages from which that quotation may have been adopted; cf. Ps. 78:24; 105:40). Esther This book is not clearly quoted in the New Testament. There is a possible literary dependence on Esther 5:3 in Mark 6:23 in the phrase “up to half of my kingdom.” Revelation
Ezekiel This his book is is not cl clearly rly cite cited d by the the New Te Testam stament, but but Je J esus’ sus’ que question stion to
Nicodem codemus in in John J ohn 3:10 3:10 im impli plies tha that Ni Nicodem codemus shoul should d have have known about about the new new birth birth on the basis of Ezekiel 36:25 ff. Further, Paul felt morally bound by Ezekiel’s warning (33:8) not to be be gui guilty of theblood blood of thewicked wicked (Acts (A cts 20:26). 20:26). In I n add addiition, tion, there there are are the these possi possibl ble e allusi usions: ons: J ohn ohn 7:38, 7:38, “As “A s the the Script Scripture ure sa saiid, ‘F ‘From his his inn inne ermost rmost bei being sha shall flow rive rivers rs of living water,’” is very similar to Ezekiel 47:1, although it may refer to Isaiah 58:11. Ezekiel 18:20, “The person who sins will die,” may be reflected in Romans 6:23, “The wages of sin is death.” Revelation 4:7 is undoubtedly taken from Ezekiel 1:10. Daniel This book is clearly quoted in Matthew 24:15 (cf. Dan. 9:27; 11:31; 12:11): “So when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet.” Further, Matthew 24:21 and 30 are taken directly from Daniel 12:1 and 7:13 respectively. Th T he Twelve lve Books from the Minor Prophets, or The Twelve, are quoted several times in
(Gen. 4) 7. Murder of Abel by Cain (Gen. 4) 8. Birth of Seth (Gen. 4) 9. Translation of Enoch (Gen. 5) 10. Marriage before the flood (Gen. 6) 11. The flood and destruction of man (Gen. 7) 12. Preservat P reservation ion of Noah and h his is Family (Gen. 8-9) 13. Genealogy of Shem (Gen. 10) 14. Birth of Abraham (Gen. 11) 15. Call of Abraham (Gen. 12-13)
Luke 17:27 Matt. 24:39 2 Pet P eter er 2:5 Luke 3:35-36 Luke 3:34 Heb. 11:8 Heb. 7:1-3 Rom. 4:3 Gal. 4:21-24 Heb. 11:18 Luke 17:29 Acts 7:9-10 Heb. 11:17
chapte chapters rs of Genesi nesis, s, and each of those prior prior to Abrah A braha am (i.e., chaps. chaps. 1-11), 1-11), has has ei either ther a person or an event that is confirmed by an authoritative New Testament quotation or referen reference. ce. If I f these these peopl people e and and events events are are authe authenti ntic, c, then then it it may may be argued argued a forti ortior orii that the the rest of the Old Testament is authentic. (3) Whereas there are direct quotations or references confirming theauthority the authority of eighteen of the twenty-two books of the Hebrew Old Testament, events from two of the remaining books have their authenticity confirmed by the New Tesstament. Several of the J udges are refer Te ferred to in He Heb brews 11:32, as are numerous events from Chronicles (cf. Matt. 23:35). Thus, only Esther and Song of Solomon are without any direct confirmation as to their authority or authenticity. Here one must rely on the original and and subseq subseque uent nt Jewi J ewish sh comm community, unity, who knew thei their prophe prophetiticc source source and and that that they they were a part of the canonical books of the “Prophets” (see discussion in chaps. 13 and 14). AND CONCLUSION SUMMARY AND
or what you will speak; for it shall be given you in that hour what you are to speak. For it is not you who speak, but it is the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you” (Matt. 10:19-20; cf. L uke 12:11-12). 12:11-12). 2.
The same promise promise was also also given given to theseventy seventy when when J esus esus authori authorized zed them them to preach preach “the “the king kingdom domof God” (L (L uke 10:9) 10:9),, with with this this add adde ed conf confirma rmation: tion: “The “The one who lilistens stens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent sent me” me” (Luke (L uke 10:16) 10:16)..
3.
In the Oli Olivet discou discourse rse J esus sus rei reite terat rate ed thesa sam me promi promise of Spi Spiri ritt-di directe rected d utteran utterance cess for those called on to give an account for their faith in the hour of trial, saying, “And when they arrest you and deliver you up, do not be anxious beforehand about what you are to say, but say whatever is given you in that hour; for it is not you who speak, but it is the Holy Spirit” (Mark 13:11).
4.
A very practi practica call ma manif nifestati station on of thetea teaching ching ministry nistry of theHoly oly Spiri Spiritt through through the apostl postle es is is tha that the the first church church conti continue nued in in “the “the apostl postle es’ tea teaching ching”” (A (Acts 2:42). 2:42). A postol postoliic preaching (chaps. 2, 4, 10) and teaching (2:42; 6:4) were the foundation stones of the early church. It I t is is in in that that sense sense that that the church was “buil “built upon the the foundati foundation on of the apostle postles and and prophe prophets, Chri Christ st Je J esus sus Him Hi mse sellf bei being the corner corner stone stone” (E (Eph. ph. 2:20). That hat is, is, thechurch church is is bui buillt upon thei their teachi teaching, ng, which, which, as J esus repea repeatedl tedly y promise promised, d, was the resul result of the ministry nistry of the Holy Spirit through them. Brie riefly, J esus sus prom promiise sed d tha that the the Spiri Spiritt of truth truth (J ohn 5:26) would would gui guide de theapostl postle es in in the the teaching of “all things,” or “all the truth” (obviously meaning all truth necessary for faith and practice; practice; cf. cf. J ohn 20:31; 20:31; 21:25). 21:25). T The here re is is no more reason reason to bel believe tha that the guida guidance nce of the Holy Spirit was limited to their verbal teaching than there is to believe that the Old Testament prophets were Spirit-directed only in what they spoke (see chaps. 4-5). In fact, in direct
What the apostles taught is the authoritative foundation of the church. The Therefor fore, the Ne New w Te Tesstament is the authorita itative ive fou foundation ion of the church.
New Testament writers claimed their message was authoritative for the church Throughou hroughoutt Acts A cts thepronounce pronouncem ments of theapostl postle es were were fi final nal (Acts (A cts 21:11). 21:11). By
thei their voice voi ce thechurch church was was born (Acts (A cts 2); 2); miracle racles were were pe perform rforme ed (Acts (A cts 3); 3); rule rulers were were restricted (Acts 4); the disobedient were judged (Acts 5); the Holy Spirit was given to the Samarita ritans ns (Acts (A cts 8) and and theGentil ntiles (Acts (A cts 10). 10). Thus, hus, in i n accorda accordance nce with with the the prom promiise of Je J esus that His disc isciple ipless would be Spirit irit-d -dir ire ected in what they spoke and taught, the Ne New w Tesstament write Te iters conside idered their pronouncements and teaching ings to be equally authorita itative ive with the Old Testament prophets, as well as fundamental to and authoritative for the New Tesstament church. Te T HE NEW T ESTAMENT WRITINGS A RE SPIRIT -DIRECTED
Specific claims There are specific claims of apostolic authority in the New Testament
that admit of a wide application. Paul told his sons in the faith to “prescribe” his teachings (1 Tim. Tim. 4:11) “with ith all authority ity” (Tit (Titu us 2:15) and hing inged his authority ity and even the veracity ity of the gospe gospell itsel tself on hi his a apos postltle eshi ship (Ga (Gal. 1:1, 12). On anoth anothe er occasi occasion Paul Paul wrote, “If “I f anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of that man and do not associate with with him him” (2 (2 The Thess ss.. 3:14). L ikewise kewise,, Pe Peter ter remi reminde nded the the bel believers of apostol postoliic auth authori ority, ty, sayi sa ying, ng, “R “Remember ber . . . the comm commandment of the L ord and Savior Savior spoken by by your apostle postles” (2 Peter Peter 3:2). 3:2). In I n ef effect, the auth authori ority ty of an apos apostltle e was was theauthori uthority ty of Christ, hrist, and and the the only only credential necessary to commend the authority of any particular writing was its apostolicity. 4 Books were to be circulated One final consideration that manifests the high regard for New Testament writings by the first-century church is the fact that the books were comm co mmanded to be circulated, read in the churches, and collected. collected. It I t is is obvious obvious that that Peter Peter had had a collection of Paul’s books (2 Peter 3:15-16), and Paul distinctly enjoined the Colossians to
Romans Theauthor uthor of this this b book ook cla claims it it to be be thework of an apos apostltle e of J esus sus Christ Chri st
(1:1). I n 9:1 9:1 Pa Paul sa says, ys, “I am tel telling thetruth in Christ, Christ, I am not lying ying,, my my consci conscie ence bea bearing ring me witness in the Holy Spirit.” The final appeal of the epistle is not to accept any other doctrine than that which they have been taught, which would include, of course, the great teachings of this doctrinal book (16:17). 1 Corinthians This book contains what “God revealed . . . through the Spirit” (2:10; cf. also 7:40). Besides making authoritative pronouncements on morals (5:1–3) and doctrine (15:15). 15:15). In it, it, Pa Paul ass sse erts, “T “The thing thingss which which I write write to you are are the the L ord’s ord’s comm commandm ndment” (14:37). 2 Corinthians This book is introduced by an apostle of God (1:1), who strongly contests for his own authority (10:8; 2:2) and declares his lofty revelations from God (12:1– 4).
Galatians
Hebrews The author of Hebrews introduces his message as the voice of God through
Christ “in these last days” (1:2) and concludes his epistle with authoritative exhortations (13:22). J ames J ames write writess as as a “servant “servant of God” (1:1) (1:1) and spe spea aks with with authori authority ty about about doctrine doctrine (cf. chap. 2) and practice (chap. 3). 1 Peter This his b book ook is is ffrom rom “an apostl postle e of J esus sus Christ” Chri st” (1:1) (1:1) and and cla claims to be be an exhortation on “the true grace of God” (5:12). 2 Peter Wr Wriitten tten by by “a bond bond--se servan rvantt and and apostl postle e of J esus sus Christ” Chri st” (1:1), (1:1), this this epi epistl stle e gives gives comm commandments from from the L ord (3:2) (3:2).. The author clai claim ms to “ha “have ve the propheti propheticc word word made made more sure” (1:19) and gives a prophetic pronouncement about the future (3:10–13). 1 J ohn This book comes from an eyewitness (1:1) who is proclaiming Christ so that bel believers’ evers’ “joy “j oy may be made ade compl complete ete”” (1:4) and and that that the reade readerr may may be assured assured of eternal eternal
authoritative for the church. They also claimed to be directed by the Holy Spirit in their writings, which they held to be: (1) prophetic; (2) sacred Scripture; (3) divinely authoritative; and (4) commanded to be read and circulated in the churches (see Col. 4:16; 1 Thess. 5:27). Furthermore, when a survey is made of all of the books of the New Testament, a claim is found in each individual book for its own divine origin and authority, either directly or indirectly. So, then, both in all of its parts and as a whole the New Testament claims to be the inspired Word of God.
7
The The Continu inuatio ion n of the Doctrine ine of I nspir ira atio ion n to the Reformation
Didache Such is the case of the Didacheo Didache or Te Tea aching ing of the Twe Twelve lve (c. 100-120), as it
too makes loose quotations and allusions to the New Testament. Papias In abou aboutt A.D. 130-140 Papias wrote five books entitled Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord, Lord, which included the New Testament.1 That is precisely the title ascribed to the Old Testament by the apostle Paul in Romans 3:2. Epistle to Diognetus Finally, the so-called Epistle to Diognetus (c. 150) makes loose quotations and allusions to the New Testament; however, no direct title is given to them. The The above material ial illus illustrates the early (by (by c. 150) and wide idespread (West and Eas East) acceptance of the New Testament claim for inspiration. The Fathers looked upon those books with the same regard as the New Testament writers did the Old Testament Scriptures. Where no direct reference is given nor title presented, the loose quotations and allusions lend support to the esteem extended the New Testament writings. That is especially true considering the scarcity of available copies during this early period.
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215 150-215)). Cl Clement of Alexandri xandria a appea ppeared on the sce scene ne
about a century later than Clement of Rome. He became head of the Cathechetical School at A lexandri xandria a in in 190 190 but but was compel pelled to fl flee in in theface of perse persecuti cution on in in 202. 202. Cl Clement hel held to a rigid doctrine of inspiration but allowed that the Greek poets were inspired by the same God in in a less sse er sens sense e. In I n hi his Stromata Clement notes:
The There is no disc iscord between the La Law w and the Gospel, but harmony, for for they both proceed fro from the sam same Auth Author, or, . . . dif differing ring in in nam name and and tim time to sui suitt the age and cul culture of their their hearers hearers . . . by a wise wise economy, but potentially one, . . . since faith in Christ and the knowledge . . . of the Gospel is the expla xplanati nation on . . . and the the fulfi ulfillment of of theL aw.5
He does call call the gospel gospel “Scr “Scriipture” in in the sa sam me sense sense as the L aw and and the Prophe rophets, ts, as he write writess of “the Scriptu Scri ptures res . . . in the the La Law, in theProph Prophe ets, and and besi beside dess by the the bl bless sse ed Gospel Gospel . . 6 . [which] are valid from their omnipotent authority.” Clement of Alexandria went so far as to condemn those who rejected Scripture because “they are not pleased with the divine
themselves, but first they were rightly endowed with wisdom by the Word, and afterwards well foretaught of the future by visions, and then, when thus assured, they spake that which was [revealed] to them alone by God.11
Novatian (d. c. 251). Novatian, the individual after whom the heretical sect was named,
claimed the Old and New Testaments as authoritative Scripture in widespread references in his writings. His “monarchian” views are known largely through the writings of his critics and the schismatic activities of his followers. Origen (c.185-c.254). Origen was successor of Clement at the Catechetical School in A lexandri xandria a. Al A lthough though he devi devia ated ted from from orthodox orthodox theol theology ogy as as a res resul ultt of his his a alllegorica goricall method of interpretation, Origen appears to have held that both the writer and the writing were inspired. He believed that God “gave the law, and the prophets, and the Gospels, being also the God of the apostles and of the Old and New Testaments.” He wrote, “This Spirit
Testament in his Eccle Tes Ecclesias astical tical Hi Hist story ory.. It I t was Eusebi usebius us of Caesa sarea rea who was comm commissi ssione oned d 18 to make fifty copies of the Scriptures following the Council of Nicea (325). Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 295-373) 295-373). Known K nown by by the epithe pithett “Fa “Father ther of Orthod Orthodoxy” oxy” beca becaus use e of his his contribu contributitions ons aga agaiinst nst Ari A rius us at at Ni Nice cea a (325), (325), A thana thanasi sius us was was the first to use the term “canon” in reference to the New Testament books, which he called “the fountains of salvation.”19 Cyril Cyril of J erusale rusalem m(c. 35-86). Cyril adds interesting light to round out the early church period. In his Catecheses, Catecheses, he informs his catechumen that he is offering a summary of “the whole doctrine of the Faith” which “has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures.” The Then he proceeds to warn others not to change or contradict ict his teaching ings because of the 20 Scripture’s injunction as found in Galatians 1:8-9. In his treatiseOf treatise Of the Divine Scriptures, Scriptures, he speaks of “the divinely-inspired Scriptures of both the Old and the New Testament.” 21 He then proceeds to list all of the books of the Hebrew Old Testament (twenty-two) and all of the
The The establis lish hed church period iod covers a much lar larger span of time ime and space, and, as a result, will necessitate an even more cursory treatment of the subject matter. This period extends to the rise of Rationalism, including the medieval church, the Reformation church, and the early modern church in its scope. THE MEDIEVAL CHURCH (C. 350-C. 1350) The The mediev ieval church may be represented by several outstanding ing men who had widespread influence. These individuals represent large and varied segments of Christianity and their collective voices reflect what is known as the traditional teaching on the doctrine of the inspiration and authority of Scripture. Ambrose of Milan (340-397). Ambrose had the distinctive honor of guiding Augustine in his early Christian experience. The Bishop of Milan also did much work with the Christian Scriptures. His Lettersgi Letters gives ves a cle clear ins insiight ght into into hi his vie view of the New Te Testam stament. In I n hi his le letter tter to theEmperor peror Va V alentini ntinia an II II, Am A mbrose cite citess Ma Matthe tthew 22:21 22:21 by usi using ng thefamiliar
either to faults of translators or else to deliberate purpose: for in this way it is better fitted for instruction.”30 In hi his discuss discussiion of the dif difference betwee between n righte righteous ous ignora ignorance nce and instructed nstructed righte ri ghteousne ousness, ss, Je J eromeanswers nswers the que questi stion, on, “W “Why is is the apostle postle Paul Paul call called a chosen chosen vesse vessell?” His respon response se is, “A “A ss ssure uredl dly y beca because usehe is a repe repertory rtory of theL aw and and of theholy holy 31 scriptures” Th T he Syrian rian School at Antio iocch J ohn Chrysostom(c. 347-407) 347-407) and and The Theodore odore of of Mopsuestia (c. 350-428) are representative exegetes and theologians of the Syrian School at Antioch, where the disciples were first called Christians (Acts 11:26). During the early centuries of the Christain church, Antioch was the chief rival to Alexandria in the struggle for theol theologi ogica call leadershi dership p in in theEast. As A s in in the gene general ral A ntioche ntiochene ne concepti conception on of rede redemption, ption, The Theodore and his contemporaries ies held that the prima imary author of all Script ipture was the Ho Holy ly Spirit. He viewed the Holy Spirit as providing the content of revelation and the prophet (in
Gregory I (540(540-604). 604). Gre Gregory gory I , “theGre Great,” wrote his his Commentary ntary on J obin ob in which he
refers to Hebrews 12:6 as “Scripture.”36 He, being the first medieval pope, set the tone for the succeedi succeeding ng centuries centuries just as as he he epi epitomi tomized the the precedi preceding ones. Loui Louiss Gaussen Gaussen sum summarized arized the situation very well when he wrote, . . . that with the single exception of Theodore of Mopsuestia, (c.A.D. 400), that philosophical divine whose numerous writings were condemned for their Nestorianism in the fifth ecumenical council,. . . it has been found impossible to produce, in the long course of theeight theeight first centuries of Christianity, Christianity, a single doctor who has disowned the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, unless it be in the bosom of the most violent heresies that have tormented the Christian Church; that is to say, among the Gnostics, nostics, the Man Maniichean cheans, s, the the Anom Anomea eans, ns, and the Mahom ahometa etans. ns.37
1033--1109 1109)). In I n hi his ffa amousCur ous Cur Deus Homo? (chap. 22), Anselm of Canterbury (1033
A nsel nselm continue continued d to state state the orthodox vie vi ew of inspi nspiration ration when when he he wrote wrote,, “A “A nd the Godhi lf igi tes the New T tam t and and a the Old. And, A nd, as ust
“without error” (Summa (Summa 2.1.6.1); In J ob 13.1). 13.1). A fter ter thetim time of A qui quinas nas and and his his criti criticc John J ohn Duns Scotus (c. 1265-1308), Scholastic philosophy moved into its period of decline. That culminated in the nominalistic skepticism of William of Ockham (c. 1300-1349), and it set the stage for the removal of theology from the untrained during the period between the death of Ockham and the Reformation. Nevertheless, the great scholars, theologians, and doctors of the established church believed, as did the early Fathers, that the whole Bible is the inspired, infallible, and inerrant Word of God written. They accepted it as the divinely authoritative standard for the Christian church without hesitation and without reservation. THE PRE-REFORMATION CHURCH (C.1350-C. 1500) In the mea meanti ntim me other movements ents were were making aking their their appe appeara arance nce in in Europe Europe and the church. L ong bef before the Reformati ormation on era (c. 15001500-c. c. 1650) 1650) there there was astrong desi desire re am among the common people to return to the Scriptures. This desire was evidenced in such movements as theWaldensi densia ans, the L oll ollards, and and the the Hussite ussites. s.
understanding it was necessary that all men should be able to study the Gospels in the tongue in which they might best understand their meaning.4
Wycliffe’s use of allegory in interpretation was based on his predisposition that the Words of Scripture were utterly reliable.43 His view of the plenary inspiration of Scripture was the basis for Wycl Wycliiffe’s ef efforts in in Bi Bible ble tra trans nsllation tion and and the theology, ology, which which ma made such such an an im impact pact on John J ohn Hus, us, Ma M artin rtin Luth Luthe er, and others others that that he is known as as “The “The Morning orning Star of the Reforma ormation.” tion.”44 J ohn Hus Hus (c. 1372 1372--1415 1415). ). Born of a pea peasa sant nt fami family at Husi usinec nec in in Bohe Bohem mia, J ohn Hus earned his Master’s degree at the university in Prague (1396) before being ordained (1400). He became a well-known preacher at Bethlehem Chapel in Prague just as Wycliffe’s writings becam became wide widespre sprea ad in in Bohe Bohem mia, and he he becam became a cham champion pion of Wycli ycl iffe’s vie views. In I n 1411 1411 a 45 new pop pope e, Joh J ohn n X XI II , excommunicated Hus and placed his followers under interdict. Disputations led Hus to publish his chief work, De Ecclesia (1413), the first ten chapters of
Jo J ohn Eck Eck told Lut Luther that his teaching ing betrayed the Boh Bohemian ian viru irus, in his relia lian nce more on sacred Scri Scripture than than on the suprem supreme ponti pontifffs, council councils, doctors and and uni universi versititie es. . . . Luthe L utherr repli replied that that he did not disdain the opinions of the most illustrious Fathers, but that clear Scripture is to be preferred. The The authority ity of Script ipture is beyond all human capacity ity.46
8
Doctrines of Inspiration Since the Reformation I NTRODUCTION
The The fou four centuries ies between the Re Refo forrmation ion and the Ne New w Re Refo forrmation ion have been characte characteri rized zed as as the tim time of “the ma making king of the modern odern mi mind” by J ohn He Herma rman Ra Randal ndall and 1 others. During Duri ng the the peri period od be betwee tween Ma Martin rtin Luth Luthe er’s r’s Ninety-Five Theses (1517 1517)) and Ka Karl
scriptura was was ba basic sic to al all Prote Protesta stants nts duri during ng theReforma ormation tion era. era. At A t Worm Worms (1521) (1521) Ma M artin rtin L uther uther (148 (14833-154 1546) 6) affirme rmed that that nothing nothing as as to the faith faith can can be asse sserted rted tha that contradicts contradicts or goes beyond Scripture or evident reason. Ulrich Zwingli (1494-1551) took his stand on the sam sa me ground ground at at thefirst Zurich Zurich di disputa sputatition on be before the the city city counci councill in 152 1523. 3. John J ohn Calvin vin (1509-64) wrestled with the identical issue; the Anabaptists were the most scriptural of all parties of the Reformation; and the Th the Thirt irty y-nin -nine e Artic rticle less of the Church of England include one article “Of the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for salvation.” 5 Such a widespread and uniform attitude reflects the general sentiment of the Reformation era that the Bible alone is the complete and sufficient guide in matters of religious faith and practice. Nevertheless, the Reformation period of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was an era of creeds and confessions in which each denominational group or sect sought to articulate and to perpetuate its own doctrina doctrinall traditi tradition. on. Al A lthough though some of those numerous creedcreed-fforms tende tended d to becom become e ends in and of themselves, they were generally based on and drawn from Scripture. These
The The influ influe ence of Mar Martin Buc Bucer and Men Menno Simo imons was dire irected in other ways during ing the Reformation era. Bucer’s “interpretation of Scripture and the position derived from it was accepted as the official view of the city of Strassburg,”10 where where it it exe exerted rted influe nfl uence nce on John J ohn Calvin during the time the Genevan Reformer was in Strassburg. His extensive influence on the leaders and Bible translators of the Reformation era attest to Bucer’s view of the inspiration and authority of the Bible.11 Menno Sim Simons becam became theleader der of the pea peaceful Anaba nabapti ptists sts in in the Netherl Netherla ands. nds.12 His view of Scripture is clearly set forth in Th in The e Fou Foundation ion of Chris Christtian ian Doc Doctrine rine (1539/40), which which took as its its text text 1 Cori Corinth nthiians 3:11. 3:11. In I n it it he was was concerne concerned d with with the the issu issue es of Christology and the ban, which were common with the views expressed in Th in The e Schleit leith heim 13 Confession. Confession. The The third ird traditio ition n is consonant with ith the stance of the Chu Church of Eng Englan land and the socalled “Magisterial Reformation” because it asserts that it arose out of the English spiritual
statements on earlier models within their particular tradition. Examples of Baptist statements are theConfession the Confession of Faith (1644) 1644) of the se seven ven Baptist ptist churches churches in London London (hence hence Th The London Confession), Confession), published three years prior to the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) of the Church of England. T England. Th he Lo Lon ndon Co Con nfession ion of 1644 was reprinted on numerous occasions before the so-called Second London Confession was publ publiished shed (1677). I t becam became the most generally accepted confession of the Regular or Calvinistic Baptists in England, and it was reissued in 1688 and 1689 as A Confession put forth by the Elders and Brethren of many Congregations of Christians (Baptized upon Profession of Their Faith) in London and the Country. Country. That statement was a slight modification of the Westminster Confession of the Church of England and the Savoy Declaration (1658) of the Congregational churches in order to suit the distinctives of Baptist polity and baptism. The Second London Confession was “adopted “adopted by by the Baptist ptist Associ Associa ation tion met at Phil Philadel delphia phia, Se Sept. 25, 1742” 1742” and and call called Th The Philade adelphi phia Con Confe fess ssiion. on. It followed the model of the Westminster Confession by placing the
therefore is, and shall remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union,* and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and opinions shall be tried.*18
The The article icle was adopted verbatim in the Baptist Faith and Message (1925), but the Northern Baptists were unable to come to any agreement about a doctrinal statement for their entire constituency because of the impact of the doctrines of modernism and the fundam undamental ntalist controversy that e ensu nsue ed. As A s the Northern Ba Baptist ptist Conven Conventition on went went through the throes of the so-called liberal-fundamentalist controversy, groups that moved out of its ranks, as well as independent Baptists and others, adopted Th adopted The e New Ha Ham mpshire Declara larattion ion as the their own doctrina doctrinall expression xpression of fa faith. In I n the the meantim ntime the Southern Southern Ba Baptist ptist Conve Conventi ntion on reaffirmed and even strengthened this particular article in its adoption of T of Th he Baptist ist Fait Faith h and Message(1963). Message (1963). T HE L UTHERAN T RADITION (C. 1530-C. 1918)
men nor from men but from God.”22 Elsewhere he says, “Nothing but God’s Word alone should be preached in Christendom.”23 During During the the ce cent nturi urie es foll following owing L uthe uther’ r’ss Ninety-five Theses, the Luthe Lutheran ran churches have have espoused nine creeds and confessions of their faith. Those nine statements make up the Book of Concord, which which was was first fi rst publ publiishe shed in in 158 1580, 0, al although though thefirst auth authe entic ntic La L atin tin edi editition on was was 24 not published until 1584. In the “Epitome of the Articles [of Concord],” the first item presented is “Of the Compendious Rule and Norm” touching theological controversies. In threearticl rticle es concerni concerning ng the various various symbol symbolss of the faith, “Luthe “L utherans rans bel believe, confe confess, and and teach that the only rule and norm, according to which all doctrines ought to be esteemed and jud judged, is not other than the prophetic and apostolic writin iting gs both of the Old and of the Ne New w 25 Tesstament.” Although theBook Te the Book of Concord made its appearance in the beginnings of the period of so-called “Protestant Scholasticism,” the conclusion of M. Reu is appropriate as it rela rel ates tes the L utheran utheran posi positition on about about the the Scripture Scripturess in in the late si sixteenth xteenth century: century:
Philip Melanchthon at Marburg (1529) it is apparent that Zwingli differed from the other Reformers on some points concerning the interpretation of the Scripture, but there was unanimity among them on the inspiration and authority of Scripture. Even before the A naba nabapti ptists sts were were compe compellled to le leave Zurich Zurich over over dif difference rencess of scriptu scriptural ral interpret nterpreta ation, tion, Zwingli affirmed his own view of Scripture in the Sixty-seven Articles (1523) by writing,
The The article icless and opinio inion ns below low I, Ulric Ulrich h Zwing ingli, confes fess to having ing preached in the worthy city ity of Zurich as based upon the Scriptures which are called inspired by God, and I offer to protect and conquer with the said articles, and where I have not now correctly understood said Scriptures I shall allow myself to be taught better, but only from said Scripture.28
Jo J ohn Ca Calv lvin in was actually a second-ge -generation ion Re Refo forrmer. Ha Hav ving ing been influ influe enced by Bucer ucer and and othe others, Ca Calvin’ vin’ss im impact pact has has bee been fe felt by al all his his su succe ccesso ssors. rs. A s Ja J ames Orr Orr state states, s, “There is a singular breadth and modernness in Calvin’s exegesis; but his faith in the entire inspiration of the Scriptures is profound and uncompromising. The ultimate guarantee of
Ten Co Ten Con nclus lusion ions of Berne rne (1528),33 Th The First First He Helv lve etic Co Con nfession ion (1536),34 and Th The Second 35 Helvetic Confession(1566). Confession (1566). It was in this tradition that Franz Turretini, or Francis Turretin (16231623-168 1687), 7), and his his son son Joha J ohann nn Alfons (16711671-173 1737) 7) both taugh taughtt at at Geneva. Geneva. In In Fra France the work of Calvin was perpetuated in the T the Th he Gallic Gallica an Co Con nfession ion (1559), which asserts, “We believe that the Word contained in these [canonical] books has proceeded from God, and receives its authority from him alone, and not from men.” 36 This Confession was published in a somewhat modified and abridged form and used by the Waldenses as A Brief Confession of F aith aith of the Reform Reformed Churc Churche hess of the Piedmont (1655).37 In the the Low Low Coun Countri trie es the the grea greatt confessi confessions of the Reform Reformed tradi traditition on were were se set forth forth in in 38 three basic treatises: treatises: Th The e Belgic lgic Co Con nfession ion (1561), Th The He Heid ide elbe lberg (Pala (Palattina inate) Ca Cattechism ism 39 40 (1563), and The The Ca Can nons of Dort Dort(1618-1619). (1618-1619). The The Belgic lgic Co Con nfession ion was the basic confe confessi ssiona onall state statem ment of the Netherl Netherla ands during during the the peri period od when when Ja J acob Arm Armiinius nius (1560(15601609 1609)), a Dutch the theologi ologia an, promul promulga gate ted d the doctrine doctriness now known as Arm Armiinia nianism nism. His
whole narration, and of all the declarations, whether they be those about things past, about things present, or about those which are to come, and in the power of the commands and prohibitions, which are contained in the divine word.”41 Representatives at the National Synod at Dort (1618-19) carefully revised Th revised The e Belgic lgic Co Con nfession ion by comparing texts of its French, rench, Dutch Dutch,, and and La Latin tin copi copies. Thi Thiss conf confess ssiion conta contaiins five arti articl cle es d de evoted voted to the the Scriptures, including the statement from Article V:
that this Word of God was not sent nor delivered by the will of man, but thatholy thatholy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, as the apostl apostle e Peter eter saith. saith. And A nd that that af afterwards God, from from a special care which he has for us and for our salvation, commanded his servants, the Prophets and A postl postle es, to comm commit his his revea revealled Word to writi wri ting ng;; and he him himsel self wrote with with hi his own fing fi nger er the the two 42 tables of the law. Therefore we call such writings holy and divine Scriptures.
Following its presentation of the canonical books and their sufficiency, Th sufficiency, The e Belgic lgic Confessionends Confession ends its statement on Scripture by concluding, “Therefore we reject with all our
I rel rela and (1615 1615). ).45 The The Thirt Thirty y-Nin -Nine e Artic rticle less combined features both of the Swiss (or Reformed) and Luth Luthe eran conf confessi ssions ons.. These hese articl rticle es were were fi first publ publiishe shed in in an an Editio Latina Princeps in 1561, then in English (1571), and subsequently revised for the Protestant Episcopal church in the Unite nited d State Statess of A merica rica (1801). (1801).46 The Article “Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation” affirms that “Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary for salvation.”47 Puritanism arose in England about the time T time Th he Thirt Thirty y-Nin -Nine e Artic rticle less were were publ publiishe shed. It It was a movement committed to a “radical purification and reconstruction of Church and State on thesol sole e basi basiss of the Word of God, without wi thout regard regard to the traditi traditions ons of men. men. It I t was a se second cond
devoted to the subject “Of the Holy Scripture.” Because of the insufficiency of mankind’s knowledge of God, His will, and His salvation,
it plea please sed d the L ord, at sundry sundry ti times, es, and in diverse diverse manne anners, rs, to reveal reveal him himsel self, and to decl declare are that that his his will unto his Church; and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.51
At a later point the Confessionadds Confession adds that
the authority of Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testi testim mony of any ma man or church, church, but wholl wholly upon God (who (who is is truth itsel tself), the A uthor uthor thereof; thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is 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. . . .
nineteenth century, they continued to address the issue of authority of Scripture. One such expression of their position is seen in T in Th he Oberlin Dec Declara larattion ion of the Nation ional Congregational Council (1871) of the United nited States. In In that that brief brief statem statement ent the as assem sembled bled messengers state that they “agree in the belief that the Holy Scriptures are the sufficient and only infallible rule of religious faith and practice; their interpretation thereof being in substantial accordance with the great doctrines of the Christian faith, commonly called Evangelical, held in our churches from the early times, and sufficiently set forth by former General Councils.”54 Although though J ohn Wesley (1701(1701-1791 1791)) desi desired red to rem remain withi within n the the Church hurch of Eng Englland, nd, his his foll ollowers owers in in Am America rica forme ormed the the first Me Methodist thodist soci socie ety in in New Y ork (17 (1766 66)) among I rish rish immigrants grants.. Af A fter ter the A merica rican n Revoluti Revolution on Wesl Wesle ey drew drew up T up Th he Twenty-Five -Five Artic rticle less of Religion, which which were were adopte adopted d by the A merican ri can Methodists thodists in in 1784. 1784. The These se Articleswere Articles were a liberal and judicious abridgment of The The Thirty irty-Nin -Nine e Artic rticle less, with Calvinistic and other
spoke to men in the name of God, and by his authority.” 59 It was was not until until the openi opening ng years years of the twentieth century that Methodism moved from its moorings in this high view of Scripture. Even then, the move was based on tendencies other than the objective and historical record of Scripture. That shift came instead as a result of the impact of subjectivism, secularism, and when the methodology of modern science as the basis of authority in social matters was transferred to theology. T HE R OMAN CATHOLIC T RADITION (C. 1545-C. 1918)
The The traditio ition nal teaching ing on the doctrine ine of the ins inspira iration ion and authority ity of Script ipture had bee been wel well establ stabliished shed throughout throughout the mainstre ainstrea am of the Christi hristia an church long long bef before Luthe L utherr posted theNi the Nine nety ty--five five These Thesess in 1517. The great struggle of the early Reformers was over the issue of the interpretation of the Scriptures. Roland Bainton attests that this “was the main reason why authority had come to be ascribed to the pope in faith and morals. Catholics
contained in the written books and unwritten traditions which have come down to us.” 63 As Ja J ames T. Bur Burtchaell has suggested, “The The Ca Cattholic Chu Church has disp isplay layed litt little spontaneous desire to refine, revise, and improve her doctrinal formulations. Only when she is goaded and provoked from without does she bestir herself to this apparently disagreeable task.” 64 J usto L. L. Gonzalez speaks similarly in referring to the papal response to the development of higher criticism during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. He writes, “When modern forms of critical research were developed, Rome condemned those who tried to relate them to religious questions. . . . [Which] provides some justification for the commonly held view among Protestants that the Catholic Church was one of the most reactionary forces in the world.”65 Carl F. H. Henry treats the recent changes in the Roman Catholic position in his discussion of the doctrine of inerrancy among the Reformers. He writes, Thr Throughout its its lon long mediev ieval influ influe ence, the Ro Rom man church therefor fore promoted the doctrine ine of
authority of Scripture and tradition. As recently as 1839, for example, Th example, The e Lo Lon nger Ca Cattechism ism of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church contains a lengthy presentation in its “Introduction to the Orthodox Catechism”68 for use of Th The Orth rthodox Co Con nfession ion of the Eas Eastern Chu Church rch 69 (1643). I n tha thatt introdu introducti ction on the the discu discuss ssiion “On Divi Divine ne Revelation” velation” asks, asks, “Why “Why are are not all men capable of receiving a revelation immediately from God?” and answers that it is “owing to thei their sinf sinful ul impurity, purity, and weaknes weaknesss both both in in soul soul and body.” A fter ter nam naming the prophets, prophets, our L ord Je J esus sus Chri Christ, st, and and theapostl postle es as as the the heral heralds ds of of divi divine ne revel revelation, tion, the Introducti ntroduction on addresses the question, “Can not man, then, have any knowledge of God without a special revelation from him?” and answers by stating that “this knowledge is imperfect and insufficient, and can serve only as a preparation for faith, or as a help towards the knowledge of God from his revelation.” In its section “On Holy Tradition and Holy Scripture” the I ntroduction ntroduction asks, asks, “H “How ow is i s divi divine ne revel revelation tion sprea spread am among me men and and prese preserv rve ed in in the true Church?” hurch?” The The answe nswer: r: “By “By two chann channe els-holy s-holy tradi tradition tion and and hol holy y Scri Script pture ure.” .” TheI ntrodu ntroducti ction on
perpetuate their own doctrinal traditions. Those more or less official and formal expressions proliferated with the spread of Christianity throughout the world in the various movements. A s they they are surve surveyed yed,, they they re reflect a ba basic sic comm commitme tment to the doctrine doctriness of histori historicc Chri Christi stia anity nity in general and to the traditional doctrine of the inspiration and authority of Scripture in particular. “The Reformers and Counter-Reformers were disputing whether all revealed truth was in the Scripture alone, and whether it could be interpreted by private or by official scrutiny. Despite a radical disagreement on these issues both groups persevered in receiving the Bible as a compendium of inerrant oracles dictated by the Holy spirit.” 73 The Eastern Orthodox maintained the same traditional doctrine. When placed into a larger context this limited view may be challenged by some, but the various official statements, creed-forms, and confessions of the mainstream of Christianity during the period from the Reformation to the close close of Worl World War I indi ndica cate te the continu continue ed tradi tradititiona onall comm commitme tment to theorthodox orthodox doctrine of the inspiration and authority of Scripture. That is reflected in the nonsectarianism
revelation, inspiration, and authority of Scripture. Then it will address orthodox responses to those attitudes as well as the development of the methodologies of historical criticism. CHANGING CL I MAT ES OF OPINION 3
It was not until the post-Reformation period that the first major deviations from the traditional doctrine of inspiration of the Scriptures made their appearance. Those deviations were not abrupt challenges to the traditional doctrine of Scripture, but represented a gradual moving away from it.4 They arose when the authority of the Roman Catholic church had been challenged successfully and dissidents were protected as new ideas and methods of investigation were developed. Early in the period efforts by such men as Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543), Andreas Vesalius (1514-1564), Tycho Brahe (1546-1601), Francis Bacon (1561 1561--1626 1626), ), J ohann ohanne es K eple pler (1571(1571-1630 1630), ), Galileo Gali Galilei (1546(1546-1642 1642), ), and others others forge forged d
preache preacherr at Dresd Dresde en where Francke Francke joi joine ned d him him, but orthodox L utherans utherans soon reacted reacted aga agaiinst them, and their movement became involved in controversy. By 1694 they were settled at Halle, where they established charitable centers and founded a university. Pietists held to the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture in the same manner as did the Roman Catholic, Orthod Orthodox, ox, A naba nabapti ptist, st, Luth L uthe eran, ran, Evange vangellica call Reforme ormed, and and We Westminste nsterr tra traditi ditions ons,, but but the Pietists had a different emphasis. They stressed subjective, personal experience rather than bibl bibliical doctri doctrines nes or cate catechi chism sm.. As A s Francke Francke put it, “W “We may saf safely assure assure those who read read the the word with devotion and simplicity, that they will derive more light and profit from such a practice, and from connecting meditation with it . . . than can ever be acquired from drudging through an infinite variety of unimportant minutiae.” 8 Althou though gh Pie Pietists adheredto adhered to the inspiration of the Bible, they advocatedthe advocated the individual feeling as being of primary importance. That may have been an adequate method for avoiding the cold orthodoxy of so-called Protestant Scholasticism, but it opened the door for the
day-to-day events of His creation. Nevertheless, their approach to theology did open the door for divergent views about the inspiration and authority of Scripture. M ATERIALISM (C. 1650-PRESENT )
While he was not a materialist, Francis Bacon (1561-1626) did set the stage for modern biblical criticism when he systematically expounded the notion that man’s power to control nature nature rests rests in in his his own hands hands and and can can be achie chieved if if he appli pplies corre correct me methods. thods. In his his Novum Organum(1620) Organum(1620) Bacon claimed that all truth is discovered by induction and known pragmatically.11 He argued that by making inductions from the simplest facts of experience man could reach forward to discover the fundamental principles, which would issue forth in beneficial practical results—thus making truth and utility the very same things in the world of scie science. nce. In addi additition, on, Ba Bacon compl comple etel tely separated rated the rea reallm of rea reason son and and scie science from from the realm of faith and religion.
for the exercising of their natural reason.”14 Hobbes’s complete separation of divine revelation (for spiritual truth) from human reason (for cognitive truth) not only anticipates Sore Soren Ki Kierke rkegaa gaard and and Ka Karl Barth, it i t goes goes beyond beyond them them. NATURALISM (C. 1650-PRESENT )
While some Deists had used natural theology to support Christianity, others used it as a rational alternative to what they considered irrational, revealed religion. Benedict de Spinoza, whose philosophical speculation was more explicitly naturalistic than Hobbes, was a rationalist, although “Spinoza has been variously described as a hideous atheist and as Godintoxicate ntoxicated. d. In I n fact, he was a panthe pantheiist.”15 His rationalistic pantheism was soberly worked out from premises akin to those of Descartes. Spinoza espoused two presuppositions: mathematical deduction and blatant anti antisupe supernatural rnaturaliism sm.. In I n the form ormer he as assum sumed ed that that all truth could be deduced from self-
transi transititiona onall figures gures includ nclude e thestate statesm sman-phil n-philosophe osopherr J ohn L ocke (1632-1707 (1632-1707)),20 George Berke rkeley (c. (c. 1685 1685--1753 1753)), and the America rican n natura naturallist Thom Thomas Je J efferson (1743-1826 (1743-1826)), who who 21 composed his own rendition of the Christian Scriptures. They were part of a movement that held to a naturalistic approach to the world and free thought, which came to deny the inspiration of Scripture, teach that God is merely “providentially” involved with the world, and stress stress such such things things as as the laws of nature nature and and natura naturall rights rights.. I n ef effect they they re repla placed a biblical perspective for a naturalistic one in their reaction against subjectivism and revealed rel religion. gion. Cri Criti tics cs of such such na natura turallisminclude Thom homas Sherl Sherlock ock (16 (1678 78--1761 1761), ), J ose oseph ph Butl utler (1692-1752), and William Paley (1743-1805), who attacked it from a rationalistic approach, as wel well as John J ohn Wesl Wesle ey (17 (1703 03--1791 1791)) and hi his col cola aborers borers in in theGrea reatt Awa A waken keniing, ng, George White hiteffield (1714(1714-1770 1770)) and Jona J onatha than n Edwa Edwards rds (1703(1703-1758 1758)). SKEPTICISM (C. 1725-PRESENT )
The The skepticis icism m of the Fre French Enlig Enligh htenment moved in a wave that affec ffected the philosophical, theological, and political world of England, America, and Germany. Nevertheless, David Hume (1711-1776) of Scotland was probably the philosopher between Spinoza Spinoza and and K ant to ha have the the greate greatest st adve adverse rse effect on vie views of bibl bibliical authority. uthority. A ntisupe ntisupernatural rnaturaliism and and an an extr extrem eme emphasi phasiss on em empiri pirici cism sm were the two most basi basicc elements of Hume’s attempt to undermine the traditional doctrine of Scripture. He rejected the claim that Scripture is inspired or that the Bible is an authoritative revelation of God to humanity. He also denied the deity of Christ and rejected miracles as he sought to make theology the subject of empirical testing.24 I n his his ess essa ay An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748), Hume argued against the credibilityof credibility of miracles rather than against 25 their possibility(as possibility (as did Spinoza). Nevertheless, Hume’s rejection of miracles is emphatic when when he he sa says, ys, “A “A miracle racle is a viol viola ation tion of the laws of nature; nature; and and as a firm and unal unalterabl terable e experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the
lay in his ability to synthesize the two dominant but conflicting modes of thought of the Enlightenment, Empiricism and Rationalism, into an intellectual whole. 27 In his creative synthesi synthesis, s, Ka K ant becam became aphil philosophical osophical agnosti gnosticc about about real reality. He argue argued d that that the mind knows only after a construction is made and not before it. For him, only what appears (the phenomenal) phenomenal) to one is known, not that which really is (the noumenal). noumenal). In addition, Kant asserted that whenever one attempts to apply the categories of the mind (such as unity or causality) to the noumenal (real) world, hopeless contradictions and antinomies arise. One conse consequ que ence of K ant’s nt’s revolt revolt aga against nst reason reason is is his his fa fact/value ct/value dichotom dichotomy. For him him, the “objective” world of fact is the phenomemal world of experience, while the “subjective” world world of wil will ca cann nnot ot be known by by pure rea reason son.. Ins I nste tea ad, the subj subje ective ctive world world is is known by by practical reason, or a morally postulated act of the will. For him, even though it is not possible to think that God exists, one must livea live as if if God does does exi exist st.. Thu T hus, s, Ka K ant philosophically questioned the objectivity and rationality of divine revelation. He placed
movement that that becam became rel religious. gious. Its I ts most most im important portant theol theologi ogia an was was Fri Frie edrich drich 30 Schleiermacher. Early in the nineteenth century evangelical and pietistic currents appeared that to a conside considerabl rable e extent xtent cut across across various various confe confessi ssiona onall and na nationa tionall churches. churches. In I n the the hal half century century following 1810, Roman Catholicism “was washed over by several successive waves of theol theologi ogica call revival. revival. A fter ter la langui nguish shiing duri during ng the darknes darknesss of the Enli nlighte ghtenm nment, theol theology ogy 31 came alive again in various Catholic centers at different times.” A mong Protestants rotestants in Germany, which was astir with religious and social conflict, Schleiermacher led people to find an experiential basis in the Christian tradition that had been long untapped, while Ernst Wilhem Hengstenberg (1802-1869) led the Evangelische Kirchenzeitung during the 1820s and 1830s. Hengstenberg stood firmly for the infallibility of the Bible and the alliance of Christianity with the conservative feudal party in German politics, but he broke away from that mov movem ement ent and becam became a champion pion of strict stri ct Luthe L utheran ran orthodox orthodoxy y about 1840.
historic creedal statement, takes precedence over the immediate experience of believers. He also contributed to a more critical approach to the Bible by questioning its inspiration and authority. Further, he rejected doctrines he believed unrelated to the religious experience of redemption: the virgin birth, the Trinity, and the return of Christ. He felt they implied a cognitive and indirect knowledge rather than immediate God-consciousness. Schleiermacher greatly influenced Christianity through three major achievements. First, he made religion socially acceptable to those who no longer took the Bible and its doctrines seriously by showing its appeal to man’s aesthetic tendencies. Second, he attracted to theology countless young men who were interested in religion primarily as an expression of man’s imaginative spirit. And third, for a time he changed biblical criticism from historical to literary analysis.36 His influence, limited to Germany during his lifetime, was enormous on later ter Prote Protesta stants nts beca becaus use e of Albrecht brecht Ritsch Ri tschll (1822(1822-1889 1889), ), A dolph dolph von Ha Harnack rnack (18 (1851 51--1930 1930), ), and Ernst Troeltsch (1865-1923).
Hegel’s view that the Absolute Spirit works in such overt manifestations as art, religion, and philosophy has an effect on his view of Scripture, because the Spirit enables man to take religion seriously without his taking the facts of revelation too literally. For Hegel, both rationali rationalistic stic skepti skeptici cism smand nai naive liliteral teraliismdem demonstra onstrate te thepoverty poverty of A bsol bsolute ute Spiri Spiritt in in the the common man. He argues that “one whose understanding of religion is based on Spirit will accept the same beliefs as the naive pietist but will simultaneously be able to interpret them rationally without falling into the skeptic’s trap. . . . The positive and the spiritual are combined.” The positive grounding of Christianity is the Bible, but that is not to say that the Bible alone is sufficient for doing Christian theology. “Hegel contends that the ‘scientific’ theologian will recognize the precedence of Spirit over the Bible. . . . In the light of Spirit it is then entirely possible to overcome the historical details that may encumber positivistic religion.”40 After ter his his dea death Hegel Hegel’s ffol olllowers becam became divi divide ded d into into three three main branch branche es. In I n the the cente centerr
sought means whereby the newly discovered truths of modern thought could be harmonized with Scripture. The traditional doctrine of verbal inspiration was regarded as a seventeenthcentury viewpoint that was understandable in its day but that had become untenable in the modern world. After stating that the Protestant doctrine of inspiration based on its selfinterpretation was of little value, Ritschl went on to argue that “the Bible can be employed only for theology and basic morality, but not in the details of life because of the change in the position of Christianity in society.”43 For him the binding elements of Scripture can be recognized by their content rather than by any doctrine of verbal inspiration. That is a basic shift to the view that the Bible merely contains the Word of God instead of actually being the Word of God. Ritschl’s emphasis was expressed by Wilhelm Herrmann (1846-1922), who served as profe professor of theol theology ogy at at Ma Marburg and and tea teacher cher of such men as as Ka K arl Barth (188 (18866-196 1968), 8), Rudol udolph ph Bul Bultm tma ann (1884-1976 (1884-1976), ), and J. J . Gres resha ham m Machen chen (18 (1881 81--1937 1937), ), theintel ntellectual ctual leader der
be attained simply by thinking dispassionately.”46 He did not teach that truth is subjective or that there is no such thing as objective truth, but he dismissed objectivity as a way of knowing ultimate or religious truth.47 For him, truth, like God, is not paradoxical in itself but only only to fi finite nite man, who is is abl able e to app appropri ropria ate it by a pass passiionate onate leap of faith. For For Ki K ierkegaa rkegaard obje objective ctive or histori historica call truth is not not esse essenti ntia al to Christi Christia anity. nity. He He wrote, “If “If the contem contemporary porary generation had nothing behind them but these words: ‘We have believed that in such and such a year the God appeared among us in the humble figure of a servant, that he lived and taught in our community, and finally died,’ it would be more than enough.” 48 Nevertheless, K ierkega rkegaard person persona ally bel believed ved in in the the hi histori storici city ty of the the Bible, Bible, of Christ hrist,, and even ven of the the resurrection. For K ierke rkegaa gaard, a pe personal accepta cceptance nce of Scri Scripture as as insp inspiired nee need not be supported supported by by obje objective ctive conf confirma rmation. tion. In I n fa fact, he de depreca precate ted d schol schola arly rly efforts efforts to def defend the the inspi nspirat ratiion and and 49 autho uthori rity ty of Script Scripture ure.. When twentieth-century existential theologians like Rudolph
Franci ranciss T Turret urretiin and and hi his son J ohann ohann Al Alfons (1671(1671-17 1737 37)) were were le leading ding spoke spokesm smen of the Evangelical Reformed tradition in Switzerland. They continued the work of Zwingli and the framers of theHelveti veticc Confess Confessiions as as they they taugh taughtt in in Ge Geneva. neva. In I n his his Insti stituti tutio o Theol Theolog ogiiae ElenctiaeTurretin Elenctiae Turretin asserts that “the question of the authority of Scripture depends upon its origin. . . . Since it is from God, it cannot be other than genuine (authenticus ( authenticus)) and divine.” As a result, he argues, “it should be assumed without controversy that Scripture is God-breathed and the primary foundation of the faith” and that the authority of Scripture has as its basis “the divine and infallible truth of the books, which have God as author.” 52 Thus, he insists, “When the divine quality of Scripture . . . has been accepted, its infallibility follows of necessity.”53 For Turretin and the Evangelical Reformed tradition, this meant that the Bible is totally without error because “Scripture is ’God-breathed‘” (2 Tim. 3:16). The Word of God “cannot lie (Ps. 19:8-9; Heb. 6:18), it cannot perish and pass away (Matt. 5:8), it abides fore oreve verr (1 (1 Pete Peterr 1:25), and and it it is is truth truth itsel itself (J ohn ohn 17:17 17:17). ).””54 Furthermore, “whatever
human authors “could write under the influence of circumstances and at the same time from divine commandment and inspiration” so that “the apostles wrote when God inspired and moved them, although not in a mechanical manner, under coercion.”59 J ONATHAN E DWARDS (1703-1758)
Among thePurita uritans ns in Am America rica,, J onatha onathan n Edwards Edwards was was a gia giant. A sign signiifica cant nt figure gure in the the Grea reatt Awake A wakeni ning ng of the eightee ghteenth century, century, he bel believed tha that “mini “ministe sters rs are not not to pre preach those things which their own wisdom or reason suggests, but the things that are already dictated to them by the superior wisdom and knowledge of God.” 60 He often spoke of “dictation” and the biblical writers as “penmen” of the Holy Spirit, but Edwards did not believe in what is commonly called “mechanical dictation” of the Scriptures. In reference to Solomon, for example, Edwards wrote, “God’s Spirit made use of his loving inclination, join joine ed with ith his musing ing philo ilossophica ical disp ispositio ition n, and so dire irected and conducted it in this
seminary for the denomination was established at Princeton in 1812. The first professor in the sem se minary nary was was Archi Archiba balld Al Alexande xanderr (17 (1772 72--1851 1851). ). He a and nd Charl Charle es H Hodg odge e (1797 (1797--1878 1878), ), his his pupil and colleague, became founders of the Princeton Theology and architects of Reformed confess confessiionali onalism at the se sem minary nary.. Si Sidney dney Ahl A hlstro strom m gives gives an an accur accurate ate as asse sessm ssmen entt when he states,
The The Prin Princceton Semina inary . . . shaped a new conservatism ism and created a for fortress that held its its ground for for a century. Regarding the free-ranging intellect of Edwards with suspicion and viewing revivalism as insubstantial, it chose biblical inerrancy and strict confessionalism as its means of defense. To support this strategy Princeton marshaled great dialectical skill, massive theological efforts, and much impressi pressive ve erudi eruditition. on. It I t provide provided d she shelter ter whethe whether re revival vivaliists and and Fundam Fundamental ntalists coul could fl flee whe when the ideas of Darwin or Wellhausen endangered their tents and tabernacles. They taught theological responsibility to anti-intellectuals in many denominations where learning had been held in disrepute.66
The These men were succeeded in turn by the effor fforts of Arch Archiba ibald Alex Alexander Ho Hod dge (18 (1823-18 -1886)
the Holy Spirit, in all things necessary to faith or practice, without the need of any infallible interpreter.69
After a brief treatment of the canon of Scripture, Hodge proceeds with his discussion that “the Scriptu Scri ptures res are I nfall nfallible ble, i.e., i.e., given given by Ins Inspi piration ration of God,” where where he state statess tha that “the infallibility and divine authority of the Scriptures are due to the fact that they are the word of God; and they are the word of God because they were given by inspiration of the Holy Ghost.” His first point of discussion concerns “The Nature of Inspiration. Definition,” which becomes the basis of his extended treatment of the whole subject. He writes,
The The nature of ins inspira iration ion is to be lea learnt fro from the Script iptures; fro from their dida idactic statements, and fro from their phenomena. There are certain general facts or principles which underlie the Bible, which are assumed in all its teachings, and which therefore must be assumed in its interpretation. We must, for example, assume, (1.) That God is not the unconscious ground of all things; nor an unintelligent force; nor a name for the moral order of the universe; nor mere causality; but a Spirit—a self-conscious,
criti critica call the theorie ories fol folllowing owing the the lead of K arl H. Gra Graff (1815-186 (1815-1869), 9), Abra A braha ham m K uene uenen n (1828 (1828-72 1891 1891)), and and Jul J uliius Wel Welllhaus hause en (1844-1918 (1844-1918)), orthodox Christians found champions for their cause in A. A. Hodge and B.B. Warfield. Their article entitled “Inspiration” became something of a normative statement for most conservative Christians since the time it was first published in 1881.73 In contrast to those who were begi beginni nning ng to espouse espouse the notion notion that that the Biblecontains Bible contains the Word of God, they affirmed that the Bible is the Word of God, saying, “The New Testament continually asserts of the Scriptures of the Old Testament, and of the several books which constitute it, that they ARE THE WORD OF GOD. What their writers said God said.”74 For them, it is not merely the thoughts but the very words of Scripture that are infalli fallible, for for
Every element of Scripture, whether doctrine or history, of which God has guaranteed the infallibility, must be infallible in its verbal expression. No matter how in other respects generated, the Scriptures are a product of human thought, and every process of human thought involves language. . . .
unless it can be shown to result in untruth.”77 The obvious humanness of Scripture eliminates any notion of a “mechanical” or “verbal dictation” view of inspiration, because “each sacred writer was by God specially formed, endowed, educated, providentially conditioned, and then supplied with knowledge naturally, supernaturally or spiritually conveyed, so that he, and he alone, could, and freely would, produce his allotted part.”78 Thu Thus, according ing to Ho Hod dge and Warfield field,, what biblic iblica al write iters produced by the ins inspira iration ion of Scripture is a verbal, plenary, infallible, and inerrant book, the Bible. They indicate as much in their definition of plenary, of plenary, as they write, “the word means simply ‘full,’ ‘complete,’ perfectly adequate for the attainment of the end designed, whatever that might have been.” 79 A nd the expression xpression verbal inspiration “does not hold that what the sacred writers do not affirmis affirmis infallibly true, but only that what they do affirmis affirmis infallibly true.”80 That is accomplished because “throughout the whole of his work the Holy Spirit was present, causing his energies to flow into the spontaneous exercises of the writer’s faculties, elevating
The Their positio ition n is consist istent with ith the basic orthodox teaching ing about Script ipture that had been hel held from from the first centu century ry onward. onward. It I t is is a allso the the posi positition on espo espous use ed by J. J . Gres Gresha ham m Machen chen and othe others rs into into the the pres prese ent setti setting ng.. In I n fa fact, the posi positition on of Hodge odge and Warf Warfiield is is ess esse entia ntially the same as that held by leading evangelicals in November 1978 as defined by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. That body drafted “A Short Statement,” which attests that 1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks the truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby thereby to revea reveall Himse sellf to lost lost ma mankind nkind through J esus Christ hrist as as C Crea reator tor and L ord, redee redeemer and J udge udge.. Hol Holy y Script Scripture ure is God’s God’s witness witness to Him Himse sellf. 2. Holy Scripture, being God’s own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God’s instruction, in all that it affirms; obeyed, as God’s command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God’s pledge, in all that it promises.
Physici Physicia an to the the court court of L oui ouis XI XIV and professor professor of medici dicine ne at Paris, Paris, Ast A struc ruc was was one one of the first scholars to bring to prominence the notion that Genesis and 2 were written by two dif different rent authors. authors.87 I n 1753 1753 A struc publ publiishe shed hi his Conjectures, Conjectures, in which he attempted to reconcile some of the difficulties he found in the Genesis record. 88 As a resul result, t, he em emphasi phasized zed the the di disti stincti nctions be betwee tween such such words words as as “El “Elohim,” ohim,” “Y ahweh hweh El Elohim” ohim” (or “Je “J ehovah hovah El Elohim”) ohim”),, and “El-Elyon” in espousing a view that would become popular among such German Ration tiona alists sts as as Joha J ohann nn G. Eichhorn chhorn (1752-18 (1752-1827 27), ), K arl H. Gra Graff (1815-186 (1815-1869), 9), Abra A braha ham m K uene uenen n (1828(1828-1891 1891)), J uli ulius Wellha Well haus use en(1844n(1844-19 1918 18), ), and othe others. J OHANN SEMLER (1729-1791)
Semler is often referred to as the father of German Rationalism because he was the first to advocate the soso-cal callled Accom Accomm modati odation on The Theory ory.. Such an approa approach ch set set the stage stage for the rise rise of the so-called historical-critical method. In his critique of the historical-critical method,
which the books were written. He denied the equal value of all parts of Scripture. Revelation, he taught, is in Scripture, but all Scripture is not revelation. The creeds of the church are a growth. Church history is a development.”91 J OHANN GOTTFRIED E ICHHORN (1752-1827)
Jo J ohann Eich Eichhorn was a Ger German theolog logian ian who seems to have follo follow wed the view iews of A struc and J ose oseph ph Prie riestly stly (17 (1733 33--1804 1804)) in i n prep prepa aring ring the way way for for others others to foll fol low in in the the beginnings of critical method. The termh term higher critici criticissmhad been used as a synonym for hist histori orica call criti critici cism smby Pre Presbyte sbyteri ria an mi minist niste er and and scienti scientist st Jose J oseph ph Prie Priestl stly. Pri Priestly rega regarde rded d the historical method to be “one of the most satisfactory modes of argumentation” in the preface to his History of the Corruptions of Christianity (1782). Eichhorn then used the term higher critici criticissmin the preface to his 3-volume Einleitung in das Alte Testament (178092 1783). He was one of the first commentators to make a scientific comparison between the
reason and offended Pietists by doubting biblical miracles and by reducing the stories of the birth, resurrection, and ascension of Christ to myths. The employment of myths was De Wette’s attempt to absolve the bibilical writers from charges of lunacy and imbalance by contending that they prosaically turned metaphor and allegory into fact as they wrote. TR AUSS (1808-1874) DAVID F RIEDRICH S TRAUSS
David F. Strauss, another German theologian, studied under Baur, Schleiermacher, and Georg F. W. Hegel. In his famous Leben ben J esu(1835-1836) su (1835-1836) the “myth theory” was applied to the gospel records. Denying the historical foundation of all supernatural elements in the gospels, Strauss assigned them to an unintentionally created legend (“myth”) developed between the death of Christ and the time the gospels were written in the second century. Strauss saw the growth of primitive Christianity in light of the so-called Hegelian dialectic. He essentially negated Christianity in favor of scientific materialism while denying human
impact of his writings soon made itself felt throughout Germany . . . and found increasing acceptance in both Great Britain and America.97
HIGHER CRITICISM SINCE WELLHAUSEN (1918-PRESENT )
The The publica lication ion of Wellha llhausen’s Introduction to the History of Israel marks the beginning of the triumph of the Religionsgeschichte (“history of religions”) approach to Old Testament studies over the next four decades. In England William Robertson Smith, Th Smith, The e Old Te Tesstament and and the the Je J ewish Chur Church (1881), introduced the Wellhausen view to the public, whereas Samuel R. Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (1891), gave the documentary hypothesis its classical English formulation and George Adam Smith (18561942) applied the approach to the Old Testament prophets in his contribution to the Expositor’s Bible, Bible, edited by W. R. Nicoll coll (1887ff (1887ff). ). I n the the Unite United d State Statess the the most nota notabl ble e advocates dvocates of the new new school were Charl harle es A Augu ugustus stus Briggs riggs (18411841-191 1913), 3), Th The e High Higher
compl comple ete skepti skeptici cism sm. Aga A gaiinst nst such a ba background of criti critica call schol schola arship, rship, conservati conservative ve schol schola ars 100 consistently up held the authenticity of the text. During the past century many critical scholars have concentrated on seeking literary sources. Their most effective outlet has been in the liberal school that dominated the theol theologi ogica call sce scene ne at the turn of the ce centu ntury ry unde underr the le leadershi dership p of Heinrich nrich Jul J uliius Holtzm Hol tzma ann (1832-1910), Adolf Harnack (1851-1930), Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965), and others. Two of the most dominating figures in New Testament studies in the first half of the twentieth century century have have be been Ka Karl Barth (1886-1968) and and Rudolf Rudolf Bultm ultma ann (18841884-197 1976). 6).101 In the 1960s, two newer m movem ovemen ents ts grew out of Bultm ultman ann’ n’ss approach approach as as they they moved away from his historical skepticism. These “post-Bultmannians” went beyond his hermeneutic, particularly his adoption of the existentialism of the earlier Heidegger to criticize Bultmann’s understanding of the way language functions in their pursuit of “new quest” and redaction criticism. Representatives of “new quest” seek to support some aspect of
In recent recent tim times al all of these these trends trends have have had had thei their im i mpact pact on the tradi traditiona tionall doctrine doctriness of revelation, inspiration, and the authority of Scripture. Some evangelical scholars have attempted to incorporate various insights into the framework of the historical-grammatical method of interpreting. Others have not been able to avoid the adoption of an erroneous or untenable position in their endeavor. For many of them an extensive use of the dialectical method is the vehicle employed to achieve their scholarly synthesis. 104 AND CONCLUSION SUMMARY AND
Various ri ous creedcreed-fforms and and confe confessi ssiona onall state statem ments from from across across the broad and and diverse diverse ranks ranks of Christianity indicate that Christians officially adhered to the traditional doctrine of the inspiration and authority of Scripture well into the twentieth century. Nevertheless, between the early seventeenth and the early twentieth centuries a series of changes in the climates of opinion gradually prepared the ground for a direct and open confrontation between religion
Biblical scholars in the twentieth century continue to advocate the various views of Scripture held in the preceding centuries. But they have also produced some unique deviations of their own. In the following discussion, six different contemporary views will be investigated: liberal, fundamentalist, neo-orthodox, liberal-evangelical, neo-evangelical, and evangelical. The following discussion utilizes Protestant representatives. But similar examples may be found with Roman Catholicism.1 OF SCRIPTURE T HE L IBERAL V I EW OF
Following in the wake of Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834) and other nineteenthcentury liberal theologians, the twentieth-century liberal view of Scripture rests heavily on the consequences of negative higher criticism discussed in chapter 9. Two of their number reflect the liberal view of Scripture. HAROLD DEWOLFE (1905- )
It is clear that DeWolfe’s rejection of much of Scripture is based on hisantisupe superna rnatura turallistic stic bia bias. He decl decla ares res,,
The The ins insist istence of some conservative ive Chr Christ istian ians on a Biblic Biblica al lite literalis lism m that is ration ionally ind indefen fensible ible and an appeal based on the “proofs” of prophecy and miracles, in defiance of the natural sciences and the new historical understanding of Biblical times, needlessly drives from the Christian faith intelligent young people.8
The The only sense in which ich DeWolfe is willing illing to speak of “mira iracles les” is as a revealing ling event of nature. For “if a miracle were to be properly called a special revelation it could not be socalled because of its being any more an act of God than are the ordinary processes of nature, but only because it was more revealingly meaningful to men.”9 In brief, the Bible merely contains the Word of God, along with many errors. One must use human reason and the “spirit of Christ” to determine which parts of Scripture are true and which are false. DeWolfe believes, of course, that the miracles recorded did not actually
one thing which reasons gleans from Scripture that is always useful: “So long as a man knows the whole road and judges every step of it by the spirit of Christ, who is its climax, he can use it all.”14 But even Fosdick had second thoughts about his own radical view of Scripture. Near the end of his life he wrote,
Today, however, loo Tod looking ing back over for forty years of minis inisttry, I se see an outstanding ing differ ifference between then and now with regard to what is standard and who must do the adjusting. What man in his senses can now call our modern civilization standard? It is not Christ’s message that needs to be accommodated to this mad scene; it is this mad scene into which our civilization has collapsed that needs to be judged and saved by Christ’s message. This is the most significant change distinguishing the beginning of my ministry from now. Then we were trying to accommodate Christ to our scientific civilization; now we face the desperate need of accommodating our scientific civilization to Christ.15
SHUBERT OGDEN (1928- )
rather, the apostolic witness. This witness is, of course, found in the New Testament, but it is not ide identi ntical cal wi with the the New Te Testam stament. In I n the the strict strict sense sense only only the apostoli postolic testi testim mony to Je J esus as the Divine revelation can be described as canonical.” In rejecting the divine authority of Scripture, Ogden claims,
We today must indeed recognize a higher theological authority than the canon of Scripture, and hence can no longer maintain that Scripture is in some sense the sole primary authority for Christian theology. The theological authority of Scripture, great as it may be, is nevertheless a limited authority, in that it could conceivably be greater than it is—namely, as great as that of the apostolic witness by which it itself is and is to be authorized.20
Besides rejecting the Bible as the supreme authority for faith, Ogden believes it has no intrinsic authority at all.21 For him, the Bible has only a functional but not an essential authority. It is an authority insofar as it brings Christ to us. The Bible is “perfect” only “with respect to the end of man’s salvation, and so to witnessing to all that is necessary to the
for neo-liberals in the Process tradition, like Shubert Ogden, the Bible has no divine authority nor infal infalllible ble predi predicti ctions ons.. It I t is is a hum human docum document with with onl only ins instrum trume ental ntal authori uthority ty to bring bring about man’s salvation. OF I NSPIRATION: J OHN R. R I CE (1895-1980) A F UNDAMENTALIST V I EW OF
The The term fun fundamentalis listt covers a wide ide variet iety of belie liefs fs regarding ing ins inspira iration ion. Man Many contemporary theologians who call themselves fundamentalists accept the same view discussed later as the “evangelical” position. Both groups trace their roots back to Hodge and Warfi rfield. The There re are are othe others, however, however, whose posi positions tions are more conse conservati rvative. ve. John J ohn R. Ri Rice was one of the best representatives of such a view. The The essence of Rice Rice’s positio ition n was that the Bible Bible was verbally dict ictated by God God. “All Scripture is God-breathed,’ that is, the Scripture itself is breathed out from God.” 27 And, he asserts, “if God gave all the words in the Bible, then is not that dictation?” 28 Rice hastened to
sinning, frail, ignorant, mortal men pass judgment on the Word of God.”34 Instead of a fallible, mutilated word from God, Rice held to a verbally dictated, inerrant Book the Bible. T HE NEO-ORTHODOX V IEW OF I NSPIRATION
The The orthodox belie liev ve the Bible Bibleis is God’s Word; liberals believe the Bible contains God’s Word; neo-orthodox hold that the Biblebecomes Bible becomesGod’s God’s Word. Three names stand out in the rise rise and sprea spread d of the modern odern neoneo-orthod orthodox ox vie view of inspi nspirat ratiion: Ka K arl Barth, Em Emil Brunne runner, and Joh J ohn n Bai Baillie. ARL BARTH (1886-1968) K ARL K arl Barth di did not not be believe “that “that the the Word of God God is is titied to to the the Bible ble. On On the the contrary contrary ... ... the Bible is tied to the Word of God.” Actually, for Barth the Bible “only ‘holds,’ encloses, limits and surrounds it: that is the indirectness of the identity of revelation and the Bible.” Thu Thus the human words “are the ins instruments by which ich [the Bible Bible]] aims ims at becoming ing a Wo Worrd
extends to its religious or theological content.”40 In short, short, the Bible ble is an an err erra ant hum huma an instrument used by God as a witness to His divine Word who is Christ. EMIL BRUNNER (1889-1966) Emil Brunner believed “the orthodox view of the Bible ... is an absolutely hopeless state of affairs.”41 For “literary criticism of the Bible brought to light the thousands of contradicti contradictions ons and and hum human characte characteri risti stics cs with with which which the Old Ol d and and New Te Testam staments aboun abound. d. In In 42 this way the authority of the Bible was completely overthrown.” Hence, “Scripture is not a formal authority which demands belief in all it contains from the outset, but it is an instrumental authority. uthority.”” And A nd “the Scri Scriptures ptures posse possess this this authori authority ty because because they they are the the primary witness to the the reve revellation tion of God God in in Je J esus sus Christ Christ.” .” I n fact, fact, “we “we bel believe in the Scriptures because, and in so far as they teach Christ. The authority of Scripture is not formal but material: Christ, the revelation.”43 For Brunner, to claim the Bible is infallible is to make it a “paper pope.”
honesty: we are forced to make a decision for or against this view.”48 Thus, “we perceive that the labors of historical critics are ... a help for the right understanding of the Word of God.” Higher criticism “has pointed out various contradictions in the book of Acts, and has discovered various inconsistencies in the assignment of certain definite writings to wellknown Apos A postltle es as as thei their authors.” uthors.”49 OHN BAILLIE (1886-1960) J OHN Jo J ohn Baillie Baillie and his brother Don Donald Mac MacPherson Baillie Baillie50 (1887-1954) were prominent Scottish theologians and ecumenists who reflect neo-orthodox developments in the Englishspeaking world. Baillie’s influential book T book Th he Idea of Revelation f Revelation in Recent Th Recent Tho ought (1956) was del delivered vered as as a se seri rie es of le l ectures at Col Colum umbia bia Universi niversity. ty. In I n it it hestate states, s, “The “T he weaknes weaknesss of Protestant orthodoxy has been that it could show no convincing reason for insisting on the plenary nature of the divine assistance to the Scriptural authors while as firmly denying it to the mind of the Church in later days.”51 This is why he compares and summarizes the
fact of the matter is, as a linear model of communication57 suggests, a revelation may be disclosed whether or not it is received or understood by another. Moreover, there is no need to reject propositional revelation or verbal plenary inspiration in an attempt to avoid the mechanical dictation theory of inspiration. By overemphasizing the human role in the communication process, and by confusing the elements of that communication process, Baillie places the entire task of determining what is inspired on a totally subjective, fallible, and human level. He holds that “all true knowledge is knowledge which is determined not by the subject [God] but by the object [man].”58 This relegates God to a secondary role governed by the human recipient who may or may not have a receptive disposition or who is otherwise unable to distinguish between essential truth and that which is peripheral. He criticizes thirteenth-century Christians for their over-reverence of the Scriptures as he states,
On the other hand, the intelligent reading of the Bible—“in the Spirit but with the mind also,” and the
To sum it up, the neo-o -orrthodox view iew is that the Bible Bible is a fallib fallible le human book. Nevertheless, it is the instrument of God’s revelation to us, for it is a record of God’s personal revelation in Christ. Revelation, however, is personal; the Bible is not a verbally inspi nspired revel revela ation tion from from God. It is is m me erel rely y an err erra ant hum human me means through through which which one can encounter the personal revelation who is Christ. In itself it is not the Word of God: at best, the Bible only becomes the Word of God to the individual when he encounters Christ through it. A L IBERAL -EVANGELICAL V IEW OF I NSPIRATION: C. S. L EWIS (1898-1963)
Clive Staples Staples Le Lewis wis hel held a vie view of inspir nspira ation tion tha that techn techniica callly spea speaking king is nei neithe ther orthodox nor neo-orthodox. Since it is not a typical liberal view or an evangelical position, it is dubbed by the paradoxical term liberal-evangelical. According ccording to Le Lewis, wis, “the voice voice of God [is [i s he heard] in in the the cursing cursing Psal Psalm ms throug through h all the horri horrible ble distorti distortions ons of the human medium dium.” L ewis wis be believed “the human qua quallitie ties of the raw
(as (as Genesis does), then nothing will make me believe that some of the re-tellers, or some one of them, has not been guided by God.” For in that way, he writes, “something originally merely natural ... will have been raised by God above itself, qualified by Him and compelled by Him to serve purposes which of itself it would not have served.” 68 L ike much uch of the the libe li bera rall posi position, tion, thevie view of inspi nspiration ration hel held by by Le L ewis wis ope operate rated on a model odel sim similar to that that of thei theistic stic evolution. For long centuries God perfected the animal form [by natural processes] which was to become the vehicle of humanity and the image of Himself Then, in the fullness of time, God caused to descend upon this organism, both on its psychology and physiology, a new kind of consciousness which could say ‘I’ and ‘me,’ which could look upon itself as an object, which knew God.69
In lilike man manne ner, r, L ewis wis bel believed that that when the the natura naturall devel developm opme ent of a paga pagan n and and He Hebrew myth has been perfected it is taken over into the service of God and elevated to its edifying and sa sacred he heights in Ne New Te Testam stament truth. In I n that that way, wrote wrote L ewis, wis, ““II have have the therefore refore no
G. C. Be Berkouwer rkouwer fol folllowed owed in in the the trai train of J . He Herma rman Ba Bavinck vinck (1895-196 (1895-1964),the 4),the Dutch Calvinist theologian who wrote, “Scripture is therefore not the revelation itself, but the description, the record, from which the revelation can be known.” 72 After being influenced further urther by Ka Karl Barth, Be Berkouwer rej rejected cted hi his ea earli rlier orthodox vie view of the Bible ble for a more neo-orthodox position. Fundamental to this view of Scripture is what Berkouwer insists is “the contrast noted frequently in Scripture between the Word of God and the words of men, between relying on God and relying on man.” That is, the Bible is not the Word of God essentially; the Bible is only the Word of God confessionally. For “it is truly a confessionthat confession that continues to be filled with expectation in listening to the many voices within the one voice in this Scripture.” 73 Berkouwer rejects the orthodox tendency “to interpret the God-breathed character in an abstract supernaturalistic and ‘miraculous’ manner.” Rather than inspiration involving a supernatural interruption of the natural world, “this divine taking-into-service has an aspect
every book of it, every chapter of it, every word of it, every syllable of it, every letter of it, is the direct utterance of the Most High. This statement ... disregards all nuances of Scripture (consider the Psal salms, J ob, Eccl Eccle esia siastes), stes), as though though it it were a stri string ng of divi divine ne or superna supernatura turallly re reveal vealed state statem ments, ignoring the fact that God’s Word has passed through humanity and has incorporated its service.79
It is not all the content of the Bible that is inspired truth but the saving intent of the Bible. “Scripture is central because of its nature and intent. For this Scripture is only referred to because its sense and intent is the divine message of salvation.” 80 In short, the Bible is only an ins instrum trume ent and and conf confessi ssiona onall revel revelation tion of Christ. hrist. It I t is is not a verba verbal and proposi proposititiona onall revelation. The Bible has an inspired purpose, but not inerrant propositions. J ACK B.R B. ROGERS (1934- ) Ja J ack Ro Rog gers translat lated Ber Berkouwer’s work int into Eng Englis lish h, and his view iew of ins inspira iration ion is substantially the same as Berkouwer’s. Rogers says the concept “called ‘organic inspiration,’ drew attention to the fact that there is a center and a periphery to Scripture.” 81 By that he
In summary, for a neo-evangelical the Bible is a religious book, a book of salvation. Its purpose is to save and it is infallible in accomplishing that purpose. But it is not inerrant in all its statements. Only the saving “core” is true, not the cultural “husk” in which it is presented. I nspi nspiration ration is i s dyna dynamic and and “organi “organic.” c.” I t does does not gua guaran rante tee e the inerrancy nerrancy of all histori historica call and scientific statements in Scripture but only the infallibility of the saving purpose of Scripture. OF SCRIPTURE T HE E VANGELICAL VI EW OF
The The modern evangelica lical positio ition n on Script ipture is heir of the traditio ition nal, orthodox positio ition n 86 of historic Christianity from biblical times to the present. Mainline evangelicals from all major denominations and most smaller groups accept the verbal inspiration of Scripture, as well as its divine authority and consequent inerrancy. Perhaps the most united manifestation of this this confession confession is is the the Chicag hicago o Statem Statement on Scri Scripture (1978) 1978) publi published shed by by the Internati nternationa onall Counci ouncill on Bi Bibli blica call I nerran nerrancy. cy. It is is a good good repre represe sent nta ation tion of the the vie views of evang vange elica call leaders ders
We affirm that God who made mankind in His image has used language as a means of revelation. We deny that human language is so limited by our creatureliness that it is rendered inadequate as a vehicle for divine revelation. We further deny that the corruption of human culture and language through sin has thwarted God’s work of inspiration. A RTICLE V
We affirm that God’s revelation in the Holy Scriptures was progressive. We deny that later revelation, which may fullfil earlier revelation, ever corrects or contradicts it. We further deny that any normative revelation has been given since the completion of the New Testament writings. A RTICLE VI
We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its asse sserti rtions ons.. I nfall nfallibil bility and and ine inerrancy rrancy ma may be di disting stingui uish she ed, but not se separate parated. d. A RTICLE XI I
We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit. We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood. A RTICLE XIII
We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the
We affirm that a confession of the full authority, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture is vital to a sound understanding of the whole of the Christian faith. We further affirm that such confession should lead to increasing conformity to the image of Christ. We deny that such confession is necessary for salvation. However, we further deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences, both to the individual and to the Church. OF THE NON T HEORI ES OF REVEL ATI ON AND I NSPIRATION A N E VAL UATION OF ORTHODOX V IEWS
The There are several elem lements common to non-o -orrthodox and unorthodox view iews of Script ipture. A few of them them are noted here. here. First, the non-orthodox views of inspiration do not fit the biblical data. The Bible claims
Tho Thou art jud judged’” (Ro Rom m. 3:4). Ins Instead, man’s reason or subjec jective ive experien ience becomes the authority. For all non-orthodox views agree that the objective language of the Bible is not in itself the Word of God. That is, they deny the formula “What the Bible says, God says.” This bei being the cas case e, even even af after ter one discovers discovers what what Paul (or Pe Peter, ter, or J ohn, et et al al.) sa saiid in in thetext text he must still ask the crucial question: “Indeed, has God said?” (Gen. 3:1). For once we drive a wedge between the words of Scripture and the Word of God, then after we discover the meaning of a passage it is left to our reason or experience to determine whether or not it is true. true. Thus the orthodox view is left with no objective basis in the text of Scripture for a divine authority. As Carl Henry states, Every critical effort that absolutely contrasts the Word of God and the words of Scripture contradicts contradicts our Lord’ L ord’ss own representa representatitives ves of the prophets as conveyors of the incarnate ncarnate Word by turning Scripture into a nonauthoritative, fallible report, to be considered less trustworthy than the verdicts passed upon it by modern theologians and ethicists. However piously they frame
sources sources (cf. (cf. J osh. osh. 10:13); Paul quoted quoted non-C non-Chri hristi stia an poe poets ts three three tim times (Acts (A cts 17:28; 17:28; 1 Cor. Cor. 15:33; 15:33; Ti Titus 1:12); J ude ude cite cited d materi teria al contai contained ned in in non-can non-canoni onica call books (Jud (J ude e 9, 14). 14). (2) Every book in the Bible was the composition of a human writer, writer, about forty of them in all. (3) The Bible manifests different human literary styles styles,, from the mournful meter of L amentati ntations ons to the the exalte xalted d poetry poetry of I sa saiiah, from from the the sim simple ple grammar of J ohn to the the complex Greek of Hebrews. (4) The Bible also manifests human perspectives: David spoke in Psalm 23 from a she shephe pherd’s rd’s perspe perspecti ctive ve;; K ings ngs is is writte written n from from a prophe prophetiticc vanta vantage ge point, point, and and Chroni Chronicl cle es ffrom rom a prie priestly stly point point of vi view; A cts manif nifests a histori historica call interes nterestt and and 2 Ti Timothy a pastor’ pastor’ss hea heart. Writers speak from an observer’s perspective when they write of the sun rising or setting (J os osh. h. 1:15 1:15). (5) The Bible reveals revealshuman human thought patterns, patterns, including memory lapses (1 Cor. 1:14-16).
speaks, not the words in which God speaks.90 I t should should beno surprise surprise that that the neoneo-e evange vangellica call vie view is is sim similar to the neoneo-orthodo orthodox x vie vi ew, becaus because e themain source source of it i t is is Ja J ack Roge Rogers, rs, who foll ollows G. C. Be Berkouwer, rkouwer, who was was infl influe uence nced d by by Ka K arl Barth. Eve Even n non-e non-eva vang nge elica calls ha have noted the similarity. The The variou ious positio ition ns can also lso be contrasted according ing to their belie liefs fs about the modus operandi (means of operation) of inspiration. Accordingly, these views hold that God produced the Bible by: V erbal dictati dictation on through se secretari cretarie es (extreme (extreme fundam fundamental ntalists) V erbal rbal inspi nspiration ration through prophe prophets (orthodox) Human intuition through natural process (liberals) Divi Di vine ne elevati vation on of hum human lilitera teratu ture re (li (libera berall-evang vange elica call) Human recording of revelational events (neo-orthodox) I nspi nspirati ration on of only only re redem demptive ptive truths truths or purpose purpose (neo(neo-e evange vangellica call)
Intuitionalism Process The Theolog logy
Shubert Ogden By Intuition (No (No Revelation) * I n words as as parts of a whol whole e sentence sentenceor propositi proposition on
Many (In both areas)
Larg Large ely
Pure Purely Nat Natural Sometimes Powers Reliable Not Inerrant
11
Evidences for the Inspiration of the Bible The The Word of God God needs no proof. It has self-v lf-vind indica icating ing authority ity because it is God God’s Word. After all, God is the highest authority (Heb. 6:13). Hence,there is nothing greater than God to which one could appeal for authority. So the Word of God is its own authority. And if the Bible is God’s Word, then the same is true of the Bible it too would speak with ultimate authority. However, the question as to whether or not the Bible is the Word of God is a matter of
prophet’s own vocabulary and style.1 Inspiration also claims to be plenary(full). plenary (full). No part of Scripture is without divine inspiration. Paul wrote, “All scripture is inspired by God” (2 Tim. 3:16). In addition, inspiration implies the inerrancyof inerrancy of the teaching of the original documents (called autographs). Whatever God utters is true and without error, and the Bible is said to be an utterance of God. Finally, inspiration results in the divine authority of the Scriptures. The teaching of Scripture is binding on the believer for faith and practice (chap. 3). THE BIBLICAL CLAIM TO DIVINE I NSPIRATION I nspi nspirat ratiion is is not something thing merel rely y attri attribu bute ted d to the the Bible ble by Chri Christi stia ans; ns; it is is something thing the Bible claims for itself. There are literally hundreds of references within the Bible about its divine origin. Th T he cla laim imfor the ins inspirat iratio ion n of the Old Testament The Old Testament claims to be a prophe prophetic tic writi writing ng.. T The he familiar “thus sa says the the L ord” fi fills its its pa pages. ges. Fa False prophe prophets and and thei their work workss were exclude xcl uded d from from the the house house of the L ord. Those propheci prophecie es that that proved to be
The There are two line lines of evide idence to be conside idered on the ins inspira iration ion of the Bible Bible:: the evidence flowing from within Scripture itself (internal evidence) and that coming from outside (external evidence). Several lines of internal evidence have been presented. Th T he prima facie evide idence for ins inspirat iratio ion n The Bible on its surface seems to be an inspi nspire red d book. book. Li L ike Je J esus, sus, theBible ble spe speaks with with aut autho hori rity ty (J ohn 7:46). 7:46). I t gives eve every ry appearance of having come from God. Not only does it claim to have a divine origin, but it see se ems to have have a supe superna rnatura turall charact characte er. A lthough though such such is is not full full proof of theBible ble’s inspiration, it is at least an indication that merits examination. To rephrase the gospel writer, “never “never did a book book spea speak the way way this this Book Book spea speaks” (cf (cf.. J ohn 7:46). The T he Bible ble has has the the ring ring of of truth. As A s such such there there is is at at le least prima facieevidence facie evidence for its inspiration. This prima facie credential calls for further examination of other evidence. Evidence of the testimony of the Holy Spirit Closely allied with the evidence of the prima facieauthority facie authority of Scripture is the witness of the Holy Spirit. The Word of God is
evidence from the unity of the Bible, the internal evidences are available only inside Christianity. The nonbeliever does not sense the witness of His Spirit, nor experience the edifying power of Scripture in his life. Unless he steps by faith to the inside, these internal evidences may have little convincing effect on his life. This is where the external evidence plays a crucial role. It provides signposts indicating where the “inside” really is. It is public witness to something very unusual, which serves to draw attention to the voice of God in Scripture. Evidence from the historicity of the Bible Much of the Bible is historical and as such is subject to historical investigation. The most significant area of confirmation in this regard has come from the field of archaeology. The renowned archaeologist William F. A lbright bright sa said, “T “There here can can be no doubt doubt that that archae archaeology ology has has confi confirme rmed the substa substanti ntia al 4 historicity of the Old Testament tradition.” Nelson Glue Glueck ck adds, adds, ““IIt ma may be state stated d categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference.
Evidence from prophecy Anothe nother forceful forceful externa xternall testi testim mony to the the inspi nspirat ratiion of
Scripture is the fact of fulfilled prophecy. According to Deuteronomy 18, a prophet was false if he made predictions that were never fulfilled. No unconditional prophecy of the Bible about events to the present day has gone unfilled. Hundreds of predictions, some of them given hundreds of years in advance, have been literally fulfilled. The time (Dan. 9), city (Mic. 5:2), and nature nature (Isa (I sa.. 7:14 7:14)) of Christ’ hrist’ss birth birth were were fore foretold told in in the the Old Ol d Te Testam stament, as as were were dozens dozens of other other things things about His Hi s lilife, death, death, and and resurrecti resurrection on (seeI sa sa.. 53). 53). N Num ume erous other other prophecies have been fulfilled, including the destruction of Edom (Obad. 1), the curse on Babylon (Isa. 13), the destruction of Tyre (Ezek. 26) and Nineveh (Nah. 1-3), and the return of I sra srae el to the the L and (Isa sa.. 11:11). Othe Otherr books cla claim divi divine ne inspi nspiration, ration, such as the the K oran, oran, the Book of Mormon, and parts of the Veda. But none of those books contains predictive prophecy.9 As a result, fulfilled prophecy is a strong indication of the unique, divine authority of the Bible.
2. In fulfillment of prophesy (Obad. (Obad. 1-4), 1-4), Petra is today a deserted ruin. this is the so-called “treasury” (Giovanni Trimboli) Evidence from the apparent indestructibility of the Bible Despite its importance
(or maybe because of it), the Bible has suffered more vicious attacks than would be expected to be made on such a book. But the Bible has withstood all its attackers. Diocletian attempted to exterminate it (c. A.D. 302/3-305),10 and yet it is the most widely published book in the world today.Biblical critics once regarded much of it as mythological, but archaeology has establ stabliishe shed it it as as histori historica call. A ntagon ntagoniists ha have atta attacked cked its its tea teaching ching as as prim primitive, tive, but moral moraliists urge that its teaching on love be applied to modern society. Skeptics have cast doubt on its authenti uthentici city, ty, and yet yet more more me men are are convince convinced d of its truth today today than ever. ever. A ttacks ttacks on the Bible continue to arise from science, psychology, and political movements, but the Bible remains und unda aunte unted. d. Li L ike thewal wall four-f our-feet high high and and four-f four-feet wide wide,, attem ttempts to bl blow it it over pli plish nothing. nothing. The The Bibl i just trong af after ter the ttack. ttack. J id, “H
The The Bible Bible is a prophetic book. Eve Every book in it was writt itten by a prophet or spokesman for God God (see chaps. chaps. 3-6). 3-6). And si since there there were were miracle racles to confi confirm the propheti propheticc me messa ssage gess given by authors of Scripture, then the Bible is confirmed to be the Word of God by acts of God (miracles).11 Th T he argu rgument fro rom malte lterna rnate possibilit ibility y One of the most interesting arguments for the inspiration of the Bible has been suggested by Charles Wesley.
The The Bible Bible must be the inv invention ion eith ither of good men or angels, ls, bad men or devils ils,, or of God God.
1. It could not be the invention of good men or angels; for they neither would or could make a book, and and tel tell lies al all the tim time they they were writi writing ng it, sayi saying ng “Thus “Thus sai saith the the L ord,” when it was was the their own invention. 2. It could not be the invention of bad men or devils; for they would not make a book which commands all duty, forbids all sin, and condemns their souls to hell to all eternity.
Fourth, the very unityof unity of the Bible amid all its diversity of authors, languages, and topics bespeaks of a divine Mind behind it. Fifth, the historicity of the Bible as confirmed by multitudinous archaeological discoveries, lends further support to its claim to divine authority. Sixth, the thetestimony testimony of Christ is a clear indication it is the very Word of God. Seventh, uniquely the Bible offers numerous fulfil fulfi lled prophe propheci cie es as confirmation of its divine character. Eighth, the influence of the Bible has been more widespread than any other book in the world. Ninth, the apparent indestructibility of the Bible is another indication it is from God. Tenth, theintegrity the integrity of the human authors also lends support to their claims for inspiration. Eleventh, miracles confirm the Bible to be the Word of God. Twelfth, there is the argument fromalternate from alternate possibility, possibility, suggesting the unlikeliness that it was invented by either good or evil creatures but rather that it truly came from God as claimed. Some of these arguments alone are indecisive. But when all of them are taken together they they form form avery persuasi persuasive ve argum argume ent that that the Bible ble is inde indee ed theWord of God. In I n fa fact, no
probably a derivative of the Hebrew kaneh (reed), an Old Testament term meaning measuring rod (Ezek. 40:3; 42:16).2 This literal concept provided the basis for a later extended use of the word kanon, meaning “standard,” “norm.” Even in pre-Christian Greek, the word kanon bore a non-literal meaning,3 as it it does does in in theNew Te Testam stament. In In 2 Corinthians 10:13-16 it bears the sense of “sphere of action or influence.” 4 Galatians 6:16 comes closest to the final theological significance of the word, as Paul says “Those who will walk by this rule [kanon], peace and mercy be upon them.” THEOLOGICALLY From the the literal teral “rul “rule er,” r,” the word was was extend extende ed to me mean a rule rule or standa standard rd for for anything. anything. In In early Christian usage, it came to mean rule of faith, normative writings, or authoritative Scri Scripture. pture. The The Fathers, thers, from from the tim time of Irenae renaeus, referre referred to the kanon of Christian teaching,
“This book of the law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night” night” (J os osh. h. 1:8). 1:8). BOOKS THAT “DEFILE THE HANDS” Some assert that in the later Talmudic tradition the canonical, or sacred, books were called those that “defile the hands” of the users, because the books were considered holy. 7 W. O. E. Osterley, and others since,8 suggest that contact with the Scriptures really sanctified the hands, but it was called uncleanness because the hands had to be washed before touching other other thing things, s, in in accorda accordance nce with with L eviti viticus cus 6:27f 6:27f; 16:23f; 26, 26, 28. Stil Still others, others, such as Roger Roger Beckwith,
fall all back back on the reason reason given given by by the Mi Mishnah shnah and and Tosep Tosephta hta them themse sellves, where Rabbi J ohana ohanan n ben ben Zakkai answers the Sadducean objection to the teaching that the Scriptures make the hands unclean but the writings of Homer do not, by explaining that as their preciousness, so is their uncleanness’ (M. Y adaim 4.6),a ),and continu inuing ing, so that they may not be made int into spreads for for beasts’ (To (Toss.Y adaim 2.19).
Rab Samuel uel bar bar Ini I nia a sa said, in in the nam name of Rab Rab Aha, ha, “T “The Second Second Te Temple ple lacked five thi things which which the First Temple possessed, namely, the fire, the ark, the Urim and Thummim, the oil of anointing and the Holy oly Spirit Spiri t [of prophe prophecy]”’ cy]”’ (J er.Ta r.Taanith 2.1; 2.1; Je J er. Ma M akkoth 2.4-8; 2.4-8; Ba Bab. Yom Y oma a 21b). 21b).10 Rabbi abbi Abdim bdimi of Haif aifa sai said, “Si “Since nce the day day when the Temple ple was des destroy troyed ed,, prophecy has has been been taken taken from the prophets and given to the wise”’ (Bab. Baba Bathra 12a). Rabbi abbi J ohana ohanan n sai said, “Si “Since nce theTemple ple was was destroy destroyed ed,, prophe prophecy cy has been been taken taken from from prophets prophets and and given to fools and children”’ (Bab. Baba Bathra 12b).
“In “I n ea each of these these five passa passage ges,” s,” Be Beckwith ckwith note notes, s, “an era is is in in vie view, which which is is vari various ouslly described as the death of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, the end of the empire of the Persians, the destruction of the First Temple or the transition from the First Temple to the Second.”11 So then, if a book were written after the prophetic period, it was not considered canon ca noniica call. If I f it were were writte written n withi within n the the prophe prophetic tic peri period, od, in in the the succe succession ssion of Hebrew brew
Je J esus alte ltered the prevailing iling J ewish ish view iew of Script ipture in several ways: (1) (1) he subjec jected the authority ity of tradition to the superior and normative authority of the Old Testament; (2) he emphasized that he himself fulfills the messianic promise of the inspired writings; (3) he claimed for himself an authority not bel below that that of the Old Ol d Te Testam stament and and de definiti nitively vely expounde xpounded d the inner nner signif signifiica cance nce of the L aw; (4) he inaugurated the new covenant escalating the Holy Spirit’s moral power as an internal reality; (5) he committed his apostles to the enlargement and completion of the Old Testament canon through their proclamation of the Spirit-given interpretation of his life and work. At the same time he identified himself wholly with the revelational authority of Moses and the prophets—that is, with the Old Tesstament as an ins Te inspire ired lite literary canon ins insist isting ing that Script ipture has sacred, authorita itative ive and 13 permanent validity, and that the revealed truth of God is conveyed in its teachings.
This This ongoing ing minis inisttry of the Ho Holy ly Spirit irit in the live lives and work of the Ne New w Te Tesstament writers is manifest in several ways as has been indicated (chap. 7). Once it is understood what canonicity means, the question of how the biblical books received their canonicity must be
1.
Many books in the Hebrew language are not in the canon. canon. Most of the books written by the Hebrews were obviously in the Hebrew language, but they were not all accepted in the canon. Even though some of these books were extant in the Hebrew language at the time of the recognition of the Old Testament Scriptures, for example, Ecclesiasticus and other A pocryph pocrypha al books, books,16 yet they were not received into the Hebrew canon (see chap. 15).
2.
Some books not totally written in the Hebrew language are in the canon. canon . Parts of some of the books that that were were recei received ved into the the J ewish wish canon canon were were not not in in Hebrew Hebrew at all, but in in Aram Arama aic. This This fac fact is not only true of Daniel iel 2:4b–7:28, but of Ezra 4:8–6:18 and 7:21–26 as well. The thesis that the Hebrew language determines canonicity, then, breaks down for two reasons: some books in Hebrew were not accepted, whereas books which had some parts written in other languages were accepted as canonical.
Agreement with the Torah determines canonicity To th J ws, ulti te crite criteri ri
canoni canonica call becau because se it was was coll collected and prese preserve rved by by the comm community unity of bel believers. As A s Paul J . A chtem chtemeier sa says, ys,
A further urther im impli plica catition on of the nature nature of Scriptu Scri pture re as as we have have outli outlined ned it it consi consists in the the rea reallization zation tha that Scripture has been produced out of the experience of a community as it sought to come to terms with a God whose nature was totally beyond that community’s human perceptions, and who therefore acted in ways unaccountable by contemporary social or political customs. Scripture reflects not only God’s word to the community but also that community’s response, both positive and negative, to that word. Scri Scripture di did not drop drop as a stone from heave heaven. n. It I t grew out of the lilife of a comm community unity chosen by a God it barely understood and often did not want to follow, yet who would not release his people to their own devices.18
The There are several seriou ious objec jection ions to this view iew. Firs First, a book is not the Wo Worrd of God God because it is accepted by the people of God. Rather, it was accepted by the people of God because it is the Word of God. That is, God gives the book its divine authority, not the people
canonical by God. In other words, a book is not inspired because it is inspiring; it is inspiring because it is inspired. A book is canonical because it is inspired Edward dward J. J . Y oung oung pres prese ents thecorrect view, that inspiration determines canonicity, canonicity, as he writes,
When the Word of God was written it became Scripture and, inasmuch as it had been spoken by God, possessed absolute authority. Since it was the Word of God, it was canonical. That which determines the canonicity of a book, therefore, is the fact that the book is inspired by God. Hence a distinction is properly made between the authority which the Old Testament possesses as divinely inspired, and the recognition of that authority on the part of Israel.20
A lthough though hi his discu discuss ssiion has has prim primaril rily cente centered red on theOld Ol d Te Testam stament, the princi principl ple es are are al also applicable to the New Testament. In brief, a book is canonical if it is prophetic, that is, if it was written by a prophet of God. I n othe other words words propheticity determines canonicity. canonicity. Of course one did not have to belong to
the apostol postoliic church in in Je J erusal rusalem (Acts (A cts 15:13; 15:13; Ga Gal. 2:9). 2:9). The apostl postle e Peter ter authore authored d two epistles (see 1 Pet. 1:1; 2 Pet. 2:1), although he used Silvanus as a scribe to pen the first one (1 Pe Pet. 5:12). 5:12). This le leaves ves onl only J ude ude, who was was al also a hal half brothe brotherr of J esus sus (J ude ude 1:1; cf. cf. Ma M att. 13:55), and he too spoke with prophetic authority (vs. 3, 5, 20ff.). The There is good evide idence that all twenty-se -seven books of the Ne New w Te Tesstament come fro from the apostle postles and and the their associa associates. tes. Inde I ndee ed, even even some liliberal beral schola scholars are now now insi i nsisti sting ng on a very early rly apos apostol toliic date date for the New Te Testam stament books. books. Bi Bishop shop John J ohn A . T. T. Robi Robins nson, on, fa father ther of the so-called “Death of God” movement, has more recently concluded that “all the various types of the early church’s literature ... were coming into being more or less concurrently in the period between 40 and 70.”21 The renowned archaeologist William F.Albright came to the same conclusion, declaring that “every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Je J ew between the for forties ies and the eigh ighties ies of the firs first century A.D. A.D. (ve (very probably sometime ime 22 23 betwee between n A.D A.D.. 50 and and 75) 75).” J esus sus di died in A.D A.D.. 33, 33, so the New Testament was written
only only those se sellect fe few He He dee deemed neces necessa sary ry for the be believer’s ver’s fa faith and and practi practice. ce. If If that that be so, then propheticity is only anecessary a necessary condition of canonicity but not asufficient a sufficient co con ndition. tion. In In that case there would be another condition for canonicity. The most likely candidate for such a further condition would be acceptance by the people of God of the books they deemed of value to the broader Christian community. But this view would mean that there are (or could be) be) books tha that are are ins inspi pired red words of God but but not not part part of theI nspi nspired red Word Word of God. Thi Thiss is is not only highly unlikely but is also unnecessary. The There is another more plau lausible ible possibilit ibility y: all prophetic books may be in the canon. That is, it is possible that no prophetic book has been left out of the canon. There are plausible explanations for the only known books that are apparent exceptions to this principle, as the following discussion indicates. 1. “The Letter...from Elijah” (2 Chron. 21:12-15). This is a public prophetic exhortation. Hence, it had divine authority and thereby qualified for the canon. But as a matter of fact, the
chapters 10-13), which was put together with another part of his Corinthian correspondence at a later time. Second Corinthians chapters 1-9 is definitely different in tone from the rest of the present book (chapters 10-13), which could indicate that it was originally written on a different occasion. Second, there is also the possibility that Paul is referring to the present Corinthians in 1 Corinthi ori nthia ans 5:9, that is, is, to the very book he was then then writi writing. ng. It It is is true that that he uses uses an an aori aorist st tense tense here, here, which which could could be be transl translated ted “I wrote wrote,” ,” thus identi dentiffying ying some some previous previous le letter. tter. But the the aorist tense could refer to the book at hand. Such a device is called an “epistolary aorist,” beca becaus use e it it refers to the very very epistl pistle e in in which which it it is is bei being use used. d. Al A lthough though the the a aori orist st tens tense e coul could be transl translated ted “I wrote wrote,” ,” the aorist ori st tense tensein Gree Greek k is i s not a past past tense tense as such. such. T The he Gree reek k aorist aorist tense has primary reference to the kind of action, not the timeof time of action it portrays. It identi dentiffies a compl comple eted ted acti action on that that ma may even even requi require re a long tim time to be accompl ccomplished shed (cf. (cf. J ohn 2:20). Hence, Paul could be saying something like this: “I am now decisively writing to you.”
church church but not not provide provide for the pres prese ervation rvation of it? It I t is is unde understa rstand nda able ble tha thatt God God mi might ght give give special guidance to certain individuals, which He did not deem necessary to do for the broader body of believers. But to provide instruction in the Christian faith by way of a revelation He did not preserve for others is another matter altogether. Perhaps the question could could be be rephrase rephrased d thi this way: way: Is thebibl bibliical ca canon close closed? d? To To this this one shoul should respond respond that that the canon is closed theologically and historically, historically, and is open only hypothetically. hypothetically. Th T heolo log gica ically the canon is closed. God has inspired only so many books and they were all compl comple eted ted by theend of the apostol postoliic peri period od (fi (first centu century ry A .D.) .D.).. God God use used to spe speak through the prophets of the Old Testament, but in the “last days” he spoke through Christ (Heb. 1:1) and the apostles whom He empowered with special signs“ (miracles). But because the apostol apostoliic ageende ended d with with the dea death of the apostl apostles es (Acts 1:22), 1:22), and and because becauseno one since since apostolic times has had the signs of a true apostle” (2 Cor. 12:12) whereby they can raise the dea dead (Acts (A cts 20:1020:10-12) 12) and and perf perform orm other other unique uniquesupe supernatural rnatural events vents (Acts (A cts 3:1-10; 3:1-10; 28: 28:8–9), 8–9), it
AND CONCLUSION SUMMARY AND
The The hist istory of the word canonindicates canon indicates a development from a literal rod or ruler to the concept of a standard for something. Subsequently the word was applied to the rule of faith, faith, that is, the normative writings or authoritative Scriptures, which were the standard of faith and and practice. practice. Just J ust how that standa standard rd or canon was was determ determiined ned is is the subject subject of some some misunderstanding. With that in view, the present chapter has discussed that which determined canonicity. Several insufficient views have been suggested, for example, (1) age decided the issue; (2) Hebrew language determined it; (3) agreement with the Torah did; (4) religious value determined whether or not a book was canonical; or (5) the religious community determines canonicity. However,all those views share one common weakness: they fail to distinguish between the determination of canonicity (a work of God) and the recognition of canoncity (a work of men). The biblical view is that inspiration determines canonicity; a book
The The Chu Church Is Mot Mother of The The Chu Church Is Min Ministe ster of Cano Canon Canon The The Chu Church Is Reco Recognizer zer of Cano Canon The The Chu Church Is Mag Magistr strate of The The Chu Church Is Wit Witness of Cano Canon Canon The The Chu Church Is Serv Servant of Cano Canon The The Chu Church Is Regu Regulator of Canon The The Chu Church Is J udge of Canon The The Chu Church Is Mast Maste er of Canon
the authority of the Scriptures is based upon the authority of the church; the correct view is that the authority of the church is to be found in the authority of the Scriptures. The incorrect view places the church over the canon, whereas the proper position views the church under
(v)
failure to make proper proper use use of J ewish wish evide vidence nce about the canon canon transm transmitted tted through Christi hristia an ha hands, nds, whethe whetherr by denyi denying ng its Je J ewish wish origi origins ns,, or by ign ignori oring ng theChristi hristia an medium dium 3 through which it has come.
THE PRINCIPLES I NVOLVED It is is al all very very wel well to assu assum me tha that God God gave gave auth authori ority ty and and hence hence ca canon noniicity city to the Bibl Bi ble e, but but another question arises, namely, How did man discover or become aware of what God had done? How did the church Fathers know when they had come upon a canonical book? The commonly accepted canonical books of the Bible themselves make reference to many other books tha that are are no no llong onge er avai available ble, for for exam example ple, ““the theBook of J ashe sher” (J (J osh. osh. 10:13); “the “the Book of theWars of the L ord” (N (Num. 21:14). 21:14). Then hen the there are are the the A pocrypha pocryphal books and and the the 4 so-called “lost books” of the Bible. How did the Fathers know those were not inspired? Did not John J ohn (21:25) 21:25) and and Luke Luke (1:1) (1:1) ind indiica cate te that that the there was was a profus profusiion of re religious gious literat terature ure??
In view of the nature of religious exhortation by a prophet, it is reasonable to conclude that whatever is written by a prophet of God is the Word of God. In most cases it is simply a matter tter of establ stabliishing shing the authorship uthorship of the book. If it was writte wri tten n by by an apostle postle or prophet prophet (the prophetic principle), then its place in the canon is secured. Therefore, any historical or stylistic (external or internal) evidence that supports the genuineness of a prophetic book (see chap. 20) is also an argument for its canonicity. This was exactly the argument Paul used in the support of his epistle to the Galatians (Gal. 1:1-24). He argued that his message was authoritative because he was an authorized messenger of God, “an apostle not sent from men nor through the the agency gency of man, but through through Je J esus Christ, hrist, and and God the Father” ther” (Gal. 1:1). 1:1). He also turned the tables on his opponents who preached “a different gospel; which is really not another; only...to distort the gospel of Christ” (Gal. 1:6-7). His opponents’ gospel could not be true be because cause they they were “fa “false brethren” brethren” (Ga (Gal. 2:4). 2:4). It shoul should benoted noted in in this this connecti connection on that occasionally the Biblecontains Bible contains true prophecies from individuals whose status as men of
in the prophetic writings that it was hardly necessary to look for any other characteristic to show their divine origin and authority. Some books were rejected because of their absence of authority, as in the books of Pseudepigrapha (see chap. 14). These books did not have the “ring” of authority, or, if they claimed authority, the claim had a hollow sound. They provide provi ded d no cha character racter to support support their their cla cl aim. In I n ma many case cases thebooks were fancif nciful and magical, and hardly anyone mistook their divine claims to be dogmatic commands from God. The Their shallo llow w pretention ions were clea learly not sovereign ign int intention ions, and so they were emphatically rejected. This same principle of authority was the basis for some books’ being doubte doubted and and spoken spoken aga against, as in in the Anti Antillegome gomena books (se (see e chap. chap. 14). 14). For a tim time the the book of Esther, in which even the name of God is conspicuously absent, fell into this category. Finally, upon closer examination, Esther retained its place in the canon, but only because the Fathers were convinced that authority was present, although some did not consider it observably present.8
A nd you may say in in your hea heart, “H “How ow shal shall we know the the word which which the L ord has has not spoken spoken?” ?” When hen a prophet prophet spea speaks ks in i n the nam name of the Lord, Lord, if the thing thing does does not come come about about or come true, that is is the thing thing which which the L ord has has not spoken. spoken. The The prophet has has spoken it presum presumptuously; ptuously; you shal shall not be afraid of him. (Deut.18:21-22 (Deut.18:21-22))
I n fa fact, any prophet prophet who ma made such false false cla claims was was severe severelly punishe punished. d. For For the Lord Lord sai said, “The “T he prophet prophet who shal shall spea speak a word presum presumptuousl ptuously y in in My My nam name which which I have have not not commanded him to speak, or which he shall speak in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die” (Deut. 18:20). That kind of punishment would not only assure no repeat performance by that prophet but would give other prophets pause before they said, “Thus says sa ys the L ord.” 10 Of course, simply because a book is not false does not make it canonical. Thus, this is more a test for theinauthenticity the inauthenticityof of a book than for its canonicity. That is, it is a negative test that that could could el eliminate nate books from from the canon. canon. It I t is is n not ot a positi positive ve test test to di discover whethe whetherr or not
Does it come with the power of God? Another test for canonicity was the edifying
effect of a book. Does it have the power of God? The Fathers believed the Word of God is “living and active” (Heb. 4:12),14 and consequently ought to have a transforming force for edif difica catition on (2 Ti Tim. 3:17 3:17)) and eva evang nge elizati zation (1 Pe Peter ter 1:23). I f the messa ssage ge of a book did did not not effect its stated goal, if it did not have the power to change a life, then God was apparently not behind its message. A messageof message of God would certainly be backed by themight the might of God. The The Fat Fathers belie liev ved that the Word of God can accomplis lish h its its purpose in the live lives of the people of God (Isa. 55:11). The The apostle Pa Pau ul applie lied d this princ inciple iple to the Old Te Tesstament when he wrote to Timo Timothy, “And “A nd tha that from from achil child thou hast hast known the holy holy scripture scri ptures, s, which which are are abl able e to ma make thee thee wise wise unto sa sallvation” vation” (2 Tim. 3:15 3:15,, KJ K J V ). If I f it is of God, God, it it wi will work— work—iit wi will co com me to pass. Th This simple test was given by Moses to try the truth of a prophet’s prediction (Deut. 18:20 ff.). If his prophecy did not materialize, then it was not from God.
believers familiar with the prophet. This acceptance by the people of God occurred in two stages: initial acceptance and subsequent recognition. The The initial acceptance of a book by the people to whom it was addressed is crucial. Paul said of the Thessalonians, “We also constantly thank God that when you received from us the word of God’s message, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God” (1 Thess. 2:13). For whatever subsequent debate there may have been about a book’s place in the canon, the people in the best position to know its prophetic credentials were those who knew the prophet who wrote it. Hence, despite all later debate about the canonicity of some books, the definitive evidence is that which attests to its original acceptance by the contemporary believers. Of course some books were comprised of sections written over long periods of time (like Psalms) or by several authors (see Prov. 30:1; 31:1). But the individual parts of these books were recognized by their contemporaries to come from spokesmen of God.
the canon down through the centuries is evidence that it was known by the contemporaries of the prophet who wrote it to be genuine and canonical, despite the fact that succeeding generations lack definitive knowledge of who the author was or what his prophetic credentials were. Surely God in His providence guided His people in the preservation of His Word. Subsequent recognition of the canon of Scripture was the ratification of the initial acceptance of that canon. The later debate about certain books in the canon should not cloud the fact of their initial acceptance by the immediate contemporaries of the prophets. The true canonicity of the book was determined by God when He directed the prophet to write it, and it was immediately discovered (recognized) by the people of God to whom He wrote it. Tecchnica Te ically speaking ing, the disc iscussion ion about certain books in lat later centuries ies was not a question of canonicity of canonicity but of authenticity of authenticity or genuineness (see chap. 20). Because they had neither access to the writer nor direct evidence of his supernatural confirmation, they had to
The The main point int to be observed is that the fixa fixation ion of the fina finally agreed lis listt of books, and of the order in which they were to be arranged, was the result of a very gradual process....Three features of this process should be noted. First, the criterion which ultimately came to prevail was apostolicity. Unless a book could be shown to come from the pen of an apostle, or at least to have the authority of an apostle behind it, it was peremptorily rejected, however edifying or popular with the faithful it might be. Secondly, there were certain books which hovered for long time on the fringe of the canon, but in the end failed to secure admission to it, usually because they lacked this indisputable stamp....Thirdly, some of the books which were later included had to wait a considerable time before achieving universal recognition.... By gradual stages, however, the Church both in East and West arrived at a common mind as to its sacred books. The first official document which prescribes the twenty-seven books of our New Testament as alone canonical is Athanasius’s Easter letter for the year 367, but the process was not everywhere complete until at least a century and a half later.18
Some are only implicitly present It shoul should beappa pparent rent that that all all of the crite criteri ria a of
Spirit only convinced them of the reality of the canon, not its extent or limits. 20 The canon was recognized by a twofold method of faith and science. Objective principles were used, but the subjective testimony of the Holy Spirit used the objective evidence, thus confirming the reality of God’s Word to His people. The The tests for for canonicit icity y were not mechanica ical means for for measuring ing out the amount of inspired literature, nor did the Holy Spirit say, “This book or passage is inspired, that one is not.” That would be a disclosure, not a discovery. The Holy Spirit neither witnessed to the exact extent of the canon nor settled the matters of textual criticism. He did providentially guide the process that gave assent to the limits of the canon as well as give witness to the people of God as to the reality of God’s Word when they read or heard it. AND CONCLUSION SUMMARY AND
The The most imp important dist istinc inction ion to be made at this point int is between the determination and
is that those are all that God inspired. Obviously, if God did not inspire and thus give divine authority to a book, no council of men could ever do it. Recognition by men of God Once God gave a book its authority, men of God assented to that authority by their recognition of it as a prophetic utterance. There is every reason to believe that this recognition followed immediately upon the publication of the messa ssage ge.. As A s Edwa Edward rd J. J . Y oung state states, s, “T “There here is is n no o evi evide dence nce that that these these parti particul cula ar books existe xisted d among the ancie ncient Je J ews for for many ye years before before they they were recogni recognized zed as as canoni canonical cal.. I nde ndeed, if if a book book was actua actuallly re reveal vealed by God, is it it concei conceivabl vable tha thatt such such a book would would 1 circulate for many years before anyone recognized its true nature?” The evidence, in fact, is to the the contra contrary. ry. Moses’ writi writing ngss were were rece receiived ved in in hi his da day (E (Ex. 24:3; 24:3; J os. 1:8). J oshua oshua’’s book book was added dded to the canon canon im immedia diatel tely (J (J osh. 24:26). Danie niel, a contem contemporary of J eremiah, had had received the latter’s book along with “t “the books” (Dan. 9:2). Collection and preservation by the people of God Moses’ books were collected
credentials. That is especially understandable in a case such as the book of Esther, whose author is unknown to subsequent generations. PROGRESSIVE COLL ECTI ON OF THE CANON
The The standard critic itica al theory enunciat iated by He Herrbert E. Ryle Ryle and others asserts that the books of the Hebrew Scriptures were canonized in three stages, according to their dates of composition, into the law (c. 400 B.C.), Prophets S(c. 200 B.C.), and Writings c. A.D. 100)3 However, this view is untenable in light of the more recent developments and the arguments summarized ri zed by Sid Si d Z. L eiman, Roge Rogerr Be Beckwi ckwith, and and others, others, which which dem demonstrate onstrate that that the canon was completed no later than the second century B.C. and possibly as early as the fourth century B.C.4 I n fa fact, a compl comple eted ted canon canon of the Hebrew Hebrew Scri Scriptures ptures is is evi evide dent nt from from the testimony of the “Prologue of Ecclesiasticus” (c. 132 B.C.), .), Je J esus, sus, Phil Philo, and and J ose oseph phus us wel well before A.D. 100. Furthermore, there is evidence that inspired books were added to the canon
premiss [sic] on which they depend. Similarly, any inference that the canon was decided by councils must be abandoned. HI STORY OF THE OL D T ESTAMENT CANON National Events
1500 B.C. 1400 B.C. 1300 B.C. 1200
Exodus from Egypt Conquest of Canaan Ark kept at Shiloh
Pr obable obable Date of Writing of Cano C anonical nical Boo B ooks ks
Original Ori ginal Pentat Pentateu euch ch Jo J ob (?) (?) Jo J oshua
Suggested History of the M anuscri anuscripts pts and Copies
Original scrolls of Moses stored beside ark Copy of Law available to Jo J oshua
David David charged Solomon to keep the statutes, commandments, ordinances, and
testi testim monie onies tha that were were “writte “written n in in the the law of Mose oses” s” (1 (1 Ki Kings ngs 2 2:3) :3).. Solomon Solom Solomon, on, at the dedi dedicati cation on of the Temple ple, urged the peopl people e, saying, saying, “Le “L et your hea heart theref therefore be wholl wholly devoted devoted to the L ord our God, God, to walk walk in in Hi His statute statutess and and to kee keep His comm commandm ndments” nts” (1 (1 Ki K ings ngs 8:6), which which he he had had previ previous ouslly ide identi ntiffied as as the the works works of Mose osess (cf. vv. 53, 56). Amaziah It is is writte written n of Ki K ing A mazia ziah tha that heacted cted “not according ccording to what what is is writte written n in in the the book book of the the law of Mose oses” s” (2 Ki K ings ngs 14:6). 14:6). Manasseh The wicked Manasseh did not live “according to all the law that . . . Moses comm commanded” nded” (2 (2 Ki K ings 21:8). J osia iah h J osiah turne turned d to the theL ord “with “with al all his soul soul and with with al all his his mi might, ght, according according to al all the the law of Mose oses” s” (2 Ki K ings ngs 2 23:25 3:25). ).
Th T he confirmatio ion n of a pro rop phet In addition to miracles as the divine confirmation of a
true prophet,8 numerous other tests were applied to indicate false prophets: (1) Do they ever give false prophecies (Deut. 18:21, 22)? (2) Do they contact departed spirits (Deut. 18:11)? (3) Do they use names of divination (Deut. 18:11)? (5) Do they follow false gods or use idols (Ex. (Ex. 20:3-4; De Deut. ut. 13:1-3)? (6) Do the they confess confess the the hum humanity of J esus sus Christ Christ (1 John J ohn 4:-2)? 4:-2)? (7) Do the they deny deny the the de deity of J esus sus Chri Christ st (Col (Col.. 2:9)? (8) (8) Do Do thei their prophe prophecie cies ce cent nte er in i n Je J esus sus Christ (Rev. 19:10)? (9) Do they advocate abstaining from foods (e.g., meats) (1 Tim. 4:3-4)? (10) 10) Do they they depre depreca cate te marria rri age (1 Ti Tim. 4:3)? 4:3)? (11) Do they they promote promote immorali orality (J (J ude ude 7)? (12) Do they encourage legalistic self-denial (Col. 2:16-23)? Th T he continu inuity ity of the pro rop phets A prophet prophet was one one who who spoke for for God, God, and it it was tha that characteristic which bound together the ministry of the prophets from Moses to Malachi. The succession of prophets produced the continuous history recorded in the canon of the Old Tesstament The Te The books of Chr Chronicle icless for for ins instance bear an unusual testimo imony to this fac fact as
Th T he comple lettio ion n of the pro rop phets The continuity of the prophetic writings ended with
Malachi. Several lines of evidence support this assertion: 1. There here are intim ntimations tions in some some of the postexi postexillic prophets prophets that that the next next revel revelation tion from God would be just before the coming of Messiah (Mal. 4:5), and that there would be no true prophets in the intervening period (Zech. 13:2-5). 2.
Furthermore urthermore,, there there is confi confirma rmation tion from the intertesta ntertestam mental ntal period period that that there there were indee ndeed no prophets prophets af after ter Ma M alachi. chi. In I n the the Maccabe ccabean peri period, od, the peopl people e were waiti waiting ng “until “until a prophet prophet should arise” (1 Mac. 4:45; 9:27; 14:41). Th 14:41). The e Man Manual of Disc Disciplin ipline e from the Qumran 12 community (B.C.) also looked for the “coming of a prophet.”
3. V erif rifica cati tion on of this this vie view also come comes from J ose oseph phus us;;13 theTalmud, ud, which which state states, s, ““A A fter ter the latter tter prophets prophets Hagga Haggaii, Ze Zechari charia ah, and and Ma Malachi, chi, the Holy Holy Spiri Spiritt depa departed rted from I sra srae el”; 14 and from the the N w T sta nt, which which ne ote ost-M l chi book as ca i l In f ct, J
or status of the threefold classification,19 the Septuagint (LXX) (c. 250 B.C.) reflects no compunction whatever to follow it. Moreover, Origen (third century A.D.), who claimed to deri derive ve hi his lilist from from the J ews, does does n not ot fol folllow the three threefold old arrang arrange ement of books. Li L ikewise kewise,, Melito (late second century A.D.), the earliest LXX manuscripts (Vaticanus, Sinaticus, and Alexandrinus), the lists of Epiphanius of Salamis (c 315-403) and others do not follow the threefold arrangement.20 Hence, it would seem best to agree with Robert Dick Wilson and R. L aird Harris Harris tha that, so far as as canonizationis canonization is concerned, there were only two groups of books: the L aw (f (five book books) s) and the Prophets rophets (sevente (seventee en books).21 Subs Subse eque quent threefol threefold d clas classi sifificati cation on Having said that, it must also be admitted that there was an early (perhaps by the second cent. B.C.) classificationof classification of books into three groups: the L aw, the Prophets, rophets, and and the the Wr Wriitings tings.. The The rea reason son for this this is is not not al altogethe togetherr cle clear, but several observations are in order. 1. One possibl possible e expla xplanati nation on is the later ter disti distincti nction on betwee between n men who hel held propheti propheticc officea office and
5.Roger Beckwith offers a plausible explanation for the origin of the threefold classification and the order order of thebooks in in ea each secti section. on. Ascri A scribi bing ng theprocess process of subdi subdividi viding ng thenonnon-Mosa osaiic Scriptures (originally called “the Prophets”) to form the “Prophets and Hagiographa,” to Ju J udas Mac Maccabeus and his associat iates (c. 164 B.C.), he writes, The The three section ions of the canon are not hist istorica ical accide idents but works of art. The The firs first consist ists of the Mosaic literature, partly historical and partly legal, arranged in chronological order. The other two sections of the canon also contain both historical and non-historical books. The historical books cover two further periods and are arranged in chronological order. The non-historical books (visionary or oracular in the case of the Prophets, lyrical and sapiental in the case of the Hagiographs) are arranged in descending order of size.22
Whatever the reason for the later threefold classification, classification, it must be remembered that canonizationwa canonization wass on a twofol twofold d basi basis: s: the L aw and and the the Prophets. Prophets. The These se divi divisi sions ons actua actuallly
Babylonian Talmud By, or before, the fourth century A.D., the Babylonian Talmud
gave gave the the modern odern three threefold old cla class ssiifica catition on of La L aw (f (five books), Proph Prophe ets (ei (eight ght books), and and Writings (eleven books). Thus the tendency to classify the canon into three divisions, which possibly began as early as 200 B.C., became the accepted form by A.D. 400. That fact may be further confirmed at other checkpoints in the history of the Hebrew canon in this interval.
Acknowledgment in Daniel Then too, there is the acknowledgment in the Old
Testament book of Dan Tes Daniel iel of the law law of Mos Moses” (Da (Dan. 9:11, 13) as well as a group calle lled d the books” (9:2). The postexilic prophet, Zechariah, refers to the former prophets” (Zech. :14; 7:7, 12), which also attests to a line of prophetic utterances. Acknowledgment by succeeding prophets The acid test, however, of the view that the canon developed gradually is the acknowledgment by succeeding prophets of the existence and/or authority of preceding prophetic utterances. For, if there were a gradually developing canon to which inspired books were added as they were written (presumably without a long delay), it is reasonable to expect not only continuity between the books but some some recogniti recognition on of the existe xistence nce of the former ormer books by the latter tter wri writers. ters. It I t is is unrea unreasona sonabl ble e, however, to expect all the preceding books to be quoted in later Old Testament books any more than the New Testament quotes all Old Testament books. A survey of important Old Testament passages is sufficient to confirm the general thesis
a. The The date date of thewriti writing ng of thebook of J ob is is unce uncertain. rtain.27 Ezekiel mentions the notorie notoriety of J ob (Ezek. (Ezek. 14:14, 20), a fact tha that substa substanti ntia ates tes the the e exi xiste stence nce of thebook of J ob by his day. b. Portions of the Psalms also occur in the historical books (cf. 2 Sam. 22; 1 Chron. 16). There is also the acknowledged fact that David spoke by the Holy Spirit (2 Sam. 23:2). c. The Solomonic writings (Song of Solomon, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes) are most likely includ nclude ed as as part part of thelist in in 1 Ki K ings ngs 4:32, nam namely, “H “He e . . . spoke spoke three threethousa thousand nd proverbs proverbs,, and his songs were a thousand and five.” d. Many of the prophets also quote from or refer to the inspired writings of their predecessors. Daniel had a collection that he called the books,” which apparently included books from from Mose osess (Da (Dan. 9:13) to his his contem contemporary Je J eremiah (Da (Dan. 9:2), 9:2), and “the prophets” prophets” in between, who had spoken to the kings, princes, fathers, and all the people of the land (Dan. 9:6). J eremiah 26:18 26:18 quote quotess Mi Mica cah h 3:12, 3:12, and and Mi Mica cah h 4:14:1-3 3 cite citess Isa Isaiiah 2:22:2-4 4 (or vi vice versa versa)).
2.
3.
Certain rtain se secti ctions ons of De Deuteronomy uteronomy (2:10–2; 2:10–2; 2:20–23) 2:20–23) show evide vidence nce of a later ter redactor redactor because they are editorial (i.e., parenthetical) in nature, and they refer to a later time when I sra srae el was was “in “in the the land of thei their posse possession”(D ssion”(Deut. 2:2). The arra rrangem ngement ent of Psa Psallms into five books is undoubte undoubted d the work work of edi editors.
4.
Prove roverbs passe passed d through the hands hands of edi editors after ter Solom Solomon on (1:1; 10: 10:1; 25:1; 25:1; 30:1; 31:1) 31:1),, some of whom lived in Hezekiah’s day, two hundred years after Solomon (25:1).
5.
Some Some books, such such as J eremiah, survi survive ve in two subs substa tanti ntia ally di different rent versions. The The longe onger Masore soretiticc versi version on is is one one-se seven venth th la larger rger than than the the shorte shorterr Septua Septuagi gint nt (LX (L X X ) ve versi rsion on (which (which b survives survives in aHebrew fragment from from Qumran Qumran (4Q Je J er ).
6.
The books of Chroni Chronicl cle es prese present them themse sellves as bei being base based d on prior prior propheti propheticc records (1 Chron. 9:1; 27:24; 29:29; 2 Chron. 9:29; 13:22; 16:11; 20:34; 25:26; 27:7; 28:26; 32:32;
Response to redaction canon arguments Responses to the inspired redaction view
will be presented in order. 1. That hat Mose Mosess might not have have writte wri tten n the account of his his own de death (Deut.34) has has long bee been accept ccepte ed by by conse conserva rvati tive ve schol schola ars (such (such as as R. D.Wi D.Willson, son, L. L . Ha Harris, rris, G. A rcher) rcher).. Thi Thiss in in fact fact supports the view of a continuity of writing prophets that the successor wrote the last chapter of his predecessor’s book. 2.
The parenth parenthe etical tical se secti ctions ons in Deuteronom uteronomy y 2 nee need not be non-M non-Mosa osaiic si simply ply be because cause they they are editorial. Authors often use editorial (i.e., parenthetical) material in their own writings. Even if they are later additions,they may possibly be uninspired changes that are subject to the sa sam me textua textuall deba debate te as as Ma Mark 6:9-20 6:9-20 and and John J ohn 7:53-8:11. 7:53-8:11. The T he land of thei their possessi possession” on” referred to in in Deute Deuteronom ronomy y 2:13 is, is, as K eil and Delitzsch note noted, d, Th la d t th
t f th J d (Gile (Gile d d Ba h ), hich ich
d b th Is lit
d
Problems with the redaction canon theory. Inasm nasmuch uch as the redacti redaction on canon theor theory y
involves inspired redactors who allegedly made deliberate and substantial chances in the content of previous prophet material decades, even centuries after the original author died, it is unacceptable for many reasons. 1. I t is contrary to the repea repeated ted warning warning God gave gave not to “add to the the word word which which I [God] am am commanding you” (Deut. 4:2; cf. Prov. 30:6; Rev.22:18-19). This of course does not mean that another prophet could not get his own revelation, which was later placed along with a previous prophet’s writing in the canon of Scripture. But it does mean that no one was later permitted to change (redact) the revelation God had already given. 2.
The reda redaction ction theory theory conf confuse uses ca canon noniicity city and lower ower te textual xtual cri critici ticism sm.The .T he que question stion of scriba scriball changes in transmitting a manuscript of an inspired book is one of textual criticism, not canon ca noniicity. city. Li L ikewise kewise,, if i f there there is is some sizea sizeabl ble e materi teria al adde dded la later ter that that is is not not foun found d in in ea earli rlier
contrary to the true principle of canonicity that God determines canonicity and the people of God merel rely y discover discover what what God God dete determ rmiined ned or insp inspiired (se see e chap. chap. 13). In ef effect the redacti redaction on model locates the authority in the church rather than in the God-given prophetic message. 7.
A redacti redaction on model odel of canoni canonici city ty entai ntails accepta cceptance nce of decep deceptition on as a means of divi divine ne communi communicati cation. on. It asserts asserts that that a mes essa sage ge or book that clai claim ms to come from rom a pro prophe phett (such (such as as I sa saiiah or Da Danie niel) did did not not real really come come from him himin its its enti entiret rety, y, but but rathe ratherr from from later ter re redactors. dactors. As a app ppllied to the the gosp gospe els, re redacti daction on criti critici cism smcla claims tha that Je J esus sus did did not ne nece cessa ssari rilly say say or do 37 what the gospel writers claim He did. They hey li litera terallly put put the their words in J esus’ sus’ mouth. outh. But But that involves an intentional misrepresentation on their part, which is deceptive and contrary to thei their own own asse asserti rtions ons((L uke 1:11:1-4; 4; J ohn 20:30-31). 20:30-31). The sa sam me a app ppllies to whate whatever ver la later ter redactors allegedly changed what a stated prophet wrote. To do such would be a deception, misleading the reader to believe that the God-directed original writers had said that. But God
Old Ol d Te Testam stament, “La “L aw and and Prophets”; Prophets”; (3) the refe reference in Danie Daniel to the L aw and and “the books”(Da books”(Dan. 9:2); 9:2); and (4) the recogn recogniition tion of the “Form “Forme er” prophe prophetic tic books by the “L “La atter. tter.”” Nevertheless, because of the early tendency to separate the Prophets into two groups, the final form of the Hebrew canon canon even eventua tuallly becam became three threeffold: old: the La L aw, the Prophets, rophets, and the the Writings.
15
The The Old Te Tesstament A pocrypha and Pseudepigr igrapha Once the “What?” (nature) and the “How?” (history) of the canon have been considered, the question Which?” (extent of the canon) demands attention. Historically, the number of books in the canon has been nearly as difficult a problem as the natureof nature of the canon. To borrow the terminology of the New Testament Fathers (see chap. 17), the Old Testament
drawn attention to the conservative tendency that must have resulted from the rivalry among the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes to the effect that any attempt to add to the canon, or to take away from it, by one of these groups, would almost certainly have been resisted by one or both of the others, and even if the resistance had been unsuccessful, the controversy involved might never have been appeased, and could be expected to have left its mark on history.2
The These books clas lassified ified as Ant Antile ileg gomena were origin igina ally accepted int into the canon and were only subsequently disputed. That is, these canonical books had their character and/or claims brought into question by later rabbis. THE NUMBER OF THE A NTILEGOMENA As has has bee been state stated, d, there there are are fi five books that fa fall into this this category, category, and ea each one de dese serv rve es individual treatment. Song of Solomon This book “is included in the canon of Aquila, and ranked as
Ecclesiastes One of the main objections to this book was that it seemed skeptical. skeptical. Some
have called it the “Song of Skepticism.”8 Rabbi bbi A kiba kiba admitted tted tha that “if “i f aught ught was was in in disp dispute ute 9 [about Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes] the dispute was about Ecclesiastes alone.” However, there is no necessity to come to that conclusion about the book. Ecclesiastes itself comes to a spiritual conclusion: “Fear God and keep His commandments; because this applies to every person” (12:13). There may be some doubt about man “under the sun,” but there need be none about the ultimate teaching of the book, which goes “above and beyond the sun” and comes as the “words of truth . . . given by one Shepherd” (Eccl. 12:10-11). For after such an affirmation, it adds a warning of the unprofitableness of books that are earthly in their origin: “But beyond this, my son, be warned: the writing of many books is endless, and excessive devotionto devotion to books is wearying to the body” (Eccles. 12:12). Add to this the fact that that Eccl Eccle esia siastes stes was was evi evide dentl ntly y in in thecanon canon of J ose osephu phus, s, which which he decl decla ares ha had bee been fi fixed for a long time; also that it was in the canon of Aquila, and that it is quoted, with standard
accepte ccepted d in in the Western stern Chri Christi stia an church church from from the begi beginni nning. ng. . . . I t is is quote quoted d in in the Mishna shnah and and the the 13 other tannaitic literature, in the latter case with the standard formulas for citing Scripture.
Ezekiel This book was questioned by some because of its apparent anti-Mosaical
teachings. The school of Shammai thought that the teaching of the book was not in harmony with with theMosa osaiic lla aw, and tha that the first ten cha chapters pters exhibi exhibite ted d a tende tendency ncy toward gnostici gnosticism sm.. 14 However, owever, no spe specif cific e exam xample ples have have be been supp suppllied tha that do in in fa fact contradi contradict the Torah. If If there were actual contradictions, then of course the book could not be considered canonical. Hence, as in the case of the other disputed books, the arguments were centered about interpretation rather than inspiration (see chap. 2). From the historical perspective, as Beckwith observes,
evidence in favour of the canonicity of Ezekiel is so ample and so early that the book is something of an embarrassment to those who hold the common view about the date of the closing of the canon. Ezekiel certainly claims to be by a divinely-commissioned prophet, and . . . the book is probably or
in pseudo-Philo’sDe pseudo-Philo’s De Sampsone44, Sampsone 44, perhaps written in the first century A.D., either Prov. 26:27. 26:27. or Eccles ccles.. 10 10:8 :8.. is quoted with the formulas ‘Scripture says’. Once again, it will be observed that the book has Pharisaic, Essene and Christian support, and that the support goes back to the second century B.C., as is shown by the evidence of Ecclesiasticus and its prologue, and by the Essene evidence, which suggests that the book was already canonical before the Essene schism.17
T HE BOOKS REJ ECTED BY A L L —PSEUDEPIGRAPHA
The There are a vast number of fals false e and spuriou ious writin iting gs that deserve mention ion at this point int; not because anyone would seriously contend for their authority, but because they do represent the religious lore of the Hebrews in the intertestamental period. The New Testament writers make use of a num number ber of these these books, books, for example ple, J ude 14-15 have a possi possibl ble e quota quotatition on
Poetical Historical
4. The Martyrdom of Isaiah 1. 1 Enoch 2. The The Testam Testament ent of the the Twelv Twelve e Patr P atriarchs iarchs 3. The Sibylline Oracle 4. The Assumption of Moses 5. 2 Enoch, or the Book of the Secrets of Enoch 6. 2 Baruch, or The Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch 7. 3 Baruch, or The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch 1. 3 Maccabees 2. 4 Maccabees 3. Pirke Aboth 4. The Story of Ahikar 1. The Psalms of Solomon
contain some of the apocryphal books whereas the Hebrew Bible has only the familiar thirtynine books.
Didactic 1. The Wisdom of Solomon (c. Book of Wisdom Religious 30 B.C.) Sirach Romance 2. Ecclesiasticus (132 B.C.) Tob Tobit Historic 3. Tobit (c. 200 B.C.) J udith Prophetic 4. J udit udith h (c. 150 150 B.C.) 3 Esdras* Legendary 5. 1 Esdras (c. 150-100 B.C.) 1 Maccabees 6. 1 Maccabees (c. 110 B.C.) 2 Maccabees 7. 2 Maccabees (c. 110-70 Baruch chaps. 1-5 B.C.) 8. Baruch (c. 150-50 B.C.) Baruch chap. 6 9. Let Lettter of J eremiah eremiah (c. 3004 Esdras* 100 B.C.) Esther 10:410. 2 Esdras (c. A D. 100) 16:24
9. 10. 10.
The Greek church church accepts accepts them. The Roma oman Catholi tholic church church procla proclaimed them them ca canon noniica call at theCounci ouncill of Trent rent (1546) (1546).
11. The apocrypha pocryphall books continue continued d in the Protestant rotestant Bible bles as late as the nine ninete tee enth century. century. 12.
Som Some apocr apocryphal yphal books books wri written in Hebrew ebrew have have been been found among other Old Testam estament ent canonical books in the Dead Sea community at Qumran.
Arguments against accepting these apocryphal books 20 In response response to the
alleged support for considering the apocryphal books as canonical, the following reasons may be proffered, answering point by point the arguments presented in the previous discussion. 1. There here may be New Tes estam tament ent allusionsto allusions to the Apocry Apocrypha pha,, but the there are are no cle clear Ne New Tesstament quotationsf Te quotations from it. it. In I n any any event, event, the New Te Testam stament ent never never refe refers to any of the
6.
None one of the the grea great Greek Greek manuscri nuscript ptss ( , A, A, and and B) conta contaiin all of the Apocryph pocrypha al books. books. In In fact, only only fou fourr (T (Tobit, J udi udith, th, Wi Wisdom sdom,, and and Eccle Ecclesia siasti sticus) cus) are found found in in al all of the them, and and the the olde oldest st manuscri nuscript pt (Va (V atican ticanus) us) totall totally excl exclude udess the the books of Maccabe ccabees. Furthe Furthermore rmore,, no Gree reek k manu manuscri script pt has has the exact xact li list of A pocrypha pocryphal books acce accepte pted d by the Counci ouncill of Trent rent 23 (1545-63).
7.
The Syri Syria an church did did not accept ccept these these books until until the fourth century century A.D. In I n the se second cond century A.D. the Syrian Bible (Peshitta) did not contain contain the Apocrypha pocrypha (see chaps. chaps. 27 and and 28) 28)..
8.
A ugus ugustitine ne is the sing singlle sign signiifica cant nt voice voice of anti antiqu quiity that that recogni recognized zed the A pocrypha pocrypha. But his his opini opinion on was was unf unfounde ounded d for se severa verall rea reasons: sons: (a) Hi His contem contemporary Je J erome, rome, a grea greate terr bibl bibliical authority uthority than than Augu Augusti stine ne,, re rejected the Apocrypha pocrypha.. (b) (b) Augu A ugusti stine ne recogni recognized that that the the J ews 24 rejected these books. (c) A ugusti ugustine ne rea reasone soned d that that the apocrypha pocryphall books should should be in the
L uthe uther spoke agai gainst nst the the A pocrypha pocrypha in hi his B Biible ble publ publiishe shed in in 154 1543 3 by by pla placing cing its books books in in the the 27 back. 12. 12.
The discove discoveri rie es at Qumran Qumran includ nclude ed not only only the the comm communi unity’s ty’s Bible bles but but thei their lilibrary brary with with fragmen ragments ts of hundreds hundreds of books. books. Am A mong those were some of the Old Tes Testam tament ent apocr apocryphal yphal books. The fact that no commentaries were found on apocryphal books and that only canonical books, not the apocryphal, were found in the special parchment and script indicates that the apocryphal books were not viewed as canonical by the Qumran community. 28 The Therefor fore, all of the arguments urged in fav favor of the canonicit icity y of the apocryphal books merely prove that these books have been given varied degrees of esteem and recognition, usually falling short of full canonicity, until the Roman Catholic church officially pronounced them canonical at the Council of Trent. That belated recognition falls far short of the initial and continued support accorded the thirty-nine books of the Old Testament. Hence,the
Beside sidess thi this low low moral moraliity, the subb subbiibli blica call nature nature of theA pocrypha pocrypha ca canb nbe e se see en in in its its hist histori orica call and chronologi chronologica call errors. I t is is cla claimed tha that Tobit Tobit was was al alive whe when the the Ass Assyri yria ans conquered conquered Israe sraell (722 B.C.) as wel well as when when Je J eroboamrevolte revolted d aga agaiinst Juda J udah h (931 B.C.), yet his his tota total life-spa span was was onl only 158 158 yea years (Tob (T obiit 14:11; 14:11; cf. cf. 1:3–5). 1:3–5). J udi udith spe spea aks of Nebuch bucha adne dnezzar zzar as rei reigni gning in Ni Nineve neveh h ins inste tea ad of Babylon bylon (Jud (J udiith 1:1). 1:1). Wi Willliam H. Gre Green concise conciselly summ summarize rizess the evide vidence nce:: “T “The he books of Tobit obit and and Jud J udiith abou abound nd in in geogra geograph phiica call, chronological, and historical mistakes, so as not only to vitiate the truth of the narratives which they contain, but to make it doubtful whether they even rest upon a basis of fact.” 30 4. Most of the the Old Old Testam stament A pocrypha pocrypha was was writte written n in J uda udaism’s post-biblical, post-biblical, intertesta ntertestam mental ntal peri period. od. Accor A ccordi ding ng to Jose J osephu phus, s, the prophets prophets wrote from from Mose osess to A rtaxerx rtaxerxe es, and and he he adds, dds, ““II t is is true our history history hath bee been writte written n since since A rtaxerx rtaxerxe es very very particularly but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of the prophets since that
Te T estimony of antiqu iquity ity agains inst accepting ing Apocryp rypha There is an almost unbroken
testimony of antiquity against accepti ccepting ng the A pocrypha pocryphainto the canon: canon: 1. Phil Philo, A lexand xandri ria an J ewish wish phi philos osop ophe her (20 B.C.-A.D. 40), quoted the Old Testament prolifically and even recognized the threefold classification of books, but he never quoted from the A pocrypha pocryphaas insp inspiired. 2.
J ose oseph phus us (A.D. 3030-100), 100), J ewish wish histori historia an, expl expliicitl citly y excl exclud ude es theA pocrypha pocrypha, num numberi bering ng the books of the Old Testament as twenty-two. Neither does he quote the apocryphal books as Scripture.
3.
J esus esus and and the New Tes estam tament ent wri writers never never once quote the A pocrypha pocrypha although although there are hundreds of quotes and references to almost all of the canonical books of the Old Testament.
4.
The J ewish wish schol schola ars of J amnia nia (A D 90) 90) did did not recogn recogniize the the Apocryph Apocrypha a
(se seven venty ty verses verses from from chap. chap. 7) was found by by Robe Robert rt L. L . Be Bently ntly in in a library brary at Am Amiens. Tha Thatt materi teria al was the first known La L atin tin manuscri anuscript pt contai containing ning 7: 7:36–105 36–105 (as renum renumbered), bered), and, as Metzger observ observe es, ““IIt is is probabl probable e that that the lost secti section on was was del deliberate beratelly cut out of an ance ancestor stor of most extant extant La L atin tin Ma Manuscri nuscripts, pts, because because of dogmatic tic re reasons, for for the passa passage ge contai contains an an 35 emphatic denial of the value of prayers for the dead.” From 1895 to the present that section has has been been printed printed in the Protesta rotestant nt Apocr Apocrypha. ypha. The Therefor fore, for for some fifte fifteen hundred years the Apo Apocrypha was not accepted as canonica ical by the peopl people e of God. God. The Then, n, in in 1546 1546,, just ust twenty-ni twenty-nine ne yea years after Luth L uthe er posted posted his his N NiinetynetyFive The These ses, s, the Counci ouncill of Trent rent el elevate vated d the the A pocrypha pocrypha, or ra rather ther the pa part of it that that supported the council’s position, to the level of inspired Scripture, saying,
The The Synod . . . receive ives and venerates . . . all th the books (inc (includ luding ing theApocrypha) Apocrypha) both of the Old and of the New Tes Testam tament ent seei seeing ng that that one God is i s the A uthor of both . . . as havi having ng bee been n dictate dictated, d, eithe eitherr by Christ’s own word of mouth or by the Holy Ghost . . . if anyone receive not as sacred and canonical
4.Most 4.Most of the A pocrypha pocrypha was was writte written n in in the the postbiblical or intertestamental period. 5.Finally, all of the Apocrypha is nonbiblical or uncanonical, because it was not received by the people of God.
16
Development and History of the New Testament Canon PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
The The hist istory of the Ne New w Te Tesstament canon is simila imilarr to that of the Old Te Tesstament, alth lthough there is happily much more data available on the subject. Before that evidence is examined, a preliminary distinction must be made between the source and the stimuli for canonization.
Persecutions and politics The final phase of full and general recognition of the whole
canon of New Testament writings also involved a negative and political stimulus. The Diocletian persecutions of about A.D. 302/303-5 provided forceful motivation for the church to sort, sift, and settle on the New Testament Scriptures. For certainly the books they would risk their lives to preserve must have been considered sacred to them. The great persecution of Diocletian and Maximian (302/3-313) befell Christians all across the Roman Empire. An eyewitness account to the outbreak of persecution in Nicomedia, the capitol of the Roman province province of Bythini ythinia a (in (i n A sia sia Minor) has has be been prese preserved rved.. La L actanti ctantius us (c. 240240-c. 320), 320), a nati native ve of North Africa, was officially summoned to Nicomedia to teach rhetoric during the reign of Diocletian (284-305). He was converted to Christianity and he lost his position there when persecution broke out in February 302: A fit and auspicious day was sought for the accomplishment of this undertaking, and the festival of the god Terminus, celebrated on the twenty-third of February was chosen, in preference to all
In still another part of the Roman Empire, the Christian clergy were compelled under pain of death to surrender their church possessions and their sacred books to the Roman magistra gistrate tes. s. An A n inq inqui uisi sitition on tha that occurred a few month monthss la later ter in i n northe northern Af A frica rica is recorde recorded d by A .H .H.M .M.. J one ones. The The foll ollowing owing excerpt xcerpt from fromtha that narra narrati tive ve reve revea als the the intens intensiity of the the ef effort to rid the world of Christians, their possessions, and their Scriptures.
I n the the eighth ghth and and se seven venth th consul consulships ships of Di Diocle ocletian tian,, 9th May, from from the records of Munati unatius us Felix, high priests of the province for life, mayor of the colony of Cirta. Arrived at the house where the Christians used to meet, the Mayor said to Paul the bishop: “Bring out the writings of the law and anything else you have here, according to the order, so that you may obey the command.”
Th The Bish ishop: “The readers have the scriptures, but we will give you what we have.” Th The May Mayor: “Point out the readers or send for them.” Th The Bish ishop: “Y ou all know the them m.” Th The May Mayor: “We do not know them.”
Silvanus and Carosus: “T “The he bishop bishop has has al alrea ready dy sai said the the Edusi dusius and and J unius unius the cle clerks rks know them all: they will show you the way to their houses.” Edusi dusius us and and J uni unius: us: “We will show them, sir.”
The The May Mayor went on to visit isit the six remainin ining g readers. Fou Four produced books with ithout demur. One declared he had none, and the Mayor was content with entering his statement in the record. The last was out, but his wife produced his books; the Mayor had the house searched by the public slave to make sure sure that none none had had been been overlook overlooked. ed. Thi Thiss task over, he addressed addressed the subdea subdeacons: cons: “If “I f there has has 3 been any omission, the responsibility is yours.”
As these examples illustrate, the destruction of biblical manuscripts during the preConstantine persecutions, especially under Decius (249-51) and Dio cletian (302/3-305), was widespread throughout the Roman Empire. Even after Diocletian abdicated (305), the persecution begun in his reign continued until the Edict of Toleration (311) and the Edict of Milan (313). Diocletian’s Edict in 302 was followed by the systematic destruction of the
PROGRESSIVE COLLECTION
Although the church did not give official recognition to the canon prior to the late fourth century, it is misleading to say there was no recognition before then. As with the Old Tesstament books, there is ample evide Te idence availa ilab ble to confirm firm that the ins inspire ired books were received immediately as such, circulated, and even collected. The problem of the New Tesstament is somewhat differ Te ifferent, however, in that the Ne New w Te Tesstament books were writt itten during a half-century period by some eight or nine different writers, having destinations ranging from individuals (e.g., Philemon) to groups of churches (e.g., Peter) located in cente centers rs extendi extending ng from from J erusal rusalem to Rom Rome e. The T he proble problems of transportati transportation on and and transl transla ation tion would tend to obscure the authority and authenticity of books even though they had already gained recognition by the original recipients. Of course there is no record that each book was recognized as canonical immediately by
prophe prophet of God?” The T he apostl postle es were, were, of course, course, grante granted d a prophe prophetiticc mi ministry nistry (J (J ohn 14-16): 14-16): Jo J ohn calle lled d hims imself “a fello fellow w servant [with ith] . . . the prophets” (Re (Rev. 22:9), and Paul considered his books prophetic writings (cf. Rom. 16:25-26; Eph. 3:3-5). Individuals in the New Testament besides those called apostles were granted a prophetic ministry, in accorda ccordance nce with with the promi promise on the day day of Pentecost ntecost (A (Acts 2:17-18), 2:17-18), as was was m ma anif nifest in in A gabus gabus and the other other prophets prophets from from J erusal rusalem (Acts 11: 11:27-28), 27-28), not to men mentition on the“gif “gift of prophecy” evident in the New Testament church (cf. 1 Cor. 12:29). M AJ OR ENGLISH BIBLE T RANSLATIONS
Original Bible Manuscripts Old Testament in Hebrew and Aramaic 15th-5th cent. B.C. Greek translation
Greek New Testament Stephanus (1550) Greek New Testament Beza (1557) Geneva Bible (1560) Bishops Bible (1568) King Jam J ames Bible [KJV] (1611)
Rheims NT (1582) Tex Te xtus Receptus (1624) I mportant Manuscr Manuscriipts pts Discovered (1840)
English Revised NT [RV] (1881) English Revised OT
Douay OT (1610)
(1982)
Th T he pro roccess of canoniza izatio ion n A close close look look at the New Tes Testa tam ment revea reveals that that these these
prophetic writings were being sorted from among the nonprophetic writings, even from oral traditions, and a canon was being formed during apostolic times. Several procedures were involved in this process. 1. Selecting procedure. J ohn im impli plies that that there there was ase sellecting cting process process going going on am among the apostles themselves, dealing with the problem of which particular truths should be preserved in writte written n form form.. He write wri tess that that “ma “many other other si sign gnss therefor therefore e Je J esus sus a allso perf perform orme ed . . . which which are not not writte written n in in thi this b book” ook” (J (J ohn 20:30); 20:30); and “if “if they they were writte written n in in de detai tail,” he adds, dds, “I supp suppose ose that that even even theworld world itse itsellf would would not conta contaiin thebooks which which were were writte written” n” (J (J ohn 21:25). 21:25). L uke spe speaks of other other accounts accounts of thelife of Christ, hrist, from from which which he he compi compilled “an “an accurate account” based on “eyewitnesses” in order that “the exact truth” might be known (L uke 1:11:1-4). 4). This his evi evide dence nce se see ems to im imply ply that that there there were were othe other wri writte tten n records records of Christ’ hrist’ss
indicates that the authority of one epistle included a larger audience than just the one to which it was written. Thus, as the book of Revelation was circulated throughout the churches, so other epistles were to be exchanged, and prophetic messages were to be read with all authority. 4.
Collecting procedure. procedure. The circulating procedure no doubt led to the habit of collecting prophetic and apostolic writings, such as those alluded to in 2 Peter 3:15-16, where the author speaks of “all his [Paul’s] letters” as being on a level with “the rest of the Scriptures.” As has already been noted (see chap. 5), the apostles considered the collection of Old Testament writings to be divine Scripture; therefore, as the New Testament prophets wrote inspired books, those were added to the collection of “the other Scriptures.” Thus, by the time of 2 Peter (c. A.D. 66)10 Paul’s epistles were in the canon.11 Since most of the general epistles were wri written tten af after ter Pa Paul’ ul’s, it it cannot cannot beexpected xpected that that they they would would be mentione ntioned. d. Ne Neverthel vertheless, Jude J ude
27:34) and 12:11 (Matt. 22:45); in addition to several allusions. The Didache(c. Didache (c. 70-130) quotes Matthew rather extensively (cf. Matt. 6:9-13). 2.
Mark was was cite cited d by theEpistle the Epistle of Pseudo-Barnabas in only one clear example, 5:9 (Mark 2:17), 2:17), but 12:11 quote quotess theparal paralllel passa passage ge in Ma Matthew tthew 22:45 and/or and/or L uke 20:44. 20:44. Pa Papia pias (c. 70-163) wrote five treatises entitled Interpretation of the Oracles of the Lord (c. 120), which included the four gospels.13
3.
L uke was was revise revised d by theGnosti nosticc Marcion rcion (c. A.D. 140) and appeared in his sharply abridged canon of Scriptures. Th Scriptures. The e Mura Murattorian rian Frag Fragment (c. 170-80) began with Mark, and refers to L uke as the the thi third gosp gospe el and foll ollows with with John J ohn,, Acts A cts,, etc. etc.14
4.
J ohn was was cite cited d by Papia Papias and listed sted in the Muratori uratoria an Canon. non. It It was was also cite cited d and allude uded to in the epistles of Ignatius (c. 110-17), for example, his Ephesians 5:2 (J ohn 6:33) and and 17:1 17:1
8.
First Thessa hessallonia onians 5:3 was was cite cited d se severa verall tim times in theShepherd the Shepherd,, Vision 3:6.3; 3:9.2, 10; Similitude 8:7.2; the theDidache Didache16:7 16:7 also quotes this epistle (1 Thess. 4:6); it is used by Ignatius, Ephesians 10:1 (1 Thess. 5:17); and Romans 2:1 (1 Thess. 2:4).
9.
Second Second Thess hessa alonia onians is less freque requentl ntly y cite cited, d, but but Igna gnatius tius use uses it as as thebasi basiss of his his statement in his Philadelphians 4:3 (2 Thess. 3:5). Polycarp also uses this epistle in his Philippians 11:3 (2 Thess. 1:4) and 11:4 (2 Thess. 3:15). Dionysius of Corinth (c. A.D. 170 also quotes this epistle.
10. 10.
First Timothy was repe repeatedl tedly y use used d by Clement of Rom Rome e in his his 1 Corinthians, Corinthians, as it was in Polycarp’sPhilippians. Polycarp’s Philippians. Th The e Shepherd, rd, Similitude 8:2.9, cites 1 Timothy 2:4, and the Didache 3:1-2, quotes 1 Timothy 5:17-18.
11. 11.
Second Second Timothy is used used in Pseudo-Barnabas 5:6 (2 Tim. 1:10), as it is in the Shepherd, Shepherd,
Although though ma many of these these cita citatitions ons ma may be dispu dispute ted d if if modern odern cri critical tical approache pproachess are are used, used, it should be noted that by the standards of classical civilization they would be considered legitimate quotations. Therefore, works are regarded as quoted when they would possibly be misquote squoted d or all alluded uded to in in modern odern parl parla ance. nce. As A s a resul result, the fi first hundred hundred yea years of the existence of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament reveal that virtually every one of them was quoted as authoritative and recognized as canonical by men who were themselves the younger younger contem contemporarie poraries of the A postoli postolic Age Age.. PRACTICAL C OMPL ETI ON AND V ERIFICATION
Of course there was not universal agreement by all the early Fathers, in either the second or even the third century, on all of the canonical books. Nevertheless, some Fathers and canons recognized almost all of the books before the end of the second century, and the church universal was in agreement before the end of the fourth century.
Brooke rooke Foss Foss Westcott notes: notes: “I “I ts ge general neral agreem greement with with our our own [ca [canon] non] is is stri striki king ng and 16 important;and its omissions admit of easy explanation.” Th T he Old La Lattin This was translated prior to A.D. 200 and served as the Bible of the Western stern church church as as the the Syri Syriac did did in in the the East. Thi Thiss La Latin tin versi version on conta contaiined ned al all theNew 17 Tesstament books except He Te Heb brews, J ames, and 1 and 2 Pe Petter. Th T he Mura Murattorian rian Ca Can non (A.D. 170). Aside from Marcion’s heretical canon (A.D. 140), the earliest canonical list is in the Muratorian Fragment. This list coincides exactly with the Old Ol d La L atin, tin, omi omitting tting onl only He Hebrews, brews, J ames, and and 1 and and 2 Peter. ter. Westcott Westcott argue arguess ffor or the probability of a break in this manuscript that may once have included those books. 18 It does seem see m strange that Hebrews ebrews and and Peter should should beomi omitted whil while Phil hilemon and and 3 J ohn were includ nclude ed. Thi Thiss fe feature is the the opposi opposite te of thelists of I rena renaeus and Clement of Alexandri xandria a. ECOGNITION ON BY COUNCILS RECOGNITI A s can can be se see en from from the the exam xaminati nation on of quota quotatitions ons by by ind i ndiividu vidua als and and canon canoniica call lists a few
verif verifica catition on of thecontenti contention on of A thana thanasi sius us with with rega regard rd to the New Te T estam stament.23 Therefore, the councils followed the example of leading individuals and canons in recognizing those New Testament books which God had inspired.
17
The The Ne New w Te Tesstament A pocrypha and Pseudepigr igrapha During the third century Origen, like Clement of Alexandria, was faced with the problem that no conclusively fixed boundary between the canonical and noncanonical books of the Bible had been recognized by the church. He set about categorizing Christian writings so that they fell into three basic groupings: (a) anantireta (“un (“unob objjection ctiona able ble”) or homologoumena (“acknowledged”), which were in general use in the church, (b) amphiballomena (“included/contested”), which were contested, and (c) psethde(“false”), psethde (“false”), which included books that were rejected as falsifications and therefore the products of heretics. 1 This classification was later reformulated by Eusebius of Caesarea during the fourth century as (a) homologoumena(“acknowledged”), homologoumena (“acknowledged”), (b) antilegomena (“disputed”), which were divided into
controve controversi rsity ty and and ha had, as as it it were, were, thei their canoni canonica call “ups” and and “downs.” It shoul should d be be sa saiid, however, that these books were seldom considered anticanonical, or even uncanonical. I nstead nstead,, the they y were were given given a sort of se sem micanonical canonical status, status, as has has som someti etim mes been been accorded to the Old Old Te Testam stament Apocry A pocrypha pha (se see e chap. chap. 15). 15). THE NUMBER OF THE A NTILEGOMENA The There are seven books in the Ant Antile ileg gomena, that is, is, seven books that may be properly calle lled d “disputed books.” Concerning the possibility of including three more books in this list, it should should benoted noted that that there there is is good ea early rl y evide evidence nce for the canoni canonici city ty of 1 Peter, Peter, 1 John, J ohn, and and even the brief epistle to Philemon (see chap. 16). Certainly there is almost no evidence that those who possessed the three books did not consider them authentic and apostolic. The seven seven books that cam came in questi question on for for vari various ous reasons reasons are are Heb Hebrews, rews, J ames, 2 Peter, Peter, 2 a and nd 3 Jo J ohn, J ude, and Re Rev velat lation ion. In order to clea learly understand the iss issue at stake, the books “spoken “spoken aga agaiinst” nst” (A (A ntil ntilegomena) na) must be be care care ful fullly and and ind indiividu vidua ally conside considered red..
1. Anoth A nothe er re reason for for re rejecti ecting 2 Peter Peter has has been been the the cla claim that that it it is is a se second cond centu century ry work. However, owever, W.F. Albright has pointed out the reminiscences of Qumran literature in 2 Peter and dates it before A.D. 80.7 2. The discovery of the Bodmer manuscript (P72), which contains the earliest known copy of 2 Peter (late third century), reveals that it was in use and highly respected by Coptic Christians in Egypt during the third century.8 3. Besides the possible allusions to 2 Peter inPseudo-Barnabas inPseudo-Barnabas15:4 15:4 (cf. 2 Peter 3:8), 3:8), there is the testim testimony ony of Orige Ori gen, n, Eus Euse ebius bius,, J erome rome, and Aug Augus usti tine ne,, which fi final nally trium triumphe phed. Be Benja njamin B. B. Warfield perceptively observes that there is more evidence for 2 Peter than there is for Herodotus and Thu Thucydide ides.9 4. Furthermore, there is positive internal evidence for the authenticity of 2 Peter. For although there are some marked differences, there are some close similarities to 1 Peter both linguistically and
Revelation The Apocal pocalypse(Revela velation) tion) was incl includ ude ed in in theA ntil ntilegomena beca becaus use e its its
authenticity was challenged. The doctrine of chiliasm of chiliasm(millennialism) (millennialism) was the focal point of the controve controversy, which which la lasted sted longe longerr than that that over any any other other Ne New Te Testam stament book. It I t is is a curious thing that Revelation was one of the first books to be recognized in existing writings of the apostolic Fathers, and one of the last to be questioned. Evidence for the immediate reception of Revelation in the first century is understandable, because the “seven churches” (Rev. 2-3) to which it was addressed would naturally want to preserve a work that related to them so directly. There is external evidence for its recognition from the time of the theShepherd Shepherd of Hermas, continuing on into the second century until the Montani ontanists sts bega began n to atta attach ch the their uniqu unique e form of millenni nnialismto it. it. Around A round the middl ddle of the third century, Dionysius, the bishop of Alexandria, raised his influential voice against the A pocal pocalypse. ypse. Hi His vie views prevai prevailled through through the the tim time of Eusebi usebius us of Caesa sarea rea to the tim time of A thana thanasi sius us and the Council ouncil of Carthage rthage (A D. 397) when this this trend was was reserv reserved ed.. It I t seem seems
Th T he Gospel of Thomas (early second century) ry) Th The Gos Gospel of Tho Thomas was known
to Hi Hippol ppolytus, ytus, Orige Ori gen, n, Cyri Cyrill of J erusal rusalem, and and Iren Irena aeus. us. T The here re were were at at le least two versi versions ons of thi this col colllection ction of sa sayi ying ngs, s, one of which shows shows Gnosti Gnosticc iinfl nflue uence nce.. L ike othe otherr accou account ntss of the the infancy of Christ, the theGospel Gospel of Thomas contains fanciful stories of alleged childhood miracl racle es of J esus: sus:
This This litt little child J esus when he was five five years old was play laying ing at the for ford of a brook: and he gathered together the waters that flowed there into pools, and made them straightway clean, and commanded them themby his his word alone. And A nd ha having ving made ade sof softt clay, clay, he fashi fashioned oned thereof thereof twel twelve spa sparrows. . . . J esus clapped his hands together and cried out to the sparrows and said to them: Go! and the sparrows took their flight and went away chirping. (2:1–4 (2:1–4))
A nothe nother tell tells how He He curse cursed d a lad to withe witherr li l ike a tree:
A nd whe when Je J esus sa saw what what was done done,, he was wroth and and sai said unto unto him him: O evil vil, ungodly, ungodly, and fooli fool ish one, what hurt did the pools and the waters do thee? Behold, now also thou shalt be withered like a
as one of the archange archangells, yet yet grea greater, ter, and that that he he is is Lord Lord of ange angells and and of all all things things made ade by the 20 Almighty.
Th T he Gospel of Pe Petter (second century). Origen, Eusebius, and Theodoret all refer to this
Pseudepigraphal gospel. Only fragments of it have been preserved. Eusebius identified it as docetic, which means it denied the true humanity of Christ.21 The The Gospel of Peter teaches several things that fail to concur with the New Testament. Tha That inc includ ludes the follo follow wing ing examples les:22 (1) That hat Pil Pilate was was gui guilltle tless for the dea death of of J esus sus and only only the J ews were were answe nswerab rablle for it. it. (2) (2) Tha Thatt Je J esus sus felt felt no no pai pain whe when crucifi crucified. “And “A nd they they brough broughtt two mal malefactors and crucif crucified the L ord in in the midst be between tween them them. But he hel held his his pea peace ce,, as if if he felt no pa pain.” (3) (3) Tha Thatt Je J esus sus ref referred to the the Father ther as “My “M y power. power.”” And A nd the L ord cal called out out and and crie cried, “My “M y power, power, O power, thou ha hast forsa forsaken ken me!” (4) Tha Thatt Je J esus’ sus’ “brothers “brothers and and siste sisters” rs” were were from from afirst ma marria rri age of J ose oseph ph,, a vie view long long he held by Rom Roma an
stood still; and the shepherd raised his hand to strike them with his staff, but his hand remained up. A nd I looked at the flow of the river, river, and and saw saw the mouths ouths of the kids kids over over it i t and and the they did did not dri drink. nk. 25 A nd the then all at once everythi everything ng went went on its its course (aga (agaiin).
Th T he Gospel of the He Heb bre rew ws (second century). T century). Th he Gos Gospel of the He Heb bre rew ws is a false
gnosti gnosticc gospe gospel that that was known to to Iren I rena aeus, us, Clement of A lexandri xandria a, Ori Origen, gen, Eus Euse ebius bius,, and Je J erome. It was mist istakenly belie liev ved by some that this was the origin igina al He Heb brew version ion of the gospel of Matthew, which many believe to have been written prior to the Greek version. A ccordi ccording ng to Irena Irenae eus, it it was was use used by by the Ebioni bionite tess to exal exaltt the Old Ol d Te Testam stament la law and and to repudiate the apostle Paul. Some claimed this gospel was the same as the Gospel of the Ebionites (based on Epiphanius’s statement) but the two have significant differences, including dissimilar accounts of the baptism of Christ.26 Some of the features of the Gospel of the Hebrews include the following:27 (1) A special of Christ hrist to J s, who, contrary to the canoni canonical cal els, els, i id to have have be
Th T he Gospel of the Nazara rae eans (early second century). The Gospel of the Nazaraeans
is cl close oselly rela related ted in in content content and and compass pass to the the synoptic synoptic gospe gospels. It I t was refe referre rred to by by Je J erome 30 as “the Gospel which the Nazarenes use,” or more more often as “the J ewish wish Gospe Gospel.” Some Some of its 31 features include the following: (1) That the man with a withered hand was a mason who saiid, “I was a mason and sa and earned [my] liveli velihood with with [my] [my] hands hands;; I bese besee ech thee thee, J esus, sus, to restore to me my heal health that that I may not with wi th ignom ignominy have have to beg beg for for my bread.” bread.” (2) It I t says says (contrary to Matthew tthew 12:40) that that J esus di did not spend spend “three days days and threenights nights”” in the grave. grave. (3) (3) It I t decl decla ares res,, as Je J erome rome note notes, s, that that “in “i n the the Gospel Gospel which which is is writte written n in in He Hebrew brew characters we read not that the veil of the temple was rent, but that the lintel of the temple of wondrous size collapsed.”32 (4) It I t clai claim ms that that thousands thousands were converted at the cross cross when when Je J esus said, id, “Fat Father, for forgive ive them” (L uke 23:34): “At this word of the L ord many thousands of the J ews who were were standi standing ng round the cross cross becam became bel believers. evers.””33 (5) It I t gives gives the the rea reason son tha that Jo J ohn was known by the high igh pries iest was that “he had ofte ften brought fish fish to the palac lace of the
Th T he Gospel Accordin rding g to Mat Mathia iass: The Tra rad ditio ition ns of Mat Mathia iass Here is another
work known to Ori Origen, gen, Eus Euse ebius bius,, A mbrose, brose, and Je J erome rome. Quotati Quotations ons from from it are prese preserved rved by by 37 Clement of Alexandria: (1) “Wonder at what is present.” (2) “Strive with the flesh and misuse it, without yielding to it in any way to unbridled lust, but to increase the soul through faith and and knowl knowle edge dge.” A gai gain the there is is a Gnosti nosticc iinfl nflue uence nce manif nifest. Th T he Gospel of J udas (late se second cond century) century).. Thi T hiss gospe gospel was known to Irena I renae eus and and Epiphanius (c. 315-403), bishop of Salamia. The product of an antinomian Gnostic sect, it may have contained “a Passion story setting forth the ‘mystery of the betrayal’ (proditionis ( proditionis mysterium) mysterium) and expla xplaining ning how Juda J udass by hi his trea treachery chery made made possibl possible e the sa sallvation vation of all 38 mankind.” Epistle of an Apostle (Epistul pistula Apostolor Apostolorum um) (second century). Unknown before a Coptic text was found in Cairo in 1895, this presents a dialogue between Christ and the eleven disciples after the resurrection. Hennecke summarizes its contents as follows:
Tru Truth is joy joy for for those who have receive ived fro from the Fat Father of Tr Tru uth the grace of knowing ing Him through the power of the Word, which has come forth from the Pleroma, (the Word).” The basic theme is found in the words, “this ignorance concerning the Father produced anguish and terr terror. or. And theangui nguish becam became de dense like a mist, so that that no one could could see see. For this this reason Error waxed strong.” Speaking of salvation by knowledge ( gnosis), it reads: Thu Thus the Wo Worrd of the Fat Father proceeds for forth int into the All, being ing the fru fruit of His heart and a for form of His will. It upholds the All, it chooses it, and also takes (upon itself) the form of the All, purifying it and causi causing ng it it to return to the Fathe atherr and to to the Mother, other, J esus of of the infi nfinite nite ge gentle ntleness. ness. T The he Father ther re reveal veals His breast; but His breast is the Holy Spirit. He reveals that of Himself which was hidden (that of Himself which was hidden was His Son) in order that through the compassion of the Father the aeons might know Him, and cease to torment themselves in search of the Father, resting in Him since they know that this is rest.
Th Go
l f Tr th
lud lud
follo follo
3. A gospel gospel fragm fragment from the Stra Strasbourg Coptic optic papyrus papyrus V II. II . GNOS GNOSTIC TI C GOS GOSPELS A ND RELAT REL ATED ED DOCUMENTS DOCUMENTS A. 1. 2. 3. B. C. 1. 2. 3. 4.
Gospel Gospels Unde nder Gene General ral Title tles The Gospe ospel of the Four Heavenl venly y Regions gions or of the Four Corners orners of theWorl World The Gospel Gospel of Perfecti Perfection The Gospel Gospel of Truth Gospe ospels Unde nder the Name of an an Old Ol d Testam stament Figure gure Gospel Gospels Current urrent,, Dire Directl ctly y or Indi ndirectl rectly, y, Under Under the the Name of Je J esus, sus, and Sim Similar Works Works The Sophi Sophia J esu Christ hristii The Dialogue of the Redee deemer ThePist Pistiis Sophia Sophia The Two Boo ooks ks of J eu
C. Extract xtract from the the L atin tin I nfancy nfancy Gospel Gospel in in the the Arunde rundell Ma Manuscri nuscript pt D. Extract xtract from the the L ife of J ohn A ccordi ccording to Sera Serapi pion on IX. IX . THE RELATI RELA TIVES VES OF J ESUS ESUS X.
THE WORK WORK A ND SUFFERINGS OF J ESUS ESUS
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. A. B. 6.
J esus’ sus’ Earthly rthly A ppea ppearanceand Characte haracterr The A lleged ged Testi stimony ony of J ose oseph phus us The A bga bgar L egend gend TheGospel Gospel of Ni Nicode codemus, us, A cts of Pil Pilate, te, and Christ’ hrist’ss Desce Descent nt into nto Hell. The Gospe ospel of Bartholom rtholome ew The Quest Questiions ons of Barthol rtholome omew Copti opticc Texts of Barthol rtholome omew The Gospel Gospel of Gamaliel
4. The A pocryphal Corresp Corresponde ondence nce Between tween Seneca Seneca and Paul 5. ThePse Pseud udo-T o-Tiitus tus Epistl stle A POCALYPSES A . A poc oca alyptic yptic in Earl Early Chris Christian tianity 1. Introduction 2. The Asce scens nsiion of Isa saiiah 3. A pocal pocalypse of Peter ter B. A poca pocallypti yptic Prop Prophe hecy cy of the the Early rly Church hurch Introduction 1. TheFifth and Sixth Sixth Books of Esra 2. Chris Christian tian Sib Sibyll yllines 3. The Book of Elchasa chasaii C. L ater ter A poca pocalypse ypses
“while the antiquity of the Epistle is firmly established, its Apostolicity is more than questionable.”46 Epistle to the Corinthians (c. (c. A.D. 96). Dionysius of Corinth (60-80) says that this epistle1 epistle 1 Corinthians by Clement of Rome, was read publicly at Corinth and elsewhere, 47 and it is found in Codex Alexandrinus (A) [the Alexandrian manuscript] of the New Testament (c. 450, see see chap. chap. 22). Herbert T. T. Andre A ndrews ws sums up the situa situatition on on thi this epi epistl stle e, saying, saying,
Today no one would put in a plea Tod lea for for its its recognitio ition n as Script ipture, yet fro from a hist istorica ical point int of view iew the Epistle has no little interest for us. . . . It gives us a very good conception of the Christian belief at the time. . . . It contains explicit references to Paul’s first Epistle to the Corinthians, and gives several quotations from the Epistle to the Hebrews, and so proves that these books were widely circulated and recognized before the close of the first century.48
Ancient Homily, or the so-called Second Epistle of Clement (c. (c. A.D. 120-40).
This This
k
d
d in h
d
d is ls
lled lle d 2 Corinthians of Clement
saying that some would not permit it to be read in the churches. The church in general has agreed with that conclusion. Th T he Acts of Pa Pau ul and Thecla (170). T (170). Th he Acts of Pa Pau ul and The Thecla was quoted often by Origen and is in the table of contents of Bezae (D). Stripped of its mythical elements, it is the story of theconversi conversion on and and testi testim mony of an Iconi Iconia an la lady, The Thecl cla a, base based d on Acts Acts 14:114:1-7. 7. It I t no doubt embodie bodies a genui genuine ne traditi tradition, on, as such noted noted schol schola ars as as Wi Willliam M. Ra Ramsa say y and and G. A . Deissmann ha have argue argued, d, but most most schola scholars are incli nclined ned to agree agreewith with Adol Adolff Harnack, who who said it contains “a great deal of fiction and very little truth.” Epistle to the Laodiceans (fourt (fourth h cent century?). ury?). A lthoug though h the the Epistle to the Laodiceans was was known to Je J erome rome, and was was incl includ ude ed in in ma many La L atin tin Bi Bible bles ffrom rom the sixth sixth to the fiftee teenth centuries, it is a forgery based on the reference of Paul in Colossians 4:6. A book by this name is mentioned in the Muratorian Fragment Fragment,, although it may be another name for 0
Th T he Seven Epis Episttle less of Ign Ignatius ius (c. (c. A.D. 110). These letters indicate a definite
familiarity with the teachings of the New Testament, but have a marked peculiarity of style. The Their teaching ing shows a strong belie lieff in the unity ity of the visib isible le church, with ith a bish ishop-ce -centered governme government. Bi Bishop J .B. .B. LLiightfoot ghtfoot has has abl ably y def defended nded the the genui genuine nene ness ss of these epistl pistle es, but vitually no one contends for their canonicity. VA LUATION TION OF OF THE NEW TESTAMENT A POCRYPHA AND PSEUDEPIGRAPHA EVALUA A brief evaluation of each classification of this vast body of early Christian literature will serve to focus on each one’s significance in the early church as well as for the church today. Th T he Value lue of the New Testament Ps Pse eudepigra igrap pha In gene general ral,, these books books have have no positive theological value, and almost no historical value, except as they reflect the religious consciousness of the church during early centuries. Their value may be summarized as follows: 1. They hey contai contain, no doubt, doubt, the the kernel kernel of some some corre correct traditi traditions ons that, that, by by caref careful
(e.g., A cts of Paul) ul). Once the these issue ssues were were cla clarif rified, there there rem remained ned lilittle ttle doub doubtt that that these these books were not canonical. AND CONCLUSION SUMMARY AND
On the question of New Testament canonicity, twenty of the twenty-seven books were never seriously questioned in orthodox circles, namely, the Homologoumena. The other seven se ven books, books, call called Anti Antillegome gomena, na, were que questi stione oned d by some some Fathers Fathers for for a tim time, but were were finally and fully recognized by the church generally. There are numerous books that were never accepted by anyone as authentic or canonical, which are called Pseudepigrapha. The final class of books is called Apocrypha. These books were of good quality and integrity that had a local and temporary acceptance, although they were never widely nor finally considered to be canonical.
Part Three
everything that God wished to say to every man under every circumstance in every age. One could imagine quite an endless invasion from outer space in order to care for all the details of truth transmitted to billions of people, many of which have short memories. Visions and dreams This was another means of communication that God occasionally chose chose to util utilize (cf. (cf. Da Dan. 7:1; Ge Gen. 41). Vi V isions sions and and drea dreams had had more pote potenti ntia al for universality and individuality than did angels. This is because it did not involve the mass of heavenly traffic and it could even be worked into one’s personal experience more readily. However, this method also has serious handicaps. For one thing, visions and dreams tend to be subjective and personal rather than objective and universal. For another, even their ecstatic impact could wear off and be forgotten. Th T he Urimand Thummimand the lo lott These methods were sometimes used to determine God’s will (see Ex. 28:30; Prov. 16:33). However, they were limited in the scope of the content content of truth the they could could convey. convey. A ppa pparentl rently, y, all they they could could ind indiica cate te was was a yes yes or no
better with a pencil than with any other instrument; because, if a thought can be apprehended and expre express sse ed in in writi writing ng,, it mus mustt have have bee been cle clearly rly understood understood.. A nothe nother illustra ustratition on of the preci precisi sion on of langua nguage ge is the dif difference rence be betwee tween one’ one’s acti active ve and and hi his passi passive ve vocabu vocabullarie ries. It I t is is possible to read and understand, in a general way, more words than one can use or write in a specific way. This is true because the accurate usage of words requires a more precise understanding of them, and precision is attained by expression. The proof of that point is the fact that mankind’s most treasured knowledge to date is in the form of written records and books. I t is is unde understan rstanda dabl ble e, then, then, that God should should choose to have have Hi His truth conveyed conveyed by books as precisely as is possible. Propagation There is another advantage to written revelation, namely, the matter of propaga propagatition. on. It I t is is possibl possible e to ma make more more precise precise copie copies of a writte written n me medium diumthan than a spoken spoken one. No one will disagree that a written copy can be, and usually is, a much more accurate reproduction than an oral tradition. No matter how careful the communication is made orally,
languages are usually classified into three main divisions: Sudanese, Bantu, and Hottentot and Bushman. The Semitic group of languages includes four divisions.2 Th T he Eas Eastern Divis ivisio ion n Akka kkadia dian, calle call ed Ass Assyri yria an in in the the peri periods ods of of theolde oldest st texts, texts, and and later ter Ba Babyloni bylonia an are are spokesm spokesmen of this this di divisi vision. on. Akk A kka adia dian was was the the comm common la langua nguage of all Southwest Southwest Asi Asia a duri during ng the the hei height ght of the Old Old Ba Babyloni bylonia an and and Assyri Assyria an em empires pires,, a fact evide vidence nced d by the A marna Le Letters, tters, which which were were sent sent by petty petty kings ki ngs in Syri Syria and Pale Palestine stine to the Pharaohs in Egypt around 1400-1360 B.C. These languages are not used in the Old Tesstament. Te Th T he Southern Divis ivisio ion n This division has two major languages: Arabic and Ethiopic. Neither of those languages is used in the Old Testament. Ethiopic was the language of Ethiopia (Cush), a country referred to in each section of the Old Testament (cf. Gen. 10:7-8; I sa sa.. 45:14; 45:14; Ps. Ps. 68:31). A rabi rabic iiss the the most wide widelly spoken spoken Sem Semitic tic lla angua nguage ge in the the modern odern worl world, being being spoken spoken by la large num numbe bers rs of peopl people e over over a vast area area I n the sixtee sixteenth nth century century
Hebrew is by far the most important language of the Old Testament. 5 Most of the Old Tesstament is writt Te itten in it, it, and it is calle lled d “J udean” (2 K ing ings 18:26, 28), as well as “the langua nguage ge of Canaa naan” (I (Isa sa.. 19:18). Except xcept for for the portions portions mentione ntioned d above above (cf. cf. A ramaic iin n particular), the Old Testament was written in Hebrew. During its long history, Hebrew has developed into the Biblical, Mishnaic, Rabbinic, Medieval, and Modern dialects. AND I NDO NDO-EUROPEAN F AMILY NEW T ESTAMENT L ANGUAGES: SEMITIC FAMIL Y AND
The There is no need to retrace the variou ious divis ivisio ion ns of the Semitic itic fam family, ily, and the Ind IndoEuropean family is traced in more detail at a later point (see chap. 30); hence, the present discussion deals with the individual languages involved in the New Testament. Th T he Semitic itic Fam Family This is represented by both Hebrew and Aramaic (Syriac). Most of the Hebrew influence is seen in the Greek translation of the former’s idiom. This may be seen in the use of the expression “and it came to pass,” the use of two nouns rather than an
were not limited to a given geographical area, it became the official language of the empires into which which Al Alexande xander’s r’ s conque conquests were were di divide vided, d, and even the Roma omans use used d Gre Greek in in thei their literat terature ure as fflluentl uently y as as the they did did La Latin. tin. Koi K oine ne Gree reek k was not aspeci specia al “H “Hol oly y Ghos Ghost” t” la langua nguage ge,, but its appearance was certainly providentially directed, as Paul implied in his statement “When the fulness of the time came, God sent forth His Son” (Gal. 4:4). WHY GOD C HOSE T HESE L ANGUAGES
Now that the background and development of the biblical languages have been traced, it remains to examine how they fit God’s purpose of revelation. What was it that made these langua nguage ges, s, above above othe others, parti particul cula arly rly appropri appropria ate chann channe els for for God’s od’s truth? truth? In I n the theorizi orizing ng about this point, it would be imprudent to overlook a very practical purpose for God’s choice of both major and minor languages, namely, they were the primary languages of the times and the people to whom God was speaking.
narrated. “The Hebrew thought in pictures, and consequently his nouns are concrete and vivid.” There is no such thing as neuter gender, for the Semite everything is alive. “Compound words are lacking. . . . There is no wealth of adjectives. . . .” 11 The language shows “vast powers of association and, therefore, of imagination.”12 Some of this is lost in the English translation, but even so, “much of the vivid, concrete, and forthright character of our English Old Testament is really a carrying over into English of something of the genius of the Hebrew tongue.”13 A s a pi pictoria ctorial langua nguage ge,, Hebrew brew prese presents a vivi vivid d picture picture of theacts of God among a people who became examples or illustrations for future generations (cf. 1 Cor. 10:11). Because the Old Testament was intended as a biographical book for believers, it was fitting for those truths to be presented graphically in a “picture-language.” 2.
Further, urther, Hebrew brew is a personal langua anguage ge.. It I t addresse addressess itsel itselff to the hea heart rt and em emotions otions rather rather than merely to the mind or reason. Sometimes even nations are given personalities (cf. Mal.
2.
Furthermore urthermore,, Gree reek k was a nea nearly rly universal language. The truth of God in the Old Tesstament, which Te ich was init initia ially lly revealed led to one nation ion (Isr Israel), was appropriat iately recorded in the language of that nation (Hebrew). But the fuller revelation given by God in the New Tesstament was not restrict Te icted in that way. In the words of Luk Luke’s gospel, the message of Christ hrist was was to “be procla proclaimed in in Hi His nam name to to al alll nati nations ons”” (L (L uke 24:47). 24:47). The langua nguage ge most appropriate for the propagation of that message was naturally the one that was most widely spoken throughout throughout the worl world. Such Such was was thecomm common (K oine oine)) Gree reek, k, a thoroughly thoroughly international language of the firstcentury Mediterranean world. I t ma may be conclude concluded, d, then, then, that that God God chose the the very very langua nguages ges to com communicate unicateHis truth which which had, in His providence, been prepared to express most effectively the kind of truth He desired at that particular time, in the unfolding of His overall plan. Hebrew, with its pictorial and personal vividness, expressed well the biographical truth of the Old Testament. Greek, with
EVEL OPMENT MENT OF WRITING ADVANCES IN THE DEVELOP Thr Three stages in the develop lopment of writin iting g may be disc iscerned: pict ictograms, ide ideograms, and phonograms. Pictograms These were representations that long antedated the origin of writing and played a role in the development of it. They were actually crude pictures that represented obje objects such as as the sun, sun, an old old ma man, an ea eagle gle, an ox, a lilion. As long long as as pictogram pictograms represe represente nted d nothing other than the objects themselves, there was no difficulty in using them. However, as time passed the use of pictures to depict ideas appeared, and pictograms lost their dominant position in recorded communication. I deogr deogram ams Ideogram deogramss supe supersede rseded d pi pictogram ctograms. The They y were pictur pictures es that that actual actuallly represented ideas rather than objects. Here the picture of the sun might represent heat; an old man might represent old age; an eagle, power; an ox, strength; a lion, regality. Thus, a long stride toward writing was taken, although writing in the modern sense was still a long way
higher critical view was formulated prior to the discovery of the material discussed below. The The testimo imony of these disc iscoveries ies overwhelmin lming gly disp isproves that positio ition n.
was was writi writing ng use used d on cyli cylinde nder se sea al impress pressiions ons in in Bybl Byblos. os. Le L eonard onard Wooll Woolley’s y’s disco discove veri rie es at at A tchana tchana (in northern northern Syr Syriia) appea ppear to have be been contem contemporane poraneous to the records ffound ound by Sir Si r A rthur Evan Evanss at at Knos K nossos sos,, Crete. rete. These hese records records date date into into the the mid-se d-second cond millenni nnium B.C., and they they indi indicat cate e tha that connecti connection on betwee between n the mainla nland of A sia sia and the the isl isla and bri bridge dge of Europe, urope, namely, Crete. Early arly Pal Pale estin tinian an and Sy Syrian co cont ntrribution tionss From 1947 to 1976, excavations at Tell-Ma Te ll-Marrdikh ikh (ancien ient Elba Elba) south of Alep Aleppo in northern Syrian ian uncovered over 15,000 clay lay tablets inscribed in the cuneiform script with an early northwest Semitic dialect of c. 2300 B.C. The tablets are from the time of the Babylonian king Naram-Sin (equated by some with Nimrod of Gen. 0:9) 0:9) who who campai paigned gned in in the area rea.. Incl I nclude uded d am among thetabl table ets are are portions portions of the Epic of Gilgamesh and other kinds of literature from later Syria (Ugarit). Thus they attest to an early literary tradition, as already well known from Babylonia. In addition, they have caused Old Testament scholars to reevaluate the accuracy of the Bible patriarchs as well as
6. Th The Moa Moabite ite Stone. Orie rien ntal Ins Institu itue Mus Museumcast C2, C2, taken fro rom mthe origin rigina al Muse useé du Louvr ouvre AO 5066 5066 (Courte (Courtesy sy of the Ori Oriental ntal I nsti nstitue tue of the Univ niversity sity of Ch Chica cag go.) In addition, alphabetic inscriptions from the turquoise mines in southern Sinai date from about 1500 B.C. A pottery pottery fragment from from Gezer is is date dated d from from about about 1800 1800 to 1500 1500 B.C.; the L achish chish dagg dagge er inscri nscripti ption on is is contem contemporary, porary, as are are ins inscri cripti ptions ons from from Sheche Shechem m, BethShemesh, Hazor, and Tel el-Hesi. The Ras Shamra tablets, from the coastal site in northwest Syria identified as Ugarit, date from about 1500 to 1300 B.C. There they employed the same dipl diplom oma atic tic la langua nguage as theTel el-A marna tabl table ets (c. 1380 1380 B.C.) from the ancient Egyptian capi ca pita tall of A menhote nhotep p IV IV (Akhe (A khena naton). ton). A t Ra Ras Sham Shamra were were al also foun found d spe specim cimens of the Canaanite language written in alphabetic form. Those writings were made by inscribing unique cuneiform signs on clay tablets, known as the Ugaritic tablets (see chap. 18). All of the above evidence is extant from the period prior to the Moabite Stone of Mesha,
Jo J osh. 8:31-32 -32). Also Also, at the Dog Rive River in Le Leb banon and at Beh Behist istun in Iran Iran royal ins inscript iption ions were carved on cliff faces. Papyrus Papyrus was used in ancient Gebal (Byblos) and Egypt from about 3100 B.C. It was made by pressing and gluing two layers of split papyrus reeds together in order to form a shee sheet. A se seri rie es of papyrus papyrus shee sheets were were joi joine ned d togethe togetherr to form form a scroll scroll. It I t is is tha that type of papyrus “scroll” that is mentioned in Revelation 5:1 (though it is translated “book” in NA SB). SB). The apost postlle J ohn use used pa papyrus pyrus for his epi epist stlles (cf. (cf. 2 John J ohn 12). 12). Vellum, parchment, leather These are various quality grades of writing material made from animal skins of calf or antelope, sheep or goat, and cow or bull, respectively. A lthough though these these substa substance ncess are are not mentione ntioned d directl directly y as writi writing ng mate ateria ri als in in the Bible ble, some kind ki nd of anim nimal skin skin may have have be been in in mind in Je J eremi remiah 36:23. 36:23. It I t could could hardly rdly have have be been vell vellum, for Fred Frede eric ric K Ke enyon ha has ind indiica cate ted d tha that vell vellumwas was not known prior prior to about about 200 200 B.C.9 Most likely it was leather, for the king used a knife on it. Parchments are, on the other hand,
7. Ancient writing equipment from Egypt. biblical writers may have used something similar (Reproduced by courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum) Pen Pe n A pen pen was employed ployed in in writi writing ng on pa papyrus, vell vellum, um, le l eather, ther, and pa parchme rchment, as
indi ndica cate ted d in in 3 J ohn 13. 13. Penknife This his was was use used in in Je J eremiah 36:23 36:23 to destroy destroy a scrol scrolll, themateri teria al of which which was was probabl probably y tough toughe er than than papyrus. papyrus. I t was al also used used to sharpen sharpen the the write writer’ r’ss pen pen af after ter it had be begun to wear down. Inkhorn and ink These were necessary concomitants of the pen, and they served as the container and fluid used for writing on papyrus, vellum, leather, and parchment. Thus, just as writing and its materials were available for the biblical writers, so were the instruments necessary for their vital task.
first placed in the margins in 1330. They were printed into the text of the Complutensian Polyglot( Polyglot (1517 1517), ), and the the text text was di divide vided d in in the the e edi ditition on of A ria rias Monta Montanu nuss (1571) (1571).
Verses
1.
Ancient verseindications verse indications were merely spaces between words, as the words were run together continuously through a given book. Each book was separate, and there were no vowel points until the Masoretes added them (fifth to tenth century A.D.). After the Babylonian captivity, for the purpose of public reading and interpretation, space stops were employed, and still later additional markings were added. These “verse” markings were not regul regula ated, ted, and and dif differed from from pla place to to pla place ce.. I t was not not unti until about bout A.D. 900 that the markings were standardized.
2.
Reformation verse indications appea ppeared in in the sixtee sixteenth nth century. century. I n the Bombe omberg rg editi edition on (1547), every fifth verse was indicated; in 1571 Montanus indicated each verse in the margin
1227).15 That was prior to the introduction of movable type in printing. Since the Wycliffe Bible (1382) followed that pattern, those basic divisions have been the virtual base upon which the Bible has been printed to this very day, as the Wycliffe Bible has been basic to subsequent versions and translations. 2. The The La Lattin New Testament (Vulga lgate). The V ulga ulgate te New Te Testam stament was pri printe nted d by Gute Gutenbe nberg rg in 1456 and is known as the Mazarin Bible. This edition followed the thirteenth-century chapte chapterr divi divisi sions ons and and paved paved the way for for such se secti ctioni oning ng in the the Rhei heims-D s-Douay ouay Ve V ersi rsion on (1581(15811609 1609)), which which beca becam me the the a auth uthori orita tatitive ve Eng Engllish edi editition on by decree decreeof Pope Sixtus Sixtus V in 1585 1585.. The The only major jor revisio ision n it experien ienced was by Bish Bishop Cha Challo llon ner (16 (1691-17 -1781). 3. The The Gre Greek New Testament. This was first printed in 1516, by Desiderius Erasmus. It was done in an an ef effort to bea beat Ca Cardina rdinall X imenes nes to the marke rket, as the latter’ tter’ss work was alrea ready dy printed but bogged down in ecclesiastical machinery in the matter of publication. Erasmus
A brief history of the development of writing indicates a progressive development from pictograms, through ideograms, to phonograms, before the time of the biblical writers. Hence, the Bible is correct in assuming the development of writing; and the late nineteenthcentury view that Moses and others lived in preliterate history is totally unfounded in the light of modern archaeological discoveries, namely, from Mesopotamia, Egypt, Western A sia sia, Crete, rete, and even even Pale Palestine stine.. W Wiith the devel developm opme ent of writi wri ting, ng, there there must must have have bee been a development of writing materials and instruments. Those too appeared in ample time to be utilized in the recording of divine revelation.The divisions of the autographs were quite different from those of modern Bibles; a survey of the divisions of the record reveals that the process began over a half millennium before the earthly ministry of Christ and took almost two millennia to come to its current form. The divisions, it has been shown, are not of divine origin, origin, but are rather the efforts of man to “find his way” 17 more adequately through that revel revelation tion whi which is is of divi divine ne origi origin. n. It I t was was al also ind indiica cate ted d tha that theperi period od tha that evi evide dence nced d a rise rise
content. Biblical books of course must be both genuine and authentic or they cannot be inspi nspired, becau because se in ei either ther casethere there would would be be a false sehood. hood. Howeve However, r, General neral I ntroduction ntroduction does not deal explicitly with genuineness (authorship); it deals with the integrity of the text based on its credibility and authority. It is assumed that a biblical book, which has divine authority, and hence credibility, and has been transmitted with integrity, will automatically have have ge genuine nuinene ness. ss. If I f there there bea lie in thebook re regardi garding ng its its origi origin n andor andor authorshi authorship, p, how can its content be believed? UARA NTEE OF OF AUTHENTICITY (AND GENUINENESS) GUARANTEE The The whole chain of revelat lation ion must be examine ined in order to demonstrate with ith certaint inty that the fact and route of revelation are found in the history of the Bible known to Christians today. A complete chain “from God to us” will consist of the following necessary “links.” Deity This is the first link in the chain of revelation. The existence of a God who desires to communicate Himself to man is the one irreducible axiom of this entire study. Evidence
students students of the gospe gospells have have suggested suggested that Mark Mark may may have had had two edi editions. tions.2 In such case casess both editions are inspired, but the latter supersedes the former in a supplementary and complementary sense, in somewhat the same way that the New Testament does the Old Tesstament. Te 2. Ancient versions. versions. The autographs are not extant. (For a suggested reason as to why God permitted the autographs to perish, see p. 42-43). So they must be reconstructed from early manuscripts and versions. The earliest Old Testament translation into Greek is the Septuagint (LX (L X X ) begu begun n in in Al Alexand xandri ria a, Egyp Egypt, t, duri during ng the the thi third cent century ury B.C. The earliest versions, or transl translations tions of the New Te Testam stament into into other other la langua nguages, ges, for for example ple, the Syri Syriac and and Lat Latiin, extend back to the threshold of the second century. They began to appear just over a generation from the time the New Testament was completed (see chaps. 27-28). 3.
Citations of the Fathers. Fathers. The corroborative quotations of the church Fathers from the first
God and the witness of the Holy Spirit provide assurance to the believer that the chain is unbroken. 2.
Subjective assurance assurance.. Before discussing the subjective assurance that welds together any potential cracks in the chain of the Bible’s transmission, it should be emphasized that a 99 percent probability is as good as can be obtained by the historical method. Similar textual methods applied to other ancient documents yield a much lower percent of certitude (see chap. chap. 25). (1) I n fa fact, hum human bei beings ngs do not requ requiire any any more more a assu ssuran rance ce for credi credibil bility. The game of life is played, and must be, quite often on much lower odds. (2) The providence of God, a characteristic that is consonant with a self-revealing God, is the force that welds togethe togetherr the entire ntire chai chain of com comm municati unication. on. Any A ny al alleged ged “cracks” are wel welded ded by by God, God, who providentially planned the process of communication and, therefore, is the One who perfects its product. The chain, then, has no real “cracks” because it is God who welds it together. (3)
8. An ortho orthodo dox x J ewish scribe scri be in J erusal usale emtran transcri scribi bing ng the the Torah Torah on on par parchm chment (The Matson Collection, The Episcopal Home) RESERVAT I ON OF M ANUSCRIPT C OPIES T HE PREPARATION, A GE , AND PRESERVATI
Another factor that enhances confidence in the fidelity of the transmitted text is derived from a consideration of the copying and subsequent care of manuscripts. REPARATI ON OF OF MANUSCRIPT COPIES THE PREPARATION Th T he Old Testament Although it is impossible to fix with certainty the beginning of Hebrew writing, it was pre-Mosaic. Thus, from an early date the Scriptures were copied. The These copies ies were made according ing to diffe ifferent crite iteria, ia, depending ing on the purpose of the manuscript being copied. There are no manuscripts in existence dating from before the Babylonian captivity (586 B.C.), but there was a great flood of copies of the Scriptures dating from the Talmudic period (c. 300 B C A D. 500). During that period there were two general
private copies, the desires of the purchaser were paramount in choosing such things as the size, material, form, and ink color. Seldom did an individual have a collection of scrolls that contained the entire Old Testament.
Th T he New Testament Although though the autographs utographs of the New Te T estam stament have have long long since since
disappeared, there is enough evidence to warrant the statement that those documents were written in rolls and books made of papyrus. The Old Testament had been copied into the “books and the parchments,” but the New Testament was probably written on papyrus 6 between about A.D. 50 and 1007. During this period, papyrus rolls were used, and papyrus survived long periods of time only when placed in rather unusual circumstances. By the early second century, codices were introduced but they too were still generally made of papyrus. 8 As a by-product of the persecutions, culminating with the Edict of Diocletian in 302/3, the Scriptu Scri ptures res were were je jeopardi opardized zed and not not system systematica ticallly copie copied. It I t was with with the the Le Letter tter of
6.
Redressed parchment was used for copying manuscripts after the original writing had become faded. Sometimes parchments were “erased” and “rewritten,” as in the case of the Codex Ephrai Rescriptus (C), also known as a palimpsest (Greek, “rubbed again”) rescriptus (L atin, tin, “rewri “rewritte tten”) n”).. Ne Needle dless to say, say, these these manuscri anuscripts pts would would beof a later ter datethan than the earlier text on the parchment.
7.
Paper was invented in China in the second century A.D.; it was introduced into Eastern Tur Turkestan as early as the fou fourth century, manufac factured in Arab Arabia in the eigh ighth century, 9 introduced into Europe in the tenth century, manufactured in Europe in the twelfth century, and became common by the thirteenth century. There were, of course, developments in the manufacture of paper, for example, with hemp, flax, linen, and rag content. Thus, the materials used in the manufacture of writing material on which manuscripts were copied assist in determining their age.
Constantine’s letter to Eusebius in the fourth century, the period of the establishment of the canon witnessed attempts at textual endation and alteration according to the prevailing fashions or whims among scribes. Not until the late third or early fourth century were serious attempts at recension of the manuscripts actually tried with success, and those have left little direct historical evidence. These matters belong to the discipline of textual criticism and restoration, however, and require no further elaboration at this juncture. The style of writing was slow and laborious during the early centuries of the church, as the letters were capital (uncial),14 written separately, and without breaks between words or sentences. Uncial manuscripts were copied through the tenth century; but before they became less prominent, a new form of writing was introduced into the field, which is called minuscule or cursive writing. By the time of the tenth century, the demand for manuscript copies caused the more fluid cursive style to outstrip the cumbersome uncial style. Thus, by the golden age of manuscript copying, the eleventh through fifteenth centuries, this new running hand
Punctuation Further light is added to the age of a given manuscript by its punctuation.
A t fi first, words words were were run toge together, ther, and very very little ttle pun punctua ctuatition on was was use used. “Duri “During ng the the ssiixth and and 16 seventh centuries, scribes began to use punctuation marks more liberally.” The actual process of change proceeded from spaceless writing, to spaced writing, addition of end punctuation (periods), commas, colons, breath and accent marks (seventh-eighth centuries), interr nterroga ogatition on ma marks, rks, and so on. It I t was a long slow slow proces processs that that was rathe rather com compl ple ete by by the tenth century, in time for the miniscules and the golden age of manuscript copying. Te T ext divis ivisio ion ns The text divisions into sections, chapters, and verses have been treated in chapte chapterr 19 and and nee need only only be mentione ntioned d at at this this point. point. It was not until until the thi thirteenth rteenth century century that modern chapter divisions appeared, and not until the sixteenth century that modern verses were introduced. But this development occurred prior to the mass distribution of the printe printed d Bi Bible ble, and it it aug augm mented nted the the iinfl nflue uence nce of the Rhei heims-D s-Douay ouay and and Ki K ing Ja J ames Ve Versi rsion on of the English Bible.
Th T he New Testament manuscript ripts New Testament manuscripts fall into four general
periods of development. 1. The The firs irstt thre ree e centurie riess witnessed a composite testimony as to the integrity of the New Tesstament Script Te iptures. Bec Because of the ille illeg gal positio ition n of Chr Christ istian ianity ity, it cannot be expected that many, if any, complete manuscripts from that period are to be found. Therefore, textual critics must be content to examine whatever evidence has survived, that is, nonbiblical papyri, biblical papyri, ostraca, inscriptions, and lectionaries that bear witness to the manuscripts of the New Testament (see chap. 21).
2. The The fourth rth and fift ifth centurie riess brought a legalization of Christianity and a multiplication of manuscripts of the New Testament. These manuscripts, on vellum and parchment generally, were copies of earlier papyri and bear witness to this dependence (see chap. 22 for an examination of New Testament manuscripts).
countless manuscripts to support the integrity of the Bible (including the Old Testament since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls), but a study of the procedures of preparation and preservation of the biblical manuscript copies reveals the fidelity of the transmission process itsel tself. In I n fa fact, it i t ma may be conclude concluded d tha that no major ajor docume document from from anti antiqui quity ty comes comes into the modern world with such evidence of its integrity as does the Bible.
21
Old Testament Manuscripts The The origin igina al manuscript ipts of the Old Te Tesstament (autographa) are not availa ilab ble, le, but the 1 Hebrew text is amply represented by both pre- and post-Christian manuscripts. As a result, the reliability of the Hebrew text can be evaluated from available manuscript evidence. But, what are the nature and amount of the documentary evidence for the original text of the Old
fragments.7 The Briti ritish sh Mus Muse eumca cata tallog lilists 161 161 Hebrew Hebrew Old Old Te Testam stament ma manuscri nuscripts pts.. A t Oxf Oxford, the Bodle Bodleian Li L ibrary brary ca cata tallog lilists 146 146 Old Old Te Testam stament ma manuscri nuscripts pts,, each one 8 containing a large number of fragments. Goshen-Gottstein estimates that in the United States alone there are tens of thousands of Semitic manuscript fragments, about 5 percent of which are biblical—more than 500 manuscripts.9 ESCRIPTI ON OF OF MAJOR OLD TESTAMENT HEBREW MANUSCRIPTS DESCRIPTION The The most sign ignifica ificant He Heb brew Old Te Tesstament manuscript ipts date fro from between the third ird century B.C. and the fourteenth century A.D. Nash Papyrus Besides those unusual finds, which are about a thousand years older than most of the earliest Old Testament Hebrew manuscripts, there is extant one damaged copy of the Shema (from Deut. 6:4-9) and two fragments of the Decalogue (Ex. 20:2ff.; Deut. 5:6ff.). I t is is dated dated betwee between n the second second century B.C.10 and the first century A.D. Orientales 4445 This British Museum manuscript is dated by C[hristian] D. Ginsburg
Syri Syria a to Israe Israell. It I t has has now be been photograp photographe hed d and and wil will be the basi basiss of the New Hebrew Bible 16 to be published by the Hebrew University. I t is is a sound sound authori uthority ty for for the Ben Ash Ashe er text. A Codex Leningradensis (B 19 ) Accordi ccording ng to to a colophon, colophon, or note at the end, this this was was copi copied in in Old Old Cairo Cairo by Sam Samuel uel ben ben Ja J acob in A.D. 1008 from a manuscript (now lost) written by Aa Aaron ben ben Mose Mosess b be en Ashe Asherr c. A.D. 1000,17 whereas Ginsburg held it was copied from the Aleppo Codex.18 I t represe represents nts one one of the olde oldest st ma manuscri nuscripts pts of the compl comple ete Hebrew Bi Bible ble 19 that is known. K ittel ttel adopte dopted d it it as as the the basi basiss for the third third edi editition on of his his Bib Biblia Heb Hebraica raica (BHK ), and and it it continues continues to be be use used as as such such in in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) (BHS),, where where it is represe represente nted d unde under the sym symbol bol L . Babylonian Codex of the Latter Prophets (MS Heb. B3) This is sometimes called the L eningra ningrad d Code Codex x of the Prophets rophets20 or the [St.] Petersburg Codex.21 It contains Isaiah, Je J eremiah iah, Eze Ezekiel, iel, and the Twe Twelve lve. It is dated A.D. 916, but its chief significance is that through it punctua punctuatition on adde added d by by the Babyloni bylonia an school school of Masoretes soretes was was redi rediscovere scovered. d. It I t is is
Hebrew Old Testament and Targum Ontelos,probably from the thirteenth century. E 3 is the olde oldest, st, being being da dated ted by Ka K ahle hle and and others others bef before A.D. 1100.25 Some Lost Codices There are a number of significant but now lost codices whose peculiar readings are preserved and referred to in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgartensia. Codex Severi (Sev.) is a medieval list of thirty-two variants of the Pentateuch (cf.critical apparatus to Gen. 18:21; 24:7; Num. 4:3), supposedly based on a manuscript brought to Rome in A.D. 70 that Emperor Severus (A.D. 222-35) later gave to a synagogue he had built. Codex Hillel (Hill.) was supposedly written c. A.D. 600 by Rabbi Hillel ben Moses ben Hillel. It is said to have been accurate and was used to revise other manuscripts. Readings from that manuscript are cite cited d by me medie dieval Masoretes soretes and and are are used used in in the criti cri tical cal apparatus pparatus of Bi of Bib blia Heb Hebraica raica 26 Stuttgartensia in Genesi nesiss 6 6:3; :3; 19:6; Exodus Exodus 25:9; 25:9; Le L eviti viticus cus 26:19. 26:19. A critical apparatus lists the variant readings to the text that the editor considers are significant for translators or necessary for establishing the text.
3.
Comm ommentary ntary on the book of Ha Habakk bakkuk, uk, contai containing ning the text text of the first two cha chapters pters of the Prophet Habakkuk with a running interpretation.
4.
Genesi nesiss Apocryphon, pocryphon, first known as theL amech Scroll Scrol l, contai containing ning Apocryphal pocryphal a accoun ccounts ts in A ramaic of some of thepatri patria archs of Genesi nesis. s.
5. Hebrew rew University niversity Isa saiiah (Isa (I saiiah B, or I QIs QI sb) is incomplete but its text agrees more closely with the Masoretic text than does Isaiah A. 6. War Scroll Scroll, whose whosefull ull titl title e is War of the the Sons of Li L ight ght A gai gainst nst the the Sons of Darkness Darkness,, gi gives ves an account of preparation for the end-time war between the Qumran sect and their enemies. 7.
Thanksgi hanksgivi ving ng Hymns ymns contai contain about thirty thirty hymns, hymns, which which rese resem mble ble Old Ol d Testam stament psal psalms.28
9. Qumran caves where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found (Giovanni Trimboli)
Cave I was officially excavated betwen February 15 and March 9, 1949. It yielded fragments of Genesi Genesis, s, Le L eviti viticus cus,, De Deuteronom uteronomy, y, J udge udges, s, Samuel uel, Isa I saiiah, Ezeki Ezekie el, Psa Psallms, and and some nonbiblical works including Enoch, Sayings of Moses (previously unknown), Book of Ju J ubile ilee e, Boo Book of No Noa ah, Te Tesstament of L evi, To Tob bit, it, and the Wisd isdom of Solom lomon. An interesting fragment of Daniel,containing 2:4 (where the language changes from Hebrew to A ramaic), c), also also come comes from from thi this cave. cave. Fragm Fragmentary ntary comm commentari ntarie es on Psalm Psalms, Mi M icah, cah, and 29 Zepha Zephania niah were were al also found found in Cave I. Cave II This cave, first discovered and pilferred by the Bedouin, was excavated between March 10 and 29, 1952. Fragments of about a hundred manuscripts, including two of Exodus, one of L eviti viticus cus,, four four of Num Numbers, bers, two or three three of Deuteronom uteronomy, y, one of J eremiah, Job, J ob, Psalms, and two of Ruth, were found. However, nothing so spectacular as the manuscripts found in some of the other caves was uncovered.
this material has already been published,32 but but much much more from Caves I V and XI stil still remains to be published.
11. T Th he Ha Hab bbakkuk Co Com mmentary (Y.Yadin and The Shrine rine of the Book) ATI NG THE THE DEAD SEA SCROLL CROLL DISCOVERI DISCOVERIES ES DATING
in caves southeast of Samaria shows by paleography that datings proposed for 40 Ex f (c. 250 b 35 B.C.) and 4QSam (c. 225 B.C.) now appear to be minimal. ETAI LS OF OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLL TEXTS DETAILS The The nature and number of these find finds are of critic itica al value lue for for establis lish hing ing the true text. With innumerable fragments of the entire Old Testament, there are abundant samples from which to draw comparisons with the Masoretic Text. What does such a comparison reveal? A ll of the evide vidence nce has has not be been criti critical callly ana analyzed to date date,, but a decad decade e and a hal half of scholarship has produced the following general conclusions. Similarity to the Masoretic Text The scrolls give an overwhelming confirmation of the the fide fidellity of the the Ma Maso sore retic tic Text. Mi M illar Bu Burrows, rrows, in i n hi his val valuable work ent entiitled Th tled The e Dea Dead Sea Scrolls, Scrolls, write wri tes, s, “I “I t is is a matter tter of wonder wonder that through through some something thing lilike a thousa thousand yea years the text underwent so little alteration. As I said in my first article on the scroll, ‘Herein lies its chief importance, supporting the fidelity of the Masoretic tradition.’” 36 R. Laird Harris points
2.
The Masore soretiticc Te Text of Exodus Exodus 1:5 rea reads ds “se “seven venty ty soul souls,” s,” wherea whereass theL XX and theNew Tesstament quote taken fro Te from it (cf. Act Acts 7:14) read “seventy-fiv -five souls. ls.” A fr fragment of Exodus 1:5 from from the Qumran Qumran Scroll Scrol ls rea reads “seven “seventyty-ffive soul souls,” s,” iin n agre agree ement with with the the L X X .
3.
Hebrews brews 1:6 (KJ (K J V), “Le “L et all the ange ngels of God worshi worship him him,” iiss a quote quote from the the L X X of Deuteronomy 32:43. This quotation is not in agreement with the Masoretic Text, but one of the scroll scroll fragm ragments contai containing ning this this se secti ction on tend tendss to conf confirm the Gre Greek text text (L (L X X ).
4.
The famous Isa saiiah 7:14 passa passage ge rea reads, ds, “she shal shall ca call his his nam name” in in the Masoretic soretic Text, but the L X X and now now the grea great Isa I saiiah scroll scroll rea read, d, “H “His nam name ssha halll be ca callled,” a matter tter of one less consonant of the Hebrew alphabet.
5.
The Gree reek k versi version on of J eremiah is sixty sixty verse versess (one-eigh (one-eighth) th) shorte shorterr tha than theHebrew brew text text of b Je J eremiah iah. The The fra fragment of J eremiah iah (4Q (4Q J er ) supports some of these omissions.
A form orm of the Samaritan aritan Pentate entateuch uch text seem seems to have been been known known to such earl early y church church Fathers thers as Eusebi usebius us of Caesa sarea rea and Je J erome. rome. It I t did did not be become come avail vailable ble to schola scholars in in the West, however, until 1616, when Pietro della Valle discovered a manuscript of the Samaritan Pentate ntateuch uch in in Dama Damascus. A great great wave of excite xcitem ment arose arose a am mong bibl bibliica call schola scholars. The text text was published in an early portion of the Paris Polyglot (1632) and later in the text of the L ondon ondon Polygl Polyglot ot (1657). (1657). It was was q qui uickl ckly y rega regarded rded as as b be eing supe superi rior or to the Masore soretiticc T Te ext (MT); but it became relegated to relative obscurity after Wilhelm Gesenius in 1815 adjudged it to be practically worthless for textual criticism. In more recent times the value of the Sama Samarita ritan n Pentate Pentateuch uch has has bee been reasse reasserted rted by such schol schola ars as A. A. Geiger, ger, Paul E. K ahle hle, and Frede rederi ricc G. Ke K enyon. nyon. So far as is known, no manuscript of the Samaritan Pentateuch is older than the eleventh century A.D. A lthough though the the Sam Samarita ritan n comm communi unity cla claims that that one roll roll was was writte written n by Abi A bish sha a, the great-grandson of Moses, in the thirteenth year after the conquest of Canaan, their
when it should have been written more than once. Dittography is writing twice what should have been written only once. Metathesis is reversing the proper position of letters or words. Fusionis Fusion is the combining of two separate words into one. Fission is the dividing of a single word into two words. Homophonyis Homophony is the substitution of a word for another that is pronounced like it (e.g., “two” for “to”), or the misreading of similarly shaped letters. Homoeoteleuton is the omission of an intervening passage because the scribe’s eye skipped from one line to a similar ending on another line. Accidental omissions occur where no repetition is involved (as “Saul was ... year(s) old,” Sam. 13:1, RSV), or vowel letters are misread for consonants. UL ES FOR FOR TEXTUAL CRITICISM RULES Scholars have developed certain criteria for determining which reading is the correct or original one. Seven rules may be suggested.47 (1) The older reading is to be preferred, because it is closer to the original. (2) The more difficult reading is to be preferred, because scribes were more apt to smooth out difficult readings. (3) The shorter reading is to be
2.
The Soncino Soncino editi dition on of the compl comple ete Old Old Testam stament with with vowel poi pointing nting (A.D. 1488). There were also editions in Naples (1491-1493) and Brescia (1494).
3.
The Compl omplut ute ensi nsian Polygl Polyglot ot Bible by Cardina rdinall Xi X imenes nes at A lca calla, Spa Spain (1514-151 (1514-1517), 7), in in Hebrew, brew, Gre Greek, A ram ramaic, Ta T argum rgum, and L atin. tin. A polyglot polyglot is is a multi ultipl ple e-colum columned ned edi editi tion on containing the original language and various other translations for means of comparison.
4.
The A ntwe ntwerp rp Polygl Polyglot ot (1569-157 (1569-1572). 2).
5.
The Paris Paris Polygl Pol yglot ot (1629 1629--1645 1645)), ten ten volum volumes.
6.
The L ondon ondon Polygl Polyglot ot (1654-165 (1654-1657), 7), six six foli olio volum volumes.
7.
The First Rabbi bbinic nic Bible ble (1516 1516--1517 1517)) was was produce produced d by Felix Prate ratensi nsis and publ publiishe shed by Danie niel Bombe omberg. rg. It was a consi considerab derablle criti critica call achie chievement (in (in four four volum vol umes) and served served as as
16. 16.
R. K itte ttel and P. K ahle, Bib Biblia Heb Hebraica (1929), first and second editions were based on Bomberg (524-525) and contained variants from the tenth and eleventh centuries. Codicis J emensis (V[ar]1) was edited by R. Hoerning (1889).
17. 17.
R. K itte ttel and P. K ahle, Bib Biblia Heb Hebraica (937), third edition and following, were based on Code odex Le L eningra ngrade den nsis B 19A 19A [L] [L ] (f (fromA.D. 1008) with the small Masora of Ben Asher in the margin. Their seventh edition includes Dead Sea Scrolls Isaiah and Habakkuk variants for the first time.
18. 18.
K arl Elliger ger and Wi Willhel helm Rudol dolph, ph, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (1967/77) is the succe success ssor or to the the K ittel ttel-K ahle hle Bib Biblia Heb Hebraica raica.. I t continue continuess to be ba base sed d on Code Codex x L ening ningrad rade ensi nsis B 19A 19A (L ) and includ nclude es Dead Dead Sea Sea Scroll Scrol l varia variants. nts. T The he dif difference rencess b be etwee tween the Bib Biblia Heb Hebraica and theBiblia the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia include the moving of 1 and 2 Chronicles to the end, a remaking of type face (due to the destruction of the original plates in
Y PE THE PROTO-SAMARITAN TEXT-T YPE This This is also lso known among the Dea Dead Sea Scrolls lls.. Fro From Ca Cav ve IV ca came a Pa Pale leo o-Heb -Hebrew 52 b manuscript of Exodus and one of the Numbers (4QNum ) in “square” script, which give collateral witness to a Samaritan type of text. The Numbers manuscript is not a consistent witness to the Samaritan text or even to a Proto-Samaritan type, because it shows striking conta contact ct with with the the L X X tradi traditi tion on.. Some Some scho schollars ind indiica cate te the the poss possiibil bility of a fourth main manuscript family called “a neutral family,” which stands more or less midway among the conflicting traditions of the other three families. 53 The accompanying chart is an attempt to show these family histories.
* The The authors have updated and expanded the chart origin igina ally prepared for for the firs first editio ition n by J ohn Re Rea a. a. Deut. 31:9 31:9,, 24–26 24–26;; cf. J cf. Jo osh. 1:8 :8;; 8:31–35 8:31–35.. b. 1 Ki King ngss 2:3 2:3;; 2 Ki K ing ngss 14:6 14:6;; 2 Chron. 17:9. 17:9. c. Hos. 4:6; 4:6; 8:1 :1,, 12. d. The These may have been carried ied by J eremiah iah (cf. J f. Je er. 43-4 -44 4). e. This This occured in the deportation ions of 597 and 586 B.C. (cf Dan. (cf Dan. 9:2. 9:2. f. Perhaps Zerubabbel brought hebrew manuscripts with him in 535 B.C. when he and others returned to Palestine from Babylon (cf E (cf Ezra 2:1-70 2:1-70.. g. Ezra 7:6, 7:6, 10; Neh. 8:1-8. 8:1-8. h. Oral Aramaic Targums were used in Palestine (cf. Ezra 8:7-8) 8:7-8) and in Babylon by Daniel (cf. Dan. 9:2) 9:2) and possibly by Ezekiel as they explained their prophecies (and Scripture?). i. Some argue that this recension was used by the chronicler when citing the Pentateuch and the books of Samuel. See Frank Moore Cross, “New Directions in Dead Sea Scroll Research I: the Test Behind the Text of the Hebrew Bible,” Bible Review, Review, 1:2 (Summ (Summer 1985) 1985) 1212-25, 25, and “New Directions Directions in Dea Dead SeaScroll Scroll Rese Research arch IIII : Original Ori ginal bibli biblical cal Rese Resea arch Rec Recons onstructe tructed d
A ccording ccording to theTalmud, ud, there there were were spe speci ciffica catitions ons not not only only for for the kind kind of skins skins to to be use used and the size of the columns, but there was even a religious ritual necessary for the scribe to perform before writing the name of God. Rules governed the kind of ink used, dictated the spacing of words, and prohibited writing anything from memory. The lines, and even the letters, tters, were counted counted methodica thodicallly. I f a manuscri nuscript pt was was found found to contai contain even even one mistake, stake, it it was discarded and destroyed (cf. chap. 20). This scribal formalism was responsible, at least in part, part, for the extr extre eme care care exerci exercise sed d in in copying copying the the Scri Scriptures. ptures. It I t was al also the rea reason son there there were only a few manuscripts (as the rules demanded the destruction of defective items), as well as why those which are extant are of good quality. OMPARI SON N OF DUPLICATE PASSAGES COMPARISO Another line of evidence for the quality of the Old Testament manuscripts is found in the comparison of the duplicate passages of the Masoretic Text itself. Several psalms occur twice (e.g., Pss Pss.. 14 and 53); 53); much of I sa saiiah 36-39 36-39 is is al also found in 2 Ki K ings ngs 1818-20; 20; Isa saiiah 2:22:2-4 is is
substantiation of the received Hebrew text of the Masoretes. Critics of the Masoretic Text charged that the manuscripts were few and late; now, however, there is available, through the Dead Sea Scrolls, many and early manuscript fragments that provide a check on nearly the whole whol e Old Tes Testam tament. ent. Those checks date date about about a thousand thousand years years befor before e the great great Mas Masor oreti eticc manuscripts of the tenth century A.D. Before the discoveries in the Cairo Geniza and the Dead Sea caves, the Nash Papyrus (a fragment of the Ten Commandments and Shema, Deut. 6:49), dated between 150 B.C. and A.D. 100, was the only known scrap of the Hebrew text dating from before the Christian era. GREEMENT WITH WIT H THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH A GREEMENT Despite the many minor variants between the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, there is substantial agreement between them. The Samaritan Pentateuch contains about six thousand variants from the Masoretic Text, but most of those are a matter of orthography (spelling, etc.). Some nineteen hundred of the variants agree with
The The fide fidelity lity of the Ne New w Te Tesstament text, however, rests on a diffe ifferent basis alto ltogether. The The New Testament rests on a multitude of manuscript evidence.Counting Greek copies alone, the New Testament text is preserved in some 5,366 partial and complete manuscript portions that were copied by hand from the second through the fifteenth centuries. 1 By way of contrast, most other books from the ancient world survive in only a few and late manuscript copies (see comparison later in this chapter). A few of the New Te T estam stament ma manuscri nuscript pt fragm fragments are are very earl early, y, dati dating ng from from these second cond century. By contrast, the manuscripts for most other ancient books date from about a thousand years after their original composition. Some 362 New Testament uncial manuscripts and 245 uncial lectionaries2 date from the second through the tenth centuries, constituting nearly percent of all New Testament and lectionary manuscripts. Those early uncial manuscript witnesses are extremely valuable in establishing the original text of the New Tesstament (as Te (as will be shown in chap. 26). The The other 89 percent of manuscript ipts are minu inuscule, le,
Testimo Tes imony to the fide fidelity lity of the Ne New w Te Tesstament text comes prima imarily fro from three sources: Greek manuscripts, ancient translations, and patristic citations. The first source is the most important and can be subdivided into four classes, commonly termed papyri, uncials, minuscules, and lectionaries. The most distinguishing characteristic of each of those classes has been chosen as its designation. The papyrus manuscripts and over two hundred lectionaries were written in uncial letters. The second and third classes are differentiated by the style style of writi wri ting, ng, becau because se both were were writte wri tten n on vell vellumor parchme parchment. At A t prese present there there are are 88 catalogued papyri manuscripts, an additional 274 uncial manuscripts in codex format, and 245 245 le lectiona ctionari rie es in in unci uncia al script. script. In In add addiition, tion, 2,795 manuscri nuscripts pts and 1,964 lectiona ctionari rie es in in 6 minuscule script have been catalogued. NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPT DISTRUBITION BY CENTURY ENTURY AND MANUSCRIPT T YPE Y PE* Cent. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Totals
*This arrange arrangem ment is an ada adapta ptation tion by by Darre Darrelll L . Bock Bock of materi terial al from from K urt Al Aland and and and Barbara Barbara Aland, nd, Der Text des Neuen Testaments: Ein Einfführun rung in die wiss issenschaftlich lichen Ausgaben sowie in The Theorie und Prax Praxis der moderne rnen Textcritik ritik (Deutsch Bibel belgese geselllenscha enschaft, 1982), 1982), p. 90. The There re is is an an appa apparent contradicti contradiction on in in the the totals totals summ summarized arized in the Aland and lilist (5,222 items) items) and and the evi evide dence nce prese presente nted d by Metzge M etzgerr (5,366 item items). Aland and and and Al Aland and seem to have have exclude excluded from from thei their list manuscri nuscripts pts whose century is uncertain, whereas Metzger, UBS, and Nestle (26th ed.) include all catalogued papyri and uncials buy incorporate selected minuscule and lectionary evidence into their lists. 7 ANUSCRI PTS ON PAPYRUS (SECOND-THIRD CENTURIES) M ANUSCRI
rem remains. ns. In I n ge genera nerall, it i t agre agree es with with the the Alexand xandri ria an text text of Codex odex Sina Sinaiiticus ticus ( ), but but shows shows frequent independence. This papyrus dates from about A.D. 250 or later. Thirty of the leaves are owned by the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
measuri suring ng 10 10 1/4 by5 1/3 inch inche es, contai containing ning most of L uke and and John J ohn in in cle clear and ca careful refullly printed uncials, and dated between A.D. 175 and and 225. 225. It I t conseque consequentl ntly y is is theearli rliest known copy copy of L uke. uke. Its I ts te text is is very very sim similar to Cod Code ex Va V atica ticanu nuss (B), (B), althoug though h it it occasi occasion ona ally agre agree es 13 with the Sahidic version. Actually, there are some eighty-eight14 papyri manuscripts of portions of the New Tesstament, of which Te ich the for foregoing ing are merely the most imp important representative ives. The The papyri witness to the text is invaluable, ranging chronologically from the very threshold of the second century within a generation of the autographs and including the content of most of the New Testament. All are extant from within the first two hundred years after the New Tesstament its Te itself was writt itten.15 ANUSCRI PTS ON V ELL UM AND PARCHMENT (F OURTH -NINTH UNCIAL M ANUSCRI CENTURIES)
17. T Th he Mon Monastery of St. Ca Cattherine rine of Mou Mount Sina inai is a re rep posito itory of ancie ien nt manuscripts (Courtesy of Biblical Archaeologist, a publication of the American Schools of Oriental Research) CODEX SINAITICUS ( [ALEPH]) (C. 340) This This fou fourth-ce -century Gre Greek manuscript ipt is generally conside idered to be the most imp important witness to the text because of its antiquity, accuracy, and lack of omissions. The story of the discove discovery ry of is one of the most fascina scinatiting ng and roma romantic ntic in textua textuall history. history.17 I t was was found in the the monaste onastery ry of St. Catheri therine ne at Moun Mountt Sina Sinaii by the Germa rman Coun Countt Lobe L obegott gott Fri Friedrich drich Constantine VonTischendorf (1815-1874), who was living in Prussia by permission of the czar. On his first visit (1844), he discovered forty-three leaves of vellum, containing portions of theL X X (Chronicl hronicle es, Je J eremiah, Ne Nehem hemiah, and and Esthe sther), r), in in a baske baskett of scraps scraps that that the the
CODEX A LEXANDRINUS (A) (C. 450) Codex Alexandrinus is a well-preserved manuscript from the fifth century that ranks second only only to B and as representati representative ve of the New Tes estam tament ent text. Though Though some some have dated this manuscript in the late fourth century, 19 it is probably the result of fifth-century scribe scribess of A lexandri xandria a, Egypt. gypt. In 1078 1078 thi this codex codex wa was prese presente nted d to the Patria triarch of A lexandri xandria a, afte afterr whom it was was nam named. In I n 1621 1621 it wa was taken taken to Cons Consta tanti ntinop noplle by Cyri Cyrill L ucar, ucar, who was was trans transfferred to pa patria triarchal rchal duti dutie es there. there. Luca L ucarr gave gave it it to Sir Sir Thom T homas Roe Roe,, Engl nglish ambassa bassador dor to Turkey Turkey in in 1624, 1624, to prese present to Ki K ing Ja J ames I. I. J ames die died bef before it it reache reached d Engl ngland, nd, and the the manuscri nuscript pt was was give given n to Cha Charl rle es I in 1627 1627,, too la late for use in the the K Kiing Ja J ames Ver Version ion of 1611. In 1757, Geo George II pr presented it to the Na Nattion ional Libr Library of the Brit Britis ish h Museum useum. It contai contains the the whol whole e Old Old Te Testam stament, except except for for several several mutil utilations tions (Ge (Gen. 14:14-7; 15:1– 15:1–5, 5, 16– 16–19; 19; 16:6–9; 16:6–9; 1 Ki K ingdom ngdoms [1 Sam.] 12:18– 12:18–14 14:9; :9; Pss. 49:1949:19-79 79:10), :10), and most of the
CODEX BEZAE (D [CODEX CANTABRIGIENSIS])( ]) (C. 450 OR C. 550) This This is the olde ldest known biling ilingual manuscript ipt of the Ne New w Te Tesstament. It was writt itten in Gree reek k and L atin tin and and may have origi origina nate ted d in in southe southern rn Ga Gaul (France rance)) or northe northern Ita I tally. It was found ound in in 1562 1562 by by The T he’’odore de Beze (Be (Beza), theFrench rench theol theologi ogia an, at St. Iren I rena aeus Monaste onastery, ry, L yons, Fran France ce.. In I n 158 1581 1 Beza gave gave it to Cambridg bridge e Unive niversi rsity. ty. Thi T hiss manuscri nuscript pt contai contains the the four gospe gospells, Acts, A cts, and and 3 John J ohn 1111-15 15,, with with vari varia ations tions from from other other ma manuscri nuscripts pts indi ndica cate ted. d. Pre Prese sent nt om omissions in in Greek Greek incl includ ude e Matthe tthew 1:1-20; 6:20–9:2; 6:20–9:2; 27:2–12 27:2–12;; J ohn 1:163:26; Acts Acts 8:29-10:14; 21:2– 21:2–10 10,, 5–8; 5–8; 22:10– 22:10–20 20;; and and 22:29– 22:29–28 28:31. :31. In I n L atin, tin, Ma Matthew tthew 1:1-11; 6:8–8:27; 26:65– 26:65–27:1; 27:1; J ohn ohn 1:1-3:16;A 1:1-3:16;Acts cts 8:20-10:4 8:20-10:4;; 20:31–21:2; 20:31–21:2; 21:7–10; 22:2– 22:2–10; 10; and 22:20–28:31 are omitted. There are 406 leaves (8 by 10 inches), with one column of thirtythreelines nes to the page page.. The Gree reek k text is is on the left page page,, and the the La Latin tin on the right.T ri ght.The he order of the the books books is Ma M atth tthew, J ohn ohn, LLuke uke,, Ma M ark, and and so so on. on. T Third hird Joh J ohn-5 n-5 is is found found in La L atin onl only. In In each book the first three lines are in red ink. The manuscript is located in the Cambridge
CODEX BOERELIANUS (F) Codex Boerelianus contains the four gospels, dates from the ninth century,and is a typically Byzantine text-type. It is located at Utrecht. CODEX A UGIENSIS (F2 OR FP) This This is a nint inth-ce -century manuscript ipt of Paul’s epist istles les in Gre Greek and L atin (with ith lar large omi omiss ssiions) ons) but Hebrews brews is in in La Latin tin onl only. y. It I t is is now now at at Tri Trini nity ty Coll College, ge, Ca Cambridg bridge e. The Thetext text is is Western and was published by F.H.A. Scrivener in 1859. CODEX WOLFII A (G) Also cal called Code Codex x Ha Harle rleianus, nus, this this codex codex date datess to the tenth tenth centu century. ry. It contai contains the the four gospels with many lacunae (omissions). CODEX BOERNERIANUS (G3 OR GP) Dating from the ninth century, this codex contains Paul’s epistles in Greek with a literal L atin tin transl transla ation tion betwee between n the the lines nes (inte (i nterl rliinea near). r). It I t has has thenam name but not the the narr narra ation tion of the
The The second ending ing is the traditio ition nal verses 9-20 -20 fou found in the K ing ing J ames Ver Version ion and the New Ne w King J ames Ver Version sion (see discussion in chaps. 26 and 32). CODEX A NGELICUS (L2 OR L AP) This This codex is a nint inth-ce -century copy of Act Acts, the general epist istles les, and the Pa Pau uline line epist istles les. I t is is a Byzanti yzantine ne texttext-type type.. CODEX PAMPIANUS (M) Codex odex Pam Pampia pianus contai contains the four gospe gospels. It I t is is a Byza yzantine ntine text, text, wi with adm admiixtures of Cae aesare sarean an.. It I t dates dates from rom the ninth ninth century century.. CODEX PURPUREUS PETROPOLITANUS (N) This This codex, writt itten in the sixt ixth century in silve ilver let letters on purple vellum llum, is a delux luxe parchment of the gospels. Of the 462 original leaves, some 230 known leaves are scattered around the world. The text is dominantly Byzantine, although B. H. Streeter regarded it as a weak member of the Caesarean family.28
The The gospels inc includ lude Mat Matthew, J ohn, L uke, and Mar Mark, in that order. Mar Mark has the lon long ending ing (6:9–20) attached; however, a most noteworthy insertion follows Mark 6:4:
A nd they they excused excused them themse sellves, sayi saying, ng, “Thi “T hiss age age of lawles awlessne sness ss and and unbe unbellief is i s unde underr Sata Satan, n, who does does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things of the spirits. Therefore reveal thy righteousness now”—thus they spoke of Christ. And Christ replied to them, “The term of years for Satan’ Satan’ss power power has has bee been ful fulffilled, but other other terribl terrible e thing thingss draw draw nea near. A nd for those who ha have sinne sinned d I was de delivered vered over to dea death, that that they they may may re return to the incorrupti incorruptibl ble e gl glory of righ righte teous ousne ness ss 29 which is in heaven.”
The The manuscript ipt of Deuteronomy and J oshua has 102 lea leaves (10 (10 1/2 by 12 1/2 inc inches), with ith two columns per page, and is written on thick vellum. The mutilated manuscript of Psalms has portions of 107 leaves that originally measured eleven by fourteen inches, written in single columns. This codex is located in the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. As to text type, it is mysteriously mixed, as though it were compiled from various manuscripts of
This This is an eigh ighth- or nint inth-ce -century manuscript ipt containin ining g the gospels fro from Mar Mark 9 onward, onward, Acts, A cts, the gene general ral epistl pistle es, Pa Pauli uline epistl pistle es, and and He Hebrews. brews. The T he endi nding of Ma M ark is the sam sa me as L. L. The The text text is is pri prim maril rily Byzan Byzantitine ne,, with with som some eportions portions of A lexandri xandria an. THOUS DIONYSIOU (Ω [OMEGA]) CODEX A THOUS This This dates fro from the eigh ighth or nint inth century and is a virt irtually complet lete copy of the fou four gospel gospels. It I t is is oneof the olde oldest st exam example ples of the Byza yzantine ntine text. text. The There are 362 uncial ial manuscript ipts of section ions of the Ne New w Te Tesstament, of which ich only the more important ones have been listed, and 245 uncial lectionaries. The most important of the unci uncia al manuscri nuscripts pts are , B, B, A, A, and and C, none none of which which were were avai vailable ble to theK ing J ames translators. The only great Greek uncial manuscript available in 1611 was D, and it was used only only sli slightl ghtly y in in the the prepa preparat ratiion of the K ing J ames V Ve ersi rsion. on. Tha Thatt fa fact al alone indi ndica cate ted d the the nee need for a Revise Revised d Ve Versi rsion on base based d on earli rlier and and be better tter ma manuscri nuscripts pts long be before it it was was actua actuallly
Manus anuscr criipt 28 This is an eleventh-century copy of the gospels having many
noteworthy readings, especially in Mark where the text follows the Caesarean type. Manus anuscr criipt 61 This consists of the entire New Testament, dating from the late fifteenth or earl early y sixte sixtee enth ce centu ntury. ry. I t was was the the first ma manuscri nuscript pt found conta contaiining ning 1 John J ohn 5:7, the sing singlle basis by which Erasmus was compelled to insert that doubtful passage into his Greek New Tesstament in 1516. Te Manus anuscr criipt 69 This contains the entire New Testament and dates from the fifteenth century. century. It is is an an im important portant me member ber of family 13. Manus anuscr criipt 81 This was written in A.D. 1044 and is one of the most important of all minuscu nusculles. Its I ts text text in in Acts Acts agre agree es ffreq reque uentl ntly y with wi th the the Al Alexandri xandria an texttext-type type.. 33 Manuscript 157 This is a twelfth-century codex of the gospels following the Caesarean type.
Whereas there are many variant readings in New Testament manuscripts (see chap. 25), there are a multitude of manuscripts available for comparison and correlation of those readi rea ding ngss in in order order to arrive arrive at at the correct one. one. J ust ust how that that is is done done is discu discusse ssed in in deta detaiil in chapte chapterr 26. I t is is suff sufficie cient to re remember ber at this this point point that that wherea whereas there there are are only only 643 manuscripts by which the Iliad is reconstructed, 9 or 10 good ones for Caesar’s Gallic Wars, Wars, 20 manuscripts of note for Titus Livy’s History of Rome, Rome, and only 2 by which Tacitus is known to the modern world, yet there are 5,366 Greek manuscript witnesses that attest to part or all of the New Testament text.35 Furthermore, the time lapse between the original composition and the earliest manuscript copy is very significant. The oldest manuscript for the Gallic Wars is some nine hundred years later than Caesar’s day. The two manuscripts of Tacitus are eight and ten centuries later, ter, res respe pecti ctivel vely, y, than than theorigi origina nall. In theca case se of Thucydi hucydide dess and and Herodotus, Herodotus, the ea earli rliest manuscript is some thirteen hundred years after their autographs. But with the New
RELIABILI ELIA BILITY TY OF THE THE NEW TESTAMENT Author/ Book
Date Written
Earliest Copies
13th Mahābhārata cent. B.C. Homer, 800 B.C. Iliad Herodotus 480-425 c. A.D. 900 B.C. History Thu Thucydide ides, 460-400 c. A.D. 900 B.C. History Plato 400 B.C. c. A.D. 900
Time Time Gap Gap
No. of Copies
Hindu
Percent Accuracy
90 643 c. 1,350 8 yrs c. 1,300 8 yrs c. 1,300 7 yrs
95 ? ? ?
The The epoch-making ing disc iscovery of the papyri, ostraca, and ins inscript iption ions was destine ined to transf transform the the worl world’s d’s unde understan rstandi ding ng of the New Te Testam stament ba background ckground.. It I t al also le led to the classification of the New Testament as a book of the common man of the first century, instead of some especially mysterious writing that was given to man in a “Holy Ghost” langua nguage ge.. Several Several schol schola ars stand stand out out in in the epocha pochal task task of recla reclass ssiifica catition: on: J ames Hope Hope Moul oulton ton in En England (se (see J . H H.. Mou M oullton ton an and G. Mi M illigan’s Vocabulary of the Greek New Tesstament, Illus Te Illustra ratted fro rom mthe Pa Pap pyri and Other Non-Lite -Litera rary ry Source rces, 1914 1914--29), Arch A rchiibal bald T. Ro Rob bertson in the Unit Unite ed States (se (see A. T. Ro Rob bertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Tesstament in the Ligh Te Light of His Histtorica rical Research rch), and A dolf dolf Deissmann in Ge Germa rmany, who wrote 1 the results of his work in Light from the Ancient East. East. The works of those men and others point indisputably to the conclusion that the New Testament was not written as classical literature, nor was it written in a special “Holy Ghost” language, but it is a lucid example of first cent century ury coll colloqui oquial spe speech—Koi ch—K oine neGre Greek.
the meaning of those words, but the words were not created by the New Testament writers. The They were common, current words in the cultu lture of the firs first century.5 Syntax Several phrases formerly thought to be “Hebraisms” have been found in the papyri; for example, blepein apo (beware of) and duo duo (two by two). Pleres (full), (full), whi which was was oncehel held to be be a nominati native ve of the Holy oly Spiri Spiritt from from J ohn 1:14,6 has its parallel in the papyri along with many others.7 Style The parata paratacti cticc style style of J ohn ma may be singl single ed out as as a test test case case on style style becau because se it is is so ofte often n conside considered red Sem Semitic. tic. The “I am’s” and and even even the the “and . . . and” and” constructi construction on have have thei their 8 parallel in the Fayum papyrus number 108, theinscri nscripti ption on of Ascl A scle epius pius in Rome Rome, and and many others. Hen Hence, ce, even the style style of J ohn may may not be as Semi Semitic tic as it once seem seemed. ed. The The verdict ict, then, of hist istorica ical philo ilolo log gy based on the contemporary nonlite literary texts is that the “sacred books are so many records of popular Greek, in its various grades” and 9
From Apion to Epimachus This is an interesting letter having a typical “Pauline”
begi beginn nniing. ng. Li L ike Paul Paul’s le letters, tters, it it be begins gins,, “I tha thank God . . .” Numerous other letters There is a letter, written by a farmer, having an uncial body and acursive cursive si signa gnature, ture, just ust thereverse reverse of Ga Galatia tians. ns. Very sim similar to Luke L uke 15 is is a letter tter 12 containing a prodigal’s confession to his mother. From these and many other examples it has been concluded that the New Testament epistles were really letters written in the form, style, and vocabulary current at the time of the first century.13 The New Testament is a book “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” It was written in the lingo of the laos (laity). EARI NG ON ON THE CULTURAL AND RELIGIOUS BACKGROUND OF THE NEW DISCOVERIES BEARING TESTAMENT Another area illuminated by the papyri is the cultural and religious backdrop of the first
pagan writers shared a common core of culture and terminology, which was imbued with the content of their own unique experience and meaning. Language of popular religion One of the marks of the popular style of Paul is his employm ployme ent of techni technical cal phrase phraseol ology ogy common to the techni technica call langua nguage of magic. gic. A L eyden yden papyrus papyrus ha has a paral paralllel to theGalatia tians 6:17 6:17 expre expressi ssion on “the marks of J esus.” sus.” First Cori Corinth nthiians 5:5 is exemplar to the formula of the ancient custom of execration, or the devoting of a person person to the gods of the lower world. worl d. Li L ikewise kewise,, techni technical expressi xpressions were were ada adapte pted d from from the ritual of cursing, for example, “delivered to Satan” (1 Tim. 1:20), which has been found in the L ondon ondon Ma Magica gicall papyrus. papyrus.17 Language of popular law The inscriptions and papyri provide outstanding illustrations of Paul’s famous analogies from slavery. Manumission (release from slavery) is described by Paul in such terms as “you have been bought with a price” (1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23) and “it was for freedom that Christ set us free” (Gal. 5:1). This legal language, which
1.
The New Testam stament was was not writte written n in any so-call so-called “H “Hol oly y Ghost” Ghost” Greek. Greek. Ins I nste tea ad, it it was was wri written tten in in thecomm common (K oine oine)) tradelangua nguage of the Roma oman world. world. The The langua nguage of the masses, the merchants, and the marketplace was the instrument used in transmitting the Greek New Testament.
2.
The “P “Pa auli uline” ne” and and other other style styles of Gree Greek k syntax, syntax, and and even the New Te Testam stament vocabul vocabulary, ry, were all commonly used in the first century. In fact, so decisive were the papyri discoveries for New Testament studies that new standard Greek lexicons (dictionaries) have come into existence.19 That in turn has led to the publishing of new commentaries.
3.
The conclus conclusiion sometim times overl overlooked ooked,, yet yet impli plicit cit in theforegoi oregoing ng conclus conclusiions, ons, is is thefact that if the Greek of the New Testament was the common language of the first century, then the New Testament must have been written in the first century. century.20 Obviously the New Tesstament was writt Te itten in the lan language of its its day and that day was the firs first century A bo book
biblical text. In Wilkens’s Greek Ostraca, Ostraca, some 1,624 specimens of these humble records of 23 history are listed. NEW TESTAMENT I NSCRIPTIONS The The wide ide dist istribu ibution ion and variet iety of ancien ient ins inscript iption ions testifies ifies to the exist istence and importance of the biblical texts. There is an abundance of engravings on walls, pillars, coins, monuments, and other things that have preserved a witness to the New Testament. For the most part, however, these are not of importance in establishing the text of the New Tesstament; their role is merely that of a supplem Te lementary witn itness to the alre lready abundant evidence of other New Testament manuscriptions. THE SAY INGS OF J ESUS A group of noncanoni noncanonical cal sa sayi yings ngs of J esus ha has bee been discovere discovered d am among the the pa papyri. pyri. The T hese se writi writing ngss are are known as as the the “L “Logi ogia a of J esus” sus” (Gren (Grenffell and Hunt), unt), a few sam sample ples of which which follow:
20. A seventh-century lectionary, now in the library of St. Catherine’s Monastery, showing Luke 24:23-25 (Courtesy of Biblical Archaeologist, a publication of the American Schools of Oriental Research) L ECTIONARIES
A final nal testi testim mony to the text text of the New Te Testam stament, which which has has hithe hitherto rto been been gene general rallly undervalued, are the numerous lectionaries, or church service books, containing selected readings from the New Testament. These lectionaries served as manuals, and they were used throughout the church year for liturgical purposes.25 (See chap. 22 for a description of the mss.) NATURE The The great major jority ity of the lec lection ionary reading ings consist isted of passages taken fro from the 26 Gospels. The res restt of them them contai contained ned portions portions of Acts, A cts, eithe eitherr with wi th or withou withoutt the epistl pistle es.
It must must be be admi dmitted, tted, however, however, that that le lectiona ctionari rie es are are only only of a se seconda condary ry value value in establishing the New Testament text. (1) They contain all of the New Testament many times over, with the exception of Revelation and parts of Acts. (2) As a result of recent scholarship on the lectionaries, they are assuming a more significant role in establishing the true text. L ectiona ctionary ry text text type typess are are predom predomiinantl nantly y Byz Byza antine ntine,, but there there are are certai certain n groups tha that are characte characteri rized zed by Al Alexandri xandria an and and Caesa sarea rean n rea readings dings.. (3) (3) Le L ectiona ctionari rie es ha have also inf inflluence uenced d 32 the unde understandi rstanding ng of speci speciffic passa passage ges, s, for for exam example ple, J ohn 7:53-8:11 7:53-8:11 and and Mark 6:96:9-20. 20. AND CONCLUSION SUMMARY AND
It is generally recognized that the discovery of the nonbiblical papyri has cast a flood of light on the understanding of the New Testament. That light shows that the New Testament was was writte written n in in the the lla angua nguage ge and styl style e of fi first-ce rst-centu ntury ry coll colloqui oquial Gre Greek. I n the the past past it it has has bee been overlooked sometimes that this fact, at the same time, indicates that the Greek New
the historical process of the recognition of the canon in a cursory manner in order to bring the position of the Fathers into sharper focus.3 First century Even in the last half of the first century, there was already in progress the selecting, sorting (1 Thess. 2:13), reading (1 Thess. 5:27), circulating (Col. 4:16), collecting (2 Pete Peterr 3:15-16), and quoti quoting ng (1 Ti Tim. 5:8) of apostol postoliic liliterat terature ure (se see e chap. chap. 16). 16). I n bri brie ef, all all twenty-seven books were written, copied, and began to be disseminated among the churches before the end of the first century. First half of the second century During this period the apostolic writings became more generally known and more widely circulated, because the apostles had all passed off the scene sce ne,, and thei their teachi teachings ngs were carrie carried on through writte wri tten n copie copies inste instea ad of thei their voices voi ces.. At At this time almost every New Testament book was cited as Scripture explicitly; however, “up to A.D. 150 the quotations in extant ecclesiastical writers, though important in their bearing on questions of the date and acceptance of the New Testament Scriptures, are of little value for
canon of the New Testament. It was this period which gave rise to the various classifications of books mentioned in chapters 16-17. WHAT THE FATHERS DID It should should be poi pointe nted d out that that several several conside considerati rations ons must must be kept in in vie view whe when n the textua textuall criti criticc atte attem mpts to to use patri patristi sticc cita citatitions ons to to recover recover the origi origina nall texts. texts. Al A lthough though the the witne witness ss of the Fathers thers is is qui quite early, rly, actual ctually olde olderr than than the the best best codi codice ces, s, it it is is not not al always ways reli reliable ble. As As a case in point, a patristic writer may have quoted a variant reading from one of the manuscri nuscripts pts tha that exi existe sted d at at the tim time. Anothe A notherr fa factor is i s that that the wri writing ting of the parti particul cula ar Fa Father ther may have been altered or modified during the history of its transmission in a manner similar to the Greek text of the New Testament.6 A third factor to be considered is whether the patristic author was quoting the New Tesstament verbatim, Te im, loo loosely, ly, as a paraphrase, or possibly ibly in a mere allus llusion ion to the origin igina al. A gai gain, if if it was an an attem attempt to quote verbatim verbatim, the the questi question on must must be as asked ked whethe whetherr or not the
Th T he Epis Episttle of Ps Pse eudo-Ba -Barna rnabas (c. 70-79). This makes many quotations and
allusions to New Testament books. It cites Matthew 22:14, 44–45; and 26:31 (in 4.4: 12.11; and 5.16, respectively), while alluding to Matthew 20:16 in 6.13. In 11.10; 13.7; and 15.4, this this sa same epistl pistle e, fa false selly ascri ascribe bed d to Paul’ ul’s associ associa ate, te, quotes quotes John J ohn 6:51; Rom Roma ans 4:11; and and 2 Peter ter 3:8, 3:8, re respecti spectivel vely. y. A gai gain, these these quota quotatitions ons are are rathe rather loose oose,, perhap perhapss from from memory rather rather than from a manuscript copy. Corinthians (by Clement of Rome, c. 95-97). This contains several quotations from the New Testament, including the synoptic gospels. His citations are more precise than those attribu ttribute ted d to Ba Barnaba rnabas, s, but the they stil still lack mode modern rn preci precisi sion. on. Am A mong hi his m ma any cita citatitions ons from from the gospels are Matthew 5:7; 7:1–2 (in his chap. 13); 13:3 (chap. 24); 18:6; 26:24 (chap. 46). Mark 4:3 or L uke 8:5 8:5 may may have bee been in in vie view when Cle Cl ement cite cited d thegospel gospels in in chapte chapterr 24, and Ma Mark 9:42 and and 14:21 or Luke L uke 17: 17:1-2 1-2 and and 22: 22:22 ma may have be been in in vie view in in his his chapte chapterr 46. A cts 20:35 20:35 and and Ti Titus 3:1 3:1 were both cite cited d in in Cl Clement’s nt’s epi epistl stle e (chap. (chap. 2), as were were 1 Cori Corinthi nthians
work shows shows strong apos apostol toliic infl influe uence nce,, and hi his promi prominence nence is noted noted in in that that Ign I gna atius tius wrote a letter to him, and the church of Smyrna wrote a letter to the church of Philomelium entitled The The Mart Marty yrdo rdomof Po Poly lyccarp. rp. Th T he Shepherd of He Herm rmas (c. 115-140). “Free” quotations from memory and allusion to the New Testament make themselves more evident in this writing than in the previous works. Nevertheless, all three portions of the Shepherd cite cite the New Tes Testam tament. ent. Matthe M atthew w 26:24 26:24 app appe ears in in Vi Vision sion 4.2.6, althou although gh it it ma may be the the pa parall rallel pass passa age in Ma Mark 14:21. 14:21. In In Mandate 4.6, Matthew 19:9 was quoted, while Mark 5:23-24 was used in Similitude 9.20.2-3. Whereas many other passages were quoted in the Shepherd, Shepherd, only a sampling is listed at this point: point: 1 Corinth orinthiians 7:40 (Manda ndate 4.4.2); He Hebrews brews 11:33 11:33 (Vi (V ision sion 4.2.4); J ames 1 1:21 :21 (Similitude 6.1.1); 2:7 (Similitude 7.6.4); 4:7 (Mandate 12.5.2); 4:2 (Mandate 12.6.3); 1 Peter 1:7 (Vi (Vision 4.3.4 4.3.4); ); 5:7 (Vi (Vision 3.11.3 3.11.3); ); 1 Joh J ohn n 2:27 2:27 (Ma (Manda ndate 3.1); 3.1); Revel velation tion 21:1 21:14 4 (Vi (V ision 3.5.1).
including the Donatists and the Novatians, may be appealed to in support of the present thesi thesis, s, the treatm treatme ent lilimits itse itsellf to the more notabl notable e Fathers thers of the A ntente-Nicene cene peri period. od. J ustin Mart Marty yr (d. 165) J ustin ustin lilived and worked worked at Rom Rome e, where he confronted confronted Marcion at about 150. He later took a trip to Ephesus, where he wrote Dialogues with Try Trypho, a J ew. Upon his return to Rome (c. 165) he was arrested and martyred. But he had written two apologies in which he presented Christianity as the oldest, truest and most divine of all philosophies. He quoted the Scriptures very loosely, especially the Old Testament, and a We Weste stern rn text text of the New Te T estam stament. In I n his his writi writing ngs, s, J usti ustin n quote quoted d thegospe gospells of Matthe tthew (3:17; 7:23; 7:23; etc.) etc.);; Luke L uke (3:33 (3:33;; 22:19; etc.) etc.);; and and John J ohn (3:3– (3:3–5; 5; etc.) etc.).. H He e allude uded to to several veral of Paul’s epistles (Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, etc.), but did not mention Paul by nam name. J usti ustin n al also cite cited d the the A pocal pocalypse in his his free freestyle style. More M ore tha than 330 330 cita citatitions ons of the 12 New Te Testam stament are are in Jus J ustitin’ n’ss work, with wi th an an add addiitiona tionall 266 266 al allusi usions. ons. Ta T atia ian n (c. 110-172). Tatian wrote his Oratio as a defense of the Christian faith and a
Te T ertu rtullia llian n (c. 160-c. 220). A contemporary to Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian is
known as as the the “Fa “Father ther of L atin tin Chri Christi stia anity,” nity,” as hewas was the the first Fa Father ther to write wri te a body body of Christi hristia an liliterat terature ure in La Latin. tin. Hi His writi writing ngss were were in both both Gree reek k and and L atin, tin, as as he he se served rved in the the vital area of North Africa. His work was apologetical, polemical, practical, and proMontanist. He was a schismatic adherent to Montanism and used his powerful pen and pulpit to reprove what he considered to be compromise and worldliness within the Old Catholic church. His writings were prolific, and his use of Scripture was profuse but not always accurate. ccurate. Ma M any of his his quota quotatitions ons were made from an Old Old La Latin tin manuscri nuscript, pt, basi basical callly 16 following b, although he often cited and/or translated a Greek manuscript closely akin to that that used used by Cl Clement of A lexandri xandria a and Orige Ori gen. n. Tha T hatt text, the furthest re rem moved from from Code Codex x B among the the Gree reek k man manuscri uscripts, pts, was close closelly rela related ted to D. In his his writi writings ngs,, he makes more than seventy-two hundred New Testament citations, with more than thirty-eight hundred arising from the gospels, whereas more than twenty-six hundred were from the Pauline
A brief inventory at this point will reveal that there were some thirty-two thousand citations of the New Testament prior to the time of the Council of Nicea (325). Those thirtytwo thousand quotations are by no means exhaustive, and they do not even include the fourthcentury century wri write ters. rs. J ust addi adding ng the the number ber of refe references rences used used by one other other wri writer, ter, Eusebi usebius, us, who flourished prior to and contemporary with the Council at Nicea, will bring the total citations of the New Testament to over thirty-six thousand. Hence, prior to the period of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, there is overwhelming evidence in the manifold witness of the outstanding church Fathers to the text of the New Testament. OST-NICENE FATHERS (C. 300-C. 430) THE NICENE AND POST The The Nice Nicene-Po -Post-Nic -Nicene period iod of church hist istory must be disc iscussed at this point int, because the New Testament canon had not yet been formally recognized by the entire church in A.D. 325 (see chap. 16). During the period prior to the Council at Nicea, the church had gone through a series of local and imperial persecutions. As late as 302/3 the Emperor Diocletian
willingness to suffer for his beliefs, and he freely quoted the New Testament in his catechises, which were actually a compendium of the Christian religion. The text of Cyril was basically that of Eusebius of Caesarea.21
The Thre Th ree e Ca Cap ppadocia ian n Fat Fathers rs:: Basil of Ca Cae esare rea a, “th “the Gre rea at” (c (c. 32979), Gregory of Nazianzus (330-c. 390), and Basil’s younger brother, Gregory of Nyssa (d. c. 395) These men are called the “Three Cappadocian Fathers.” Their works
were written in Greek and were widespread, influential, and beneficial. They were archdef rchdefenders nders of orthodoxy and wrote num nume erous ite item ms atta attacki cking ng Ari Aria anism nism.. The T he texttext-type type underlying their numerous citations of the New Testament was basically that of “the official ecclesiastical text associated with Constantinople and the regions under her influence.” 22 The There were, however, more ancien ient elem lements still preserved in their text, which ich they quoted rather carefully.
J h Ch
t
out tha that he was was not a grea great phi philologi ologist. st. Hi His ea early rly opposi opposition tion to Je J erome rome’s Vul Vulga gate te was was la later ter reversed (see discussions in chaps. 16 and 29). AND CONCLUSION SUMMARY AND
The The patrist istic cita itation ions of Script ipture are not prima imary witn itnesses to the text of the Ne New w Tesstament, but they do serve two very imp Te important secondary roles les. Firs First, they give ive overwhelming support to the existence of the twenty-seven authoritative books of the New Tesstament canon. It is true that their quotation Te ions were ofte ften loo loose, alth lthough in the case of some Fathers they were very accurate, but they do at least reproduce the substantial content of the original text. Second, the quotations are so numerous and widespread that if no manuscripts of the New Testament were extant, the New Testament could be reproduced from the writings of the early Fathers alone. Sir David Dalrymple’s curiosity was aroused on this subject when once he was asked, “Suppose that the New Testament had been destroyed,
be confused with higher criticism, which studies the value of a document, lower critics study the form of the words and structure of a document. Many examples of lower criticism may be observed in the history of the transmission of the Bible text. Some of the practitioners were sharp opponents, whereas others were staunch supporters of orthodox Christianity. 2 Since textual criticism is based on the assumption that the Bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God, textual critics are interested in obtaining the original textual reading by applying certain criteria or standards of quality. Whether textual critics are constructive or destructive in their objective, they all approach the biblical text in an attempt to discover the original rendition of the autographs. Because many adherents of higher criticism have also spent considerable time and energy in the study of textual criticism, there has been in the past a tendency to classify all textual critics as “modernists,” destructive critics, or higher critics. Such an attitude tends to “throw out the baby with the bathwater.” To avoid textual criticism simply because it has been
Historical criticismis criticismis a broad term that may be limited to three areas: techniques of dating documents and traditions; verification of events contained in those documents; and the writing of history, the reconstruction of events and their explanation. The “French Oratorian priest Richard Simon published a series of books in which he applied the critical method to the Bible (1678ff.) to become the direct founder of the historical-critical study of the Bible,” although though it it was was not not unti untill Eichhorn chhorn and and J ohann ohann David vid Mi Michae chaelis (1717-91) (1717-91) that that themodern odern 6 historical-critical pattern was set. They were influenced by the secular historical research of Barthold rthold Georg Ni Niebuhr buhr (17 (1776 76--1831 1831), ), L eopold opold von Ra Ranke (1795 (1795--1886 1886), ), and othe others who 7 developed and refined its techniques. A mong those infl nfluenced uenced by these these methods was Johan J ohann n Christi hristia an Konra K onrad d von Hofm Hofmann (1810 1810--77), 77), who combi combine ned d el elements of Schel Schelling, ng, Schle Schleimerache racher, and orthodox orthodox Luth L uthe erani ranismwith with hi history and and the the criti critica call study study of Scriptu Scri pture re to make a fresh fresh bibli biblica call-the theologica ologicall synth synthe esis sis stress stressiing “supe “superhi rhist stori orica call hist history,” ory,” “holy “holy hist history,” ory,” or “salvation history” (Heilsgeschichte (Heilsgeschichte)) that that woul would impact pact Ka Karl Barth, Rud Rudol olff Bultm ultma ann, nn, and and
decimate the biblical text and pronounce certain books inauthentic, and they even reject the notion of verbal inspiration altogether. In addition, some scholars have carried their rejection of authority to the point that they have modified the idea of the canon (e.g., with regard to pseudonymity) in order to accommodate the conclusions of their own theories. 10 Nevertheless, this difficult but important undertaking can be a valuable aid to biblical interpre nterpreta tatition on si since it ha has grea greatt be bearing ring on the the histori historica call val value of thebibl bibliica call writi writing ngs. s. In In addition, careful literary criticism can also prevent historical misinterpretations of the biblical text. Source criticism in the New Testament over the past century has focused on the so-called Synoptic Problem, since it relates to difficulties surrounding attempts to devise a scheme of literary dependence to account for the combinations of similarities and dissimilarities among the synopti synopticc gospe gospels (M (Matthe tthew, Mark, rk, and Luke Luke)). Theori heorie es that that one source, source, Q or Quelle(Ger. Quelle (Ger. “Source”), was used by the three evangelists, who wrote in various sequences with the second
others.12 Sometimes form-critical studies are marred by doctrinaire assumptions, including that early forms must be short and later forms longer, but, in general, form criticism has been of benefit to biblical interpretation. Form criticism has been most profitably used in the study of the Psalms.13 Twe Twentiet ieth-ce -century for form critic iticis ism m was int introduced int into Ne New w Te Tesstament study of the gospels as Formgeschichte(“form Formgeschichte (“form history”) or “form criticism” in English. Following in the tradition of Heinrich Paulus, Wilhelm De Wette, and others, scholars at Tübingen applied similar principles to the New Testament. Building on the foundation of source criticism theory, advocating the priority of Mark, and discontent with the limitations of multiple written sources (and hypothetical written sources), William Wrede (1859-1906) and other form critics sought to eliminate the chronological-geographical framework of the synoptic gospels and to investigate the twenty-year period of oral traditions between the close of New Tesstament events and the earlie Te liesst writt itten accounts of those events. The They attempted to clas lassify
there there oral traditi traditions ons may have bee been change changed d in in the long process process of transm transmissi ssion. on. It I t is is of great great interest to the biblical scholar to know what changes were made and how the later tradition, now enshrined in a literary source, differs from the earliest oral one. Tradition criticism, although important, is less certain or secure than literary criticism for two reasons: (1) it begins where literary criticism leaves off, with conclusions that are in themselves uncertain, and (2) it is very difficult to check the hypotheses about the development of ancient oral tradition.16 Even more tenuous is the “liturgical tradition” enunciated by S. Mowinckel and his Scandinavian associates who argue that literary origins were related to preexilic sanctuary ritua ritualls and and sociol sociologi ogica call phe phenomena. na. A n offsh offshoot oot of the liturgical approach pproach is the the “m “myth yth and and ritual” school of S. H. Hooke, which argues that a distinctive set of rituals and myths were common to all Near Eastern peoples, including the Hebrews. Both of these approaches use Babylonian festival analogies to support their variations on the classical literary-critical and traditi tradition on--criti critica call the themes.17 As indicated in the previous discussion, form criticism is closely
springs from unbiblical philosophical presuppositions,20 such as deism, materialism, skepticism, agnosticism, idealism (Hegelianism), and existentialism (see chap. 9). Beneath all these is a prevailing naturalism or antisupernaturalism that is intuitively suspicious of any docum document conta contaiining ning miracle racle sstori torie es (seechap. chap. 10). A s a res resul ultt of theI nflue nfl uence nce of this this naturalistic bias, a negative (destructive) form of higher criticism arose that can be contrasted to positive (constructive) criticism in the following mutually exclusive categories: POS POSI TIV TI V E (CONS (CONSTRUCTI TRUCTIV V E) NEGA NEGA TIVE TI VE (DES (DESTRUCTI TRUCTIVE) VE) CRITICISM CRITICISM BASIS Supernaturalistic Naturalistic RUL E “In “I nnoce nocen nt til till prove proven n gui guilty” “Guil “Guilty till til l prove proven n innoce nocent nt”” RESU RESULL T Bible is wholl wholly y true true Bible is onl only partly true true FINAL A UTHORI UT HORITY TY Wo Word rd of God God Mind of Man
antisupernatural issue, other problems confront biblical critics of both Testaments (see chap. 9). New Testament examples will illustrate these problems. 2. It I t ei either ther negl negle ects or minim nimizes zes the role ole of the apostle apostles and eye eyewi witne tnesse ssess who who re recorde corded d the events. Of the four Gospel Gospel write writers, rs, Ma M atthe tthew, Ma M ark, and J ohn were were def definite nitelly eyewi eyewitne tnesse sses 24 of the events vents they they report. Luke L uke was was a contem contemporary and and caref careful ul histori historia an (Luke (L uke 1:1-4). 1:1-4). I ndee ndeed, every book of the New Te T estam stament was writte written n by a contem contemporary or eyewitne yewitness ss of Christ. hrist. Even such such criti critics cs as as the the“De “Deathth-ofof-God” theol theologian ogian,, bish bishop op J ohn A .T. .T. Rob Robiinson nson,, 25 admit that the gospels were written between A.D. 40 and 65, during the life of eyewitnesses. But if the basic new Testament documents were composed by eyewitnesses, then much of destructive criticism fails. for it assumes a much later date in order for the alleged “myths” and distortions to occur. For studies have revealed that it takes at least two generations for a myth to develop.26 3. It I t assumes wrongl wrongly y that the New Testam Testament write wri terrs did did not disti distingu nguiish betwe betwee en thei their
history history J esus sa said or did did what what fol folllows, but sometim times ma may mea mean that that in in the account at at le least 28 partl partly y constructe constructed d by by Ma Matthew tthew him himse sellf J esus sus sa said or di did wha what fol folllows.” But this clearly undermines confidence in the Gospel records, and in the truthfulness of the events recorded in them. On this critical view the Gospel writers become creators of the events, not recorders. recorders. I ndee ndeed, one write wri terr cla claimed tha that Ma Matthew tthew create created d the the Magi story (M (Matt. 2) out of the turtle turtledove story (of (of L uke 2). For according to Robe Robert rt Gun Gundry, dry, Matthe tthew “chang “change es the the sacrificial slaying of ‘a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons,’ which took place at the prese presenta ntatition on of the baby baby Je J esus sus in in the the Temple ple (Luke (L uke 2:24; cf. cf. Le L ev. 12:6-8), 12:6-8), into i nto Herod’s rod’s slaughtering the babies in Bethlehem (cf. A S. MOS. [Assumption of Moses] 6:2–6).”29 But But such a view not only overlooks the integrity of the Gospel writers but also undermines the authenticity and authority of the Gospel record. One bi bibli blica call schol schola ar, Paul K . J ewett, wett, went went so fa far as to ass asse ert that that what what theapostl postle e Paul Paul
But here again the critic is rejecting or neglecting the clear statement of Scripture. of Scripture. for Jesus promised his disciples that “the helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.” (John 14:26). So even on the unlikely assumption that no one recorded anything Jesus said during His lifetime or immediately after, the critics would have us believe that eyewitnesses whose memories were later supernaturally activated by the Holy Spirit did not accurately record what Jesus did and said. It seems far more likely that the first‐century eyewitnesses were right and the twentieth‐century critics are wrong, than the reverse. Of course Of course biblical scholarship need not be destructive. But the biblical message must be understood in its theistic (supernatural) context and its actual historical and grammatical setting. Positive guidelines for evangelical scholarship are set forth in “The Chicago Statement on biblical 32 Hermeneutics.” It reads in part as follows: Article XIII. WE AFFIRM that awareness of the of the literary categories, formal and stylistic, of the of the
attempts at restoring the biblical text prior to about A.D. 325. Basically, however, there was no real textual criticism of the New Testament books in this period; it was a “period of reduplication” of the manuscripts rather than one of evaluation of them. On the other hand, there was diligent textual work done in Palestine by the rabbis on the Old Testament between A .D. 70-100. TO C. 150) COPIES OF THE AUTOGRAPHS ( TO Most of the New Testament books were written during the second half of the first century. Those manuscripts were written under the direction of the Holy Spirit and were inerrant. They were undoubtedly written on papyrus and have all subsequently been lost. Nevertheless, the autographs of the New Testament were providentially copied and circulated before they became illegible or lost. These copies were made as early as A.D. 95. If copying had not begun very soon after the autographs were written, there would be no Bible today beca becaus use e pa papyrus survi survives ves for long pe periods riods of tim time onl only under under excepti xceptiona onall condi conditions tions.. J ust ust as as
“unprofessionally,” or in an amateur fashion, by members of a given church.35 Thus, the possibility of errors within the copies was multiplied at the same time numbers of manuscri nuscripts pts and and olde olderr copie copies were were bei being syste system matica ticallly destroyed destroyed.. A ll of this this was was going going on during a period when the church was progressively collecting, sifting, sorting, and recognizi recognizing ng the canoni canonical cal books books of the New Te Testam stament (see (see discuss discussiion in in cha chap. 16). It I t was was this this situa situatition on that, that, according according to Ke K enyon, “m “may be sum summaril rily characteri characterized zed as as the peri period od when when the textual problems came into being, which we have to try to solve with the help of the evidence afforded by the later periods.”36 During this period of persecution of the church on the local level, the church in A lexandri xandria a bega began n to do pi pionee oneer work work in in the the compa compari rison son and publ publication cation of the texts texts (c. (c. 200-c. 200-c. 250). This leadership was extended to other areas of the Empire as well, and some basic work in textual criticism was done by the time of persecution under the Emperor Decius (249-51). Work on the Old Testament was done by Origen in Alexandria. His Hexapla was never
after him (Constantinople), and it became the dominant city in the Greek-speaking world, it was only reasonable that the ecclesiastical text of that imperial city would become the dominant text of the church. This is especially true in light of the emperor’s patronage in producing producing caref careful ul copie copies of the New Te Testam stament text. text. It is is undoubte undoubtedl dly y true true that that other other great great cities of the Empire must have followed a similar pattern. As a resul result of the precede precedent nt esta establ bliished shed by Consta Constanti ntine ne,, gre great numbers bers of caref carefull ully copie copied manuscripts were produced in the Middle Ages. But official critical comparison and careful, pla planne nned revi revisi sion on were were rel rela ative tivelly rare in tha thatt ma manif nifold old trans transm miss ssiion of the text. text. J . Ha Harold rold Greenlee correctly observes this point as he writes,
The The evide idence of the mss. ind indica icates that the processes of standardiza ization ion of the text and consequent displacement of the older text-types continued from the fourth century until the eighth, by the end of which time the standardized or “Byzantine” text had become the accepted form of the text. Approximately 95 percent of the existing mss. of the N.T. are from the eighth and later centuries,
a Hebrew Christian, at about 1525, and was based on manuscripts dating from the fourteenth century. century. This his text text was esse ssenti ntia ally a recensi recension on of the Masorete Ben Ashe Asherr text (c. A.D. 920), and it became the basis for all subsequent copies of the Hebrew Bible, whether in manuscript or printed editions. Work on the New Testament text in particular was more varied in this era, as well as being more sweeping in its outreach, as the results of Gutenberg’s invention were felt. IM ENES DE DE CISNEROS (1437-1517) CARDINAL FRANCISCO X IMENES Cardina rdinall Franci rancisco sco Xi Ximenes nes deCisne sneros of Spai Spain pl planne nned the the first printe printed d Greek Greek Ne New Tesstament to come off the press. It was plan Te lanned in 1502 as a part of the Co Com mplut lutensian ian Polygl olyglot, ot, consi consisting sting of theHebrew, brew, Aram A ramaic, Gree Greek, k, and and La Latin tin texts. texts. It It was was pri printe nted d in the university town of Alcalá (Complutum (Complutumiin La L atin), tin), after ter which which the the pol polygl yglot ot was was nam named, and and printe printed d in in 1514 1514 (Old (Ol d Te Testam stament in in 1517 1517). ). A lthough though thi thiss was was the first printe printed d Ne New Te T estam stament, it was not the the first first to be pla place ced d on the the market. Pope Pope L eo X did did not gi give hi his sa sancti nction on for for
manuscri nuscripts, pts, not rel reliably bly edi edited, ted, and and conseque consequentl ntly y not as as trustworthy as as la later ter edi editions. tions. In I n fact, 44 the Textus Receptus itself is derived from a few works of the Renaissance period. The The reception ion of Era Erasmus’s editio ition n of the Gre Greek Ne New w Te Tesstament was quite ite mixe ixed. Because of the hundreds of printing errors in it, a new edition was issued in 1519. The second editi dition, on, lilike the the first, was a digl diglot, ot, and and it it was was proba probabl bly y the basi basiss of Ma M artin rtin Luth Luthe er’s r’ s Germ Germa an transl translati ation. One One additi dditiona onall manuscri nuscript pt was was use used in in the the prepa preparation ration of that that second second edi editition. on. In In 45 1522 1522 Era Erasm smus us produce produced d his his thi third edi editition, on, in in which which herel relucta uctantl ntly y ins i nse erted rted 1 John J ohn 5:7. 5:7. It is about bout tha that edi editi tion on tha that Fre Frede deri rick ck G. G. K enyon write writes, s, “For “For Eng Engllish rea readers ders . . . the first Engli Englishshprinted New Testament, produced by Tyndale in 1526, was translated from the text of Eras rasm mus; us; and thi this, s, with wi th La Latin tin and and Germ Germa an Bi Bible bles, was the the ba basis sis of Coverda overdale’s su succe ccessi ssive ve 46 Bibles from 1535 to 1541.” I n 1527 1527 Erasm Erasmus us em employ ployed ed many any of the readi readings of the the Complutensian Polyglot, which he saw just after publishing his third edition. The’odore de Beze (Theodore Beza) published nine editions of the Greek New Testament that differed little
various readings. Stephanus in 1550 did give in his margin variants from his fifteen MSS; but this remained a solitary exception for over a hundred years.48 ÈZE (BEZA EZA ) (1519-1605) THÉODORE DE BÈZE Thé Théodore de Bèz Bèze (The Theodore Bez Beza) was the successor to J ohn Ca Calv lvin in at Gen Geneva. He published nine editions of the New Testament after the death of his famous predecessor (1564), plus a posthumous tenth edition in 1611. The most outstanding edition to come from Beza was published in 1582, in which he included only a few of the readings of the Codex Beza (D) and the Codex Claromontanus (D2). The sparse use of those manuscripts may be because they departed too radically from the Erasmusan and Complutensian texts. Thus, Beza’s Greek New Testament editions were in general agreement with the 1550 edition of Robert Estienne, and their continued influence resulted from their tendency to popularize and stereo stereotype type theTextus Receptu Receptus. s. In I n 161 1611 1 the the transl transla ators of theK ing J ames V Ve ersi rsion on (KJ (K J V ) relied largely on Beza’s editions of 1588-1589 and 1598, along with Erasmus’s fifth edition.
This This period iod was characterize ized by the gathering ing of textual materials ials and their systematic 51 collection. Thus, hus, when when Bri Brian Walton Walton (1600 (1600--1661 1661)) edite edited d the the L ondon ondon Polygl Polyglot ot in in 165 165551657, he included the variant readings of Estienne’s 1550 edition. That polyglot contained the New Te Testa stament in Gre Gree ek, L atin, tin, Syria Syriac, Eth Ethiiopic, A rabi rabic, c, and and Persi Persia an (in (in the the gosp gospe els). In I n its its footnotes appeared the variant readings of the recently discovered (1627) Codex A lexandri xandrinu nus, s, as wel well as a criti critica call appa pparatus ratus prepa prepared red by by Archbi A rchbish shop op Uss Usshe her. r. I n 1675 1675 an an anonymous edition of the Greek New Testament appeared at Oxford. This work was done by Jo J ohn Fell Fell (1625-16 -1686), who firs first presented evide idence fro from the Gothic and Boh Bohairic iric version ions. I n 170 1707 7 John J ohn Mill (1645 1645--1707 1707)) re reprinte printed d Estie Estienne nne’s text text of 1550 1550,, with wi th theaddi ddition tion of some some 30,000 variants from nearly 100 manuscripts. Mill’s epochal work, published just two weeks before his death, provided all subsequent scholars with a broad basis of established textual evidence. Richard Bentley (1662-1742) had established himself as an outstanding scholar in the
scholars published collations that greatly increased the availability of New Testament textual evidence from the church Fathers, early versions, and the Greek text. Christian Friedrich Matthaei (1744-1811) published a valuable critical apparatus in his Gree reek k and and La Latin tin Ne New Te Testam stament, which which otherwi otherwise se was of little ttle value value.. H He e added dded evi evide dence nce,, which which app appe eared for the first tim time, from from the Sla Slavic vic version version of theNew Te Testam stament. Frary Frary Ka K arl A lter ter (17 (1749 49--1804 1804)), a J esui suit schol schola ar in in Vi Vienna nna, adde added d evi evide dence nce from Sla Slavic vic ma manuscri nuscripts pts,, from from twenty additional Greek manuscripts, and from other manuscripts as well. Andrew Birch (1758-1829) published the results of the textual work done by a group of Danish scholars in four volum volumes (1788(1788-1801 1801). ). This his work prese presente nted d rea reading dingss ffrom rom theCodex odex Va V atica ticanu nuss (B) (B), which appeared for the first time in print. Meanwhile, two Roman Catholic scholars were intense in their work of textual criticism. Jo J ohann L eonhard Hug Hug (1765-18 -1846) and his pupil J ohannes Mar Martin Aug Augustinu inus Scholz (17941852) developed the theory that a “common edition” ( Koine Koine ekdosis) appeared after the
Fenton J ohn A nthony nthony Hort Hort (18 (1828 28--1892 1892)), ra rank with with Ti Tische schendorf ndorf as ma making king outs outsta tand ndiing contributi contributions ons to the the study study of the New Te Testam stament text. text. I n 1881-82 1881-82 they they publi published shed The The New Tesstament in the Origin Te rigina al Gre ree ek in two volumes. The text of that work had been made available to the revision committee that produced the English Revised New Testament in 1881.58 Thei heir vie views were not origi origina nall but but were base based d on thework of L achmann, nn, Trege regelles, Grie riesba sbach, Ti Tische schendorf ndorf,, and and othe others. The T he use use of thei their text text in in the the Engl nglish Revise vised d Ve Versi rsion on and and the thoroughness of the explanation of their views in their introduction added to the acceptance of their critical text. However, the Textus Receptus had some scholarly advocates who spared no efforts in arguing against the Westcott and Hort text. Three of those scholars were were John J ohn W. Burgon (1813(1813-1888 1888)), who was was vehe vehem ment in in his his denu denunci ncia ation tion of thecriti critica call text; F. H. A. Scrivener (1813-1891), who was milder than Burgon in his criticism; and George Salmon (1819-1904), who decried the lack of weight Westcott and Hort ascribed to purely “Western” readings. More recent advocates have devised a different text for the New
Weiss (1827(1827-1981), 1981), A lexande xanderr Soute Souter, r, and othe others. In the the meantim ntime, H He ermann rmann Frei reihe herr rr von von Soden (1852-1914) also opposed the Westcott-Hort theory. He began his own work, which, although bolstered by tremendous financial assistance, was quite disappointing in its results. V on Soden Soden started started from a dif different basi basiss but but confi confirme rmed many of the findings ndings of Westcott and and Hort. Following the deaths of Burgon and Scrivener, opposition to the critical text fell from serious consideration for an extended period. At one time, for example, Harold Greenlee cited a scholarly work by Edward F. Hills that favored the Textus Receptus as “hardly more than a scholarly curiosity.”60 The situation for the traditional text proponents has changed dramatically since then, however, as is evidenced by numerous articles and books 61 culminating in the publication of Th The Gre Greek New Testament, Accordin rding g to the Majo Majorit rity y Text 62 (1982, 2d ed., 985). Arguments raised by Majority Text proponents against the critical text address three areas: theoretical, historical, and methodological. Those arguments may be summarized as
unanswered. The points adduced in favour of the Textus Receptus are theological rather than historical and are related to an extreme form of the doctrine of divine preservation.63
The The second of these groups does not support the Te Tex xtus Re Recceptus but the Majo Majorrity ity Te Tex xt (of which the Textus Receptus is only a corrupt late representative), and its leading propone proponents includ nclude e Zane Zane C. H Hodg odge es, Wil Wi lbur bur Pi Pickering ckering,, and and Ja J akob van van Brugg Brugge en.64 These spokesmen offer a “much more sophisticated and creditable-appearing line of approach. The ad hominemarguments hominemarguments have largely (though not entirely) disappeared and a pri priori ori 65 theological statements no longer form the basis of their arguments.” They address the problems of the Westcott-Hort theory and attempt to establish the preference for the Majority Tex Te xt on some hist istorica ically-g lly-grrounded basis. is. The Their effor fforts have resulte lted in a debate with ith D.A. D.A. 66 Carson, E.C. Colwell, Gordon Fee, Richard A. Taylor, and others who may be designated as Ne Nestle stle-A land (criti critica call text) text) or “e “ecle clectic” ctic” text advoca advocate tes. s. The The direct direct inte interaction raction betwe betwee en the the proponents of these opposing views constitutes the current Majority Text “debate”primarily a
the New Testament.69 In addi additition, on, there there is is now general general agreem agreement ent that there there was more ore intermi ntermixture xture betwee between n theAlexandri xandria an texttext-type type and the the Neutral texttext-type type,, whi which ch resul resulte ted d because they are actually slightly different variations of the same textual family. The A lexandri xandria an texttext-type type now incl include udess manuscri nuscripts pts from both groups. In thei their re reevalua valuatition, on, schola scholars have have come come to vie view three subgroups subgroups withi within n theWestern stern texttext-type type (Codex odex D, D, Ol Old La Latin, tin, and and Old Old Syria Syriac). They hey have have also come to the the opini opinion on tha that readings within the Western text-type are not generally reliable when they stand alone. A nother nother textual textual family has has bee been discovere discovered d since since the tim time of Westcott, Hort, Hort, and von Soden: Soden: 70 the Caesarean text-type. A lthough though it it lilies betwe betwee en theWeste Western and and Al Alexandri xandria an texttext-type types, s, it it is actually closer to the Western family. Study of theological tendencies in certain groups of variants by individual scholars has shown that not all textual variation is accidental or theologically unbiased.71 I n addi additition, on, there there has has been been rese resea arch in in thewriti wri tings ngs of the church 72 Fathers as well as early versions of the Bible. The accompanying chart, by Harold Greenlee,
Elsewhere, Hodges acknowledges the lateness of the manuscript evidence for the Majority ority Te Text posi position tion.. Y et hedef defends nds the the Majority ority Te Text by argu arguiing the the likel kelihood hood tha that an an original would produce a majority of manuscript copies sharing the original reading. He uses mathematical formulae “to show an ‘idealized’ situation which does not represent what actually took place.”78 He adds that the Majority Text can be explained as the outcome of a “process” that resulted in the gradual formation of a numerically preponderant text type. Hodges rejects the ability of such a process to explain an Alexandrian textual priority in the face of the Byzantine manuscript majority. He writes, “No one has shown a detailed explanation of exactly what the process was, how it began, or how—once begun—it achieved the result claimed for it.”79 The climatic conditions in Egypt are important to the position of the Majority Text, because they provide the basis for the absence of surviving Byzantine manuscripts from the third or fourth century. He states that Egypt alone has a climate favorable to the preservation of most ancient texts. But the existence of Byzantine texts at a
Tru True, this argument will no no doubt appeal only to men of fait faith h. But But to what better kind ind of man 82 could appeal be made?
In the meantim ntime many textual textual schola scholars, dissa dissatitisf sfiied with with theresul results achi achie eved by weighi weighing ng external evidence for variant readings, have turned to another method for determining the reading that best accounts for the rise of the others. That method is properly called “eclectic,” or “rea “reasone soned d ecl ecle ectici cticism sm.” .” I t sim simply ply me means tha that the“or “oriigina ginall” text of the New Te Testam stament is is to be chosen variant by variant, using all the principles of critical judgment without regarding one manuscript or text-type as necessarily preserving the original. Most recent eclectics tend to lean toward the Alexandrian text family. Despite a few notable exceptions, most of the differences that remain in renderings made by eclectic textual critics result from a varying degree of weight given the external evidence. The eclectic method has been utilized in the most recent translations of the Bible into English done by committees.83 There are other proponents to this method who advocate what may be called a “rigorous eclectic” method, for
immediately relevant data, or from a slanted use of terms, or by a slurring appeal to guilt by association, or by repeated appeal to false evidence, are not only misleading but ought to be categorically rejected.85 This This state of affair ffairss lea leaves one on the horns of a dile ilem mma with ith regard to the selec lection ion of one textual tradition over the other. Perhaps it is best to conclude the discussion of the present situa situatition on by looki looking ng to wha what A.D A .D.. A dam dams has has to say say about about a matter tter that that is is strongl strongly re reinforced nforced by what ha has bee been le learned from the the pa papyri with with rega regard to the texts texts of cla classi ssical cal authors. In I n vie view of the uncontrolled and widespread distribution of biblical manuscripts in the early church, and the deliberate and widespread attempts by Diocletian and others to systematically destroy the Christian Scriptures, and then the proliferation of the Scripture texts following the conversion of Constantine and the Council at Nicea, his words are most appropriate. He writes:
The The natural conclus lusion ion, then, is that while one fam family may in the overwhelmin lming g major jority ity of cases
MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE
Bib Biblica call manu anuscrip cri pts The Old Testament has survived in few complete manuscripts,
most of which date from the ninth century A.D. or later. There are, however, abundant reasons for believing that those are substantially goodcopies. good copies. Support for this position has existed for years from several lines of evidence: (1) the few variants in the existing Masoretic manuscri nuscripts pts;; (2) the wide widesp sprea read d liliteral teral agree greement of most of theL XX with with the the Ma Masore soretiticc Hebrew text; (3) the scrupulous rules of the scribes; (4) similarity of parallel Old Testament passages; (5) archaeological confirmation of the fidelity of historical details in the text; and (6) the agreement, by and large, of the Samaritan Pentateuch. (7) The most phenomenal confirmation of the fidelity of the Hebrew text, however, is much more direct than any of these witnesses. The Dead Sea Scrolls included hundreds of Hebrew manuscripts that are a thousand years earlier than those previously possessed. From the Qumran caves have come fragments, sometimes complete copies, of almost every book of the Old Testament, some of
Lectionaries One further source of evidence that applies to the reconstruction of the
New Testament text is the church service books, known as lectionaries. 6 Recent counts indicate that there are more than 2,209 Greek lectionaries. Revived interest in the lectionaries has demonstrated their value in textual reconstruction and their use in the diacritical apparatus that pertains thereto (see chap. 23). There are, then, a grand total of over 15,000 Gree reek k and La Latin tin ma manuscri nuscripts pts contai containing ning Ne New Te Testam stament texts. texts.7 In addition to these manuscripts there are more than 36,000 patristic citations containing almost every verse of the New Testament. These are the materials that provide the data by which the textual critic attempts to reconstruct the original New Testament text. MULTITUDE OF VARIANTS The The multip ltiplic licit ity y of manuscript ipts produces a corresponding ing number of varian iant reading ings, for for the more manuscripts that are copied the greater will be the number of copyist’s errors. However, as will be seen, what at first seems to be a grave hindrance to the reconstruction of
1.
How many variants are there? The gross number of variants increases with every new manuscript discovery.
a. In I n 1707 1707 J ohn Mi Mill estim stimated ted about about 30,000 30,000 vari varia ants in the the known Ne New Te Testam stament 11 12 manuscripts. Many any of the great great man manuscri uscripts pts were were discov discovered ered after after that that tim time. 13 b. By By 1874, 1874, F. F. H H.. A. A . Scri Scriven vene er counte counted ne nearly rly 50,000 50,000 vari varia ants. nts. 14 c. To date there are over 200,000 known variants, and this figure will no doubt increase in the future as more manuscripts are discovered. 2. How are the variants counted? There is an ambiguity in saying that there are some 200,000 variants in the existing manuscripts of the New Testament because those represent only 10,000 10,000 pl place cess in in theNew Te Testam stament. If I f one sing singlle word is is m miisspe sspelled in in 3,000 3,000 dif different rent manuscripts, it is counted as 3,000 variants or readings. Once this counting procedure is understood, and the mechanical (orthographic) variants have been eliminated, the remaining
different line. That error is known as a homeoteleuton (similar ending). When only one letter is missing, it is called a haplography(single haplography (single writing). (c) Repetitions result in the opposite error to omissions. Hence, when the eye picked up the same letter or word twice and repeated it, it is called dittography. dittography. Such an error may be why some some miniscul niscule es read, read, “W “Whomdo you want me me to rele release for you, (J esus) Barabba rabbass or Je J esus?” sus?” (M (Matt. 27:17). 27:17). (d) Transposition is the reversal of position of two letters or words. This is technically known as metathesis. metathesis. In I n 2 Chronicl hronicle es 3 3:4, :4, the transpo transposi sitition on of le l etters tters would would make the measurements of the porch of Solomon’s Temple out of proportion, for example, 120 cubi cubits instea instead of 20 cubi cubits ts as as in in the the L X X. (e) Other confusions of spelling, abbreviation or scribal insertion account for the remainder of scribal errors. This is especially true about Hebrew letters, which were used for numbers and could be easily confused. These errors of eye may account for many of the
Spirit” in the Byzantine manuscripts and P46 rather than “fruit of light,” as in other early and diversi diversiffied witne witnesse ssess represe representi nting ng both both the A lexandri xandria an and and the the Weste Western rn text-types text-types..20 The The confusion is probably with Galatians 5:22. Sometimes letters within words are transposed and result in a different word altogether. Mark 14:65 is such an example, in which elabon became Quite ofte often n toda today y popular popular quota quotati tion onss of He Hebrews brews 9:22 9:22 (KJ (K J V ) wil will ebalon and then eballon.21 Quite add “. . . there is no remission [of sins].”Thus, the memory may almost automatically transcribe a passage in one gospel to conform to another. However, variants of this kind have more frequently been found to be intentional emendations. (4) Errors of judgment judgment.. The most common error of this kind is caused by dim lighting or poor eyesight. Sometimes marginal notes were incorporated into the text under the misa sappre pprehe hensi nsion on that that they they were part part of the text. text. A.T. .T . Robe Robertson rtson sugge suggests sts tha that this this is is the 22 xpl tion tion of the ls distu disturbi rbing ng th te (J ohn 5:4) 5:4) The textual note at Romans 8:1 in
b. Inte I ntenti ntional onal change changess. Although most of the variant readings resulted from unintentional errors arising from human limitations, there were also a good number that occurred as a result of scribal intentions. Good intentions, no doubt, but nonetheless deliberate. (1) Grammatical and linguistical. linguistical . The orthographical variations in spelling, euphony, and grammatical form are abundantly illustrated in the papyri. Each scribal tradition had its own stylistic and linguistic idiosyncracies, and a scribe tended to modify his manuscript to conform to them. This included the spelling of proper names, verb forms, the smoothing out of rough grammar, the changing of genders to agree with their referents, and other syntactical alterations. These changes were akin to recent efforts to change the older English “which” to “whom “whom,” and “sha “shall” to “wil “will.” (2)
Litur turgical chan change gess. The lectiona ctionari rie es provide provi de abunda bundant nt exam example ples of these these change changes. s. At the
conflation.27 The “un “unto all and up upon all” of Rom Roma ans 3 3:22 :22 (KJ (K J V , “to . . . to” to” in in NKJ NK J V) is is probably another example of combining two alternative readings (the ASV, RSV, NEB, NASB, NAB and NIV have “only for all” or its equivalent).28 (6) Doctrinal changes changes.. Most deliberate doctrinal changes have been in the direction of orthodoxy, as is the the reference reference to the the Trini rinity ty in in 1 J ohn 5:7.29 The addition of “fasting” to “prayer” in Mark 9:29 and the long ending to Mark (16:9–20), 30 if they were deliberate, may not have been so orthodox. In 1 Corinthians 6:20, the addition of “and in your spirit, which are God’s” God’s” (KJ (K J V , N NK K J V ) and and “who “who wal walk not after ter the the flesh . . .” (R (Rom. om. 8:1) are are pos ossibl sibly y la later ter 31 interpolations introduced into later manuscripts. Other passages of this variety may include Jo J ohn 1:18, “only begotten son” ins instead of “only begotten God God,” and Act Acts 20:28, “church of the L ord which which he he obtai obtained ned with with hi his b bllood” ins inste tea ad of “chu “church rch of God, which which he he [God] hath hath 32 purcha rchased with his own own [God’s] bl bloo ood d” (KJ (K J V, NKJ NK J V). It is well to add Greenlee’s
pure whether the critic adopts the Textus Receptus, Majority Text, Nestle-Aland Text, or some eclectic text of the New Testament. b. Ezra Abbott gave similar figures, saying about 9/20 (95 percent) of the readings are “various” rather than “rival” readings, and about 9/20 (95 percent) of the remainder are of so little importance that their adoption or rejection makes no appreciable difference in the sense of the passage.35 Thus the degree of substantial purity would be 99.75 percent. c. Philip Schaff surmised that of the 150,000 variations known in his day, only 400 affected the sense; and of those only 50 were of real significance; and of this total not one affected “an article of faith or a precept of duty which is not abundantly sustained by other and undoubted passages, or by the whole tenor of Scripture teaching.” 36 d. A. A . T. T . Robe Robertson rtson sug sugge geste sted d tha that therea reall concern concern of textua textuall criti critici cism smis of a 37 “thousandth part of the entire text.” That would make the reconstructed text of the New Tesstament 99.9 percent fre Te free fro from real concern for for the textual critic itic.. He Hen nce, as Warfield field
corruption of the Iliad compares with one-half of 1 percent (or less) of similar emendations in the New Testament. (2)
The national epic of India, the Mahābhār-ata, has suffered evenmore corruption. It is about eight times the size of the Iliadand Iliad and theOdyssey the Odysseytogether, together, roughly 250,000 lines. Of these, some 26,000 lines have textual corruptions (10 percent).41 The New Testament, then, has not only survived in more manuscripts than any other book from antiquity, but it has survived in purer form than any other great book. T HE PRI NCIPL ES OF T EXTUAL CRITICISM
The The full full appreciat iation ion of the arduous task of reconstructing ing the Ne New wTe Tesstament text fro from thousands of manuscripts containing tens of thousands of variants can be derived, in part, from a study of just how textual scholars proceed. The evidence available for textual criticism
generally considered to be the least preferred because in the judgment of most textual critics it is a derived text-type.45 2.
Consideration of individual manuscripts within the families. families. When the manuscripts within an individual text-type are divided in their support of a variant, the correct reading of the family is probably (1) the reading of the manuscripts that are generally the most faithful to their own text-type (i.e., the best witnesses within a family of texts), (2) the reading that is most difficult but has good manuscript support within the family, and/or (3) the reading that is most characteristic of the family to which it belongs (i.e., what the family as a whole appears to adopt as the preferred reading). The final step in determining a reading is comparing the family readings to one another by considering date and character, geographical or family distribution, and the strength of the unity of any reading within a family. I NTERNAL EVIDENCE
the other canonical writings),49 and (4) the influence of the author’s background, for example, A ramaic background background of J esus’ sus’ tea teaching ching..50 As may be imagined, the consideration of all the external and internal factors involved in the process of textual criticism is not only a technical science but it is also a delicate art. This is esp espe ecia cially true whe when the there is is confli confl ict in in the the evide vidence nce.. A few observati observations ons,, howeve however, r, may assi ssist st the the begi beginne nnerr in in ge getting tting acquai cquainted nted with with the the process of textua textuall criti cri tici cism sm.. (1) (1) In I n ge general neral,, external evidence is more important than internal evidence, because it is more objective than the latter. (2) Nevertheless, decisions must take both lines of evidence into account and caref carefull ully eval evaluate uate them them. In I n othe other words, words,
if the two are apparently contradictory, a satisfactory solution must be sought. To disregard external evide evidence nce and and dep depen end d too complete pletelly on inte internal rnal evide evidence nce may lea lead d to undul unduly y subjecti subjective ve deci decisi sions. ons. At At the same time, one must not depend upon external evidence without proper regard to internal considerations, since no manuscript or text-type is perfectly trustworthy.51
2. Whe Where re there there is is a genui genuine ne devi deviati ation on from from the the MT MT on the part part of the other other witne wi tnesse ssess (and the deviation is not simply a matter of translator’s interpretation) and both readings seem equally sensible, then the preference should normally begiven to the MT (unless one of the canons intervenes to give clear preference to the other reading). 3. Where the text of the MT is doubtful or impossible because of factors of language, or sense-incontext, and where at the same time other witnesses offer a satisfactory reading, then the latter should be given favorable consideration. Especially is this so if it can be seen how the MT reading might have been corrupted through some familiar scribal error. . . . 4. Where neither the MT nor the other witnesses offer a possible or probable text, conjecture may legitimately be resorted to. . . . 5. In all textual-critical work, due regard must be given to the psychology of the scribe himself. We must always ask ourselves the question, How might this error if error there behave originated
favor the Alexandrian family (e.g., Metzger, Aland, Fee) over the Byzantine; but a few have called for the Byzantine family either to be treated with greater respect (Sturz) or to be given the place of priority (Hodges). The arguments involved are historical and complex, but it would would appe appear ar that that the Al Alexandri exandrian an text is is the better better fa family because because of age age a and nd abse absence nce of 57 harmonization of readings. A survey survey of se severa verall passa passage gess wil will se serve rve to ilillustra ustrate te the procedures of reconstructing the original text when significant textual variants are involved. OLD TESTAMENT EXAMPLES Zechariah 12:10 This illustrates that translators sometimes use weaker subjective (internal) evidences weightier than external evidence. The Masoretic text in concurrence with the L X X rea reads ds,, “T “They hey shal shall look upon me [J ehovah hovah spe spea aking king]] whomthey they have have pi pierced.” rced.” This his 58 ren re ndition is foll follo owed wed by th the K J V , RV, RV, ASV, ASV, NEB, NEB, NASB, NA SB, TANA TA NAK K H (NJ V), NIV, and 59 NKJJ V. The NK The RSV, J RSV, J erus rusalem lemBible ible,, . and NAB follow the Theodotion’s revision (c.18060 190), and the rea readi ding ng in in John J ohn 19:37 19:37 in in rende renderi ring ng it, “W “When hen they they look look on him him whom they they
Deuteronomy 32:8 This provides another interesting exercise in Old Testament textual
criticism criticism.. T Th he Masore oretic tic Te Text, xt, foll followed owed by KJ K J V , ASV ASV,, a an nd TA NAK NA K H, rea reads, “Th “The Mos ostt High gave to the nations their inheritance. . . . He set the bounds of the peoples according to the the num number ber of the the chi children dren of Isra srae el.” TheRSV foll ollowed owed the the L X X and a fragm ragment from Qumran Qumran,, whi which ch rea reads, ds, “A “A ccording ccording to thenum number ber of thesons sons [or ange ngels] of God.” The T he L XX reading is an attempt to bring the text into harmony with the patriarchal description of angels as “sons “sons of God” God” (cf. (cf. J ob 1:6; 1:6; 2:1; 38:7 and and possi possibl bly y even even Gen. Gen. 6:4). 6:4). The T he modern odern rendi renditition on that follows it is an example of “eclectic” interpretation of the Old Testament text that is quite at vari varia ance with with the the princi principl ple es sta state ted d by by the trans transllators of theNI V. T The heiir introdu introducti ction on ind indiica cate te show capricious translators may become when they introduce their subjective interpretation or doctrinal position into the process of textual criticism without following the commonly accepted canons and methodology as presented in previous discussion.61 NEW TESTAMENT EXAMPLES
WestcottHort Tex Text
Critical Tex Text
Eclectic Tex Text
Majority Tex Text
Ten Tends Tak Takes each toward variant Alexandrian individually Family (The purpose of textual criticism is to ascertain the original reading)
Received Tex Text
Ten Tends toward Byzantine Family
K eeping ping the these se disti distincti nctions ons in in vie view, it app appe ears that that the posi positions tions of modern odern textua textuall criti critics cs fit somewhere on a continuum as illustrated in the chart, “Various Schools of New Testament
come comes in in a fourth-century ourth-century La L atin tin trea treatise tise attribu ttribute ted d to ei either ther the Spani Spanish sh he hereti retic Pri Prisci scilllian or 66 to his follower Bishop Instantius. I n fa fact, the accepta cceptance nce of the longer onger re renderi ndering ng as as a genu genuiine part part of thetext text of J ohn viol viola ates tes a allmost every every ma major canon canon of textua textuall criti critici cism sm. Luke 11:2 (KJ (K J V , N NK K J V). Trans ransllations base based d on on the theGreek Greek text text of the Textus xtus Receptus/Majority Text tradition read, “Our Father which art in heaven.” Those which follow the Nestle-Aland Text and “eclectic” scholars read, “Father, hallowed be thy name,” and relegate the longer reading to a note (RV, ASV, NEB, NASB, and NIV) or omit it altogether (RSV, NAB). A consideration of the canons of textual criticism previously discussed is rele rel evant vant to to arri arrivi ving ng at the the correct rea reading ding of theorigi origina nall text. text. In I n favor of the Nestle stle-Aland Tex Te xt is canon #1 (th (the olde ldest reading ing is best), because Co Cod dice ices and B omit the lon longer phrase phrase.. By the sa sam me token, token, canon canon #3 also also supports supports the Ne Nestle stle-Aland Te Text because becauseit is is the shorter shorter re reading. ding. Li L ikewise kewise,, the longer onger re reading ding shows acle clear harmon harmoniistic stic a atte ttem mpt to bri bring ng the the
procedures of textual criticism should provide assistance in discovering whether or not this peri pericop cope e is actu actua ally part part of J ohn’ ohn’s gosp gospe el.71 1. The passa passage ge in questi question on does not appe appear ar in the olde oldest st and and most rel reliiabl able Gree reek k manuscri anuscripts, pts, including P66, P75, , Avid, B, Cvid, L, L, N. T, W, X , ∆, Θ, Ψ, 0141, 0211, 22, 33, 157, 209, 565, 892, 1230, 1241, 1253, 1333*, 2193, 2768, family 1424, and others.72 2.
3.
Neither ther Ta Tatia tian nor the Old Ol d Syri Syria ac betrays betrays any knowle knowl edgeof it, it, nor nor dothe dothe best best manuscri nuscripts pts of the the Pesh Peshiitta. tta. LLiikewi kewise se,, it is is om omiitted tted by by the Copti optic (Sa (Sahi hidic dic and Boha ohairic), ric), and se severa verall Gothic Gothic and Old Old La L atin tin ma manuscri nuscripts pts.. No Gree reek k wri writer ter comm comments on this this passa passage ge until until the twelf twelfth century. century.
4. It is not included ncluded in Dia Di atess tessa aron, Clement, nt, Te Tertulli rtull ian, Orige Ori gen, n, Cypria yprian,Chrysostom n,Chrysostom, Nonnus Nonnus,,
Mark 16:9-20 (KJ (K J V , NAB NA B, NKJ NK J V). Th This is anoth other pe perpl rplexin xing probl roblem in Ne New w
Testament textual critic Tes iticis ism m. Unlik Unlike e J ohn 7:53-8: -8:11, however, this passage represents one of four endings current in the manuscripts, and some of that manuscript evidence is quite old. As m miight be be expe expected cted,, advocates dvocates aga agaiinst the the incl inclusi usion on of the long endi ending ng and and those those favori voring 75 inclusion are sharply divided over the issue. The translators of the RV, ASV, NEB, NASB, and NIV all include the so-called longer ending (verses 9-20), whereas the RSV places it in a footnote. ootnote. Al A ll of these these transl translations tions prov proviide an expl expla anatory natory note and and indicate ndicatethat that there there is is a textua textuall proble problem. I . H Howa oward rd Ma Marshal rshall sum summarizes rizes theconse consensus nsus of Ne Nestle stle-A land Te Text and and “eclectic” proponents as he writes,
Mark brie bri efly recounts recounts how how some some women foun found d the empty tomb tomb of J esus and fle fl ed from from it in in confusion confusion after the angelic vision (16:1–8 (16:1–8). ). Then the story in Mark terminates abruptly without describing any appea ppearances rances of of the rise risen n Lord. L ord. So So it it see seems lilikely kely that the the origi origina nall ending of the Gospel Gospel has has bee been lost. lost. 76 On the other hand, many scholars think the sudden ending is deliberate.
3.
There here is anothe nother end endiing in addi ddition tion to verse verses 9-20 that that occurs in se severa verall unci uncia als (L, (L , Ψ, 099, mg 0112), a few miniscules (279 , 579), and several manuscript copies of ancient versions (k, Syrh mg, Copticpt, Ethcodd).80 This shorter passage reads, “But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.”
4. Thefamiliar long ong endi nding of the theK J V , NAB and and NK J V refle reflected cted in the the Textus xtus Rece cept ptus us/M /Ma ajority ority Te Text traditi tradition on is foun found d in in a num number ber of unci uncia al manuscri nuscript ptss (C, (C, D, D, LL,, W W), ), most mi miniscu nisculles, most most Old Old La L atin tin ma manuscri nuscripts pts,, theV ulga ulgate te,, and in in some Syria Syri ac and and Copti Copticc 81 manuscripts. 5.
The long endi nding of ve verse rsess 9-20 is expand xpande ed after ter verse verse 4 in Codex odex W (chap. (chap. 22) 22). Accordi According ng to the the NA B thi this “Fre “Free er Log L ogiion” rea reads, ds,
twentieth-century English translations have tended to follow the approach of Marshall, Metzger, and others by using an “eclectic” approach to exclude verses 9-20 from the text. 87 Acts 20:28 (KJ (K J V , NASB, NA SB, NA NAB, NIV NI V, NKJ NK J V and RDB). RDB). At A t issu issue in th this pa passage is th the rendering “feed the church of God, which he [God] hath purchased with his own [God’s] blood.” blood.” The T heRV , ASV A SV,, RSV RSV and NEB NEB, record record the the wordi wording, ng, “. . . churc church h of of the the L ord.” ord.” On On the the basis of the rules of textual criticism, however, this last reading is not preferred. Several observations will indicate that those translators did not follow the canons appropriately. 1. The external xternal evide evidence nce is singu singullarly rly ba balanced nced betwee between n the varia variants “church of God” God” and “church “church of the the L ord.” 2. 3.
Paleographi ographica callly, there there is only only one letter tter at at issue ssue betwee between n the rea readi dings ngs.. The The rea readi ding ng “church of the L ord and and God” is is a an n obvious obvious conf conflation,thu tion,thuss refle reflecting cting ase second conda ary rea readi ding ng.. The
di
“church of the L ord” ref refl cts infl
f
the L XX (whe it i
d
Part Four —————————
TRA TRA NSL NSL A TIO TI ON OF TH THE E BIBLE BIBL E 27
Tra Transla lattio ion ns Containin ining g the Old Te Tesstament Te Tex xt In addition to the multitude of manuscript copies of the biblical text and the miscellaneous materials, the great ancient versions provide a very important witness to the text of the Scriptures. These combine to form the fourth link in the chain “from God to us”—
translated ted “gospel “gospel” and transl transliterate terated d “evange “evangell.” It was the the process of euangelion is transl transliteration that rendered the Greek word biblos, through through L atin tin and and French, rench, into into Engli English as “Bible” (see chap. 1). V ERSION A version is a translation from the original language of a literary text into another langua nguage ge.. In this sense sense,, the Ki King Ja J ames Ve Versi rsion on and and the the Rhei heims-Doua s-Douay y Ve V ersi rsion on are are actua actuallly not even even versi versions, ons, the forme ormer bei being the fifth revi revisi sion on of Tyndal yndale’s Ve Versi rsion on and and thelatter tter bei being a trans transllation tion of theL atin tin Vul Vulga gate te.. Both Both Tyndal yndale’s V Ve ersi rsion on and J erome rome’s V Vul ulga gate te,, on the other hand, are versions of the original languages and qualify according to this definiton of aversion because they were translated from the original languages. Modern versions, following this definition, are represented by the New English Bible(1961, Bible (1961, 1970), theHoly the Holy Bible: New International Version (1973, 1978), theNew theNew American Bible(1970, Bible (1970, 1983), and
Standard Version (1982). 1982). I t is is not a pa paraphrase raphrasein the techni technica call se sense nse of the term term be because cause in it it the actual actual RSV text is is use used d rather rather than paraphrase paraphrased. d. COMMENTARY A comm commentary ntary is sim simply ply the comm comments on, on, or expla xplanati nation on of, of, a text. text. With rega regard to the Scripture text, commentaries occur early in the history of Bible transmission. The Midrash (to be discuss discusse ed la later ter this this chapte chapter) r) is the earli arliest exam example ple of a Bibl Bi ble e commentary ntary.. In recent recent tim times, some translations have tended to become “expanded” or “amplified” into something like comm commentari ntarie es on the bibl bibliical text. It I t is is custom customa ary for for such expande xpanded d or am ampli plified transl transla ations tions to appe appea ar in in seri serie es bef before they they are gathe gathered red into into thei their fi final nal format. ormat. K enneth nneth S. Wuest, uest, T Th he New Testament: An Expanded Translation (1961),and Frances Sweibert (ed.) T (ed.) Th he Amplifie lified d Bible( Bible (1971) 1971) are example ples of such comm commentary ntary tra transla nslations. tions. It I t is is not unusua unusuall for tra transla nslations tions to appear in commentaries on various books of the Bible. There are a great multitude of Bible commentaries available in many languages. They add valuable insights to verify and
his version directly from the original languages. In fact, it is this version, completed by Myles Coverdale, that begins what may be properly called Protestant Bible translation, for it is at that that point point tha that the L atin tin Vul Vulga gate te is set set asi aside de in fa favor of theorigi origina nall langua nguage gess for for all all except xcept 11 Roman Catholics. Since Tyndale’s day, multitudes of renderings have been produced containing all or parts of the Old and/or New Testaments. 12 A NCIENT RENDERINGS DISCUSSED Two Two imp important fac facts about ancien ient version ions merit treatment in the conside ideration ion of God God’s communication to man. Th T he purpo rpose of the materials rials ind indica icates their importa rtanceThese works were used to help help disse dissem minate nate the the messa ssage ge of the autogra autograph phss to those who were ffol olllowers of the L ord. The They were also lso used to assist ist God God’s people in keeping ing their religio ligion n pure. The Therefor fore, such items as the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Targums were in use before the time of Christ. After the introduction of Christianity into the world, the new proselyting religion used such
The The roots of the Samarita itan race actually can be traced back to the time ime of Dav David. id. It was during those years that the northern portion of the kingdom engineered an abortive revolt. A fter ter Solom Solomon’ on’ss dea death, the two king ki ngdom doms were were divi divided, ded, as Je J eroboam roboam wreste wrested d control control of the ten northern tribes from the hands of Solomon’s son Rehoboam. During the reign of Omri (c. 880-874 B.C.), .), a northern northern king, ki ng, Sama Samaria ri a was made the capi capital tal (1 Ki K ings 6:24), 6:24), and the term term Samaritanbecame Samaritan became applied to the entire kingdom rather than merely to the inhabitants of the city. In 732 B.C. the Assyrian Empire, under Tiglath-pileser III (745-727), conquered the northea northeast porti portion on of Isra I srae el and foll ollowed owed its its esta establ bliishe shed pol poliicy of deporta deportatition on of inh i nha abita bitants nts and importation portation of other capti captive ve pe people oples into into the the area rea.. Unde Underr Sargon II II, in in 721 721 B.C., the same procedu procedure re was was ffol olllowed owed af after ter the A ssyria ssyrians ha had captu captured red theres restt of I sra srae el. Not al all of the I srae sraellites tes were deported deported,, and inte interm rma arri rriage was im imposed posed upon those those who rema remained. ned. Thi T hiss method was used as an attempt to guarantee that no revolt would ensue, as there would be an automatic tic dena denatitiona onallizati zation and comm commingl ngling of culture culturess (2 Ki Kings ngs 1 17:24-18:1). 7:24-18:1). At first fi rst the the
Manas anasseh seh,, in i n about about 432 B.C.15 At that tim time acopy of the Tor Torah ah may have have been been taken to Samaria and placed in the temple built on Mount Gerizim at Shechem (Nablus),where the rival worship and priesthood were established. The fifth-century date may account for the palaeo-Hebrew script,16 as wel well as cate categori gorizat zatiion of books into into only only two groups groups:: The T he L aw, 17 and what the Samaritans regarded as the noncanonic books. Their adherence to the Torah, as wel well as the their isol isola ation tion from from the J ews, has has re resu sullted ted in in anoth anothe er textua textuall tradi traditition on for thelaw. In In addi ddition, tion, the Sam Samarita ritan n Pe Pentate ntateuch uch ha has ilillustrat ustrate ed the J ewish wish--Samarita ritan n hosti hostility quite quite effectivel ctively, y, as it it em empha phasizes sizes the the importance portance of Mount ount Ge Gerizi rizim m inste nstea ad of J erusal rusalem, and inserts additional material into the text, for example, after Exodus 20:2-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21. The The Samarita itan Pe Pen ntateuch was firs first publis lish hed in the Paris Polyg lyglot lot (16 (1645),and then in the L ondon ondon Polygl Polyglot ot (1657) (1657). It I t was was qui quickly ckly regarde regarded d as as supe superi rior or to the Masore soretiticc text; text; then, then, after careful study, it was relegated to an inferior status, and has just recently been raised to a
Because this text tradition covers the best documented portion of the Old Testament, its contributions indicate cultural trends in the Hebrew social setting: the sectarian insertions of the Samaritans, the repetition of commands given by God, trends toward popularizing the Old Tesstament text, tendencies Te ies to modernize ize antiqu ique word for forms, and the simp implifyin lifying g of diffic ifficult 22 Hebrew sentence constructions. THE A RAMAIC TARGUMS Origin of Targums There is evidence that the scribes were making oral paraphrases of the Hebrew Scriptures into the Aramaic vernacular as early as the time of Ezra (Neh. 8:1-8). The These paraphrases were not strict ictly translat lation ions, but were actually aids ids in understanding ing the archaic language forms of the Torah. The translator or interpreter involved in that work was called a methurgeman. The necessity for such helps arose because Hebrew was becoming less and less familiar to the ordinary people as a spoken language. By the close of the last centuries ., this gradual process had continued until almost every book in the Old
the Pentate ntateuch uch appe appea ared cal called thePse seudoudo-JJ onatha onathan n Ta Targum. rgum. I t is is a mixture of the Onke Onkelos Tarrgum and Midr Ta Midrash materials ials.. The The J erusalem lem Ta Tarrgum also lso appeared at about 700, but has survived in fragments only. None of these Targums is important to the textual critic, but they are all rather significant to the study of hermeneutics, as they indicate the manner in which Scripture was interpreted by rabbinical scholars. THE TALMUD Following the first period of Old Testament scribal tradition, the period of the Sopherim (c. 400 B.C.-c. A.D. 200), there appeared a second, the Talmudic period (c. A.D. 100-c. 500), which was followed by the better-known Masoretic tradition (c. 500-c. 950). Ezra worked with the first of these groups, and they were regarded as the Bible custodians until after the time of Christ.25 Between A.D. 100 and 500, the Talmud (instruction, teaching) grew up as a body of Hebrew civil and canonical law based on the Torah. The Talmud basically represents the opini opinions ons and and deci decisi sions ons of J ewish wish tea teachers chers from from about 300 300 B.C. to A.D. 500, and it consists
by his son Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-246 B.C.), who followed the Pharaonic practice of marrying his sister, Arsinoë II. It was during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus that full political and religious rights were granted granted to the J ews. Egypt Egypt also also underw underwen entt a tremen tremendous dous cultural cultural and and educa educatitional onal programunde under the pa patronage tronage of A rsi rsinoë noë II II, spea spearheade rheaded d by the found foundiing of the Museum useumat A lexandri xandria a and thetranslati translation on of grea great works works into into Greek. Greek. I t was was in in tha that peri period od (c. 250-c. 250-c. 150 150 B.C.), that the Hebrew Old Testament was being translated into Greek, the first time it had ever bee been exten extensi sivel vely y tra transla nslated. ted. The The leaders ders of A lexandri xandria an Je J ewry had had a standa standard rd Gree Greek k 26 version produce produced, d, known as as the the L XX , the Gree reek k word word for for “se “sevent venty. y.”” It I t was undoubte undoubtedl dly y translated during the third and/or second centuries B.C. and was purported to have been writte written n as as ea early rly as as the the tim time of Ptole tolemy II I I in a L etter tter of A riste ristea as to Phil Philocarte ocartess (c. 130-100 27 B.C.). The The Le Lettter of Arist Aristeas relat lates that the libr librarian ian at Alex Alexandria persuaded Ptolem lemy to
spe speaking king Christi Christia ans who who would would use use the the L X X with with the their Ne New Te Testam stament. It I t set set a prece precede dent nt for for missionarie ssionaries to ma make trans transllations tions of theScri Scriptures ptures into into vari various ous la langua nguage gess and and di dialects. It It bridges the textual criticism gap in its substantial agreement with the Hebrew Old Testament text text ( , A, A , B, B, C, C, e etc.). tc.). Al A lthoug though h the the L X X does does not not measure sure up to the the excel xcellenceof the Hebrew Old Testament text, it does indicate the purity of the Hebrew text. As a resu resullt of J ewish wish criti critici cism smduri during ng the the early rly cent centuri urie es of Christ hristiianity are acti action on se set in in among the J ews aga agaiinst the Septuagi Septuagint. nt. Tha T hatt reacti reaction on has has proved proved to be hel helpful pful to the textual textual critic, because it produced a new wave of translations and versions of the Old Testament. Some Some of the new new works works incl includ ude ed theGre Greek tra transl nslations tions known as as Aqu A quiila’s versi version and and Symmachus’ revision, and even led to the great work of textual criticism in the mid-third century, theHexapla the Hexaplaof of Origen. Before proceeding on to those items, it seems advisable to recall that the foregoing ancient translations provide a valuable witness to the text of the Old
Greek. He is the Aquila wrongly associated with the Targum Onkelos as mentioned earlier in this chapter. His translation (version) was a rigidly slavish one; for although the words were Greek, the thought patterns and sentence structures followed the Hebrew rules of composition. This translation became the official Greek translation of the Scriptures used among the nonnon-Christi hristia an Je J ews. Al A lthough though it was was made in the the interes nterestt of J uda udaism,Aqu ,A quiila’s version version was was high highlly re regarde garded d by Chri Christi stia an schol schola ars lilike Orige Ori gen n and and Je J erome rome be beca caus use e of its i ts 30 fidelity to the Hebrew text. Aquila’s version has survived only in fragments and quotations. 2. The Theodotion ion’s re rev visio ision n (c. 180-190) occupies the next place of interest inGreek translations of the Old Testament. The exact place of this work is disputed, but it appears to have been a revision of an earlier Greek version: either of the LXX, possibly of Aquila’s, or of another Greek version.31 Theodoti heodotion on is is reported reported to have have bee been a nati native ve of Ephesus phesus,, and ei either ther a Je J ewish wish 32 proselyte or an Ebionite Christian. His revision was much freer than Aquila’s version, and in a few instances his work even replaced some of the older Septuagint renderings among
concerned with the sense of his rendering rather than the letter of the Hebrew. Nevertheless, Symmachus exhibited high standards of accuracy, and influenced later Bible translators, as is see se en by Ke K enyon: The The special ial fea feature of this translat lation ion is the lite literary skill and taste with ith which ich the He Heb brew phrases of the origi origina nall are rendered rendered into into good and and idi idiom omati aticc Gree Greek. k. In this this respect respect Symm Symmachus achus approache approachess neare nearerr than any of his rivals to the modern conception of a translator’s duty; but he had less influence than any of them on the history of the Greek Bible. Curiously enough, he had more influence upon the L atin tin Bibl Bi ble e: for for J erome rome made consi considerab derablle useof him him in the the prepa preparati ration on of the Vul Vulga gate te..35
4.
Ori Origen’s gen’s Hexapl apla (c. 240-50). The work of Old Testament translation led to four Greek textual traditions by the third century A.D.: theSeptua Septuagi gint, nt, and and versi versions ons by by Aqu A quiila, The Theodotion ion, and Symmachus. This This muddled led state of affair ffairss set the stage for for the firs first really outstanding attempt at textual criticism, the Hexapla (“sixfold”) by Origen of Alexandria
Testament int Tes into greater confor formity ity. Thu Thus, his attention ion was prima imarily foc focused on the He Heb brew text text of colum column one one and his his pe persona rsonal trans transllation tion of the L X X in column column five fi ve.. In I n di disclosing sclosing the the problems uncovered in his work, Origen used an elaborate system of critical markings. Thus the reader would be able to see the corruptions that were corrected, omissions and additions as indicated, and instances where transpositions of words were made in order to agree with the Hebrew text as then settled. When passages occurred in the Septuagint but not in the Hebrew, Origen would indicate it with an obelus ¢, a horizontal diacritical stroke. When a passage occurred in the Hebrew but not in the Septuagint, Origen would insert that passage from Theodotion’s version and mark its beginning with an asterisk ( B or B). To mark the close of either of these corrections, he would insert a metobelus (¶).39 When transposed passages of short length differing from the Hebrew and other versions were observed, he would permit them to remain in their setting, but would mark them with an asterisk and
their efforts, two other scholars attempted to revise the Greek text of the Old Testament.The first of those was Hesychius, an Egyptian bishop martyred in 311. His recension is preserved only only in in the the quotati quotations ons from from the text text mad made e by church write writers rs in in Egypt. Egypt. As A s a resul result, the recovery of the recension of Hesychius is dependent upon quotations of such Egyptians as Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444). The works of Chrysostom (d. 407) and Theodoret (d.c. 457) may be use used d to recover stil still another nother re recensi cension on of the Old Ol d Te Testam stament text: text: the L ucia ucian Recensi cension. on. Luci L ucia an, a resi reside dent nt of Sa Samosa osata ta and A ntioch, ntioch, was al also martyred rtyred in A.D. 311. Thus, by the tim time of J erome rome, as He Henry Ba Barcla rclay Swe Swete te obse observes, “Chri “Christi stia ans coul could read read the the Old Old Tesstament in the recension Te ion of Luc Lucian ian, if they live lived in No Norrth Syria, ia, Asia Asia Mino Minor, or Gre Greece; in that of Hesychius, if they belonged to the Delta or the valley of the Nile; in Origen’s Hexapl xaplaric ric edi edition, tion, if i f they they were were resi reside dents nts at at J erusal rusalem or Caesa sarea rea.” .” 42 AND CONCLUSION SUMMARY AND
in the area reass ea east of ancie ncient Ni Nineveh, neveh, nea near Arbel A rbela a.1 This his m movem ovement of J uda udaismin the the middl ddle of the first century paved the way for the spread of Christianity into Syria. It was at Antioch of Syri Syria, the thirdthird-llargest rgest city city of the Roma oman em empire, pire, tha that the the foll ollowers owers of J esus sus were were first first called Christians (Acts 11:26). From Antioch Christianity spread into central Asia, India, and even as far as China. The basic language of this branch of Christianity was Syriac, or what F. F. Bruce has called “Christian Aramaic.” It was actually a dialect of Aramaic that differed from the A ramaic of the Palestini stinia an Je J ews who wrote in the the Western stern dia dialect of that that la langua nguage. ge. Y RIAC PESHITTA THE S YRIAC Once the church began to move out from Syria in a missionary effort, the need for a version of the Bible in the language of those parts made itself urgently manifest. 2 Thus, contem contemporary porary to the forma ormation tion of the J ewish wish Ta Targumin Aram Aramaic, the Christi hristia ans were were translating the Bible into a more usable dialect of the same language, although they used a disti distincti nctive ve vari varia ation tion of the A ramaic a allpha phabet. bet.3 TheSyria Syri ac Bi Bible corresp correspon ondi ding ng to the the L atin tin
the Byzantine text-type.6 I t is is im important portant to note at this this point point tha that the Peshitta shitta was “the ‘authorized version’ of the two main opposed branches of Syriac Christianity, the Nestorians and the the J acobite cobites, s, indi indica catiting ng tha that it it must must ha have be been fi firmly rmly establ establiished shed by the tim time of thei their 7 final cleavage, well before the fifth century.” Y RO-HEXAPLARIC VERSION THE S YRO As has has bee been me mentione ntioned d in in chapte chapterr 27, the SyroSyro-H Hexapla xaplar text was a Syri Syria ac transla translation tion of the fifth column of Origen’s Hexapla. This work was done under the sponsorship of Bishop Paul of Tella in about 616. This work has never actually taken root in the Syrian churches, partly due to its excessively literal rendering of the Greek, in violation of Syriac idiom. The manuscript portions that have been preserved are in the Codex Mediolanensis, and consist of 2 Ki K ings, ngs, Isa I saiiah, the Twel welve, La L amentati ntations ons,, and and the the poeti poetica call books (except (except Psa sallms). I t is is the their literal character that makes the Syro-Hexaplar manuscripts valuable aids in ascertaining the correct text of the Hexapla, especially because Origen’s text was never published in its
the early fifth century. That attitude was undoubtedly based upon the fact that Tatian belonged to the heretical sect of the Encratites, as identified by Eusebius.
He established his own type of doctrine, telling stories of invisible Aeons, like the followers of V alentinu ntinus, s, and and rej reje ecting cting marriag rri age e as corruption corruption and fornicat ornicatiion si similarly arly to Ma Marcion rcion and and Saturni Saturninus nus.. A nd as as his his own contribut contributiion, deni denie ed the sal salvation of A dam dam. But a littl li ttle e la later ter a certai certain n ma man nam named Severus strengthened the above mentioned heresy, and is the reason why those who have sprung from it obtained the name Severing from him. . . . Their former leader Tatian composed in some way a combination and collection of the gospels, and gave this the name of Th The Diat Diatessaron ron, and this is still 11 extant in some places. . . .
Tatian Tat ian’s work was so popular lar that Eph Ephra, a Syrian ian Fat Father, wrote a commentary on it. it. Nevertheless, Theodoret had all the copies (about two hundred) of the Diatessaron destroyed because he felt the potential danger of their corrupting influence on the Christians who would use Tatia tian’s n’s text. text. I n its its pla place, The Theodoret odoret prese presente nted d anothe anotherr tra transla nslation tion of the gospel gospels of the
The There are other Syriac iac version ions that require ire comment, but they are all lat later version ions than those those al alrea ready dy discu discusse ssed, and and not ne nearly rly so sign signiifica cant nt to thetextua textuall criti critic. c. In 508 508 a ne new Syri Syria ac New Testament was completed, which included the books omitted by the Peshitta (2 Peter, 2 Jo J ohn, 3 J ohn, J ude, and Re Rev velat lation ion). This This version ion was actually a Syriac iac revisio ision n of the whole Bible by the rural Bishop Polycarp (chorepiskopos), under the direction of Zenaia (Phi (Philloxenu oxenus), s), J acobi cobite bishop of Ma M abbug bbug (Hi (Hierapo rapollis), in in ea easte stern Syria Syria. Sir Sir Fre Frede deri ricc Ke K enyon states: . . . [this] version was written in free and idiomatic Syriac, being the most literary in form of all the translations of the New Testament into this language. The Greek text underlying it was that of the great mass of later manuscripts, which (as is abundantly clear from other evidence also) was firmly established as the standard type of text in the Greek-speaking Church at the time when Polycarp prepared this version of the Scriptures for Philoxenus.15
The The Co Cop ptic diale ialecct of Upp Upper (southern) Egy Egypt was Sahidic idic.. In the region ion of The Thebes, virtually all of the New Testament was translated into Sahidic by the beginning of the fourth century. century. A s ea early rly as the third third century, century, portions portions of the New Te Testam stament were were transl transla ated ted into into thi this dialect. Manuscripts in this dialect represent the earliest Coptic versions of the New Tesstament, as may be seen by the fac Te fact that Pachomius ius (c. 292-c. -c. 346), the great organize izer of Egyptian monasticism, required his followers to be diligent in the study of the Scripture. Because the Sahidic was so early in Egypt, its evidence to text-type carries considerable weight. Basically, its underlying text is Alexandrian, although the gospels and Acts follow the Western stern type. It I t is is thus areprese representa ntatitive ve of a mixed or combi combined ned texttext-type type..19 BOHAIRIC (MEMPHIC) In Lowe L owerr (northe (northern) rn) Egypt, gypt, around the Delta Delta,, anothe anotherr dia dialect of Coptic optic was use used al along with the Greek. This was in the area of Alexandria, and its centrality in Christian history is reflected by the fact that Bohairic became the basic dialect of the Egyptian church. The
Great (c. 330). Whatever the case, as Christianity moved into Ethiopia, a need arose for another translation of the Bible.24 Although there there is is no authori authoritati tative ve statem statement ent on the subject, subject, the Old Tes Testam tament ent appe appears ars to have been translated from the Greek into Ethiopic beginning in the fourth century A.D., with revisions made in light of the Hebrew text. This translation seems to have been completed by the seventh century, at which time the New Testament was translated. The complete translation was probably done by Syrian monks who moved into Ethiopia during the Monophysi onophysite te Controversy ontroversy in in the the fif fifth and and si sixth centu centuri rie es a and nd the the rise rise of I sla slam in the the sse eventh venth and eighth centuries. That their influence was great is seen in the fact that this church is Monophysite in the present day.25 There have been two recensions of the Ethiopic New Tesstament, “one in the fifth Te fifth, the other in the twelfth lfth century.”26 The text of the Ethiopic version version was was la later ter inf inflluence uenced d by by Copti Copticc a and nd A rabic rabic versions, versions, and and may itse itsellf have have be been base based d on Syriac rather than Greek manuscripts. These manuscripts were undoubtedly of fourth- or
translated because the translator believed that those books were “too warlike to be transmitted” to the Gothic tribes. Much more rains of the New Testament translation made by Ulfilas, the earliest known literary monument in the Germanic dialect, but it is not found in a single complete extant manuscript. This translation adheres closely, almost literally, to the Greek text of the Byzantine type, and tells little to the textual critic. The value of the Gothic version is in the fact that it is the earliest literary work in the Germanic group, to which Engl nglish be belongs ongs..30 There are five fragmentary manuscripts of the Gothic version, the most famous of which is the Codex Argenteus, “the silver codex.” It was written on purple vellum in sil silver ver and som some e gol gold d le letters. tters. A ll theother other manu manuscri scripts pts in in Gothic Gothic are pa palimpse psests, sts, except xcept a vel vellumleaf of a bili bil ingua nguall Gothic-L Gothic-La atin tin code codex. x. Goth Gothiic, li like Copti optic, is is a langua nguage gewhose whose script script was expressly devised for the writing of the Scriptures. All the manuscripts of the Gothic version date from the fifth and sixth centuries A.D., and they provide a severely literal rendition of the gospels in affinity with the Syrian or Antiochian form of text. 31
The The mountaino inous area between the Blac Black and Ca Casspian ian seas (Geo Georgia) ia), north of Armenia, ia, received the Christian message during the fourth century, and had its own Bible translation about bout the middl ddle of thefifth. The The messa ssage ge of Christi hristia anity nity proceede proceeded d from from Arm Arme enia nia into into 35 Georgia, and so did the translation of the Bible. Accordingly, if the Armenian Old Tesstament were a translat Te lation ion of the LXX LX X or or the Syriac iac Pe Pesshitt itta, and the Ne New w Te Tesstament were a translation of the Old Syriac, they would themselves be secondary translations, and the Georgia orgian versi version on (tra (transl nslated ted from from the the A rme rmenia nian) would would be a te tertia rtiary work at best. best. If I f the A rme rmenia nian versi versions ons were were ba base sed d on the the origi origina nalls, the Georgia orgian versi version on would would stil still be a secondary translation, that is, a translation of a translation. The great majority of manuscripts of the Georgian Bible indicate that it follows the same textual tradition as the Armenian. Its alphabet, like the Armenian and Gothic, was developed expressly for the purpose of Bible transmission. NESTORIAN VERSIONS
one nati native ve tongue tongue was spoken spoken in in the region region of eastern stern Europe Europe,, nam namely Sl Slavonic. vonic. In response response to Rostisl Rostisla av’s v’s re requ que est, the the Emporer porer Mi Michae chael III se sent nt two monks monks from from Byzanti yzantium umto Moravi Moravia a. Tho Those monks were brothers, Met Methodius ius and Co Con nstantinu inus. Co Con nstantinu inus changed his name upon entry into the monastery, and is better known by his assumed name, Cyril. The brothers were natives of Thessalonica, and they devised a new alphabet for their work in translating the Scriptures. That alphabet, known as the Cyrillic alphabet and having thirty-six letters, is still used in the Russian, Ukrainian, Serbo-Croatian,and Bulgarian languages. 38 The The Glagolithic alphabet, which was superseded by the Cyrillic in the tenth century, is also attributed to Methodius and Cyril, the “Apostles to the Slavs.” Shortly after the mid-ninth century, they began translating the gospels into Old Church Slavonic. Their Old Testament was formerl ormerly y regarded regarded as a transl translation tion of the L X X , althoug although h recen recentt evi evide dence nce indicate ndicatess tha that it it was was a trans transllation tion from from the L atin. tin. The The New Te Testam stament of the Old Old Chu Church rch Sla Slavonic vonic version version follows the Byzantine text basically, but it has many readings that are of the Western and
transl translated ted from from the L atin tin Vul Vulga gate te,, but those and the Old Ol d Germa German versi versions ons wil will be conside considered red in chapter 30. “One fragmentary eighth-century manuscript preserves parts of Matthew in Franki rankish sh,, a la langua nguage ge of west-cent west-central ral Europe, urope, with with Fran Franki kish sh and and La Latin tin on fa facing cing pa pages.” ges.” 44 This This rounds out the survey of ancien ient version ions and translat lation ions containin ining g the Old and Ne New w Tesstaments except for Te for the La Lattin Vulg Vulga ate version ion and its its antecedents. Tha That traditio ition n will be the subject of the next chapter. AND CONCLUSION SUMMARY AND
The The multit ltitu ude of early version ions of the Bible Bible demonstrates not only the unive iversality lity of Christianity but the antiquity of the biblical text as well. These early versions provide some of the earliest copies of the complete canon of Scripture, and in many cases they outdate the manuscript copies in Greek. The Syrian church, for example, had begun its Peshitta in the second century. Tatian’s Diatessaron dates back to a time prior to A.D. 170. Soon after that
later on in the Talmudic period (c. A.D. 100-500).3 That hat Aram A rama aic la langua nguage was comm commonly only spoken in Palestine during the life of Christ and His disciples, and it supplanted Hebrew among the the J ews inso insoffar as the their re religious gious lilife was was concerne concerned. d. After ter the campai paigns of A lexande xanderr the Grea reatt (335-323 (335-323 B.C.), the Greek language became the official language within the confines of his conquests. Much of that territory was later incorporated into that part of the Roman Empire bordering on the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea. Hellenistic Greek prevailed as the official language in the Near East under the Ptolaic and Seleucid empires in Egypt and Syria, respectively, and even in Palestine during the Hasmonean independence (142-63 B.C.). Beginning with the death of Attalus III (133 B.C.), when the kingdom of Pergamum was bequeathed to Rome, and ending in 63 B.C., when when theEast was was incorporate incorporated d into into the Roma oman Re Republ public, the L atin tin la langua nguage gradua graduallly spread as the “military language” in the Near East. GreeceThe various dialects of Hellenic Greek4 were related to three waves of
zoology, zoology, me metaph taphysi ysics, cs, and and phi philosophi osophicc me method than than his his lliingui nguisti sticc e effforts. Al A lthough though theK oine oine Gree reek k was an an adm admixture of vari various ous di dialects, it it was was ba base sed d pri prim maril rily on theA ttic. ttic. Af A fter ter the dea death of A lexande xander, this this new new speech speech becam became theoff officia cial langua nguage of the eastern stern Medite diterr rra anea nean. It I t was was this this very very dia dialect that that was was use used in in the the transl transla ation tion of the Septua Septuagint gint in in Alexandria (c. 250-c. 150 B.C.). After the rise of Alexander, his Koinē dialektos was the off officia cial langua nguage of Gree reece. ce. It I t rema remained ned so even even af after ter Rom Rome e ha had mad made e its its advan advances ces into the Near East and and Egypt. La L atin tin was was used used by mi military tary personn personne el in Gre Greece ce,, and esp espe ecia cially afte afterr the Battle at Actium (31 B.C.). .). I t was was that that battl battle e tha thatt gai gained ned thevictory victory ove over the forces of Mark A ntony and and Cle Cl eopatra opatra for for Octavi Octavia an. Duri During ng the the years years betwee between n 31 B.C. and 27 B.C., Octavian was busy consolidating his gains and converting the Roman Republic into the Roman empire. The The Gre Greeks had expended their energies ies in their ind independent activit ivity y, and were no lon longer in a role of leadership. Their golden age had turned to silver, and their culture was no longer Hellenic, but Hellenistic.
Although though La Latin tin was was the off officia cial as wel well as the marke rket (com (comm mon) la l angua nguage ge in theWest, West, Greek retained its position as the literary language of Rome and the West until the third century A.D. By the third third centu century, ry, many Old Ol d La Latin tin versi versions ons of the Scriptu Scriptures res were were al alrea ready dy circulating in North Africa and Europe, indicating that local Christians had begun to express a desi desire re to have have the the Scri Scriptures ptures in in La Latin tin as as ea early rl y as the se second cond century. century. The roots of the Old Ol d L atin tin versi version(s) on(s) are doub doubtltle ess to be be found in the the pract practiice of thedoubl double e rea reading ding of Scriptu Scri pture re during religious services, first from the Greek text (the Septuagint for the Old Testament), then in the vernacular tongue. The reading would probably be done in more or less brief secti se ctions, ons, one af after ter another, nother, just as as the J ews were accustom accustome ed to provi provide an Aram A ramaic Ta Targum at the reading of the Hebrew Scriptures. One of the earliest known of these Christian transl transla ations tions was was theOld Old La L atin tin (compos (compose ed prior prior to A.D. 200, approximately). Although inform nformation tion concerni concerning ng the the Old Old La L atin tin trans transllation tion is is very very def defective, ctive, severa severall obse observations rvations may 8 be made about it. It was actual ctually a transl transla ation tion from from the the Septua Septuagint, gint, ma making king it it a se seconda condary ry
appeared before the beginning of the third century. The Italian version, if it was distinct from the V ulga ulgate, te, probably probably appeare appeared d about about two centuries centuri es later, ater, but the varian variants ts am among the manuscripts make a coherent history of the text all but impossible to determine. Perhaps this is a contribu contributiting ng factor to why “prese “present-da nt-day y schol scholars pref prefer to spea speak of theOld Old La Latin tin Bibl Bi ble e or the prepre-Vulga ulgate te,, though though to be be sstri trictl ctly y accurate accuratethey they ought ought to spea speak of Old Ol d La L atin tin versi versions ons.” .” 12 Thu Thus the Old La Lattin version ions are among the most valua luable evide idence pertainin ining g to the conditio ition n of the New Testament text from early times. The multiplicity of texts that appeared in the third and fourth centuries led to an intolerable situation in the late fourth century and, as a resul result, the bi bishop of Rome ome, Da Damasus (366366-384) 384), com comm missi ssione oned d Jerom J erome e to ma make a revisi revision on of the Old Old La Latin tin in in 382. 382. The The most im important portant witne witness ss to to the A frica rican n text text is is the the Codex odex Bobi Bobie ensi nsis, which represents a free and rough translation of the original, and may stem from a secondcentury papyrus.13 That codex is designated k in the critical apparatus of Matthew and Mark. The The Eur European text of the Old La Lattin is best represented by Co Cod dexVer Vercelle llen nsis (a) and Co Cod dex
Je J erome was commiss ission ioned for for his task in 382 and began his work imm immediat iately. ly.16 He completed his translation of the Old Testament in 405 and spent the last fifteen years of his life writing, translating, and supervising his monks at Bethelehem. He cared little for the A pocrypha pocrypha and only only relucta reluctantl ntly y ma made a hasty hasty tran transl sla ation tion of portions portions of it—J t—J udi udith, Tobi Tobit, t, the restt of Esthe res sther, and the the addi dditions tions to to Da Danie niel—bef before hi his dea death. He Hence, nce, theOld Old La L atin tin versi version on of the Apocrypha pocrypha was was only only brought brought into into the the V ulga ulgate te versi version on of theOld Ol d Te Testam stament in in the the Mi Middl ddle A ges ges “over his his dea dead body. body.”” At the reque request of Damasus, Je J erome rome made a sli slight revi revisi sion on of the gospe gospels, which which he compl comple eted ted in in 383. 383. In I n subm submitting tting hi his work to Da Damasus, sus, J erome rome wrote thefoll ollowing owing::
Y ou urge me to revise ise the old La Lattin version ion, and, as it were, to sit in jud judgment on the copies ies of the Scriptures which are now scattered throughout the whole world; and, inasmuch as they differ from one another, you would have me decide which of them agree with the Greek original. The labour is one of love, but at the the sam same tim time both both peri perillous and and presum presumptuous; for for in i n judgi judging ng others others I must be
directly from the original language. Whereas his friends and admirers applauded his ende endeavor, avor, those more ore rote to him him becam became suspe suspect ct that he might be J udai udaizing, zing, and even even became outraged that “he should cast doubts on the divine inspiration of the Septuagint.” 20 The The firs first portion ion of the He Heb brew text to be translat lated was J erome’s He Heb brew Psalte lter, based on the Hebrew text then currently in use in Palestine. This translation was never really able to supe superse rsede de and repl replace J erome rome’s ea earli rlier Ga Gallica can, n, or even even hi his Rom Roma an, Psa Psallter ter in in liliturgical use use. Je J erome persist isted in his translat lation ion of the He Heb brew Old Te Tesstament in spite ite of oppositio ition n and even ilillness. ness. In I n his his ma many pref preface cess he would would la lash out out at at the oppose opposers rs of his his work for thei their unrea unreasonabl sonable eness ness in in the the whole whole matter. tter. Final nally, by 405, 405, his his LLa atin tin transl transla ation tion base based d upon upon the Hebrew was completed, but it was not readily received. Nevertheless, his work of revision continued after the completion of his Old Testament translation. LA CE OF OF THE TRANSLATION PLACE Je J erome had done his revisio ision n of the gospels, ls, the Ro Rom man Ps Psa alte lter, and his hurried ied work on
was not the only one demanding a new and authoritative text. Take, for example, the Old Tesstament. In J erome’s time Te ime,
Men rea read the theiir Old Ol d Testa Testament in the rece recensi nsion of of L uci ucian, if if they lilived ved in in North Syria Syria, Asi A sia a Minor, or Greece; in that of Hesychius, if they belonged to the Delta or the valley of the Nile; in Origen’s Hexapl xaplaric ric edi edition, tion, if if they they were resi reside dents nts at at Je J erusal rusalem or Ca Caesarea sarea..22
A dd to thi this the the two basi basicc Old Old La Latin tin texts, texts, the A frica rican n and and theEuropea uropean, and and it is is lilittle ttle wonde wonder that the Bishop of Rome desired a new and authoritative translation upon which the official doctrines of the church could be based. Heresies and disputes Multi ultipl ple e he heres resiies a and nd di dispute sputess with with the the J ews were were spri spring ngiing up up in the empire. Many of the heretical groups that appeared in the second, third, and fourth centuries—for example, the Marcionites, the Manichaeans, the Montanists—based their doctrine doctriness on the theiir own Bi Bible ble trans transllation tion and and/or /or ca canon non.. The T he A ria rian controversy controversy le led to the the C cil cil t Ni Ni a (325),an (325),and d the the Counci Councill t C i ple ple (I) (I) (381) (381) s ffol olll d by th
church, church, incl i nclud udiing Aug Augus ustitine ne,, who was was outspo outspoken ken agai gainst nst Je J erome rome’s Ol Old d Te Testam stament whil while wholeheartedly favoring his New Testament revision (after c. 398). Augustine’s position gives a candid recapitulation of what actually happened to the V ulga ulgate te Old Ol d Te Testam stament. Duri During ng the the e ea arly rly ye years of J erome rome’s trans transllation tion of the Old Old Te Testam stament, A ugus ugustitine ne (and the the la large majority ority of infl nfluenti uentia al leaders ders in in thechurch) church) oppose opposed d thetransl transla ation tion becau because se it was not not base based on the Septua Septuagint. gint. In I n fa fact, A ugusti ugustine ne used used Je J erome rome’s Ne New Te T estam stament revisi revision on whil while he he urged urged him him to transl transla ate theOld Ol d Te Testam stament from from the L X X, which which the the bi bishop shop at Hippo believed to be inspired. Philip Schaff aptly states that point:
A ugusti ugustine ne feared feared,, from the the displ displa ace cem ment of the Septu Septua agint, gint, which which he rega regarde rded d as apos apostol toliica callly sancti sanctione oned, d, and as insp inspiired, red, a di divisi vision on betwe betwee en the Gre Greek and La Latin tin church, church, but but yie yi elded ded af afterwards, terwards, in in part part at least, to the correct vie view of J erome rome, and and recti rectiffied in in hi his Retracti Retractions ons severa severall false transl transla ations tions in his former works. Westcott, in his scholarly article on the Vulgate (in Smith’sDictionary Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, iii, 7), makes the remark: “There are few more touching instances of humility than that of the young A ti bendi bendi hi lf i nti bmi bmissi ssion on bef before the d i ti t reproof of the
manuscripts.26 I t is is among those manuscri anuscripts pts that that the greatest greatest am amount of “crosscross27 contamination” of textual types is evident. The The above info inforrmation ion notwith ithstanding ing, the Co Cou uncil of Tr Tre ent iss issued a “Dec Decree Concerning the Edition, and the Use, of the Sacred Books,” which stated:
Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,—considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church hurch of God, God, if if it be be made known which out of all all the L atin tin edi editi tions ons,, now in in circulati circulation, on, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,—ordains and declares, that the said old and Vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many ages, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons, and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.28
However, owever, it mi might be be asked asked which which edi edititions ons of the V ulga ulgate te shoul should d be regarded regarded as the ulti ultim mate authori uthority. ty. Thus hus the the Council Council of Trent rent deci decide ded d to have have an an auth authe entic editi dition on of theL atin tin Scriptures prepared. The work was committed to a papal commission, but it was unable to
was a late-fourth- or early-fifth-century version of the Hebrew text. The Apocrypha witnesses to the disreg disrega ard that that Je J eromehad had for for it, i t, as he only only work worke ed on four four books books (and those those were reluctantly done), and the inclusion of it is evidence of the popularity it had in the Roman Catholic church. Only a few voices that supported the Septuagint Old Testament as authoritative and inspired were capable of admitting their error, and acknowledging the accuracy ccuracy of theHebrew brew text unde underl rlyi ying ng Je J erome rome’s Vul V ulga gate te.. AND CONCLUSION SUMMARY AND
Christianity was born into a Roman world, and it was not long before its Western branch adopte dopted d thelangua nguage ge of that that world, worl d, La L atin. tin. The T here re is is evi evide dence nce that that the Old Old La L atin tin versi versions ons of the Bible were in existence prior to A.D. 200. 200. In I n the the third third centu century ry La L atin tin versi versions ons were were circul circula ated ted free reely in in North North Af Africa rica.. Howeve owever, r, it was was Je J erome rome’s LLa atin tin versi version, on, the the Vul Vulga gate te,, tha that end endure ured d longest, reigning for nearly a thousand years before it was challenged in the sixteenth
3.
The Thracohraco-II llyria yri an group se settl ttle ed in theBalkan Penins ninsul ula a, and and is repres represe ented nted by A lbani bania an. The The earlie liesst texts in Alba Albanian ian date fro from the seventeenth century.
4.
The Balto-Sl to-Slavic vic group group fills in the the sa sate tem m divi division sion of the the I ndondo-E Europe uropean langua nguage ges. s. This his group is distributed over the region around the Baltic Sea and down to the area of Bulgaria and Y ugoslavi ugoslavia a. It I t is is furthe further divi divide ded d into nto the the Baltic tic bra branch nch,, includi including ng L atvia tvian (Le (L ettish), L ithua thuania nian, and and Prussi russian; and and the the Sla Slavic vic branch branch,, incl includ udiing Grea reatt Rus Russi sia an (Rus (Russi sia an), Ukrainian, White Russian (Byelorussian), Polish, Czechoslovak, Serbian (Wendish), Bulgarian, Serbo-Croatian, and Slovenian. The Baltic branch is very old and some of it is even extinct, for example, Prussian was replaced by German in the seventeenth century. On the other hand, no Slavic language was written prior to the ninth century, but Old Church Slavic has much in common with Old Bulgarian. One of the interesting features of the Slavic languages is their use of the Cyrillic alphabet, which was developed especially for the Slavic 1
Scandinavian is divided into the Old Norse, Icelandic, Norwegian, Swedish, and Danish languages. c. West Teutonic is subdivided on the basis of a shift in consonants known as the High German sound shift, which began at about A.D. 600 in south Germany and moved north. The The imp impulse lse of that consonant shift died ied out as it reached the low lowlan lands. Thu Thus, the lan languages 4 to the north are are cal called “Low “L ow Ge German,” rman,” and to the the south, “Hi “High Germa German.” High German is represented by Old High German, Bavarian, Middle High German, Modern Standard Germa German, and and Y iddi ddish. sh. LLow ow Ge Germa rman include includess Ol Old d Low L ow Fra Franc nconian onian,, Old Old Saxon, Saxon, and and Modern odern L ow Germa German, or Plattdeutsch. Plattdeutsch. A third group is Anglo-Frisian, the family of Dutch, Flish Afrikaans, Frisian, Anglo-Saxon, Middle English, and English. AT E DEVEL OPMENT OPMENT OF THE E NGLISH L ANGUAGE T HE L ATE
Engl nglish, sh, in in the the A ngl nglo-F o-Frisi risia an group, group, is is asort of tag end dia dialect of Low L ow Germa German tha thatt ha has
predominant group to settle in Britain at this time, the name of the whole country became known as Angle-land (hence, England). Their culture borrowed little or no vocabulary from its predecessors, and this at least implies a drastic and sudden con-quest. All of this took place prior to the end of the sixth century A.D., before the missionary expedition under a St. Augustine (not the Bishop of Hippo, c. A.D. 400) 400) arrived rri ved in Engla England in 597 597.. An A n accoun accountt of the landing of that missionary group sent by the first medieval pope (Gregory I, 590-604) is extant in Bede’s Eccle Ecclesias astical tical Hi Hisstory tory.. But Christianity was introduced to Britain long before 597. It may have been introduced during the late first century or early second century, and was most assuredly there during the third century. There were enough Christians in Britain to send three bishops to the Council (synod) at Arles in 314. Pelagius (c. 370-450), the arch-opponent of Augustine of Hippo and the author of Pelagianism, was from Britain. In fact, St. Patrick (c. 389-461), whose date and place of birth are quite uncertain, was the son of a deacon in the Celtic church, and a
At fi first onl only y pictures pictures,, preachi preaching, ng, poems, and paraph paraphrase rasess were use used to com communicate unicatethe message of Scripture to the Britons. These early translations of portions of Scripture were base based d upon upon the the Old Old La L atin tin and and Vul Vulga gate te versions versions of the Bibl Bi ble e.7 None of those translations included the entire Bible, but they do illustrate the way that the Bible entered into the English tongue.8 Several individuals and their translations made contributions in that direction. 9 Caedmon (d. c. 680) Caedmon was a laborer at at the monaste onastery ry at Whitby Whitby in in York Y orkshi shire re (Northumbria). His story, recorded in Bede’s Ecclesiastical History (4. 24), indicates that he was completely ungifted in poetry until one night when he slipped away from a party. He left the party for fear that he would be called upon to sing. That night he dreamed that he was commanded to sing by an angel. When he asked what he should sing, he was told to sing how all things were first created. Hence, he began to sing praises unto God in words he had never before heard: Now we must must prai praise se the Maker of the Celestia stial K ingdom ngdom,, the power power and couns counse el of the Crea reator, tor, the
Egbert.13 He was was a abl ble e to to ffiinish nish tran transl sla ating ting the the gospe gospell of J ohn in in the the very very hour hour of his his dea death. Tra Traditio ition n relat lates that he was suffer ffering ing much in his fina final days, but that he compelle lled d his scribe ibe to take dictation until the very last verse was translated. Then, he is reported to have chanted a “Gl “Glori oria” as as he passe passed d on to the great great Mas Master. ter. Alfred the Great (849-901) Alfred theGrea reatt was was king king of of Engl ngland and a schol schola ar of first rank. It I t was during during hi his reign reign tha that the Danel nelaw was esta establ bliished shed unde underr the Trea reaty ty of Wedmore (878), with only two basic stipulations: Christian baptism and loyalty to the king. Along with his translation of Bede’s Ecclesiastical History from Latin into Anglo-Saxon, A lfred transl transla ated ted theTen Com Comm mandments, extracts from Exodus Exodus 2121-23, 23, Acts A cts 5:23-29, 5:23-29, and and a negative form of the golden rule. It was a largely a result of his efforts that the religious life of Britain, which had nearly become extinct, experienced a revival. Aldred (fl. c. 950) Aldred introduced a new element in the history of the English Bible as he wrote an interlinear “gloss” in the Northumbrian dialect between the lines of a late-
evidence of Norman influence. Orm states his own justification of his version as he writes, “If “I f anyone wants wants to know why I have have done done this this dee deed, I have have done done it so that that al all young Christian folk may depend upon the Gospel only, and may follow with all their might its holy teaching, in thought, in word and deed.”17 William of ShorehamWilliam of Shoreham has often been credited with producing the first prose translation of a Bible portion into a southern dialect of English (c. 1320). Prior to the fourteenth century no complete book of Scripture had been literally translated into Engli nglish. Al A lthough though thePsa sallter ter ascribe ascribed d to Shoreha Shoreham was transl translated ted in in the the dia dialect of the West Midla dlands nds from fromthe the V ulgate ulgate,, Wi William is known to ha have wri writte tten n hi his poe poetry try in in Ke K enti ntish. sh. Thu T hus, s, the actual author of one of the literal translations of a Bible book into English is still unknown. Rich Ri chard ard Ro Rolle “The Hermit of Hampole,” Richard Rolle was responsible for the second of these these literal teral tra transl nslations tions into Engl nglish. sh. He He lived nea near Donca Doncaste ster, r, Y orksh orkshiire, and and made his his litera terall trans transllations tions into nto the the North Engl English dia dialect from from the the L atin tin Vul Vulga gate te (c. 1320 1320 1340 1340). ). This
24. A page from the Wycliffe Bible (By Permission of the British Library)
OHN W YCLI Y CLIFFE FFE (C. 1320-84) J OHN The The “Mor Morning ing Star of the Re Refo forrmation ion,” J ohn Wycliffewas a contemporary of the “Ba “Babylonish bylonish Capti Captivi vity,” ty,” Ge Geoff offrey rey Cha Chauce ucer, r, and and Joh J ohn n of Ga Gaunt. unt. In I n hi his recoi recoill from the the spi spiritu ritua al apathy and moral degeneracy of the clergy, Wycliffe was thrust into the limelight as an opponent to the papacy.
The The readies iest key to Wyc Wycliffe’s liffe’s career is to be fou found in the convict iction ion, a convict iction ion which ich grew deeper as life went on, that the Papal claims are incompatible with what he felt to be the moral truth of things, incompatible with his instinct of patriotism, and finally, with the paramount authority of the inspired Book which was his spiritual Great Charter.19
He se seem ems to have have become become one of the king’ king’ss chaplai chaplains ns about about 1366, and and becam became a doctor of theology in 1372, before being sent to France in 1374 to negotiate peace and meet with papal authorities in the matter of filling ecclesiastical appointments in England. Upon his return to
version version is is a attri ttribu bute ted d to John J ohn Wycli Wycliffe, it mus mustt be noted noted tha that the work was was compl comple eted ted af after ter his his dea death by by Ni Nichola cholas of Hereford. reford. The T he transl translation tion was was base based d on poor La L atin tin manuscri nuscripts, pts, and and was was circul circula ated ted by by theL oll ollards, rds, who were were the the foll ollowers owers of Wycl Wycliiffe and the the anti nti-cle clerica ricall party party in in the church. OHN PURVEY (C. 1354-1428) J OHN Jo J ohn Pur Purvey, who had served as Wycliffe’s liffe’s secretary, is credite ited with ith a revisio ision n of the earli rlier Wycl Wycliiffite transl transla ation tion at at abou aboutt 1395 1395.. T Thi hiss work replaced replaced many of the L atina tinate te constructi constructions ons by thenati native ve Engli English idi idiom om,, as wel well as roving roving the pref preface cess of J erome rome in fa favor of an extensive prologue. The result of this revision was a weakening of papal influence over the Engl nglish peopl people e, as this this revi revisi sion on te tende nded to to drif drift awa away y from from theliturgica turgicall L atin tin of the church. church. Thi Thiss work, kno known wn as as the the L ater ter Wycl Wycliiffite versi version on,, was pub publlishe shed pri prior or to the the inventi nvention on of J ohann ohann Gutenbe Gutenberg, rg, which which had had a da dampeni pening ng ef effect on the sprea spread d of these these particular vernacular versions. Nevertheless, the first complete English Bible was published,
William Tyndale was the man who could do what was wanted, for he was “a man of sufficient scholarship to work from Hebrew and Greek, with genius to fashion a fitting English idiom and faith and courage to persist whatever it cost him.” 24 Before Tyndale finished his revision work, he became involved in a dispute wherein a man charged that Engl nglishm shmen were were “be “better tter withou withoutt God’s God’s LLa aw than than withou withoutt thePope’ ope’s.” He He repl replied with with hi his now fam famous state statem ment, “I “I def defy the Pope and al all his his la laws; if i f God spa spares my li life, ere many years years I wil will cause cause a boy that that driveth driveth the plough plough shal shall know more more of the Scri Scriptures ptures tha than thou thou dost.” After his unsuccessful attempts to do his translations in England, he sailed for the Continent in 1524. Further difficulties ensued, and he finally had his New Testament printed in Cologne toward the end of February 1526. This was the first such achievement to be accomplished, and it was followed by a translation of the Pentateuch, at Marburg (1530), and Jo J onah, fro from Ant Antwerp (15 (1531). Tyn Tyndale worked under constant threat of being ing exposed.
may be becau because se A nneBole oleyn fa favore vored Coverda Coverdalle’s B Biible ble, and her her executi execution on in in 1536 1536 probabl probably y 29 brought disfavor upon his work. THOMAS MATTHEW (C. 1500-1555) Tho Thomas Mat Matthew was the pen name of J ohn Ro Rog gers, the firs first martyr of the Mar Marian ian Persecution. He too had been an assistant to Tyndale, and merely combined the Tyndale and Coverdale Old Testaments with the 1535 revision of Tyndale’s New Testament to make another version. He would not associate his name with the work that was done by others, but he used his pen name and added copious notes and references to his edition. He borrowed hea heavil vily from from theFrench rench versi versions ons of L efevre (1534) (1534) and and Oli Olivéta vétan (1535 (1535), ), as wel well as Ma Martin rtin 30 Bucer’ ucer’ss La L atin tin Psal Psalter ter with wi th its its ma margina rginall note notes. Matthew tthew secured secured the conse consent nt of the crown crown for for his 1537 version. Thu Thus, with ithin one year of Tyn Tyndale’s le’s death at Vilvo Vilvorde, two of his assist istants had secured separate licenses for the publication of their printed English Bibles. With these two licensed
Coverdale’s New Testament,”32 were not sufficient to keep the Great Bible from maintaining its prom promiinent nent posi positition on in in the the churche churches. s. Thu Thus, s, when when Henry Henry VI V II I die died on J anua nuary 28, 1547 1547,, the Great Bible was still appointed to read in the Church of England. Edward VI (1547-1553) asce scende nded d to the throne throne and and theGrea reatt Bi Bible ble was was reprinte reprinted d twice, twice, in in 1549 1549 and and 1553. 1553. It I t was this this Bible that was the authoritative text of Th The Booke of the Co Com mmon Pray Prayer and Adminis inisttra rattion ion of the Sacraments, published in 1549 and 1552.The prestige of the Great Bible was able to withstand the onslaughts of the brief but violent reign of Mary Tudor (1553-1558), as the order of 1538 was not revoked. THE GENEVA BIBLE (1557, 1560) The The Geneva Bible Bible33 was produced during the reign of Mary Tudor. When persecution in Engla ngland resul resulte ted d in in the dea death of such me men as as John J ohn Roge Rogers rs and Thom Thoma as Cranm Cranmer, others others fl fled to the Continent, including Miles Coverdale. That faith is strengthened in persecution is among the commonest lessons of history, yet those lessons are rarely learned. Thus, while
of 1611, took its quotations of Scripture from the Geneva Bible. 36 Still another innovation made by the translators of the Geneva Bible exhibited itself in that “the distinguishing method of the Geneva Committee had been a system of careful and methodical collaboration, as contrasted with the isolated labours of the pioneers of translation.” 37 THE BISHOPS’ BIBLE (1568) The The Bish Bishops’ Bib Bible le was a revisio ision n of the Gre Great Bible Bible,, as the imm immediat iate success of the Geneva Bible among the common people and the Puritans made it impossible for the A ngl nglica can n Church le leaders ders to conti continue nue usi using theGrea reatt Bi Bible ble in the the churche churches. s. The Theiir revisi revision on was called the Bishops’ Bible, because most of the translators were bishops, and their work was “a compromise—a dignified and ‘safe’ version for public reading, a sign that the bishops were not unmindful of their responsibilities, in scholarship an improvement upon the Great Bible, less radical than Geneva but willing to learn from it.” 38 The scholars involved were better equipped in Hebrew and Greek, and many of their innovations were carried over into
31
Modern English Versions and Translations of Scripture FOR R OMAN CATHOLICS T HE E NGLISH BIBL E FOR
While the Protestants were busy making vernacular translations of the Bible for use in Engl ngland, nd, thei their Rom Roma an Ca Catholi tholic counte counterparts rparts were were expe experi rie encing ncing asim similar desi desire. re. Af A fter ter the dea death of Mary Tudor, El Elizabeth zabeth I (15581558-160 1603) 3) ascende ascended d to thethrone, throne, and the Roma oman Catholic exiles of her reign undertook a task similar to that of the Protestant exiles at Geneva during her predecessor’s reign. THE RHEIMS-DOUAY (RHEMES-DOUAY ) V ERSION (1589,1609/10) (1589, 1609/10)
was actually a translation of a translation. Again, the principles of translation explained in the preface indicate that the translators guarded themselves “against the idea that the Scriptures should always be in our mother tongue, or that they ought, or were ordained by God, to be read indifferently by all.”2 In addition, the Rheims New Testament was vitiated by its selfimposed limitation of being avowedly polemic in nature, a purpose often clearly stated in its copious notes. The New Testament was republished in 1600, but that time from Douay, as the political climate reversed itself and the English College moved back to its place of origin in 1593. The new edition was published under Thomas Worthington, another Oxford scholar, alumnus nus of thecoll collegeat Douay Douay and and reci recipi pie ent of of a D.D. D.D. from the the J esui suit Uni Unive versi rsity ty of Trie rier in in 1588. Worthington became the third president of the college at Douay in 1599, and was himself active in mission work. Meanwhile the Old Testament, which had actually been translated before the New, was delayed in its publication. The reason for the delay was actually twofold: primarily, there was
set for printing by the time the Douay Old Testament was published, and the lack of its influe nfl uence nce on the the K Kiing Ja J ames Ve Versi rsion on is is m ma anif nifest. None None thethe-less, with with a Protesta rotestant nt que quee en on the throne, and then a Protestant king, the Rheims-Douay Bible had little possibility of succeeding the Protestant Bibles in the religious life in England. The paucity of reprint editions has led some to observe that in contrast to the Protestants, the Catholics should have “no fear that the few available copies would be found in the hand of every husbandman.” 5 THE RHEIMS-DOUAY -CHALLONER V ERSION (1749/50) Although though severa severall rei reissu ssue es of the Rhei heims-D s-Douay ouay appe appeared af after ter 1635, it it was not unti untill 1749 1749/50 /50 that that Ri Richard chard Cha Challloner, oner, Bishop shop of L ondon, ondon, publ publiishe shed the the se second cond revise revised d edi editition. on. This This publica lication ion was litt little short of a new translat lation ion. In the meantime ime, a Ne New w Te Tesstament transl transla ation tion ba base sed d on the the La Latin tin Vul Vulga gate te appe ppeared in Dubli Dublin (1718) (1718) as the the work of Cornel ornelius Nary. I n 1730 1730 Robert Robert Whi Whitha tham m, presi preside dent nt of thecoll college at Douay, publ publishe shed a revisi revision on of the Rhei heims N Ne ew Te Testam stament. In I n 1738 1738 a fifth edi editition on of the Rhei heims N Ne ew Te Testam stament was was publ publiished, shed,
many of the archaic expressions of the Rheims-Challoner version, incorporated paragraphs, use used Am America rican n spe spelling and roved roved many of theproli prolific notes notes of its forbe forbea ars. The T he Confrat onfrate ernity rnity Ne New Te T estam stament was was publ publiishe shed by the St. A nthony nthony Gui Guilld Pre Press in in 1941 1941,, and became widely used by English-speaking Catholics around the world as a by-product of the Second World War (1939-1945). In 1943 Pope Pius XII published the papal encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu Spiritu,, in which he indicated that translations of the Bible could be based on the original Hebrew and Greek texts rathe rather than than onl only on the the L atin tin Vul Vulga gate te.. Tha T hatt was was a major shif shift in in Roma Roman Cathol Catholiic poli policy, but it it was was n not ot abl able e to beachie chieved ved be beca caus use e of Worl World War War II I I . Af A fter ter wartim wartime res restri tricti ctions ons were were lilifted, ted, the Confraternity began to produce a new version of the Old Testament based on the original texts. texts. In I n themeantim ntime a Roma oman Ca Catholi tholic e edi ditition on of theRevised the Revised Standard Version (1946, 1952) was published in 1965, while the Old Testament was being produced in installments: Gene Genesis-R sis-Rut uth h (1952), (1952), J ob-Sira ob-Si rach ch [Eccl [Eccle esia siasti sticus] cus] (19 (1955 55), ), Isa saiiah-Ma h-M alachi (1961), (1961), and Sam Samuel uel-
Reformation period began to take on a more unified front as the various groups used the same transl transla ations tions.. Thu T huss when when Ja J ames VI VI of Scotla Scotland beca becam me J ames I of Engl ngland (1603 1603--1625 1625)), he summoned a conference of churchmen and theologians to discuss things “amiss in the Church.” I t was at this this confe conference that that the whee wheels were were set set in in motion otion for for the most inf inflluenti uentia al single translation of the English Bible that the Protestants were to produce. ING J AMES (“A UTHORIZED”) V ERSION (1611) K ING In Ja J anuary nuary 1604, Ja J ames I call called the the Hampton Court Conf Confe erence in respon response se to the Millenary Petition, which had been presented to him while he was traveling from Edinburgh to Lond L ondon. on. The The Millenary nary Petiti Petition, on, so cal called beca becaus use e it contai contained ned abou aboutt a thou thousa sand nd signatures, set forth the grievances of the Puritan party in the English church. The Puritans were a force force to be be re reckoned ckoned with with in in Ja J ames’s s’s new new doma domain, and J ames was obl obliged ged to hea hear their their peti petititions ons.. Al A lthough though J ames, who rega regarde rded d hi himse sellf above all rel reliigious gious parti partie es a and nd princi principl ple es, treate treated d the Purita uritans ns with with rudene rudeness ss a att the conference, conference, it it was there there that that John J ohn Re Reynolds, ynolds, the
the clarity of the revision. Frequently the new revision departed from Tyndale’s version, as did the Great Bible, only to have the revisers of 1881 and 1885 return to the earlier rendering. Strictly speaking, the so-called Authorized Version was never authorized. That tradition seems to rest merely upon a printer’s claim on the title page that contained the clause from earlier Bibles, “Appointed to be read in Churches.”19 It replaced the Bishops’ Bible in public use, as the latter was last printed in 1606 and no other large, folio-size Bible was printed after 1611 1611.. I n compe competititition on am among the the la layme ymen of Engl ngland, nd, the K ing Ja J ames Ve V ersi rsion on ran hea head-long d-l ong into the popular Geneva Bible of the Puritans, but the grandeur of its translation ultimately swept all opposition aside. Nevertheless, there is one fact that has often been overlooked by the adhe dherents rents to the the K ing J ames Ve Versi rsion, on, nam namely, the K ing J ames Ve Versi rsion on is is not rea reallly a version at all. Even the original title page of 1611 indicates that it is a translation, as it reads, THE HOLY HOLY BIBLE, Co Con nteyning ing the Old Te Tesstament, and the Ne New w: Newly Translated out of the of the Originall Tongues:
The The reasons for for the gradual but overwhelmin lming g success of the K ing ing J ames Ver Version ion have 24 been well stated by several writers and may be briefly summarized as follows: 1. thepersona personall qua qualifica catitions ons of the revise revisers, rs, who were were thechoice choice schol schola ars and lingui nguists sts of their day as well as men of profound and unaffected piety 2.
the almost universa universall se sense nse of the work work as as a nati nationa onall effort, supported supported whole wholehea heartedly rtedly by the king, and with the full concurrence and approval of both church and state
3.
theavai vailabil bility and access ccessiibil bility of theres resul ults ts of nea nearly rly a ce centu ntury ry of di diligent gent and unintermittent labor in the field of biblical study, beginning with Tyndale and Purvey rather than Wycliffe, and their efforts to “make a good translation better”
4.
the congeni congenia ality of the rel reliigious gious cli climate of the day day with with the sympa sympathi thie es and enthusi nthusia asmof the translators, as the predominant interest of their age was theology and religion
again in 1701, and finally by Dr. Paris of Cambridge in 1762, and by Dr. Blayney of Oxford in 176 1769. 9. In I n the the latter tter two revisi revisions ons,,
efforts were made to “correct and harmonize its spelling, and to rid it of some antique words like ‘sith.’” Some points escaped these professors, but Blayney’s edition has rained the standard form of the version ever since unto this day. His edition probably differs from that of 1611 in at least 75,000 details.26
THE ENGLISH REVISED V ERSION (1881, 1885)
revisions sions of the K ing Ja J ames Antecedents to the revision of 1881-1885 All of the revi
V ersi rsion on me mentione ntioned d above above were were ma made withou withoutt eccl eccle esia siastica sticall or roya royall authori uthority. ty. I n fa fact, no “off “officia cial” re revisi vision on of the the Ki King Ja J ames Ve Versi rsion on was was fforth orthcom comiing for over one hund hundre red d yea years after the revision of Dr. Blayney (1769). Many of the revisions were ill-advised, such as Ussher’s chronology, and the exclusion of the apocryphal books that brought a penalty of i pri nt d d by by the A rchbishop rchbishop of C nterbury, nterbury, G Abbott, shortl shortly y the fte
of Our Lord Lord and and Sav Saviiour our J esus sus Christ Christ (1880). That work was edited by R.L. Clark, Alfred Goodwin, and W. Sanday, and was translated from the original Greek with diligent comparison and revision in light of former translations “by his majesty’s special command.”30 The V ariorum riorumBible was was merel rely a revi revisi sion on of of the the K ing J ames in in lilight ght of the the various readings from the best authorities. The variations appeared in the notes and margin, and were “designed not merely to correct some of the more important mistranslations, but to supply the means of estimating the authority by which the proposed corrections are supported.”31 Thus, although following in the tradition of the Tyndale, Coverdale, Great, Gene Geneva, va, Bi Bishop shops’ s’,, and and vari various ous edition ditionss of the K ing J ames V Ve ersi rsion on,, the V ariorum riorumBible ble prepa prepared the way for for the Engli nglish Revise Revised d Ve Versi rsion, on, which which was was publ publiished shed in in 1881 1881 and and 1885, 1885, and which which had had acces accesss to the rende renderings ri ngs and criti critical cal apparatus pparatus of the V ariorum riorum Bible ble. Actual Actual Re Rev vision sion of the the King J ames Ver Version sionThe desire for a full revision of the K ing Ja J ames Ve V ersi rsion on (Auth (A uthori orized zed Versi rsion) on) was so so wide widesp sprea read d am among Protesta Protestant nt schol schola ars after
8.
To refe refer, on the part part of each each Compa ompany, ny, when when conside considered red desi desirabl rable e, to Divine vines, s, Schola Scholars, and and 33 L iterary terary me men, whethe whether at hom home e or abroad, abroad, for for thei their opini opinions. ons. Oxford and Cambridge university presses absorbed the costs for the translation, with the proviso proviso tha that they they would would have have excl exclus usiive copyri copyrigh ghts ts to the the fini finish she ed product. product. Af A fter ter si six x years years the first revision was completed, and another two-and-one-half years were spent in consideration of the suggestions of the American committee. Finally, on May 17, 1881, the English Revised Version of the New Testament was publ publiished shed in in paragra paragraph ph form. form. In I n le less than than a yea year afte afterr publ publiica catition on ne nearly rly three three million copi copies were were sol sold d in in Engla England and A merica rica,, with wi th 365 365,000 ,000 copi copies sol sold d in in New York Y ork and and 110 110,00 ,000 0 in in Phil Philadel delphi phia. Most M ost of those thosewere were sol sold d in in the the first few weeks. The The Eng Englis lish h Re Rev vise ised Ver Version ion (RV) appeared in the Unit Unite ed States in Ne New w Y ork and Philadelphia on May 20, 1881, and on May 22 the entire New Testament was published in the
scholarship.36 The Westcott-Hort text of the New Testament, the basis underlying the English and American rican Revise vised d Ve Versi rsions, ons, had had be been modif odified sha sharpl rply y by the light cas castt upon upon it it by papyrus discoveries, older manuscripts coming to light, and so on. In addition, the literary style and taste of English had continued to change, and a new revision was considered neces necessa sary ry.. Hence in 1937 1937 the the I nternati nternationa onall Council ouncil authorized uthorized acomm committee ttee to proceed proceed with with a revision that would body the best results of modern scholarship as to the meaning of the Scriptures, and express this meaning in English diction which is designed for use in public and private worship and preserves thosequal qualitie ties which which have have gi given to theK ing Ja J ames Versi Version on a suprem supreme place place in Engli English lite li teratu rature. re.37
The The revisio ision n committ ittee consist isted of some twenty-tw -two outstanding ing scholar lars who were to follow the meaning of the American Standard Version in theelegance gance of theK ing Ja J ames 38 V ersi rsion, on, and change changethe rea readi dings ngs only only if if two-thi two-thirds rds of the comm committee ttee agreed. greed. It uses simpler, more current forms of pronouns such as “you” and “yours,” except in reference to
Not satisfied that the Revised Standard Version was a continuation of the long-established tradition of the earlier English versions, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland met in 1946 to consider a completely new translation. 41 A joint oint comm committee ttee was appointe ppointed d in in 1947 1947,, and three three pa panel nels were chose chosen: n: for for the Old Ol d Te Testam stament, Ne New Te T estam stament, and Apocrypha. Apocrypha. C.H C.H.. Dodd was appointed chairman of the New Testament panel, and in 1949, director of the whole translation.42 In Ma March 1960, the Ne New Te T estam stament portion portion was accep accepte ted d by the committee; and it was published in 1961. The principles of the translation were set forth in a memorandum by Dodd:
I t is is to be genuinel genuinely y Eng Engllish in in idi idiom om,, such as as wil will not awake awaken n a se sense of strang strange eness ness or rotene roteness. I dea deally, we ai aim at a “tim “timeless” Engl Engliish, avoidi avoiding ng equa equallly both archa archaiism smss and and transi transie ent moderni odernism sms. The The version ion should be plain lain enough to convey its its meaning ing to any reasonably int intellige lligent person (so (so far far as verbal verbal expressi xpression on goes), goes), yet not ba bald or pede pedestria strian. It I t shoul should not ai aim at prese preserving rvi ng “hal “hallowed” owed” associ associati ations; ons; it it should should ai aim at conveying conveying a se sense nse of rea reallity. It should should be as accurate accurate as as may be without without da . It I t is is to be hoped hoped that, that, at l st occasi ll i ay produce arresti nd m orabl
Protestants were not alone in the production of English translations of the Bible. Their enterprise was paralleled by a Roman Catholic thirst for the same. This Roman Catholic desire culminated in the publication of the Rheims-Douay Bible (1582, 1609), the Challoner revision (1740/50), the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine edition in America (1941), and the versi version on of Mon M onsi sign gnor or Ron Rona ald A. A. Knox K nox in in Eng Englland (1944, (1944, 1948 1948). ). A lthoug though h the the Rhei heims-Dou s-Doua ay was published by the Roman Catholic church almost two years before the Protestants publ published shed theK ing Ja J ames Ve Versi rsion on (161 (1611), 1), the latter tter wa was desti destine ned d to take take preced precede ence over the former ormer in i n both popul popula arity rity and style style. A fter ter alm almost threehundred hundred years years the first fi rst attem attempt at at an off officia cial replace replacem ment for the the Ki King J ames Ve Versi rsion on resu resullted ted in in the the produ producti ction on of the the Engl English Revised Version (1881, 1885) and theAmerican the American Standard Version (1901). Following that have come the attempts of theRevised the Revised Standard Version (1946, 1952) and the theNew New English Bible(1961, Bible (1961, 1970) to update the translation. However, despite those official revisions, the K ing J ames Ve Versi rsion, on, with with al all its archa archaiism, rai rains one oneof the the most wide widelly circul circula ated ted books books in in
appea ppeared in in 1466, 1466, and ei eightee ghteen others others we were publ published shed bef before 1521. 1521. In I n 1521/22 1521/22 Ma M artin rtin Luthe L utherr publ published shed his his Ge Germa rman version version of the New Te T estam stament. It I t was the most comm common version version to circul circula ate in Germa Germany, as Luthe Lutherr took every precauti precaution on to see see that that his his work becam became the off officia cial German version. That was especially true after he completed his Old Testament translation in 1534. By the year 1580 there were seventy-two editions of the German New Testament and thirty-eight of the Old. The multiplication of German versions has continued to the present. 3 T HE REFORMATION PERIOD FRENCH VERSIONS IN THE After ter the twe twellfth centu century, ry, se severa verall French rench trans transllations tions of the La Latin tin Vul Vulga gate te were were made in manuscript form. Unlike the German and English counterparts, there is no authorized version of the French rench Bibl Bi ble e. T The he first pri printe nted d edi editition on of of a French rench Bibl Bi ble e appe ppeared in Lyons Lyons in 147 1477/78, 7/78, and abette betterr edi edition tion appe appea ared in Paris Paris in in 1487 1487.. It I t was not unti untill the transl translation tion of the V ulga ulgate te by the humanist nist Catholi Catholic Ja J acques cques Le Lefevre vre d’E d’Etapl taple es was was publ publiished shed at at Paris Paris in in 1523 1523--1530 1530 tha that an important French version came into being. By 1535 the first important Protestant version
The The firs first print inted Ind Index of the Spanish ish Inq Inquisit isitio ion n (To Tole led do, 1551) prohibit ibite ed the use of vernacular versions of the Bible in Spain. Thus, Roman Catholics did not actually have a Spanish Spanish Bible Bi ble with with pa papal sa sanc ncti tion on un until til Pius Pius V I autho uthori rize zed d A. A. Ma M artin rtini’s Ita Itallian trans transllation, and A nsel nselmo Petite Petite’’s Spani Spanish sh New Te Testam stament (1785) 1785) was perm permiitted tted by theInqui nquisiti sition’ on’ss I ndex ndex of 1790. 1790. Unti Untill that that tim time, ve verse transl translations tions and “outla “outlaw” ve versi rsions ons were used. used. Protestants provided some of those its as early as 1543, when the New Testament in Spanish was was pub publlishe shed by by Fran Franci ciss of zi zinas nas in in Antwe Antwerp. rp. In I n 155 1553 3 aliteral teral Spa Spani nish sh trans transllation tion of the Old Old Tesstament was publis Te lish hed by the J ewish ish press at Fer Ferrara. In 1569 the firs first complet lete translat lation ion of the Bible into Spanish was published at Basle. This translation included the Apocrypha and was reissued at Frankfurt in 1602 and 1622. The Spanish Bible, the work of Cassiodoro de Reyna revised in 1602 by Cipriano de Valera, is still a basic edition, and it has been the basis of many Spanish Protestant Bibles published by the British and Foreign Bible Society since 1861.
Danish. The earliest Danish translation was a fourteenth or fifteenth century manuscript
now housed housed in in Cope Copenha nhage gen. n. In I n 1524 1524 the the first fi rst printe printed d Ne New Te Testam stament was was publ publiished shed in in L eipsi psig by by J.D J .D.. Mi M icha chaelis. The The first com complete pleteBible app appe eared red in 1550 1550.. Norwegian. Until 1814 the Danish version was used in Norway. Then a revision of the 1647 edition was begun in 1842 and finally completed in 1890. Swedish. In 1523 Sweden Sweden and and Den Denm mark se sepa parated rated,, and and in in 1526 a Swed Swediish New New Tesstament based on L uther’s 1522 Ger Te German editio ition n was publis lish hed. In 1541 a complet lete Bible Bible was transl translated ted into into Swedi Swedish, base based d on L uther’ uther’ss 1 1534 534 editi dition. on. Polish. There were many early partial versions in Polish, but the first complete New Tesstament was publis Te lish hed in 1551 at K önigs igsberg. This This work was translat lated by J an Sekluc lucjan jan and was was base based d on the Gree reek k and La Latin tin texts. texts. The whole whole Bibl Bi ble e, tra transla nslated ted from from the the Vul Vulga gate te at at K raków, was publ publiishe shed in in 156 1561. 1.
difficult to keep abreast with the widening scope of Bible translations. 8 But the basic direction of the present discussion is the English Bible, and to that subject the study returns. RANSL ATI ONS ONS AND AND V ERSIONS M ODERN E NGLISH T RANSL
Besides the major versions of the English Bible discussed in chapters 30-31, there are numerous independent translations of the Bible or the New Testament, called “modern speech translations.”9 ROMAN CATHOLIC TRANSLATIONS AND VERSIONS The The init initia iall attitu itude of the Ro Rom man Ca Cattholic church toward publis lish hing ing the Script iptures for for laymen was far from enthusiastic. The British and Foreign Bible Society was founded in 1804 1804,, and and si sixty years years la later ter Pope Pope Pius I X in hi his ffa amous Syllabu abus of Error Errorss—once thought to be infallible, though now discounted by Roman Catholic theologians—condemned Bible societies as “pests.” However, as early as 1813 a group of enthusiastic churchmen, including
attem ttempt at at tra transla nslation. tion. Cuthbe uthbert L attey, ttey, a Je J esuit suit schola scholar, bega began n it it betwee between n 1913 1913 and and 1918. 1918. Contribu ontributitions ons cam came from both both side sidess of theA tla tlantic ntic unti until parts parts of theOld Ol d Te Testam stament were were published in 1934, but it is still incomplete. By 1935 the New Testament was completed, and a shorter edition was published in 1948. A full ully “Am “A merica ricani nized zed”” edi edition tion of the New Te Testam stament was was p pub ubllishe shed in in the the Unite nited d State Statess in 1941. The widely known Confraternity edition surpassed all previous versions for its innovations. nnovations. It I t was arranged arranged in in paragraph paragraph form orm, was was rendered rendered into into modern modern speech, speech, and and the text text was accompa ccompani nie ed by by notes. notes. Monsi Monsignor gnor Rona Ronalld Knox Knox unde undertook rtook a transl translation tion of the 12 Bible; the New Te T estam stament was was compl comple eted ted in in 1944, 1944, the Old Old Te Testam stament in in 1948. 1948. Al A lthough though K nox was was an an Oxford Oxford schol schola ar and and liliterary terary wit, wit, he incorporate ncorporated d fe few chang change es into into hi his transl translation, tion, which which has has b be een off officia cially sancti sanctione oned d by by the church. A much more inde indepe pende ndent nt trans transllation tion was was ma made in Am America rica by Ja J ames A. A. K leist and and J ose oseph ph L . Li L illy in in 195 1954, 4, unde underr the title T title Th he New Testament Rendere red d fro rom mthe Origin rigina al Gre Greek with ith Exp Explan lanatory Notes.
work. work. Between tween 1851 1851 and and 1856 1856 Rabbi A braha braham Benisch nisch produced produced a compl comple ete Bible ble for Engl nglishsh-spe speaking king J ewry, which which was was publ publiishe shed in in 1861 1861.. One One final nal attem ttempt to am amend the the K ing Ja J ames Ver Version ion for for use by J ews was made by Mich Michael Frie Fried dlan lander in 1884. Isa saa ac Le L eese serr ma made a version of the Hebrew brew Bi Bible ble in 185 1853. 3. Thi Thiss long long--tim time favorite vori te in Briti ri tish sh and and Am Ameri erican can syna synagogu gogue es shows a more ma marke rked depa departure rture from from the K ing Ja J ames V ersi rsion on than than the othe other attem ttempts. Be Before the close close of the centu century ry,, however, however, the ina inade dequa quacy cy of L eese ser’ r’ss work was fel felt in in the the Unite nited d State States, s, as as Ang Angllo-J o-J ewry had had incre increa ase sed d in in size. Thu Thus, s, in in 1892 1892,, at its its se second bie bienni nnial conventi convention, on, theJ ewish wish Publ ublica catition on Socie Society deci decide ded d to revise revise L eese ser’ r’ss versi version on thorough thoroughlly. A s the the work procee proceeded ded und unde er the direct directiion of Dr. Marcus Ja J astrow, it became obviou ious that an entire irely new translat lation ion would result. lt. Afte After conside iderable tim time and reorgani reorganizat zatiion, the the J ewish wish Publi Publica catition on Socie Society’s ty’s versi version on of theHebrew brew Bi Bible ble was was published in English (1917). It was a translation that tended to favor the renditions of the American Standard Version inste nstea ad of those of the K ing J ames V Ve ersi rsion. on.
Catholics.18 Some of the earliest attempts at private translations grew out of the discovery of better better man manuscri uscripts. pts. None None of the great great man manuscri uscripts pts had had been been discov discovered ered when the K ing Jam J ames V ersi rsion on was was trans transllated ted excep exceptt Code Codex x Be Bezae(D), and it it was use used d very li little ttle in in that that version. version. Eighteenth- and nineteenth-century translations and versions. In 1702 Daniel Whitby edited aParaphrase a Paraphrase and Commentary on the New Testament, which included expla xplanati nations ons and and expa expans nsiions of theK ing Ja J ames Ve V ersi rsion on with with a postm postmillenni nnial empha phasis. sis. Edward dward Wells Well s fol folllowed owed with with arevi revise sed d text text of the the K ing J ames Ve Versi rsion, on, which he ca callled The The Common Translation Corrected (1718-1724). A few years later, Daniel Mace published (anonym nonymous ouslly) a criti critica call Gre Greek text text of the New Te Testam stament with with acorrected corrected KJ KJ V text text alongsi ongside de.. In I n 174 1745 5 Wi Willliam Whiston histon,, best best known today today for for his his tran transl sla ations tions of J ose oseph phus us,, published his Primitive New Testament. He leaned heavily on a Western text, and particularly on Code Codex x Be Bezae, zae, in i n thegospel gospels and and Acts. Acts. Othe Otherr eighte eightee enth-ce nth-century transl translations tions continue continued d to make al alterat teratiions of theK ing J ames Ve Versi rsion; on; for for exam example ple, J ohn Wesl Wesle ey’s y’s edi editition on conta contaiined ned
known examples of such a work was Th was The e Life Life and Epis Episttles les of St. Pa Pau ul by W. J . Con Conyb ybe eare and J. J . S. S. Howson Howson (1864 (1864)). The T heiir exam example ple, as wel well as othe others, has led F. F. F. F. Bruce Bruce to rem remind the Bible student that “it must be borne in mind that much excellent Bible translation is to be found, down to the present day, embedded in commentaries on various books of the Bible.”23 Tw T wentie ietth-ce -century tra ran nsla lattio ion ns and vers rsio ion ns. The great profusion of modern speech translations did not occur until the twentieth century for a number of reasons. First of all, the great biblical manuscripts that prompted such attempts at translation were not discovere discovered d unti untill the late nine ninete tee enth century. century. A lthough though the the comm committee ttees of the Engli nglish Revise Revised d V ersi rsion on (1881, (1881, 1885) 1885) and theAmerican the American Standard Version (1901) incorporated the findings of those newly discovered manuscripts into their texts, the public was not entirely satisfied with their translations. Then too there was the discovery of the nonliterary papyri which had shown shown the the New Te Testam stament to be be writte written n in in the the coll colloqui oquial (K oine oine)) langua nguage ge of the first 24 century. This not only prompted a desire to reproduce the New Testament into a similar
that that I am the only only man man who has has ever ever appl appliied real real mental ntal and liliterary terary cri crititici cism smto the Sacred Scri Scriptures ptures.” .” A s F. F. F. Bruce adroi adroitltly y observes observes,, “O “On n this this the best best comm comment is is perha perhaps ps tha that of Proverbs 27:2, 27:2, in i n Fe Ferrar Fe Fenton’ nton’s own trans transllation: tion: ‘L ‘ L et a stra strang nge er praise praiseyou, not your mouth mouth,, 29 another, and not your own lips.’” Unique features of the translation include the following: the the K ing J ames Ve Version “Lord “L ord”” was was tra tran nslate slated “Th “The L ife” or “Th “T he everver-LL iving ving”; ”; Old Old Tesstament names were retranslite Te literated (e. (e.g., Elish Elisha to Alish Alisha), the order of books in the Old Tesstament follo Te follow wed the He Heb brew Bible Bible,, and the gospel of J ohn was plac laced firs first in the Ne New w Tesstament. The Te The work as a whole was for forceful ful and uniqu ique, but not too sign ignifica ificant. Anothe nother of the early rly twenti twentie eth-century th-century transl transla ations tions was was that that of Oxf Oxford schola scholar J ames Moffatt, Th Moffatt, The e New Te Tesstament: A New Tra ran nslat lation ion (1913) and T and Th he Old Testament: A New Tra Translat lation ion (1924). 1924). L ater ter the enti entire re work appea ppeared in in a singl single e volum vol ume as as A New Translation of the Bible(1928). Bible (1928). That translation, which at times reflects a Scottish tone, was characte characteri rized zed by free freedom dom of style style and idiom diom.. It I t was was ba base sed d pri prim maril rily on von Soden’ Soden’ss Gre Greek
Bishop might use in writing a monthly letter for his diocesan magazine.” The result reflects a somewhat ecclesiastical and formal style of the cleric. Th The Basic Eng Englis lish h Bible ible((19401940-194 1949) 9) wa was an an atte attem mpt by a comm committee ttee (J. (J . H H.. Hooke, chairman), using only one thousand “basic” English words to convey all the biblical truth. Considering the vocabulary limitations, the authors did produce a text of marked simplicity while retaining much of the variety of the original Greek. Another simplified form of English, called “plain English,” was comprised of fifteen hundred “fundamental and common words that make up ordinary English speech.”33 The The New Testament: A New Tr Tra anslat lation ion in Pla Plain in English(195 English (1952) 2) was the the work of Charl harle es Ki K ingsl ngsle ey Wi Williams, who, with with the the unde underl rlyi ying ng Gre Greek text of Souter, and a broader vocabulary than “basic” English by some 160 or 170 words— including more verbs—achieved a more expressive translation than did Th did The e Basic Eng Englis lish h Bible. Th The Berke rkeley ley Versio rsion n in Mod Modern Eng Englis lish h:34 New Testament (1945), Old Testament
In 196 1961 1 Ola Olaf M. N Norl orliie, an A merica rican n Lut Luthe hera ran n scho schollar, publ publiishe shed The The Simplifie lified d New Tesstament in Pla Te Plain in Eng Englis lish h—For For Today’s Readers, rs, along with Th with The e Ps Psa alms for Today: A New Tra Translat lation ion in Curre Curren nt Eng Englis lish h, by R. K . H Ha arrison rrison.. A short short tim time later ter Norl Norliie prese present nte ed Th The Children’s Simplified New Testament (1962) (1962). Accordi A ccording ng to to the pref preface ce,, theSimplified the Simplified New Tesstament is “a new translation from the original Greek designed to make the language of the Te New Testament more interesting and intelligible, especially for today’s young people.” The author attempted to make the translation “readable” and “meaningful” in its appeal “to teenagers, young people and young adults, for whom it will make the rough places plain.” Tha That objec jective ive was accomplis lish hed in a rarkable way, for for when the J esus People Mov Movement rose during the 1970s, Norlie’s Simplified New Testament became their mainstay, and it was reissued as One Way: Way: The J esus Pe People ople New New Testament (1972). Using sing the the K ing J ames Ve Versi rsion on as as a founda oundatition, on, Ja J ay P. P. Gree Green n be began gan pa paraphra raphrasi sing ng the Bible ble for use by young people during the 1960s and 1970s. He published Th published The e “Child “Childre ren n’s King King
of the the origin original. T Ta aylor’ ylor’ss Living Biblemeets Bible meets a genuine communication need because this paraphrase, like Norlie’s translation, was extremely popular with young people and adults alike during the 1970s and since. Another addition to the long list of modern speech translations by an individual is F. F. Bruce, Th Bruce, The e Le Lettters of Pa Pau ul: An Exp Expanded Pa Para rap phra rasse (1965) (1965). It I t is is design signe ed, accordi according to the author, “to make the course of Paul’s argument as clear as possible.” Bruce confesses frankly of his work, “Well, this oneis one is a paraphrase,” which according to his own acknowledgent is often an interpretation rather than a mere translation. Paul’s epistles are arranged chronologically, Galatians through 2 Timothy, rather than topically. The translation itself is a kind of amplified version of the English Revised Version (1881), which Bruce considers the most accurate accurate transl translation tion of the Gree reek k text ever ever made. de. The The Engli nglish Revise vised d Ve Versi rsion on is is printed in parallel for comparison. Although there is much merit in his paraphrase, such as its better precision than Phillips’s Letters to Young Churches, it lacks the popular punch of
narr narra ative tive passa passage ges. s. Anothe A notherr effort effort in in tha that rega regard is is a threethree-volum volume e work work by Andre Andrew w Edi Edington ngton 40 called T called Th he Word Mad Made Fles Flesh (1975). I t does does not purport purport to be accurate accurate,, but it it is is a down-todown-toearth, pungent, colloquial paraphrase of the Bible. Finally, there is the joint effort of Dick Williams and Frank Shaw, T Shaw, Th he Gos Gospels in Scouse (1966, revised 1977).41 The translation foll ollows J. J . M. Thompson’ pson’ss edi editi tion on of the the synop synopti ticc gospe gospells, and and it is is rend rende ered red in in the the di dialect of L iverpo verpool ol,, Eng Englland. nd. The The Ame America ican Bible Bible Societ iety publica lication ion of Good f Good News for Modern Man: The New Tesstament in To Te Tod day’s Eng Englis lish h (1966), directed by Robert G. Bratcher, is yet another modern spe speech trans transllation. tion. A se second cond edi editition on of it was publ publiishe shed in in 1967 1967,, and athird third in in 1968 1968,, with with work on the Old Testament being released periodically until it was completed in 1975 and published as T as To oday’s Eng Englis lish h Versio rsion n: Goo Good News Bible ible(1976). (1976).42 According to its brief preface, theGood the Good News New Te Testam stament, al also known as as T TE EV , “does “does not conf conform to to traditional vocabulary or style, but seeks to express the meaning of the Greek text in words
J. J . J . Gre Greisb isbach’s Ne New w Te Tesstament text of 1806. Wils ilso on’s so-ca -calle lled d Diaglott, with its uninformed but confident assertions about the Greek meanings, was an ancestor to the New World World Tra Trans nsllation tion..44 H. H. Rowley was so distressed by Th by The e New World Tra ran nslat lation ion that he 45 wrote a review of it entitled “How Not to Translate the Bible.” When the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society published its new version, T version, Th he Bible ible in 46 Living Engl English (1972), it was thought to be merely a revision of its earlier New World Tra Translat lation ion. However, owever, that that was not the cas case e. Inste I nstea ad, it it publ published shed an an enti entirel rely y new new transla translation tion by Steven T. Byington (1868-1957). Byington was a member of a Congregational church that later ter me merged with with anothe anotherr to form form the Unite nited d Church of Ballard Va Vale, Ma M assa ssachuse chusetts. tts. He He had had recei received ved a degre degree e iin n cla classics from from theUnive niversi rsity ty of V ermont rmont be before atte attend ndiing Union Union The Theolog logica ical Sina inary for for a year and Oberlin for for another half year studying ing biblic iblica al lan languages. A fter ter Byi Bying ngton’ ton’ss d de eath, theWatchtowe Watchtowerr Bi Bible ble and Tract Socie Society of Pennsyl nnsylva vani nia a obtai obtained ned the copyright to his translation and published it as their own in 1972. The translator sought to
readings. In Matthew 19:24, for example, it reads, “It is easier for a rope [ gamla, the same same A ramaic word word as as ‘‘cam camel’] to go through the the eye of a nee needle dle.” In Ma Matthew tthew 27:46 the the manuscri nuscript pt records records,, “My “M y God, God, My My God, God, for for this this I was was sp spa ared!” red!” Interpretive translations are an important development in biblical scholarship during the twenti twentie eth century. century. K enneth nneth S. Wuest uest provide providess an an exam example ple of that that ente enterpri rprise se in his his Expanded 48 Tra Translat lation ion of the New Te Tesstament, issued in parts (1956-1960) before it was published as a unit in 1961. Wuest endeavored to do for all the parts of speech what Charles B. Williams had had done done for the Gree reek k verb. Approa A pproachi ching ng his his proj proje ect from from a conserv conserva ative tive the theologi ological cal position, the professor of Greek at Moody Bible Institute tried to indicate philological and theological nuances with greater precision. Because his translation, based on a limited number of sources, was intended for study, its stylistic inferiority need not be pressed. The trait of “expanded” translations is that they permit the translator to be more interpretive than do other forms, perhaps because the translator must sometimes “read into” the text before the
was combined into a single-volume edition in 1965. An analysis of its text indicates that some of the amplifications are unnecessary, for they add nothing because the text is clear withou withoutt them them. A t tim times there there are are unj unjusti ustiffiable ble a am mpli plifica catitions ons tha that are not deri derived ved from from the text. On other occasions, there are additions that are completely redundant, because in most instances one English word is sufficient to carry the meaning of the original. Perhaps the tedious style is necessary, because a word is repeated with the same or similar amplifications by the use of brackets, dashes, and italics. On the other hand, there are also some noticeable lacks of amplif pli fica cati tion on.. Th The Amplifie lified d Bible ibleis is in reality a mini-commentary. Some applaud it, wherea whereass others others are criti critica call. I n the the la last ana anallysis, ysis, however, however, it i t does does purport purport to be “free “freefrom private private interpreta nterpretatition” on” and and “inde “i ndepe pende ndent nt of denom denomiinati nationa onall prejudi prejudice.” ce.” In I n thi this rega regard, rd, Th The e Amplified Biblefalls Bible falls short of its claims. Apart from the amplification, the translation has little merit. rit. I t would would be far bette betterr to take take a faithful faithful transl transla ation, tion, such as as the American Standard Version, and use a good commentary as it is needed. There is all too much danger that the
Y ork Int Internation ional Bible Bible Societ iety agreed to support it fina financially ially.. Alth Although a number of modern speech versions had appeared since the project was first conceived, there was still a distinctive place for a new translation suitable for private reading as well as public worship. A fter ter the New Te T estam stament was publ publiished shed as as The The Gre Great News (1973), the name of the translation was changed to the Ne New w Int Inte ernati nation onal al Ver Version NIV. NI V. More ore than than one hundred hundred biblical scholars from various English-speaking countries were engaged in the project, with a fifteen-member general committee making the final editorial decisions. Work on the Old Tesstament proceeded, and trial Te ial volum lumes were relea leased for for Isaiah and Daniel (1976) and Proverbs and Ecclesiastes (1977). The Old Testament was issued in 1978, and the completed Bible was published in 1978. Accordi ccording ng to the preface, preface, the Gree reek k text is is an an “ecle “eclectic ctic one” one” based based on “accepte “accepted d principles of New Testament textual criticism” in consultation with “the best current printed texts of the Greek New Testament.”55 It is difficult to determine exactly what is meant by the
In the meantim ntime, the cham champions pions of the K ing Ja J ames Ve Versi rsion on have have not be been idl idle e about about Bible ble transl transla ation tion duri during ng thetwenti twentie eth centu century. ry. A fter ter all all, nea nearly rly one third third of America rican n rea readers ders stil still used used it. it. The The K ing J ames Ve Versi rsion on had be been revi revise sed d num numerous tim times in in the the 375 years years since since it made its appearance in 1611. The fruit of their labors is Th is The e Ho Holy ly Bible ible,, New King King J ames 58 Version (1979, 1980, 1982). In the the mid-197 d-1970s 0s Thom Thoma as Nelson Nelson Publi Publishers, shers, successor successor to the firm that had first published the American Standard Version (1901) and theRevised the Revised Standard Version (1952), summoned leading clergymen and lay Christians who discussed and decided to revise revise se sens nsiitive tivelly the K ing Ja J ames Ve Versi rsion. on. From From the outse outset thei their purpose purpose was was “to appl apply y the best knowledge—of ancient Hebrew and Greek, 17th century English, and contemporary Engl nglish— sh—to pol poliish with with se sens nsiitivi tivity ty thearchai rchaisms and and vocabul vocabula ary of the1611 1611 (K ing J ames) V ersi rsion, on, so as to prese preserv rve e and enha enhance nce its origi ori gina nallly inte i ntende nded d bea beauty and and content.” content.” Ove Over 130 scholars from a broad spectrum of the Christian church were commissioned to work on the revision. Their efforts were directed toward several specific goals. They sought to preserve
In order to show where the Majority Text differs from the Critical Text, which is identified as the Nestle-Aland/United Bible Societies’ Text (NU-Text), they have presented textual information “in a unique provision in the history of the English Bible.” They have identified the Critical Text variations as “NU-Text” and points of variation in the Majority Tex Te xt fro from the Tr Tra aditio ition nal Te Tex xt as “M-Tex M-Text.” Tha That is a most sign ignifica ificant and helpfu lpfull contribution. The preference of the Textus Receptus (TR) over the Majority Text reading in many instances is a matter of accommodation, bringing clarity to the Textus Receptus that hardly delights advocates of the Majority Text or the NU-Text. The inclusion of the NU-Text readings in the footnotes, on the other hand, may not bring joy to the proponents of the Tex Te xtus Re Recceptus or the Majo Majorrity ity Te Tex xt. Supporte Supporters rs of the New Ki K ing J ames V Ve ersi rsion on wil will rej rejoi oice ce that that it it has has p pres rese erved, rved, to a la large extent, an eloquence of style that is not apparent in other twentieth-century translations. Others Others wil will be distre distresse ssed d tha that the the NK J V has has n not ot gone gone far enoug enough h in in moderni odernizi zing ng the K ing
thirtee thirteen n chapte chapters rs are de deleted ted from from Isa Isaiiah, and the the la last fi five chapte chapters rs of Danie niel are removed. Geneaological lists have been deleted in the Old Testament as well as those in Matthew 1:114 and and Luke Luke 3: 3:23-38, even though though they they were extr extre emely im important portant in in Israe Israellite history history (the (the basi basiss for thei their triba triball system system) and and the the Christi hristia an church church (the linea neage of J esus sus Christ). Christ). In In addition, some of the materials have been transposed, and a large body of materials common to the synoptic synoptic gospel gospels has has bee been el eliminate nated d (onl (only y about about hal half of L uke and and about about 28 28 percent percent of Matthew are unique to those gospel accounts), with Mark being the basic text for the condensation. Th condensation. The e Reader’s Dige Digest Bible iblehas has made some stylistic improvements over the Revi Revise sed d Standard Standard Version, Version, and tha thatt incl includ ude es some alterat teratiions in in word order. order. I n al all, the RDB RDB has made significant improvements in condensing and communicating the text of the Bible to the modern reader, even though the editors have truncated the full canon of Scripture. When comparing it with other modern versions of the Bible, one must ask whether T whether Th he Reader’s Digest Bible Bibleeven even has a place. The editors state categorically that it is designed to
Gree reek k text. Thos T hose e cha change nges incl includ ude ed trans transllating ting “Je “J esus’ sus’ brothe brothers” as “Je “J esus’ sus’ brethre brethren” n” (M (Matt. 12:46, 48), “divorce her [Mary]” (Matt. 1:19), adding “and fasting” (Mark 9:29), and reintroducing the long ending to Mark (16:9–20) as well as the passage on the woman taken in adu adulltery tery (J ohn 7:537:53-8:11). 8:11). TheRevised he Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition of the entire Bible was published in 1966, with no changes being made in the text of the Old Testament, although though al all parts parts of what what Protesta Protestants nts cal call the Apocrypha pocrypha,, except and and 2 Esdras and and the the Prayer of Manasse nasseh, h, were includ nclude ed as as inte integra grall parts parts of theca canon non.. T The he RSV Bible ble Comm Committee ttee continued its work of revising the text of the Revised Standard Version as it seed advisable, and in 1971 a revised edition of the New Testament was published, although its second edition did not appear until 1977. The Old Testament is currently being revised, with publication anticipated for the mid-1980s. While continuing its work of revision, the RSV Bible Committee has become even more internati nternationa onall and ecume cumenical nical.. In I n addi additition on to Am American rican and Canadi nadia an Prote Protesta stants, nts, the
Directly related to this historical conclusion is a theological one. For if there is overwhelming evidence that the biblical documents are genuine and authentic—that they stem from alleged periods and authors—then one must face seriously their persistent claim to divine inspiration. When these claims are thoroughly examined and honestly faced, one can but conclude that the Bible as a whole claims to be the Word of God, and the evidence confirms that claim. Along with the question as to whether the books of the Bible are divinely inspired, it has been necessary to address the kindred question as to whichbooks which books of the Bible are inspired, that is, the question of canonicity. One statement will suffice as a summary for both this and the foregoing question. The sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible known today are the entire and complete canon of inspired Scripture, handed down through the centuries without substantial change or any doctrinal variation.
Appendix
14th 4th ce cen nt. A cts A non. non. / L atin-E tin-Engl nglishsh-A cts 14th 4th ce cent nt.. Epistles A non. on. (Wycl (Wycliiffe?) / A cts, cts, Pa Pauli ulin ne, Gen. Gen. Epistles c. 1340 1340 A poca pocallypse ypse A non. non. / A ngl nglo-N o-Norma orman A poca pocallypse ypse (80+MSS) (80+M SS) c. 1340 1340 Psa Psallter ter A non. non. / Wes Westt Midland dland Psa Psallter ter (Eng (Engllishsh-L atin) tin) 14th 4th ce cent nt.. Epistles A non. non. / (La (L at.-Eng t.-Eng.) .) Mark, L uke, uke, Pa Pauli ulin ne Epistles 14th 14th ce cent nt.. Gospel Gospels A non. non. / L atin-E tin-Eng ngllishsh-Matthe tthew c. 1360 1360 Bible Anon. non. / vari variou ouss Angl nglo-Norm o-Norma an MSS 14th 4th ce cent nt.. Epistles A non. non. [Wycl [Wycliiffite] te] / Acts, cts, Pa Pauli ulin ne, Gen. Gen. Epistles 14th 14th ce cent. nt. Gospe ospels Wycl Wycliiffe? / Acts and theGospe ospels c. 1380 NT J . Wycli Wycliffe ffe / NT tran trans. (ea (early rly Wycli Wycliffe) c. 1384 Bible [N. [N. He Here reford] ford] / Wycli Wycliffite fi te OT (35 MSS) c. 138 1387 Bible [J ohn ohn of Trevi revisa sa?] ?] / trans trans.. of the the Bible c. 1388 OT J . Wycli Wycliffe ffe / OT tran trans. (ea (early rly Wycli Wycliffe)
1534 1534 1534 1534 1534 1534 1534 1534 1534 534 1534 1534 1535 1535 1535 1535 1535 1535 1535 1535 1535 535 1536 1536 1536 1536
Psa sallms G. J oye / Psal Psalm ms trans. trans. Prophets rophets G. J oye / J eremiah (tra (trans.) ns.) Psa sallms [M. Coverda overdale] / Campens pensiis L at. Psal Psalm ms (parap paraph.) h.) Genesi nesiss W. Tyndal yndale / revisi revision on of Gen. NT G. J oye / revi revision sion of Tynda yndalle’s NT NT W. Tynda yndalle / Tynda yndalle’s NT revi revision sion NT W. Tyndal yndale / NT yet yet once agayne gayne (last Tyndal yndale rev.) Portion Portionss M. Coverda overdalle / Psa Psallmes with with Eccle ccles. (re (reprint print)) Wisd Wi sdom om [G. [G. J oye?] oye?] / Prov. Prov. and Eccle ccles. (trans.) (trans.) NT M. Coverda overdalle / revi revise sed d Tynda yndale NT (1535 (1535 ed.) Bible M. Coverda overdalle / Bible (revi (revision of Tynda yndalle) NT W. Tynda yndale / NT correcte corrected d (1st NT print printe ed in Eng.) ng.) NT M. Coverda overdalle / Tynda yndale NT (re (revise vised) d)
1550 1550 Bible ble M. Coverda overdalle / Bible ble (re (repr. by Froscha roschauer) uer) 1551 1551 Bible Anon. non. / Matthe tthew (or Taverne verner) r) rev. rev. 1551 1551 Bible ble E. Becke and W. Sere Seress / Bible ble: GenGen-Deut. Deut. 1551 1551 Bible E. Becke and W. Sere Seress / The Bible ble (Ta (T averne vernerr rev.) rev.) 1552 1552 Bible R. J ugge ugge / NT (Tynd (T ynda ale revi revise sed) d) 1553 1553 Bible ble Gre Great Bible ble (11th 11th ed.) 1553 1553 Bible ble M. Coverda overdalle / Whole Whole Byble yble (la (l ast normal ed.) 1553 553 NT [W. [W. Whitt Whittiingha gham] / NT (acce (access ssiion of Mary I) 1553 1553 NT [R. [R. J ugge ugge]] / NT (re (rev. 1548 1548 ed.) 1556 1556 NT [R. [R. J ugge ugge]] / NT (anoth (anothe er ed.) 2 [1557] NT W. Whitt Whittiingha gham / NT (Eng (Engllish Hexap xapla) 1557 1557 Psa Psallms [A. [A . Gil Gi lby?] / Psa Psallms (pre(pre-Gene Genevan van versi version) on) 1558 1558 Bible ble [Whi [Whittingh ttingha am] / Bible ble (acce (access ssiion of Elizabe zabeth th I )
1582 582 1584 1584 1585 1585 1587 1587 158 1589 1591 1591 1592 1592 1594 1594 1595 1595 1596 1596 1596 1596 1599 599 1600 1600
NT [W. [W. A llen et al.] / NT (Rhe (Rheiims editio ditio prin rince ceps ps)) Bible ble Bishops shops’’ Bible ble (appa (apparentl rently y the last qua quarto ed.) Bible ble Gene Geneva Bible ble / editi dition on with with para paralllel Psa Psallters ters Bible Gene Geneva Bible ble / (fi (first Thom homson NT; Roma oman type) type) NT W. Fulke / Rheims-Bi s-Bishop shops’ s’ NT (para (paralllel column columns) Bible ble Geneva Geneva Bible ble/(1s /(1stt Eng. ng. Bible ble printe printed d at Cambridg bridge e) Apoca pocalypse ypse M.F. .F. J uni unius/A us/Apoc poca alypse ypse (comm (commenta ntary in L at.-E t.-Eng.) ng.) Apoca pocalypse ypse M.F. .F. J uni unius / Revel velation tion of Sai Saint J ohn ohn the the A post postlle Bible F. J uni unius / Gene Geneva Bible ble (revisi (revision onss in Apoca pocalypse ypse) Proph Prophe ets [H. [H. Brought roughton on]] / Dan. Dan. . . .Cha .Challdie die Visions sions.. . . . Heb. A poca pocallypse ypse Fr. Dv. Dv. Ion / The A poca pocallypse ypse Bible Gene Geneva va Bible / (with (with Thom homso son n NT; J uni unius Rev.) Bible ble Geneva Geneva Bible ble / (dif differs from forme ormer octavo octavo eds.) ds.)
1631 631 1631 1631 1633 1633 1633 1633 633 163 1633 1634 1635 1635 1638 1638
Bible K J V [revision [revision]] / “Wi “Wicke cked d Bible” (supp (suppre ress sse ed) Psa sallms [W. [W. A lexande xander] r] / Psa sallmes of David vid Bib Bi ble K J V/(fi /(first rst K J V printe rinted in Scot Scotlland) NT Rhei heims / New Testam stament (4th ed.) NT Bishop shops’ s’ Bible / NT (la (l ast ed. publi publish she ed) NT W. Fulke/R ke/Rhe heiims-Bi s-Bishop shops’ s’ NT (para (paralllel cols; 4th 4th ed.) Bible K J V/(4th /(4th disti stinct foli folio ed.) Bible ble Rhei heims-Dou s-Doua ay Bible / (2d ed.) Bible ble K J V /(du /(duode odeci cim mo ed. print printe ed in Holl olland; nd; many errors) 1638 1638 Bible ble T. Goa oad, d, S. Ward et al. / Cambridg bridge e (corrected) corrected) 1642 642 Bible K J V /(printe /(printed d in Holl olland with with Gene Geneva Note otes) 1643 1643 Portions Portions Gene Geneva Bible ble / The Souldi Souldie ers Pocket Bible ble
1701 1701 1701 1702 1702 1705 1705 1708 1708 1710 1710 1710 1710 171 1711f. 1714 714 1714 1714 1715 1715 1717 1717ff. 1718 1718
Bible W. L loyd / K J V (Ll (L loyd’ oyd’s ed.? Usshe sher chron chronology ology)) NT S. Clarke / K J V para paraph phra rase se inse nserts (2 vols.) vols.) NT D. Whitb Whitby y i NT Paraph Paraph.. and Comm ommenta ntary (2 vols.) vols.) Epist pistlles J . Fell/para /paraph phra rase se of Epist pistlles (3d ed. of 1675 1675 work) Bible K J V / print printe ed in Engl ngland with with Gene Geneva Notes otes Bible C. Mathe ther / Biblia blia A merica rican na: Sacre Sacred d Scrip. Scrip. (MS) (M S) NT D. Whitby hitby / Paraphrase raphraseand Comm ommentary ntary (rev. ed.) NT E. We Wellls / GreekGreek-E English gli sh NT (with (with Pa Para raph phra rase se)) Bible K J V / (1st (1st extant xtant Bible printed printed in I rel reland) Wisd Wi sdom om S. Perkins rki ns / Solom Solomon’ on’ss Prove Proverbs rbs (Da (Danvers nvers and L at.) Bible K J V / print printe ed in Engl ngland with with Gene Geneva Notes otes Bible T. Pyle Pyle / K J V para paraph phra rase se inse nserts for the the NT NT C. Nary / NT trans transllated ted from L at.
1746 1746 Bible S. Humphre phreys ys / Sacre Sacred d Books (OT (OT and NT) 1749 749 NT R. Chal hallone oner / Rheims NT (sli (slight ght revi revision, sion, 2 vols.) vols.) 1749 1749 Gospel Gospels J . Heylyn ylyn / A n I nte nterpreta rpretati tion on of the the Four Gospel Gospels 11 1750 Bible R. Chal hallone oner / Rhei heims-Dou s-Doua ay-C y-Challone oner Bible 1750 750 NT R. Chal hallone oner / Rheims NT (2d sligh sli ghtt rev.) rev.) 1750 1750 OT R. Chal hallone oner / Douay Douay OT (1st rev. rev. in 4 vols.) vols.) 1752 1752 NT R. Chal hallone oner / Rhei heims NT (3d rev., rev., major) 1755 755 NT J . Wes Weslley / NT (rev. uti utilizing zing Greek Greek text) text) 1755 755 NT J . Newbe wberry / TheNT Adapt dapte ed to Child hil dren ren 1759 759 Bible R. Goadb Goadby y / I llustra ustration tion . . . Hol Holy y Scrip. Scrip. (6th ed.) 1760 NT S. Cla Cl arke / NT tran trans. (KJ (K J V re revi vission?) on?) 1760 1760 NT D. Whitby hitby / Paraphrase raphraseand Comm ommentary ntary (7th ed. rev.)
1784 1784 1785 1785 1785 1785 1788 1788 1788 788 1789 1789 1789 1789 1790 1790 1790 1790 1790 790 1790 1790 1791 1791 1791 1791
Bible ble A non. non. / The Hieroglyph roglyphiic Bible ble (seve (severa rall eds.) ds.) Penta Pentate teuch uch A . A lexand xande er / First [-F [-Fifth] th] Book of Mose osess Proph Prophe ets W. Newcome wcome / K J V (rev. of theminor prophe prophets) Portion Portion W. Newcom wcome / K J V (rev. of Ezeki zekie el) Bible H. Doddri Doddridg dge e / Christian’ hristian’s New Family Bible (Am (A mer. ) Penta Pentateuch teuch I . Delgado gado / New Eng. ng. Trans. rans. (K J V Penta Pentateuch teuch rev.) Gospel Gospels G. Campbe pbell / Four Gospe ospels (trans trans.. from Gree reek) k) Bible ble Rhei heims-Douay-C s-Douay-Cha hallloner oner / (1763 1763;; 1st 1st Amer. ed.) NT W. Gil Gi lpin / Exposi xposition tion of NT (mod (mode ern spe speech) ch) NT A non. on. / NT with with A ltera terations tions Psallms S. Stree Psa Street / A New L itera terall V ersi rsion on . . . Psa Psallms Bible B. MacMa cMahon hon / Holy oly Bible (5th ed.; Challone oner rev.) rev.) NT J . Wes Weslley / NT Expla xplanatory natory Notes otes (1st Amer. ed.)
1812 812 1812 1812 1812 1812 181312 1813 1813 1813 1813 1814 814 1815 1815 1815 1815 1815 1816 1816 1816 1816 1816 1816
NT [J . Worswick] / NT, Rhei heims-Ch s-Challone oner (newl (newly y rev.) rev.) NT [W. [W. Wi Willliams] / Mode odern Trans rans.. of NT Gospe ospels G. Campbe pbell / Four Gospe ospels, a new new trans trans.. Bible G. Woodfall / repri reprint nt of 180 1806 6 Eyre and Straha Strahan n Gospel Gospels A . Bradford radford [Uni [Unita tari ria an] / Evang vang.. History story A cts NT J . McDonal cDonald / NT (2d A mer. from Cambridg bridge e ed.) Bible Comm omm. Educ. duc. I rel reland / Extract xtractss (KJ (K J V and R-D-C D-C) Bible J . M. Ray / Hol Holy y Bible (KJ (K J V ; re rev. v. and improved roved) NT [T. [T. Rigby] gby] / NT (rev. 1749 749 Rhei heims-Cha s-Challlone oner) NT S. Payson / NT, ca careful refullly examined ned and corrected corrected NT J . McDonal cDonald / NT (2d A mer. rev. rev. and correcte corrected) d) NT W. Thompson pson / NT trans trans.. from Gre Greek (li (l itera terall) Bible ble [S. [S. Bagste gster] r] / Eng. ng. Polygl Polyglott ott (ma (many editions ditions))
1828 828 1828 1828 1828 1828 1830 1830 1830 1830 1830 1830 1830 1830 1831 831 1831 831 1832 1832 1832 1832 1833 1833 1833 1833
Bible W. A lexan xander der / TheHoly oly Bible Bible Quake Quaker’ r’ss / Holy oly Bible (unsui (unsuita tabl ble e pass passa ages ges ital talics) NT A . Campbe pbell / Sacre Sacred d Writi Wri ting ngs, s, 2d ed. NT [J . Palfre Palfreyy-U Unitari taria an] / NT (Com (Comm mon Vers., rev.) rev.) NT [J . Palfre Palfreyy-U Unitari taria an] / NT (Com (Comm mon V ers., 3d ed.) Portions ortions K ese seph ph / Genesi nesiss-2 2 K ings ngs [J ob] (prefa (preface sign signe ed) Prophets rophets J . J ones ones / The Proph Prophe et Isa saiiah (tra (trans. ns. Heb.) Bible [S. Bagste ster] / Biblia bli a Polyglotta Polyglotta(eight (eight lang., ng., I vol.) vol.) Bible [S. Bagste gster] r] / English English V ers. of the the Polyglott Polyglott Bible NT A . Campbe pbell / Family Testam stament (rev. and enl.) nl.) NT S. Bagste gsterr / (Pol (Polym ymiicria crian Testa stament) nt) NT NT A . Campbe pbell / Sacred Sacred Wr Wriiting tingss (3d pocket pocket ed.) NT R. Dicki Di ckins nson on / New and Correcte orrected d Vers.
1843 1843 1843 1843ff. 1844 1844 1844 844 1844 1844 1844 844 1845 1845 1845 1845 1845 1845ff. 1846 1846 1846 1846 1846 1846 1846? 846?
NT J . Ethe theridg ridge e / Hora orae e A ram ramaica cae e (NT (NT, Pes Pesch chiito) Bible [Ha [Harper] rper] / Illuminate nated d Bible (iss (i ssue ued d 1846 1846)) OT L . Brenton renton / V atica tican n Septua Septuagi gint nt trans transllated ted Bible [S. Bagste gster] r] / Eng. ng. V ersion of Polyg Polygllott Bible Bible Sharpe Sharpe [Uni [Unita tari ria an] / Bible (2d ed., Gri Griesba sbach NT) Bible T.J. .J . Huss sse ey / A V (with (with a rev. rev. vers.) vers.) Wisd Wi sdom om T. Pre Preston ston / Book of Solom Solomon on (He (Heb., L at., Eng.) ng.) Proph Prophe ets J . M’Farla rlan / The Prop Prophe heci cie es of Ezeki zekie el Penta Pentate teuch uch I. L eese serr / L aw of God (Tora (T orah: h: Heb.-E b.-Eng., ng., 5 vols.) vols.) Gospel Gospels J .W .W.. Ethe theridg ridge e / Four our Gospel Gospels, from Pes Peshi hitto tto Syria Syriac Psallms J . J ebb / L itera Psa terall Trans rans.. of the the Book of Psa Psallms Wisd Wi sdom om G. R. Noyes oyes [Uni [Unita tari ria an] / New Trans rans.. (Wi (Wisdom sdom)) Bible [S. Bagste gster, r, J .P. L ippi ppincot ncott] t] / Comp omprehe rehen nsive Bible
1857 857 1857 1857 1857 1858 1858 1858 1858 1858 1858 1858 858 1859 1859 1859 1859 1859 859
Gospe Gospels Henry A lford et al. / A V Gospe Gospell of J ohn ohn (rev.) NT F.P. F.P. K enrick rick / [Rh [Rheims-Ch -Challone oner] / NT (rev.) (rev.) Gospel Gospels J .B. .B. Barrow et al. [Fi [Five Clergyme rgymen] / J ohn (2d ed.) OT A. V ance nce / A V of OT OT,, Harmon rmoniized, zed, Revise vised d NT L .A. .A . Sawye Sawyerr [Un [Unitari taria an] / NT NT,, tran trans Greek Greek Epist pistlles Five Clergyma rgyman / Roma omans (AV (A V, Newly wly Rev. V er.) Epistles Five Clergyman / Corint orinthia hians ns (AV (A V , Newly Rev. V er.) Bible Sharpe Sharpe [Uni [Unita tari ria an] / Bible ble (4th ed., Gri Griesba sbach NT) Gospel Gospels W. W.G. G. Cookesl ookesle ey / Revise vised d Trans rans.. NT: Matt. Portion Portionss F.P. K enrick rick / [Rhe [Rheiims-Dou s-Doua ay-C y-Challone oner] / J ob, ob, Prophets rophets (Am (A mer.) r.) 1859 859 NT J .N .N.. Darby Darby / The NT, a trans trans.. 1860 1860 Bible E.B. .B. Pusey Pusey / TheHoly oly Bible with with Comm ommenta ntary
1865 865 1865 1865 1865 1865 1866 1866 1866 1866 1866 866 1867 867 1868 868 1868 1868 1868 1868 1868f. 868f. 1868 1868 1869 1869
OT I . L eese serr / OT OT,, Maso sore reti ticc Text (MT (M T) (rev. ed.) OT Sharpe Sharpe [Uni [U nita tari ria an] / The Heb. Scriptu Scri ptures res NT T.S. Green Green / Twofold wofold NT (para (paralllel cols.) Penta Pentateuch teuch A mer. Bible ble Union nion / Gen., Comm ommon V ers. (correct (correcte ed) NT A mer. Bible Union nion / NT, Comm ommon Vers. (correcte (corrected) NT H.T. .T. A nderso derson n / NT, rev. rev. Bible J . Smi Smith, th, J r. / K J V (tran (trans. and correcte corrected) d) NT J .B. .B. Rothe otherham rham / NT (Gos (Gospe pell of Matthe tthew) w) NT A non. non. / NT Narrati rrative (trans. (trans. accordi ccording to Vulga ulgate te)) Prophets rophets G. Noyes oyes [Unita nitari ria an] / New Trans. rans. (3d ed.) Bible F. Gotch and G. J acob / Bible (AV (A V, emend.) nd.) Wisd Wi sdom om G. Noyes oyes [Uni [U nita tari ria an] / New Trans. rans. (4th ed.) Psa sallms C. Carter / Psa sallms (trans. trans. from the Heb.)
1876 1876 1876 1877 1877 877 1877 877 1877 1877 1878 1878 187 1878f. 1879 1879 1879 1879 1879 1879 1880 880 1880 880
OT Sharpe Sharpe [Uni [U nita tari ria an] / Heb. Scriptu Scri ptures res (3d ed.) Bible J . E. Smi Smith / Hol Holy y Bible Tra ran ns. L itera terallly Bible [J. [J . Gurne Gurney et al.] / Rev. Rev. Eng. Eng. Bible (KJ (K J V ; re rev.) v.) Bible Anon. non. / Rev. Eng. Bible NT J . A . Richte chterr / NT, rev. rev. and correcte corrected d NT A non. non. / Engl nglishm shman’s n’s Gre Greek NT (new (new ed. in 1946 1946)) NT J .B. .B. Rothe otherham rham / NT (2d ed., rev.; rev.; 12 eds.) ds.) Bible P.H. P.H. Wi Wicks ckste tee ed / Bible for L earners rners (Dut (Dutch ch;; 3 vols.) vols.) Bible ble P.H P.H. Wi Wickst ckste eed / Bible ble for Y oung oung Peopl People (new (new ed.) Psallms J .P. Psa .P. Gell Gell / The Psa Psallms from theHeb. Wisd Wi sdom om J . Medley / J ob, ob, trans trans.. from the the Heb. text text Bible S. Sharpe Sharpe [Unita [Unitari ria an] / Holy oly Bible (Au (A uth. th. Eng. V ers.) Bible H. Goll Gollancz ncz / The Holy oly Bible, rev. rev.
1890 1890 1891 1891 1891 1891 1891 1891 1891 1891 1891 1891 1894 894 1894 1894 1894 1894 1894 1894 1895 1895ff. 1895 1895
Epist pistlles F. Fenton nton / St. Paul Paul’s Epist pistlles (3d ed.) A cts [C. [C. Tische schendorf ndorf]] / A postl postle es (Code (Codex x Siniaticus) Siniaticus) Bible Amer. Bible Union / Hol Holy y Bible (KJ (K J V , 3d re rev.) v.) NT Amer. Bible Union / NT (“im (“i mmersion” ed.) NT L .A. .A . Sawye Sawyerr [Unita [Unitari ria an] / The Bible: ble: A nalyzed yzed Bible A.J. .J . Hol Holm man / Pronou Pronoun ncing Bible (KJ (K J V and ERV ERV ) Penta Pentateuch teuch F.W .W.. Grant rant et al. / Nume umerica ricall Bible ble (Pentate ntateuch uch)) Bible Brit. rit. Rev. Com. om. / ERV (One vol.; vol.; marginal rginal ref refs.) Gospel Gospels A.S. L ewis wis / The Four our Gospel Gospels (from (from Syria Syriac) Epist pistlles F. Fenton nton / Epist pistlles of St. Paul Paul (4th ed.) Portion Portionss F. Gra Grant et al. / Numerica ricall Bible ble (Cov. (Cov. Hist.) st.) Bible R.G. Moul oulton ton / Mode odern Reader’s r’s Bible (22 vols.) vols.) Penta Pentate teuch uch A non. non. / Woma Woman’s n’s Bible (Pa (Part I : Gen.. Gen...... Deut.) Deut.)
1901 901 1901 1901 1901 1901 1902 1902 1902 1902 1902 1902 1902 1902?? 1902 1903 903 1903 1903 1903 1903 1903 903
NT F.S. Ballenti ntine / TheMode odern America rican n Bible NT J . Moffatt offatt / Hi Hisstorica toricall NT Epistle pistles A.S. Way / L etters tters of St. Paul Paul Bible H.N. H.N. J one ones / Y oun oung Pe Peop oplle’s Bible Bible ble A nonym nonymous ous / Twent wentiieth Century ntury NT (3 vols.) vols.) OT J . Rothe otherham rham / Empha phasize sized d OT (3 vols.) vols.) Bible ble J . Rothe otherham rham / Empha phasize sized d Bible ble (4 vols.) vols.) NT W.B. W.B. Godbe Godbey / NT NT [G.W. [G.W. Moo oon n] / “Revi “Revised Engl English” sh” NT (AV (A V ) Bible F. Fenton / Holy oly Bible in Mode odern Eng. NT R.F. .F. Weymouth ymouth and E. Hampde pden-C n-Cook / NT Epist pistlles F.W .W.. Gra Grant et al. / Numerica ricall Bible (He (Heb.-R b.-Rev.) Psallms J ewish Psa wish Pub. Pub. Soc. [K. [K . K ohl ohler] / Psa Psallms
1911 1911 Bible ble Eminent nent Schola Scholars/ 1911 1911 Tercente rcentena nary ry Bible ble 1911 1911 Psa Psallter ter W. W.A A . Wrigh Wri ghtt / Hexapl xapla ar Psa Psallter ter 1911 1911ff. NT F.J. .J . Firth / Comp ompariso rison n Bible (Am (A mer. Protest Protesta ant and Roman Catholic versions) 1912 1912 Bible Amer. Bapti ptist Pub. Soc. / Holy oly Bible (im (i mproved) proved) 1912 1912 Bible J . Smi Smith, th, J r. / TheHoly oly Script Scripture uress (17th (17th ed.) 1912? 912? OT I. L eese serr / OT fromMT (new (new form; orm; 4 vols.) vols.) 1912 1912 Pentate ntateuch uch [Swedenborgi Swedenborgia ans] / Genesi nesiss (new new trans.; trans.; U.S.) .S.) 1913 1913 Bible ble A mer. Bapti ptist Pub. Soc. / Bible ble (Im (I mproved proved Ed.) 1913 1913 NT Edward dward Clarke / A V (correcte (corrected) 1913 1913 NT J . Moff offatt / New Trans rans.. in Mode odern Spee Speech 1913 1913ff. NT [Cut [Cuthb hbe ert L attey] ttey] / Wes Westm tmiinste nsterr V ersi rsion on 1914 1914 NT I. Pa Panin nin / Numeric ric NT
1925 1925 1925 925 1926 1926 1926 926 1926 926 1926 1927 927 1927 1927 1927 1927 1927 1927 1928 1928 1928 1928 1928 1928
NT A . Overbury Overbury / Peopl People’s New Cov. (me (metaph taphysi ysica call) Portion Portionss H.A. .A . Gherm Gherma an and C.F. .F. K ent / Childre hildren n’s Bible Psallms J .M.P Psa .M .P.. Smi Smith / Psa Psallms Bible [A.E [A .E.. K noch noch]] / Concord oncorda ant V ersion (rev. (rev. ed.) Bible J . Moffa offatt / New Tran rans. of the the Bible (3 vols.) vols.) NT E.E. .E. Cunn Cunnington ton / We Wesstern tern NT (KJ (K J V re rev.) v.) Bible J .P. Smi Smith, th, E.J. .J . Goodsp Goodspe eed/Bible(A d/Bi ble(Am mer. trans trans.) .) OT C.G. .G. K ent / Stude Student’ nt’s OT (log (l ogiica callly and chron. chron. arr.) rr.) OT Smi Smith, th, Meek et al. / OT OT:: An A mer. Trans rans.. NT G. N. L e Fevre / TheChristian’ hristian’s Bible: NT Bible ble J . Moff offatt / New Trans rans.. in Mode odern Spee Speech OT E. Czarnom zarnomska / A uthe uthent ntiic L itera teratu ture re of Isra srae el NT A non. non. / L ayme ymen’s n’s NT (Lond (L ondon on,, 1928 1928))
1937 1937 1937 1937 1937 1937 1937 1937 1937 1937 1937 1937 1937 1938 1938 1938 1938 1938 1938 1938 1938 1939 1939
NT J . Gerbe Gerber / NT (trans. (trans. and expla xplanati nation on)) NT C.B. .B. Wi Willliams / NT in the the L angua nguage geof the the Peopl People Wisd Wi sdom om E.D. .D. Dim Di mnen nent / J ob (Epic (Epic V er. in Eng.) ng.) Psallms G. O’N Psa O’ Neill / Psa Psallms and Canti nticle cles (new (new Eng. ng. trans trans.) .) NT W.W. W.W. Martin rtin / NT criti critica callly recon reconst struc ructe ted d (2 vols.) vols.) NT C.J C.J . Calla Callan and J . McHugh cHugh / [F.A [F.A.. Spe Spence cer’ r’ss] NT Epistl pistle es G.W .W.. Cornish ornish [posthu posthum mous] ous] / Paul from theTrenche renchess Bible B. Ha Halll/Li /L ivin ving Bible(Whole Bible in Fewe Fewest Words) Words) NT R.M R.M. Wi Willson / Boo ook k of Boo ooks ks (tran (trans. of NT NT)) Psa sallms M. Butte uttenwei nweise serr / Psal Psalm ms (chronol chronologica ogicallly treated) ted) NT E.L. .L . Clementson ntson / NT (a trans trans.) .) NT R.M. .M . Wi Willso son n / Book of Books (trans (trans . of NT complete plete) Portion Portionss Z.H. Z.H. Copp opp / Book of L ife. V ol. ol. 1, Inte nterwoven rwoven
1949 1949 1950 1950 1950 950 1950 1950 1950 1950 1950 1950 1950 1950 1950 1951 1951 1951 1951 1951 1951 1952 1952
Psa sallms E. A . L esli slie / Psal Psalm ms, trans. trans. and interpret nterprete ed Bible R.B. .B. Cham hamberl berla ain et al. / Dartmouth outh Bible (abr.) (abr.) OT R.A. .A . K nox nox / OT trans trans.. fromV ulgate ulgate (2 vols.) vols.) NT Watch Watchtowe towerr / NT (Ne (New World World trans trans.) .) Psa sallms E. Orl Orlinge nger / Psa sallms and Canticl nticle es (Confra onfraterni ternity) ty) Bible S.H. S.H. Hooke et al. / TheBasic sic Bible ble (re (rev. ed.) NT A.B. .B. Trai raina / NT: Sacre Sacred d Name Ver. NT C.B C.B. Wi Willliams / NT (slig (sli ghtly re rev. v. ed.) NT A uth . Bible Soc . [C . B . Pe Pers rsh hall] / NT (Au (A uthe thentic Ver. ) NT Watch Watchtowe towerr / NT (Ne (New World World trans trans.,., rev.) rev.) NT O.M. O.M . Norli Norlie / NT in Mode odern Engl English Gospel Gospels E. V ernon / Gospel Gospel of St. Mark . . . Sim Simple ple Eng. ng. OT Soncino Pre Press / Sonci Soncino Books of the the Bible ble (ind (i ndiiv.)
1957 957 1957 1957 1957 1957 1957 1958 1958 1958 1958 1958 1958 1958 1958 1958 1958 958 1958 1958ff. 1958 1958 1958 958
OT J ewish wish Pub. Pub. Soc. / Hol Holy y Script Scripture uress (MT (M T) Epist pistlles J . B . Phil Phillips / L etters tters to Y oung oung Churche hurchess (correct . ed . ) Bible R.A R.A. K nox / Hol Holy y Bible (Schoo (Schooll ed.) Bible ble Concorda oncordant nt Pubs. Pubs. / Concorda oncordant nt V er.: Int’ nt’l. Ed. (re (rev.) Gospel Gospels J .B. .B. Phil Phillips / Gospel Gospels (correcte (corrected ed.) Prop Prophe hets ts Watcht Watchtowe owerr / New World Worl d Trans rans.. (vol. (vol . 4, I sa sa..-LL am.) Gospel Gospels L . Meiss ssne nerr / NT Gospel Gospels NT J .B. Phi Phillips / NT in Mode odern Engl English NT L ockman [F. [F. Sie Siewert] wert] / A mplif pli fied NT NT J .L.T .L .Tom omanek/N nek/NT T of Our L ord and Savi Savior or J esus sus Christ NT A non. non. / GreekGreek-E Eng. ng. Diglot Di glot Epist pistlles K . Wuest Wuest / Expand xpande ed Trans rans.:.: A ctscts-Eph. ph. Epistles J .T. .T. Hudson dson / Paul PaulineEpistles
1963 963 1963 1963 1963 1964 1964 1964 1964 1964 1964 1964 964 1964 964 1964 1964 1964 964
NT L ockman / NT (NA (NASB, SB, text text ed.) NT C.K C.K . Wi Willliams / NT in Pla Plain Engl English (Am (A mer. ed.) NT V .T. .T. Roth / Criti ritica call and Empha phatic tic Paraph Paraph.. (re (rev. ed.) Bible W. F. A lbrig right and D.N. D.N. Free reedman / A nchor chor Bible Psa sallms G. Hadas das / Psa sallms for the Modern odern Reader der OT L ockman [F. [F. Sei Seiwert] wert] / Ampl. OT (Pa (Part I, Gen.Gen.-E Est.) st.) NT L ockma ockman / NT (NA (NASB, SB, 2d ed. rev.) rev.) NT L ockma ockman / NT (NA (NASB, SB, 3d ed. rev.) rev.) NT W. W.F F. Beck / NT in the the L angua nguage geof Toda oday (re (rev.) Gospe Gospels Amer. Bible Soc. [R. [R. Bratch ratche er] / Right ght Time, Mark’s rk’s Story 1965 1965 Epistl pistle es F.F. .F. Bruce / Expand xpande ed Paraphra raphrase se . . . Epistl pistle es of Paul 1965 NT Ca Cath tholi olicc Bib Bi blica call A ssoc oc.. / NT (RSV (RSV))
1968 968 1969 1969 1969 969 1969 1969 1969 1969 1969 1969 1969 1969 1969 1969 1969 1969 1969 1969 969 1969 1969 1969 969
Gospe Gospels W. Barcla rclay / NT (vol. (vol. 1, Gospe Gospels-Acts s-A cts)) Epist pistlles W. Barcla rclay / NT (vol. (vol. 2, L etters tters and Rev.) Portion Portionss J ewish wish Pub. Pub. Soc. / Five Megill gilloth and J ona onah (MT (M T) Bible Mode odern L ang. ng. Bible ble (Ne (New Berkeley Ver. (rev. ed.) Penta Pentate teuc uch h K . Taylor ylor / L iving ving Books of Mose osess NT Conf onf. of Chr. Doc. / NT (trans (trans.. fromGreek) Greek) Gospel Gospels C. J ordan ordan / Cotton otton Patch Patch V er. (Luke (L uke and A cts) cts) NT A . Cress ressm man / Good News for the the World Worl d NT G. H. L edyard dyard / New L ife Testa stament (KJ (K J V) NT G. H. L edyard yard / The Child Chil dre ren n’s NT (KJ (K J V) Gospe Gospels NY Bi Bible Soc. [E.H [E.H.. Palme Palmer] / Gospe Gospel [on J ohn ohn NT Watchtowe Watchtowerr / K ingdom ngdomInterl nterliinea near Trans rans . of theGree reek k Bible G.Ve G.V erkuyl / Mode odern L ang. ng. Bible (Ne (New Berkel rkeley Ver.)
1973 1973 NT 1973 NT 1974 1974 NT 1974 1974 1974 1974 1975 1975 1976 1976 1976 976 1976 1976 976 1976 976 1976 1976
C. Estes stes / Better tter Versi rsion on of the the NT M. Col Colllins / Phill Phil lips’ NT (mod (mod.. Eng. Eng. 2d re rev. v. ed.) D.J . K linge ngensm nsmith / NT in Everyda veryday y Eng. ng.
Proph Prophe ets J ewish wish Pub. Soc. / J erem remiah (MT (M T) Proph Prophe ets J ewish wish Pub. Soc. / Prop Prophe hets ts:: Nevi’ vi’im (MT (M T) Gospe ospels A. Eding dington ton / Word Word Made Flesh (paraph (paraphras rase ed) Pentate ntateuch uch Nutt / Train rain Up a Chil hild (Pa (Part I , Gen.; parap paraphra hrase se)) Bible Phil Philip Birnba rnbaum / Conci oncise seJ ewish wish Bible Bib Bi ble ABS / Good Good Ne News ws Bib Bi ble (GEB; (GEB; TEV) EV ) Bible J .P. Green Green / I nterl terliinea near Hebrew-G rew-Gre ree ek-E k-Engl nglish Bible W.F. W.F. Beck / Holy oly Bible in the the L ang. ng. of Toda oday NT G.H G.H. L edyard dyard / New L ife Testa stament
about authorship, inspiration, and so forth, of the Old Testament without thereby either asserting or approving those beliefs. AMANUENSIS—A scribal secretary or one employed to take dictation. A NTIL EGOME GOM ENA —L itera terallly, thebooks books “spo “spoke ken n aga agaiinst,” nst,” tha that is, is, the the books books of of the the New Tesstament canon whose ins Te inspira iration ion has been disp isputed, usually meaning ing He Heb brews, J ames, 2 Peter, ter, 2 and and 3 J ohn, ohn, J ude ude, and and Re Revelation. velation. ANTINOMIANISM—Literally “without (or against) law,” it designates the ethical position that there are no binding moral laws; all is relative or situational. A POCA POCA L Y PSE— PSE—The Engl English tra tran nslitera teration tion of of the the Gree Greek word apocalypsis (revelation), this term used as the title for the last book of the Bible in English Roman Catholic versions.
CREDIB DI BI L ITY —A s appl pplied to the the Script Scripture ures, s, it it is is the their righ rightt to to be be bel believed ved and rece receiived ved as the the truth of God. CRITICAL TEXT—An edited text of the Bible that attempts, by critical comparison and evaluation of all of the manuscript evidence, to approximate most closely what was in the autographs; the Westcott and Hort text of the Greek New Testament is an example of a critica criticall text. text. CURSIVE MANUSCRIPTS—Usually the equivalent of minuscule or small-lettered manuscripts written in a “running hand,” hence “cursive”; it is akin to handwriting rather than printing. DEC DECA L OGU OGUE—L itera terallly, “ten “ten words,” words,” that that is, is, theTen Com Comm mandm ndments nts as as recorde recorded d in in Exodu Exoduss 20 or Deuteronomy 5. he bel beli f that that th
i
tor who op
s in in Hi
ti
ly through through n
ll
GER GERMA N RATI ONA ONA L ISM— SM —A movem ovement am among eighte ghtee enth nth and and nine ninete tee enth nth cent century ury Germa German biblical scholars that, while attempting to defend Christianity on rational grounds, actually undercut the authority and inerrancy of the Scriptures, and subsequently the other fundamental doctrines arising therefrom. Destructive (negative) higher criticism and the “accommodation theory” are two examples of the teachings of this movement. GNOST GNOSTII C—From C— From the the Gree Greek gnosis (“knowledge”), it denotes the religious movement prominent in the second century. A.D. that believed it had special knowledge. Beliefs included the denial of Christ’s deity and the affirmation that matter is evil, which encouraged asceticism. GRAPHE—The Greek word for “writings” (Scriptures), which are inspired of God, according to 2 Timothy 3:16. HAGI HA GIOGR OGRA A PH PHA A The Engl English equival valent of the Gree Greek word for “holy “holy writin writings,” whi which
LATTER PROPHETS—The second subdivision of the Hebrew Prophets, including all of the prophe prophets af after ter 2 Ki K ings, ngs, which which is is the the se second cond divi divisi sion on of the prese present nt Hebrew Hebrew Bibl Bi ble e. LECTIONARIES—Early church service books containing selected Scripture readings usually from the the gospe gospells and and sometim times from from Acts Acts or the epistl pistle es . L I BERA L —Thethe theological ological posi position tion tha thatt deni denie es many of the the funda undam menta ntal doctri doctrine ness of historic historic Christianity, such as the deity of Christ, the inspiration of the Bible. It denies that the Bible is the Word of God but believes that it merely contains the Word of God. LITERAL TRANSLATION—A word-for-word translation from one language to another as opposed to an idiomatic, thought-for-thought translation or paraphrase. LOWER CRITICISM—The scholarly discipline dealing with the authenticity of the biblical text nd th ks to discover discover the origi origi l ds of the phs t i l ll d “textu l
PAPY PA PY RUS (pa (papyri pyri)— )—A A kind kind of anci ncient pa paper per or writi wri ting ng materi teria al madefrom the the pith of a plant plant by that name, which grew in the marshes of Egypt. PARATACTIC—Literally “placing side by side” or the device of placing clauses of phrases one after another without subordinating connectives (see chap. 23). PARCHMENT—An ancient writing material usually prepared from goat or sheep skin. PENT PENTA A TEUCH EU CH— —L itera terallly, a five fiveffold book; book; use used d sp specifi cifica callly with with re reffere ren nce to th the first rst five fi ve books of the Old Testament. PIETISM— SM —A rel reliigious gious movement in in la late se seven vente tee enthnth-ce centu ntury ry Ge Germa rmany stressi stressing ng thesubj subjective ctive and experiential personal aspects of Christianity. This movement often tended to neglect the theological and technical side of Christian truth, and consequently opened the door for skepticism, rationalism, and other such movements.
TANNAIM—Lit TANNAIM —Lite erally “repeaters” or “teachers.” The These J ewish ish scribe ibes succeeded the Zugoth and labored between the first century A.D. to around A.D. 200. Their work can be found in the Midrash (“textual interpretation”), which was later divided into Mishnah (“repetitions”) and Gemara (“the matter to be learned”). TESTAM TESTAMEN ENT—Lo T—Loo osely the equiva ivalen lent of “covenant,” but technica ically a testament does not require a two-way agreement, as it needs only the action of the testator with or without the assent of the heir (see Heb. 9:15-22). TEXTUAL CRITICISM—Sy CRITICISM—Synonymous with ith “low lower critic iticis ism m” (se (see above). TEXTUS RECE RECEPTU PTUS S—The —The Greek text presumed to underlie the Aut Authorize ized Ver Version ion of 1611 (K ing Ja J ames Ve Versi rsion). on). This T his text text is is basi basica callly that that of Erasm rasmus and and Steph Stephe en’s n’s thi third edi editi tion on (1550 1550)). It I t was was nam named the the Rece ceiived Text in in the the introducti ntroduction on of the Elzevir zevir Brothe Brothers’ rs’ se second cond
A land, Kurt K urt,, Ma M atth tthew Bl Black, Ca Carlo rlo M. M. Ma M artini, rtini, Bruce ruce M. Me M etzge tzger, and and Allen Wikgre Wikgren, n, ed eds. Th s. The e Greek New Testament. 3d ed. New York: Y ork: United U nited Bible ble Socie Societie ties, 1975 1975.. Alford, Henry. Th Henry. The e Gre Greek New Testament. 5th ed. Lond L ondon: on: Ri Riving vingtons tons,, 1871. 1871. Clarke, R. L., Alfred Goodwin, and W. Sanday, eds. Th eds. The e Varioru riorum mEdit Editio ion n of the New Te Tesstament of Our Lord Lord and and Sav Saviiour our J esus sus Christ Christ.. L ondon: ondon: Eyre Eyre & Spott Spottiiswoode, swoode, 1881. 1881. Cris Criswel well, W. A., A ., ed ed. The The Cris Crisw well Study Bible ible.. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1979. The The Eng Englis lish h He Hex xapla, la, exhibit ibitin ing g the six importa rtant Eng Englis lish h tra ran nslat lation ions of the New Testament Scriptures, Wyclif, M.CCC.XXXIX.; Tyndale, M.D.XXXIV.; Cranmer, M.D.XXXIX.; Genevan, M.D.LVII .; Anglo-Rhemish, M.D.LXXXII.; Authorised, M.DC.XI.; the original Greek text after Scholz, with the various readings of the textus receptus and the principal
Je J effer fferson, Tho Thomas. The The Life Life and Mora Morals ls of J esus of Nazare retth. Cleveland: World, 1940. This is the so-called J so-called J efferso rson Bible ible.. The The J erus rusalem lemBible ible.. Garde Garden City, N.Y N.Y .: Doub Doublleday, day, 1966 1966.. K itte ttel, Rud Rudol olff, and and Paul Paul E. Ka K ahle, hle, ed eds . T . Th he Bible ible Accordin rding g to the Mas Masore rettic Te Tex xt. ————Biblia ————Biblia Hebraica. 7th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiflung, 1951. K nox, nox, J ohn, ohn, tran trans. Th s. The e Ho Holy ly Bible ible:: A Tra ran nslat lation ion fro rom mthe La Lattin Vulga lgate in the Ligh Light of the Hebrew and Greek Originals. New Y ork: Shee Sheed & Ward, Ward, 1948. 1948. Metzger, Bruce M., gen. ed. T ed. Th he Reader’s Dige Digest Bible ible:: Co Con ndensed fro rom mthe Revise ised Standard Version Old and New Testaments. Ple Pl easa sant ntvi villle, N.Y N.Y .: Re Reader’ der’ss Dige Di gest st,, 1982 1982..
A mbrose. brose. Letters. Transl ransla ated ted and and edi edite ted d by S. L . Gree reens nsllade. de. In Library of Christian Classics, Early Latin Theology, vol. 5, ed edited ted by by Joh J ohn n Bai Baillie, J ohn ohn T. McNei cNeill, an and Hen Henry P. Va V an Dusen. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1956. St. Anselm, Basic Writings. Proslogium, Monologium, Gaunilon’s: On Behalf of the Fool, Cur Deus Homo. Trans ransllated ted by by S . W. W. De Deane. ne. 2d ed. ed. La L aSal Salle, Il I ll.1962. .1962. ————. Tru Truth, th, Freedom dom, and and Evil Evil: Three Philos hilosop ophical hical Dial Dialog ogu ues. Edited and translated by Ja J asper Ho Hop pkins ins and He Herrbert Rich Richardson. Ne New w Y ork: Ha Harrper & Ro Row w, 1967. Apocrypha. Revised Standard Version of the Old Testament. New Y ork: Thom homas Nelson Nelson,, 1957. 1957. The The Apostolic Fat Fathers. rs. 2 vol vols. Loe L oeb b Cla Class ssiica call L ibrary rary Seri Serie es. Edite Edited d by by Ki K irso rsopp pp L ake. ke. N Ne ew Y ork: Putnam, 1930.
Bede, Venerable. Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation. Cambridge: Cambridge U., 1881. Bettenson, Henry, ed. Documents of the Christian Church. 2d ed. Lond L ondon: on: Oxford Oxford U., U., 1963 1963.. ————, ed. and trans. T trans. Th he Early Early Chris Christtian ian Fat Fathers: rs: A Selec lection ion fro rom mthe writin riting gs of the F ather athers from fromSt. Cl Clement of Rome Rome to St. Athanas Athanasiius. London: Oxford U., 1956. ————, ed. and trans . T . Th he La Latter Chris Christtian ian Fat Fathers: rs: A Selec lection ion fro rom mthe writin riting gs of the F athe athers from fromSt. St. Cyri Cyrill of J erusal usale emto St. St. Le Leo the the Gre Great. London: Oxford U., 1970. Calvin Calvin, Joh J ohn n. Commentary on the Harmony of the Evangelists. Calvin vin Tra Tran nslati slation Soci Society. ————. Institutes of the Christian Religion. 2 vols. vols. Edite Edited d by J ohn ohn T. McNeil M cNeilll. T Tra ran nslate slated by by Ford L ewis wis Ba Batt ttlles. In In Library of Christian Classics, vols. 20-21, 0-21, e edite dited d by by Joh J ohn n Baillie, Joh J ohn n T. McNe McNeill, ill, and He Hen nry P Van Van Dus Dusen Phila Philad delph lphia: ia: Westmins inster 1960
Doctrinal Standards of the Christian Reformed Church. Church. Grand Rapids: Publication Committee of the Christian Reformed Church, 1962. DuPont-Som uPont-Somm mer, A ndre. ndre. T Th he Ess Essene Writin riting gs fro rom mQumra ran n. Translated by G. Vermes. Cleveland: World, 1962. Eusebius. Eccle Ecclesias siastical tical Hi Hisstory tory.. 2 vols. vols. Loe Loeb b Class ssiica call L ibrary rary Seri Serie es. Ki Kirso rsopp pp L ake, ke, ed. ed. Vol Vol.. I trans transllated ted by by Ki K irsopp rsopp La Lake, ke, 1926. 1926. Vol Vol.. 2 trans transllated ted by by J. J . E. E. LL.. Oul Oulton ton,, 1932. 1932. Lon L ondon don:: Heinemann. Flannery, Austin P., ed. Documents of Vati Vatican can II II . New rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975, 1984. Galileo. Le Opere Di Galileo Galilei. Galilei . Firenze: G. Barbera Editore, 1965.
Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Edited with an introduction by Charl harle es H. Hende ndel. Indi ndianapo napollis: Bob Bobbs bs--Merril rrill, 1955 1955. Husselman, Elinor M. M. T Th he Gos Gospel of J ohn in Fay Fayumic Co Cop ptic. ic. (P. Mich. ch. in i nv. 352 3521.) A nn Arb Arbor: or: U. of Michigan, 1962. International Council on Bible Inerrancy. Th Inerrancy. The e Chic Chica ago Statement on Biblic iblica al Ine Inerra rrancy. Oakland, Calif.: International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, 1978. I renaeu renaeus. s. Against Heresies. In Library of Christian Classics, Classics, vol. 3, Christology of the Later Fathers . Translated and edited by Edward Rochie Hardy. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1953. Ja J ames, Mon Montague Rho Rhodes. Th The Apocryp ryphal New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1955. Je J erome Commentary on Matthew and Epist. 120 to Hedibia. In New Testament Apocrypha, vol.
The The Livin Living g Talmud. Sele Selected cted and and trans transllated ted by by Jud J uda ah Goldi Goldin. n. Chi Chica cago: go: U. U. of Chica hicago, go, 1957 1957.. The The Lo Lon ndon Co Con nfession ion of 1644. In OklahomaBaptist Oklahoma Baptist Messenger 58, 58, no. 32 (Aug (A ugus ustt 1969 1969)): 3-8. 3-8. Lumpkin, William L. T L. Th he Baptist ist Co Con nfession ion of Fait Faith h. Rev. ed. ed. Chi Chica cago: go: Jud J udson son,, 1959. 1959. Luther, Martin. Luther’s Works. Edited by E. Theodore Bachmann. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1960. Manschre nschreck, ck, Cl Clyde L ., ed. A Hi History story of Christ Christiiani anity. ty. Vol. 2, Readings in the History of the Church from the Reformation to the Present. Engl Englewood wood Cli Cliffs ffs, N.J N.J.: .: Pre Pren nticetice-Ha Halll, 196 1964. The The Man Manual of Disc Disciplin ipline e. Translated by P. Wernberg-Moller. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972. Marx, Karl. Zur Kritik der politischen Oekonomie [Critique of Political Economy]. Berlin, 1859.
Schaff, Philip, ed. T ed. Th he Cre Creeds of Chris Christtendom. 3 vols. vols. 6th ed. ed. Re Revise vised d and and enla nlarged. rged. Ne New Y ork: Harper, 1919. Schaff, Philip, and Henry Wace, eds. Ante-Nicene Fathers. vols. 1 and 4. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952. Schaff, Philip, ed. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. 14 vols. 1st series. 1886-94. Reprint. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952. Schaff, Philip, and Henry Wace, eds. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. 12 vols. 2d series. 189095. Reprint. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952. The The Schleit leith heimCo Con nfession ion of Fait Faith h. Edite dited d by by J ohn C. We Wenge nger. Mennonite Quarterly Review 19 (October 1945): 247-53.
————. Die Komposition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bu’cher des Alten Testaments. 1885. Wenge Wenger, r, J ohn ohn C. “T “The he Schle Schleithe theim Confess onfessiion of Faith.” th.” Mennonite Quarterly Review 19 (October 1945): 247-53. Wesley, J ohn. Wesl ohn. T Th he Works rks of J ohn Wesley ley. L ondon: ondon: Wesl Wesleyan Conference onference Off Office ce,, 1872 1872.. Re Reprint. print. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Wycliff Wycliffe e, Joh J ohn n. Wycl yclif-E f-Engl nglish Se Sermons. ons. Edite dited d by by He Herbert rbert Winn Winn.. Lond L ondon on:: Oxf Oxford ord U., U., 1929 1929 REFERENCES
Aland, Kurt. Bericht Beri cht de der Stiftung Stiftung zur zur F orde orderrung ung der der neute neutesta stam mentli ntlichen chen Textfor Textforsch schun ung g fu’r fu’r die die J ahre 1972 bis 1974 Munster: 1974, 9-16.
————, ed. Th ed. The e New Int Interna rnation ional Dict iction ionary of the Chris Christtian ian Chu Church rch. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978. Edwards, Tryon. A Dictionary of Thoughts. Detroi Detroit: t: Dicke Di ckerson rson,, 1904 1904.. Ellicott, cott, Charl Charle es J ohn ohn, ed ed. Ellicott’s Commentary of the Whole Bible. 8 vols. Introduction by Stanle Stanley Le L eaves. Gra Grand Rapids: pids: Zonderv Zonderva an, 1954. 1954. Elwell, Walter A ., ed . Evange angellical Dictiona Dictionarry of The Theol olog ogy y. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984. Englishman’s Greek Concordance. 9th ed. London: L ondon: S. Ba Bagster, gster, 1903. 1903. Gaebelein, Frank E., gen. ed. Th ed. The e Exp Exposito itor’s Bible ible Co Com mmentary. ry. 12 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Zondervan,, 1979 1979fff.
L ange nge, John J ohn Peter. ter. Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Critical, Doctrinal and Homiletical. 24 vols. in 12. Translated from the German and edited with additions by Philip Schaff. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1960. L ewis, Joh J ohn n. A Complete History of Several Translations of the Holy Bible and New Testament into English. “Ap “A ppend pendiix: A L ist of Va V ariou riouss Edition Editionss of of the the Bible an and Parts Parts There hereof of in in English: 1526-1800.” This is a continuation of Archbishop William Newcome’s A Hi Historica oricall View of English Bible Translations. L ondon: ondon: no publ publiishe sher; 1818 1818.. Loescher, Lefferts A., ed. Th ed. The e Twe Twentiet ieth-Cen -Century Enc Encyclop lopedia of Religio ligiou us Kno Knowled ledge. 15 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1955. Moulto oulton n, J. J . H. A Grammar of Ne New Testam Testament Gre Greek. Vol Vol.. I , Prole olegomena. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1908. Reprint. 1949.
————. “The Elimination of King So.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 171 (October 1963). ————. “Re “Rece cent nt Disco Di scove veri rie es in Pal Pale esti stineand the the Gospel Gospel of St. J ohn.” ohn.” In I n Th The Backgro rou und of the New Tes estam tament ent and Its Its Eschatol Eschatology, ogy, edited by William D. Davies and D. Daube. Cambridge: Cambridge U. ————. “Toward a More Conservative View.” Christ hristiiani anity Today Today,, 18 Ja J anuary nuary 1963, 1963, p. 3 (359 (359)) A lliso son, n, Le Leon M. “The “T heDoctrine of Scri Script ptu ure in the theTheolog ology y of J ohn ohn Cal Calvin vin and and Fran rancis cis Tur Turretin. in.” Th. Th.M. thesis, is, Prin Princceton The Theolog logica ical Semina inary,1958. Bahnse hnsen, n, Gre Greg L. L. “T “The Inerran nerrancy cy of the the A utog utogra raph phiia.” In Norma Norman L. L. Ge Geisle sler, ed., Inerrancy. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980.
————. “Scribal Habits in Early Papyri: A Study of the Corruption of the Text.” Th Text.” The e Bible ible in Modern Scholarship, pp. 370-89. Corduan, Winfred. “Hegelian Themes in Contemporary Theology.” J Theology.” J ourna rnal of the Eva Evangelica lical The Theolog logica ical Societ iety 22, no. 4 (December 1979). Cross, F. M. "The Contribution of the Qumran Discoveries to the Study of the Biblical Text. I srae raell Expl Explorati oration J ourna ournall 16 (1966): 81-95. Cross ross,, Fra Frank nk Moore Moore,, J r. “N “New Dire Di recti ction onss in in Dea Dead Sea Sea Scroll Scroll Rese sea arch.” Bible Review 1:2 (Summer 1985): 12-25:1:3 (Fall 1985): 26-35. Culver, Robert D. “The Old Testament as Messianic Prophecy.” Bulletin of the Evangelical The Theolog logica ical Societ iety 7, no. 3 (1964).
————. “The View of the Bible Held by the Church: Calvin and the Western Divines.” In Norma orman L. L. Ge Geisle sler, ed., ed., Inerrancy. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980. Goed Goedicke, cke, H Ha ans. ns. “The “TheEnd of of ‘So,’ K ing of of Egypt.” gypt.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 171 (October 1963). Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe . “ Biblical Manuscripts in the United States .” Te .” Tex xtus 3 (1962). Grounds, Vernon. “Postulate of Paradox.” Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society 7, no. I (1964). Guthri Guthrie e, Don Dona ald. “The “The Histori storica call and L itera terary ry Cri Criti tici cism smof the the New Te Testa stament.” nt.” In I n Frank Frank E. E. Gaebelein, ed., T ed., Th he Exp Exposito itor’s Bible ible Co Com mmentary. ry. Vol. 1, Introductory Articles: General, Old Testament, New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979.
————. “Modern Textual Criticism and the Majority Text: A Rejoinder.” J Rejoinder.” J ourna rnal of the Evange angellical Theol Theolog ogiical Soci Socie ety21 ty 21 (1978). ————“The Text of of Aleph Aleph in the Apocalypse.” Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1958. ————. “Th “T he Woma Woman Ta Taken ken in in Ad Adultery ultery (J ohn ohn 7:53 7:53--8:11 8:11): The Text.” Bibli Bibliot othe heca ca Sacra Sacra 163 (1979) :318 -32. Holmes, Michael W. “The ‘Majority text debate’: new form of an old issue.” T issue.” Th hemelio lioss 8.2 (J anua nuary 1983 1983): ):13 13--19. 19. Hoskier, H. C. “Evan. 157 (Rome Vat. Urb. 2).” J 2).” J ourna rnal of Theolog logica ical Studies ies 14 (1913). Ja J astrow Ro Rob bert “A Sc Scien ientist ist Ca Cau ught Bet Between Two Two Fait Faith hs ” Christi stiani anity Today Today 6 Augu A ugust st 1982. 1982.
Marsha rshall, I. I. H Howa oward rd . “Je “J esus sus in the the Gospel Gospels .” In In Frank Frank E. E. Ga Gabel belein, ed., ed., Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Commentary. Vol Vol . 1, 1, Introductory Articles: General, Old Testament, New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979. Martin. rtin. Ralph P. “The “T heNew Quest Quest of the the Histori storica call J esus.” sus.” In In Carl Carl F. H H.. H He enry, ed., ed., J J esus of Nazareth: Saviour and Lord. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966, 23-45. McCarte cCarter, P. K yle yle. “The “TheEarly rly Dif Diffusi usion of theA lpha phabet.” bet.” Bib Biblica call Arch Archae aeologist ologist 37, no. 3 (September 1974): 54-58. McGonigal, Terence P. “ ’Every Scripture Is Inspired’: An Exegesis of 2 Timothy 3:16-17,” Stud Studiia Bibli Biblica ca et et Theol Theolog ogiica 8 (April 1978): 53-64. Metzger, tzger, Bruce Bruce M. “The “T he J ehova hovah’ h’ss Wi Witn tne ess sse es and and J esus sus Christ Christ:: A Bibli blica call and Theol heological ogical Appraisal.” Th Appraisal.” Th lo d 10 (April 1953).
————. “On “On Revel velation.” tion.” In In J ohn ohn Desch Deschne nerr et et al al., eds, eds, Our Common History as Christians: Essays in Honor of Albert C. Outler. New Y ork: Oxford Oxford U., 197 1975. Packe Packer, r, J.I J .I.. “Ca “Calvin’s vin’s Vi View of Scrip Scripture ture.” .” In I n J ohn ohn Wa Warwi rwick ck Mon Montg tgom omery, ed., ed., God’s Inerrant Worrd: An Inte Wo I nterrnational Sym Symposi posiumon the the Trust Trustworthi worthine ness ss of Scriptu Scripturre. Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, 1973. ————. “On “On the the Adequ dequa acy of Human La Langua nguage ge.” .” In Norma Norman L. L. Ge Geisle sler, ed., Inerrancy. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980. Payne Payne,, J . Ba Barton. rton. “Th “T he Validity of Numbers bers in in Chroni Chronicle cles.” Bulletin of the Near East Archaeological Society. New series. 11 (1978):5-58. Pei, Mario A. “The World’s Chief Languages.” In Encyclopedia Britannica, 4th ed., 1954.
Taylor Tay lor, Rich Richard A. “Queen Ann Anne Re Ressurrected’? A Re Review iew Artic Article le..” J ourna rnal of the Eva Evangelica lical The Theolog logica ical Societ iety 20 (1977). ————. “‘Que “‘ Quee en An Anne’ Revi Revisited ted: A Rejoin Rejoinder.” J r.” J ourna rnal of the Eva Evangelica lical The Theolog logica ical Society21 Society 21 (1978). Tho Thomas, Ro Rob bert L. “An Inv Investiga igation ion of the Agr Agreements Bet Between Mat Matthew and Luk Luke Aga Agains inst Mark.” J Mark.” J ourna rnal of the Eva Evangelica lical The Theolog logica ical Societ iety 19 (1976): 103-12. Tho Thomas, Ro Rob bert L., and Stanley ley N. Gun Gundry. “For Form Crit Critic icis ism m.” In Ro Rob bert L. Tho Thomas and Stanley ley N. Gundry, eds., A Harmony of the Gospels with Explanations and Essays: Using the Text of the New American Standard Bible. Chicago: Moody, 1978; San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985. ————. “Redaction Criticism.” In Robert L. Thomas and Stanley N. Gundry, eds.,
Witm Wi tmer, J ohn ohn A. A. “The “T heBiblica bli call Evide videnc nce e for the the V erbal rbal-Ple Pl enary Ins I nspirat piratiion of the Bible.” ble.” Bib Bibliothe otheca ca Sacra Sacra 121, no. 483 (1964). Woodbridg Woodbridge e, J ohn ohn D. “Bi “Biblica call Auth uthority: ority: Towa Towards rds an Eval Evaluation tion of the the Rogers Rogers McK McKiim Proposal.” Review article, Tr article, Trin init ity y J ourna rnal [n.s.] 1, no. 2 (Fall 1980) . ————. “The ‘Great Manuscript Chase.’ the Eucharistic Controversy and Richard Simon.” Paper read at the thirtieth annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, December 27-29, 1978. ————. “Recent Interpretations of Biblical Authority.” Bib Bibliothe otheca ca Sacra Sacra 142, nos. 565-68 (1985): 3-15, 99-113, 195-208, 292-305. Y amauchi, Edw Edwin M. “Une Unearthing ing Ebla Ebla’s ’s Anc Ancien ient Secrets.” Christ hristiiani anity Today Today,, May 1981, pp.
A ngus ngus,, J ose oseph ph . Th The Bible ible Ha Han ndbook. Revised by Samuel G. Green. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1952. A rche rcher, Gle Gl eason L ., J r. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982. ————. A Sur Survey vey of Ol Old Te Testam stament Introducti Introduction. on. Rev. ed. Chicago: Moody,1974. A rnd rndt, W. Bible Difficulties: An Examination of Passages of the Bible Alleged to be I rre rreco con ncilab cil ablle wi with In Inspiration. St. Louis: Concordia, 1971. ————. Does the Bible Contradict Itself? A Discussion of Alleged Contradictions in the Bible. 5th ed. rev. rev. St. St. Loui L ouis: s: Concordi Concordia a, 1955. 1955. Babcox, Neil. A Search for Charismatic Reality. Portland: Multnomah, 1985.
Beckwith, Roger. Th Roger. The e Old Te Tesstament Ca Can non of the New Testament Chu Church rch and Its Its Backgro rou und in Early arly Ju J udaism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986. Beegle, Dewey M. T M. Th he Ins Inspirat iration ion of Script ripture re.. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963. ————. Scripture, Tradition and Infallibility. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Pettengill,1979. Beekma kman, Joh J ohn, n, and and J ohn ohn Callow. Call ow. Tr Tra anslat lating ing the Word of God. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974. Bell, Richard. Introduction to the Qu’ran. Edinburgh: Edinburgh U., 1953. Berkhof, Louis. Th Louis. The e His Histtory of Chris Christtian ian Doc Doctrine rines. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1937. Berkouwer, G. C. Holy Scripture. Transl ransla ated ted by J ack Rogers. ogers. Grand rand Ra Rapids pids:: Eerdma rdmans, ns, 1975 1975..
Brownlee, William Hugh. Th Hugh. The e Mea Meaning ing of the Qumra ran n Scro rolls lls for the Bible ible.. Ne New w Yor Y ork: k: Oxford U., 1964. Bruce, F. F. T F. Th he Books and the Pa Parc rch hments. Rev. ed. ed. West Westwood wood,, N.J N.J .: Re Revel vell,1963 ,1963.. ————. The English Bible: A History of Translations. 3d ed. New York: Y ork: Oxf Oxford ord U., 1978. 978. ————. The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965. ————. Second Thoughts on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956. Bruce, ruce, F. F. F., F., and Edmund und Ki Kidle dley Sim Simpson. pson. Commentary on the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957. Brunner, Emil . T . Th he Chris Christtian ian Doc Doctrine rine of God God . Trans ransllated ted by by Oli Ol ive Wyon Wyon.. LLond ondon: on:
Bush, ush, L. L. Rus Russ, s, and and TomJ . Ne Nettles. ttles. Baptists and the Bible . Chica hicago: go: Moody,198 oody,1980. 0. Butterfield, Herbert. Th Herbert. The e Origin riginss of Mod Modern Scien ience. Rev. ed. ed. New Y ork: Ma M acmi cmillan, 195 1957. 7. Campenhausen, Henry von. Th von. The e Fou Foundation ion of the Chris Christtian ian Bible ible.. Trans ransllated ted by by J .A. .A . Ba Baker. ker. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972. Carnel rnell, Edw Edwa ard Joh J ohn. n. T Th he Ca Casse for Orth rthodox Theolog logy. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1959. Carro Ca rrollll,, B . H . Th The Ins Inspirat iration ion of the Bible ible.. Compil ompile ed and and edited dited by by J. J . B . Cra Cranfi nfilll. Re Reprint of 1930 edition with introduction and notes by Paige Patterson. Nashville: Nelson, 1980. Carson Carson,, D. D. A. A . Th The King King J ames Versio rsion n Deb Debate: A Ple Plea a for Realis lism m. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979. ————. Redaction Criticism: The Nature of an Interpretive Tool . Carol Stream, Ill.:
Cunl unliffe-J one ones, Hub Hube ert, ed. ed. A History of Christian Doctrine: In Succession to the Earlier Work of G. P. Fisher Published in the International Theological Library Series. Assisted by Benjamin Drewery. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980. Davidson, Samuel. I ntroducti ntroduction on to the Old Ol d Testam Testament. L ondon: ondon: 1862. 1862. ————. ————. The Hebrew Text of the Old Testament. L ondon: ondon: 1856. 1856. ————. T ————. Th he Ca Can non of the Bible ible.. 2d ed. ed. London L ondon:: 1877. 1877. Davies, William D., and D. Daube, eds. T eds. Th he Backgro rou und of the New Testament and Its Its Eschatology. Cambridge: Cambridge U., 1956. Davis, G. T. B. Bible Prophecies Fulfilled Today. Phil Philadel delphi phia: Million Te Testa staments nts Ca Campai paigns, gns, 1955.
Driver, Samuel R. I ntroduction ntroduction to the the Li Liter teratur ature of theOld Ol d Testam Testament. Edinburgh, 1891. Dyck, Corn Corne elius J ., ed ed. An Introduction to Mennonite History: A Popular History of the Anabaptists and the Mennonites. Scottdale, Pa.: Herald, 1967. Eissfeldt, Otto. Th Otto. The e Old Te Tesstament: An Int Intro rod duction ion. New Y ork: Ha Harper rper & Row, 1965 1965.. Elliot, Elliot, J. J . K. K . The The Gre ree ek Te Tex xt of the Epis Episttles les to Timothy and Titu Titus. Salt Lake City: U. of Utah, 1968. Ensl Enslin, Mort M orton on S. Christian Beginnings. New York: Y ork: Harper, rper, 1938. 1938. Epp, Epp, E. J. J . The The Theolog logica ical Te Ten ndency of Co Cod dex Bezae Ca Can ntabrigie rigien nsis. is. Cambridge: Cambridge U., 1966.
Gasqu Gasque e, W. Ward, Ward, and Wil William Sanford Sanford La L aSor, eds. ds. Scripture, Tradition, and Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978. Gay, Peter. T Peter. Th he Enlig Enligh htenment: An Int Interpre rprettation ion. 2 vols. Ne New York: Y ork: Vi V inta ntageBooks, 196 1966-196 6-1969. 9. ————. The Party of Humanity: Essays in the French Enlightenment. Ne New w Yor Y ork: k: W. W. Norton, 1971. ————. Vol V olta taiire’ re’s Politics: Poli tics: The ThePoe Poett an and Realist. st. Ne New York: Y ork: Vi V inta ntage, ge, 197 1971. Geisler, Norman L. Bib Biblica call Erranc Errancy y: An Analys Analysiis of of Its I ts Philos osop oph hica call Roo Roots ts.. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981. ————. Christ: the Theme of the Bible. Chicago: Moody, 1968.
Gundry, Robert. Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Intr Introducti oduction: on: The Gospel ospels and and Acts. L ondon: ondon: Tynda Tyndalle, 1965. 1965. ————. New Testament I ntroducti ntroduction: on: Hebre brews to Reve Revelation. ation. Downers Grove, III.: InterVarsity, 1966. Hackett, Stuart Cornelius. Th Cornelius. The e Resurre rrection ion of Theism ism. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982. Haenchen, Ernst. Acts of the Apostles. Trans ransllated ted by by B. B. Nob Noblle and G. Shinn Shinn;; re revise vised d by by R. R. McL M cL.. Willson. Wi son. Phil Philadel delphi phia: Wes Westm tmiinste nster, r, 1971 1971.. Haley, Joh Haley, J ohn n W. An Examination of the Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1951.
————. God, Revelation and Authority. Authority. Vo Vol. 3, 3, God Who Who Speaks Speaks and Shows: Shows: Fifteen fteen The These ses, s, Part Two. Waco, Tex.: Word, 1979. ————. God, Revelation and Authority. Authority. Vo Vol. 4, 4, God Who Who Speaks Speaks and Shows: Shows: Fifteen fteen The These ses, s, Part Thre Three e. Waco, Tex.: Word, 1979. ————, ed. J ed. J esus of Nazare retth: Saviou iour and Lo Lord rd . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966. ————. Revelation and the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1958. Herklots, Hugh G. G. How Our Bible Came to Us. New York: Y ork: Oxford Oxford U., 195 1954. Hillls, Ed Hi Edward ward F. Th F. The e King King J ames Versio rsion n Def Defended! Des Moines: Christian Research, 1956. Hoare, H. W. T W. Th he Evo Evolut lution ion of the Eng Englis lish h Bible ible.. 2d ed. Lond L ondon: on: Murray, M urray, 1902. 1902.
K elly, lly, J . N. D. Earl Early Chris Christian Doctri Doctrin nes. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978. K elly, Pa Palmer H., H., and and Donal Donald G. Mi Miller, eds eds.. To Tools for Bible ible Study. Richm chmond: ond: Joh J ohn n Knox, Knox, 195 1956. 6. K elsey, Davi David H. T H. Th he Use Uses of Script ripture in Recent The Theolog logy. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975. K enny, nny, Ant A ntho hony. ny. T Th he Five Five Ways: St. Tho Thomas Aquina inas’ Proo Proof of God God’s Exis Existtence. Ne New w Yor Y ork: k: Schocken, 1969. K enyon nyon,, Sir Sir Fre Frede deri ricc G. Archaeology in the Holy Land. New York: Y ork: W. W. Norto Norton, n, 19 1979. 79. ————. The Bible and Archaeology. New Y ork: Ha Harper, rper, 1940. 1940. ————. Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. Testament. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1912.
Leiman, Sid Z. T Z. Th he Ca Can noniza ization ion of He Heb bre rew w Script ripture re:: The The Talmudic and Midra Midrasshic Evid Evide ence. Hamdon: don: Conn Conn.:.: Transa ransacti ctions ons of the Conne onnecticut cticut Aca Acade dem my of Arts and and Scie Sciences, nces, Archon A rchon Books, 1976. ————, ed. Th ed. The e Ca Can non and Mas Masora rah h of the He Heb bre rew w Bible ible:: An Int Intro rod ductory Reader. Ne New w Y ork: K TAV, TAV , 1974. L eupol upold, d, Herbe Herbert Carl. Carl. Exposition of Ecclesiastes. Columbus, Ohio: Wartburg, 1952. Levi, Peter. T Peter. Th he Eng Englis lish h Bible ible:: 1534-18 -1859. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974. Lewis, C. S. Christ hristiian Refl Refle ections. ctions. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967. . Miracles. Ne New w Yor Y ork: k: Macmi cmillan, 1947 1947.. . Reflections on the Psalms. New Y ork: Harcourt, rcourt, Bra Brace ce,, 1958. 1958. L ewis, wis, Gordon Gordon R. and Bruce Bruce Dema Demares rest, t, eds. eds. Chal hallenge nges to Ine I nerrrancy ancy:: A Theol Theological ogical Re Resp spon onse se
————. T ————. Th he Gos Gospel of Luk Luke: A Co Com mmentary on the Gre ree ek Te Tex xt. New Inte I nterna rnatitiona onall Gree reek k Tesstament Co Te Com mmentary. Gra Grand Ra Rap pids ids: Eer Eerdmans, 1978. ————. Luke uke: Histori storian an and and Theol Theolog ogiian. an. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970. ————. T ————. Th he Origin riginss of New Te Tesstament Chris Christtolog logy. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1976. Marxen, Willi, Mark the Evangelist. Translated by R. A. Harrisville. Nashville: Abingdon, 1969. Matthiae, Paolo. Ebla: An Empire Rediscovered. Translated by Christopher Holme. Garden City, N.Y .: Dou Doubl ble eday, day, 1981 1981.. McDonald, H. D. T D. Th heorie riess of Revelat lation ion: An His Histtorica rical Study, 1700-19 -1960. 2 vols. in 1. Grand Rapids: Baker, Twin Books Series, 1979.
Morton. orton. A. A . Q., Q., and J ames McL McLe eman. Christianity in the Computer Age. New York: Y ork: Ha Harper rper & Row, 1964. Mould, Elmer W. K. Essentials of Bible History. Revise vised d ed. ed. Ne New Y ork: Rona onald. 1951 1951 Moule, C. F. D. Th D. The e Birth irth of the New Te Tesstament. 3d ed., re rev. and rewritte rewritten n [ I st U.S. U.S. ed.]. d.]. Sa San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1982. Mullins, Ed Edgar Y oun oung. The The Chris Christtian ian Religio ligion n in Its Its Doc Doctrina rinal Exp Expre resssion ion. Phil Philadel delphi phia: Jud J udson son,, 1917. Murray, urray, Joh J ohn. n. Calvin on Scripture and Divine Sovereignty. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1960. Reprint of Art A rtiicles cles from To Torc rch h and Trum rumpet. Nash, Ronald. Th Ronald. The e New Eva Evangelica licalis lism m Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1963.
Parvis,M. M.,and A. P. Wikgren, eds. New Testament Manuscript Studies. Chicago: U. of Chicago, 1950. Payne Payne, J . Ba Barton. rton. Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy. L ondon: ondon: Hodder odder and Stoughton, 1973. 1973. Pei,i, Mario A. Pe A. The The World’s rld’s Chie Chieff La Lan nguages. 4th 4th ed. ed. Ne New Y ork: V anni nni, 1955. 1955. Perrin, Norman . Th . The e New Te Tesstament, An Int Intro rod duction ion: Proc Proclam lamation ion and Pa Pare ren nesis, is, Myt Myth and History. New York: Y ork: Ha Harcourt, rcourt, Bra Brace ce J ovanovich, ovanovich, 1974 1974.. Peters, F. E. The Harvest of Hellenism. New Y ork: Sim Simon and and Schus Schuste ter, r, 1971 1971.. Moule, C. F. D. Th D. The e Birth irth of the New Te Tesstament. 3d ed., rev. and rewritten [1st U.S. ed.]. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1982.
Palme Palmer, R . R., R., and and Joe J oell Colton olton.. A History of the Modern World . 5th ed . Ne New York: Y ork: Al Alfred A . K nopf nopf, 1978 1978.. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ed. Revelation as History: A Proposal for a more open, less authoritarian view of an important theological concept. Translated from the German by David Granskow. L ondo ondon n: Col Colllier-M r-Macmi cmillan, 1968 1968.. Parvis, M. M., and A. P. Wikgren, eds. New Testament Manuscript Studies. Chicago: U. of Chicago, 1950. Payne Payne, J . Ba Barton. rton. Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy. L ondon: ondon: Hodder odder and Stoughton, 1973. 1973. Pei,i, Mario A. Pe A. The The World’s rld’s Chie Chieff La Lan nguages. 4th 4th ed. ed. Ne New Y ork: V anni nni, 1955. 1955. Perrin , Norman . Th . The e New Te Tesstament An Int Intro rod duction ion: Proc Proclam lamation ion and Pa Pare ren nesis Myt Myth and
Ramm, Bernard . After Fundamentalism: The Future of Evangelical Theology. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1983. ————. Protest otestan antt Bibli Biblical cal Inte nterpreta pretati tion on.. Rev. ed. Boston: Wilde, 1956. ————. Protestant Biblical Interpretation: A Textbook of Hermeneutics. Hermeneutics. 3d rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1970. Ramsay, W. M. St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen. 3d ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1949. Randa ndall, J ohn ohn Herm Herma an, Jr. J r. T Th he Mak Making ing of the Mod Modern Mind Mind: A Surve rvey of the Int Intelle llecctual Background of the Present Age. Rev. ed. ed. N Ne ew Y ork: Colum olumbia bia U., 1926 1926,, 1940. 1940. Reu, M. Luther and the Scriptures. Columbus, Ohio: Wartburg, 1944. Reissued with correction to notes in T in Th he Spring ringfield ielde er. Springfield, Ill.: Concordia Theological Seminary, August
Sande Sanders, rs, J ames A. A . To Tora rah h and Ca Can non. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972. Sap Saphir, A dolph olph.. Christ and the Scriptures. K ilmarnock, rnock, Scotla Scotland: Ri Ritchi tchie, n.d. Sauc Saucy, y, Rob Robe ert L. L . Th The Bible ible:: Bre rea athed fro rom mGod God. Wheaton, Ill.: Victor, 1978. Sauer, Erich. Th Erich. The e Daw Dawn of World Redemption ion. Transl ransla ated ted by by G. G. H. H. La L and. nd. Lond L ondon: on: Pa Paternoste ternoster, r, 1951. ————. The Triumph of the Crucified. Transl ransla ated ted by by G. G. H H.. LLa ang. ng. LLond ondon: on: Pa Paternoste ternoster, r, 1951 1951.. Schae Schaeffer, Franc ranciis. Escape from Reason. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1968. Schaff, Philip . Companion to the Greek Testament and the English Version . 3d ed ., rev. New Y ork: Ha Harrper, 1883.
Stromberg, Roland N. An Intellectual History of Modern Europe. New York: Y ork: Ap A ppleton pleton--Centu nturyCrofts rofts,, 1966 1966.. Sturz, Harry A. Th A. The e Byzantine ine Te Tex xt-T -Ty ype and New Te Tesstament Textual Crit Critic icis ism m. Nashville: Tho Thomas Ne Nels lso on, 1984. Sundb Sundbe erg, Al Albert bert C., J r. T r. Th he Old Testament of the New Te Tesstament Chu Church rch. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Studies XX, Harvard U., 1964. Swete, Henry Barclay. An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. 2d ed. Cambridge: Cambridge U., 1902. Ten Te nney, Mer Merril C., C., ed. Th The Bible ible:: The Livin Living g Word of Revelat lation ion. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1968.
Walker, Williston. A History of the Christian Church. 3d ed. rev. by Robert T. Handy. New Y ork: Scribn ibner’s, ’s, 1970. Wallis, Ethel Emily, and Mary Angela Bennett. T Bennett. Tw wo Thousand To Ton ngues to Go. Go. Ne New w Yor Y ork: k: Harper, 1959. Walvoord, Walvoord, J ohn ohn F., ed. Inspiration and Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957. Warfield, Benjamin B. B. T Th he Ins Inspirat iration ion and Authority rity of the Bible ible.. Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1948. ————. An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. L ondon: ondon: 1886. 1886. ————. Syllabus on the Special Introduction to the Catholic Epistles. Epistles.
Wurthwei Wurthwein, Erns Ernst. t. Th The e Text of the Old Testament. Trans ransllated ted by by P. R. R. Ackroyd A ckroyd.. Ne New York: Y ork: Macmi cmillan, 1957 1957.. ————. The Text of the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Biblia Hebraica. Translated by Erroll F. Rhodes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979. Y oung, Edw Edward J . An Intr Introducti oduction on to the Old Ol d Testam Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958. ————. My Servants the Prophets. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952. Zeitlin, Solomon. Th Solomon. The e Dea Dead Sea Scro rolls lls and Mod Modern Scholars larsh hip. ip. Philadelphia: Dropsie College, 1956.
