Latest / Reformed Thinking / The Canon and Translations

Transcript

The Canon and Translations · Reformed Thinking

0:00
Welcome to Reformed Thinking. Today we're undertaking, well, a
0:03
really critical deep dive. We're looking at the foundation
0:07
of our understanding of Scripture itself, and we're
0:09
going to try to tackle 2 essential pillars that give us
0:12
confidence in the Bible we hold in our hands.
0:15
And this is just a crucial topic for anyone who holds to the
0:18
principle of sola scriptura Scripture alone.
0:21
So we have two questions, really.
0:22
They're distinct, but they're very connected.
0:24
First, there's the historical and theological question.
0:28
How do we know we have the right collection of books?
0:30
You know, what theologians call the Canon?
0:33
And then second, the linguistic and textual question, Once we
0:36
have that collection, how can we actually rely on the English
0:40
translations we read every day? Our mission is to go right back
0:43
to the evidence. And that concept you mentioned,
0:45
that of unique authority, that's really the center of this whole
0:48
conversation. When we talk about the Canon, we
0:51
are zeroing in on those books that the Church accepted as
0:54
uniquely authoritative as revealed by God.
0:57
The Greek term for this is kanoon, and it means something
1:01
like a list or a rule or a standard.
1:05
So when we ask about the Canon, we're really asking what is the
1:08
standard? What's the divine measuring
1:10
stick for figuring out what God has revealed and what counts as
1:13
scripture? So we're going to trace that
1:15
process. We are we'll look at how that
1:16
standard was established, covered textual reliability so
1:20
how secure are manuscripts and then the philosophy that governs
1:23
how those ancient words actually get into our hands in English
1:27
all. Right, let's start at the
1:28
beginning then, with the Old Testament.
1:30
As Protestants, we accept the 39 books, Genesis through Malachi
1:33
as the inspired Canon. But this selection wasn't just
1:37
pulled out of a hat. It relies on a specific
1:40
historical consensus and some pretty deep theological
1:44
principles that were around even before Christianity.
1:47
So what was the internal structure of that ancient
1:50
collection? How did the ancient Jewish
1:52
community decide on its limits? Well, the Hebrew Scriptures were
1:55
traditionally recognized according to a specific
1:57
threefold division, and this structure was, for all intents
2:01
and purposes, settled and recognized long before the New
2:04
Testament era even began. And that's important.
2:07
It is because it shows the stability of the collection.
2:10
We actually see this reflected in the New Testament itself when
2:13
Jesus speaks. Luke 24.44, for instance, points
2:17
right to this recognized arrangement when it mentions the
2:20
Law of Moses and the Prophets and Psalms.
2:22
OK, so a three-part structure. What are the parts?
2:24
The three divisions are first the law, or what's also called
2:28
the Pentateuch. Genesis to Deuteronomy.
2:30
Exactly. Genesis through Deuteronomy and
2:33
this section was universally considered canonical very early
2:37
on, almost certainly by the time of Ezra and the 5th century BC,
2:40
maybe even earlier. It gave them their foundational
2:42
narrative of creation, covenant, their whole identity.
2:45
So that's Part 1, the law. Part 2 is the profits.
2:49
Now, this group is actually divided into two smaller groups.
2:52
You have the former prophets, which are really historical
2:54
narratives like Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, right?
2:58
And then you have the latter writing prophets, people like
3:00
Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the 12 minor prophets.
3:03
This whole grouping was seen as uniquely authoritative, probably
3:06
by about 200 BC. OK, so law then prophets.
3:10
What's the third part? The third is the writings.
3:13
This is a more diverse collection.
3:16
It's kind of a catch all for all the other books, Psalms, Job,
3:19
Proverbs, Ruth, Lamentations, Daniel Chronicles, Ezra,
3:22
Nehemiah, and Esther. The Jewish tradition organized
3:26
these books more thematically, and they were the last grouping
3:29
to be formally accepted by all the Jewish factions, though
3:31
their authority was generally accepted much earlier.
3:34
That structure gives us the list, then.
3:36
But here's where the defense of the Canon, at least the
3:39
Protestant Canon, really takes shape.
3:41
The exclusion of the apocryphal books, the Deutero canonical
3:45
works. These books were influential, no
3:47
doubt, especially among Greek speaking Jews, say in
3:50
Alexandria. But the standard Protestant
3:52
position is that they just don't meet the requirements for divine
3:55
inspiration. What was the central argument
3:57
that the Jewish community in Palestine used to exclude them?
4:01
The main argument, and it's a powerful one, is based on a
4:04
specific historical cut off date.
4:07
It comes from a deep Jewish belief that divinely inspired
4:10
prophecy ceased at a certain point in history.
4:13
Widespread Jewish tradition which we see attested by the 1st
4:17
century historian Josephus and then later in rabbinic
4:20
literature. It held that the direct inspired
4:23
Word of God essentially ended after the time of Ezra, Nehemiah
4:27
and the last of the minor prophets, Haggai, Zechariah and
4:31
Malachi. So if we're putting a date on
4:32
the close of the Hebrew Canon, we're talking around 450 to 400
4:37
BC. That's a pretty significant
4:39
marker. It's a huge marker.
4:40
This belief created a clear theological boundary and since
4:44
the apocryphal books works like Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of
4:47
Solomon, One and Two Maccabees, since they all date from the
4:50
intertestamental period. The time after Malachi.
4:53
The time after Malachi, they fell outside this recognized
4:56
period of inspired revelation. They're seen as historically
4:59
useful, sure, but not divinely authoritative.
5:02
So the key point then is that the Jews in Palestine, where the
5:04
Canon was most stringently preserved and finalized, they
5:08
just never accepted these books as scripture.
5:10
They consistently never accepted them in the same way as the 39
5:13
books, and we have some pretty powerful textual evidence for
5:17
this. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were
5:19
discovered, we found copies, often multiple copies, of nearly
5:24
all the undisputed Old Testament books.
5:26
Right, But we only found tiny fragments of a few apocryphal
5:29
works, which confirms that even in the Qumran community they saw
5:33
a clear distinction. That distinction is so critical.
5:36
It's not that the apocrypha is rejected because it's, say,
5:39
badly written. No, not at all.
5:41
It's rejected because it doesn't meet that standard of divine
5:44
inspiration that was believed to have closed before that period.
5:48
But why do we lean so heavily on this Jewish consensus from
5:51
Palestine rather than say, the broader collection used by Greek
5:55
speaking Jews which later influenced the early church in
5:58
places like North Africa? We lean on it because we believe
6:01
the Hebrew Canon, the 39 books, is the Canon that was known and
6:05
affirmed by Jesus and the apostles.
6:07
Jesus never once quotes the Apocrypha as Scripture, but he
6:11
explicitly confirms the threefold structure of the
6:14
existing Hebrew Canon and beyond that, Josephus.
6:17
In his work against APN he confirms this historical cut
6:20
off. He says that while records were
6:22
kept after the time of our Xerxes around 400 BC, he says,
6:26
and I'm paraphrasing, they are not esteemed to be of the like
6:30
authority with the former writers.
6:32
That's a huge 1st century witness to the closed 39 book
6:36
standard. Let's make this tangible.
6:38
What are the theological consequences if we were to use
6:41
the Apocrypha as canonical scripture?
6:43
How does that lack of inspiration actually impact the
6:46
teachings that come from those books?
6:48
The practical consequences are substantial precisely because
6:52
the writings lack the theological coherence and
6:55
prophetic clarity of the inspired 39 books most famous
6:58
example, the one that's had the most historical significance,
7:01
involves the doctrine of the intermediate state.
7:04
This teaching developed in large part from a specific passage in
7:06
Second Maccabees. What does it say?
7:08
2nd Maccabees 12 verses 44 and 45.
7:12
It describes Judas Maccabeus sending money to Jerusalem for a
7:15
sin offering, and it says it was a most excellent and noble thing
7:20
to provide an atoning sacrifice for the dead so that they might
7:24
be released from their sin. So the passage is directly
7:27
teaching you can make atonement or offer prayers for the dead.
7:30
It is. And what are the implications
7:32
when that text is treated as having canonical authority?
7:35
Well, historically that passage became one of the primary bases,
7:39
really more than any other text, for the later establishment of
7:42
the Roman Catholic practice of praying for the dead with the
7:45
hope of helping them through purgatory.
7:47
It introduces an intermediate state where the deceased can
7:50
still be aided by the actions of the living.
7:53
But that concept is not only absent in the 39 book Old
7:56
Testament. It's absent there, but it also
7:58
conflicts with the clear teachings in the New Testament.
8:02
If we look at the inspired New Testament writings, Paul says he
8:05
expects to be immediately with Christ upon death in Philippians
8:07
1.23. And the thief on the cross.
8:10
The Thief on the Cross was promised paradise that very day
8:13
in Luke 23.43. The New Testament views strongly
8:18
suggest there's no intermediary state where living sacrifices or
8:21
prayers affect a person's eternal status.
8:24
So for us, this really exemplifies why maintaining that
8:27
39 book Canon, which was established by the mid 2nd
8:31
century BC in affirmed by Jesus, is doctrinally essential.
8:35
OK, so with the Old Testament settled by the Jewish community,
8:39
early Christians then faced a different kind of challenge.
8:41
With the New Testament, Jesus was the fulfillment of the
8:44
Hebrew Scriptures, and his apostles carried a unique
8:47
authority. So the early church was willing
8:49
to add texts, gospels, Acts, epistles that carried that same
8:53
unique authority. How did the Church figure out
8:56
which new writings qualified as Scripture, right alongside the
8:59
law and the prophets? This brings us to a really
9:01
fundamental concept that often causes confusion.
9:03
So we have to stress this distinction.
9:05
The process of canonization did not grant authority to these
9:08
books. The books already possessed
9:10
inherent God-given authority from the moment they were
9:13
written. The church's role was simply to
9:16
recognize that authority. So inspiration is the source of
9:19
the authority. Inspiration is the source, not a
9:22
later criterion for admission. The criteria the Church
9:25
developed were really just tools of recognition.
9:28
There were tools to discern which writings were truly
9:30
authoritative, and these tools they fall under three main
9:34
headings, Apostolicity, Orthodoxy, and Catholicity.
9:39
I think this is a point many people wrestle with.
9:42
If the church is the one recognizing the authority, why
9:45
doesn't that make the church superior to the Scriptures?
9:48
Isn't that a bit circular? You know, the church says the
9:51
Bible is authoritative and the Bible says the church is guided
9:53
by it. It can seem circular if you view
9:56
the church as some centralized authority figure that's telling
9:59
regional congregations what to read.
10:01
But the process was much more organic and decentralized.
10:04
It was reflecting a spiritual reality that already existed.
10:07
How? So think of it like a scientist
10:09
observing gravity Divine. This doesn't create gravity,
10:12
they just describe its operation.
10:14
OK, I like that. Similarly, the early church,
10:17
guided by the Holy Spirit, recognized the, you know, the
10:20
gravitational pull of certain writings that were already
10:24
functioning as Scripture in worship, in evangelism, in
10:27
doctrine across very diverse geographical areas.
10:30
The council's didn't impose a list.
10:32
They ratified A consensus that had already been emerging
10:36
regionally for decades. That context helps a lot, so
10:39
let's break down those criteria for recognition.
10:41
Let's start with the historical connection apostolicity.
10:45
All right one apostolicity. This deals with authorship and
10:49
date. The writings had to originate
10:51
during the lifetime of the original apostles, so the 1st
10:54
century. That's the first hurdle.
10:56
It is, and critically, they needed a direct link to the
11:00
apostles. They had to be written by one of
11:02
the original 12, like Matthew or John, or be very closely
11:05
associated with him. Paul, of course, who was an
11:07
apostle born out of due season. He was readily included.
11:10
For others, that connection was vital.
11:12
Mark's gospel was accepted because it was so closely
11:14
associated with Peter's preaching in Rome.
11:16
Luke's Gospel and Acts were accepted because of his close
11:19
association with Paul. And then you have James and
11:21
Jude. They were accepted not because
11:24
they were two of the original 12 apostles, but because they were
11:27
the half brothers of Jesus which placed them in this immediate
11:31
position of authority and witness to the resurrected
11:33
Christ. And this standard alone served
11:36
as a pretty effective filter. It did.
11:39
It immediately filtered out numerous other gospels and
11:41
epistles that were attributed to figures like Thomas or Mary.
11:45
The dating alone would exclude a lot of those texts, wouldn't it?
11:48
I mean, if the gospels of Mark and Matthew were circulating in
11:51
the 60s or 70s AD, anything written 75 years later, like so
11:55
many Gnostic texts, just couldn't meet that Apostolic
11:59
connection. Precisely Gnostic writings which
12:01
generally deed from the mid 2nd century onward were historically
12:05
excluded on that basis. They were written by people far
12:08
removed from the events of the Witnesses, and they were often
12:10
trying to inject later philosophical ideas into the
12:13
narrative of Jesus. The Apostolic criterion ensured
12:16
that the writings were tied to the historical foundational
12:19
events of the 1st century. OK, so after apostolicity we
12:23
moved to the theological standard orthodoxy.
12:26
How did the early Church make sure that a text doctrine
12:29
actually aligned with the established unified faith?
12:33
The second criterion, orthodoxy. This meant that the doctrine,
12:37
the theology, the ethics that the book promoted, when you
12:40
considered it in the context of the emerging collection, had to
12:43
cohere in sound doctrine. This was essential to guard
12:46
against internal deviations. And they have.
12:48
Plenty of those to deal with. Oh, absolutely.
12:50
The early church had to fight figures like Marcion who tried
12:53
to create his own edited Canon. He rejected the Old Testament
12:56
entirely and only accepted edited versions of Luke and
12:59
Paul's letters. So the challenge of orthodoxy
13:01
was to ensure that while, you know, diversity, perspective was
13:05
permitted. Like the different emphasis of
13:07
James and Paul on faith and works.
13:08
Exactly. But direct contradiction of
13:11
fundamental teachings like Christ's full deity and full
13:14
humanity or the reality of the resurrection, that was not
13:17
allowed. The texts had to speak with a
13:19
unified voice about the person and work of Christ.
13:22
And the third criterion speaks to the wide reach and acceptance
13:26
of the books Catholicity. Yes, 3 Catholicity.
13:31
This just refers to universal or widespread acceptance.
13:34
It wasn't enough for a book to be popular in one city like
13:37
Corinth or Ephesus. It had to be bigger than that.
13:40
It had to be preserved and actively used for worship, for
13:44
teaching, for spiritual benefit across the major centers of
13:47
Christianity. Rome, Alexandria, Antioch.
13:51
The Churches of Asia Minor. So a book that was maybe only
13:54
popular regionally, it wouldn't make the cut.
13:56
That's right, a book that only held regional or brief
13:59
popularity, like The Shepherd of Hermas or the Didaki, eventually
14:03
failed this test. I mean, these were read and
14:05
appreciated, sometimes even considered alongside Scripture
14:08
for a time, but they never achieved that necessary
14:11
universal recognition to be kept in the final authoritative
14:13
collection. Catholicity really proved that
14:16
the Holy Spirit was guiding recognition in the corporate
14:19
body of the Church, not just in isolated pockets.
14:21
So even with these criteria in place, building that consensus
14:25
took time. We know most of the New
14:27
Testament was accepted very early, but there were six books
14:30
that remain disputed in some regions for centuries.
14:33
Hebrews, James, so Peter, 2 John 3, John and Jude.
14:38
What was the nature of the dispute around those specific
14:41
writings? The disputes were complex.
14:44
They often centered on things like authorship or internal
14:47
textual features rather than major theological content.
14:50
Take Hebrews, for example. It was widely accepted in the
14:53
East, but it was disputed in the West primarily because its
14:56
authorship was unknown. Was it Paul?
14:58
Barnabas. Luke.
14:59
Lick That uncertainty led to caution.
15:02
But the theology was solid. The theology was impeccable, it
15:05
aligned perfectly with Orthodoxy, and so eventually the
15:08
Church recognized its unique authority regardless of who
15:11
penned. It What about James?
15:12
James was challenged because some thought it contradicted
15:15
Paul's teaching on justification by faith alone.
15:18
Now we know today that this was a misunderstanding.
15:21
Paul was addressing the root of faith and James was addressing
15:24
the evidence of true faith, but the early church had to wrestle
15:28
with that and reconcile the apparent tension before its
15:31
acceptance was solidified. OK.
15:32
And the others, Tep and Peter. Tep and Peter was debated
15:36
because of its stylistic differences from first Peter,
15:38
which led to questions about whether Peter himself wrote the
15:41
2nd letter or if maybe an emmanuensis was used.
15:44
Jude was disputed because it quotes non canonical sources,
15:47
specifically the Book of One Enoch.
15:49
For some, quoting an uninspired text raise questions about the
15:52
letters own inspiration. But these were, you know,
15:55
nuanced debates, not outright rejections.
15:58
So what were the key historical moments that moved the church
16:01
from having this highly accepted core plus a disputed periphery
16:04
to the fixed list of 27 books we have today?
16:07
Well, you can see momentum building very quickly.
16:10
By the late 2nd century, we have the earliest surviving fragment
16:14
that actually lists the four Gospels and many other New
16:17
Testament books. It's called the Meritorian
16:19
fragment. And that's critical.
16:21
It's critical because it shows that even in the second
16:24
generation after the apostles, the shape of the New Testament
16:27
was largely decided. 4 Gospels, Acts all, 13 letters of Paul, 2
16:33
letters of John, Jude and Revelation were largely
16:36
recognized and. From there.
16:37
By the early 3rd century, the great scholar origin was
16:40
referencing all 27 books, though he was aware of the regional
16:43
disputes about the six we just mentioned.
16:46
So this demonstrates that by around 2:50 AD the content was
16:50
known, even if the boundary markers were still being
16:52
finalized in some places. Who is the one who really
16:55
categorized all this for us? That would be Eusebius, the
16:58
Church historian. In the early 4th century.
17:01
He formally divided the writings into 3 categories, recognized
17:04
which were the 20 undisputed books, disputed the six we
17:08
mentioned plus Revelation, and rejected which were the Gnostic
17:11
works? Hermes.
17:12
The Didake his work shows just how high the level of consensus
17:16
already was by his time. So when do we see the list
17:19
finally solidify into our exact collection?
17:22
When did the debate officially end?
17:24
The decisive moment came in AD 367, Athanasius, the Bishop of
17:29
Alexandria. He is the first known Christian
17:31
writer to definitively endorse, without any reservation, the
17:35
exact 27 books that make up our modern New Testament Canon.
17:39
He did it in his annual Easter Time Festival letter.
17:42
And this list wasn't new, IT was just the final stamp of
17:44
approval. Exactly.
17:45
It was a final ratification of the consensus that had been
17:48
developing for 300 years. His list was then subsequently
17:51
ratified by the regional councils of Hippo in 393 and
17:55
Carthage in 397. These councils weren't creating
17:58
scripture, they were just affirming the list of books that
18:00
had already been functioning as scripture in the Church for
18:03
generations. OK, so we've established which
18:06
books belong in the Canon. Now we have to address the words
18:09
themselves. The original manuscripts, the
18:12
autographs. They're long gone.
18:14
How confident can we be that the words in our Bibles are what the
18:17
original authors actually wrote? And this gets us into the
18:21
painstaking academic discipline of textual criticism.
18:25
That's right, textual criticism is It's really a forensic
18:29
science. It's the process of comparing
18:31
ancient manuscripts, early translations or versions, and
18:35
quotations from the early church fathers to determine what the
18:38
original words were as they came from the author's hand.
18:41
We are, in essence, trying to reconstruct the lost autographs
18:45
based on the huge quantity of copies we possess.
18:47
So how does the New Testament hold up when you compare it to
18:50
other ancient literature? We hear that it's exceptionally
18:53
well attested, but what does that actually look like in terms
18:55
of the raw data? The comparison isn't even in the
18:57
same ballpark. The New Testament enjoys
18:59
phenomenal testial security. For comparison for most
19:02
classical writers, think of Homer, Plato, or Caesar.
19:05
We often have only a handful of manuscripts, sometimes fewer
19:08
than 10, and they're usually separated from the original
19:11
author by a gap of 800 to 1400 years.
19:15
For the New Testament we have nearly 508 hundred pre Gutenberg
19:19
hand copied documents written in the original Greek. 5800.
19:23
Right. And this includes very early
19:25
fragments, papyri that date back to the 2nd century.
19:28
It includes unseals, which are codices written in capital
19:31
letters like Codex and Atticus and Vaticanus from the 4th
19:34
century, and then thousands of later minuscule manuscripts.
19:38
And the time gap is dramatically smaller, often only 100 to 200
19:41
years for crucial portions. That sheer volume of witnesses
19:45
that has to create incredible confidence.
19:48
What percentage of the original New Testament text contextual
19:51
critics say they can confidently reconstruct from this evidence?
19:54
The estimates are remarkably high.
19:57
Even conservative textual critics suggest that more than
19:59
99% of the original New Testament can be reconstructed
20:02
from the existing manuscripts with a high degree of
20:05
probability That remaining fraction of a percent.
20:07
That's where we find the variance or the differences in
20:10
the text. OK, let's talk about those
20:11
variants. When critics talk about
20:13
thousands of differences, what are we really talking about?
20:17
Are these deliberate theological shifts, or is it something more
20:20
mechanical? The vast majority, well over
20:23
90%, are trivial and mechanical errors.
20:26
You have to remember how difficult it was to copy by
20:28
hand. In antiquity, scribes worked
20:32
with materials that had no spacing between words, no
20:34
punctuation, no paragraph breaks.
20:37
In Greek. The older texts were written in
20:39
what's called Scriptio continuation.
20:42
All capital letters just run together.
20:44
That sounds incredibly difficult to read, let alone copy
20:47
accurately. It was so common.
20:49
Mechanical errors include something called homeotiliton,
20:51
which is where describes I skips a line because 2 lines end with
20:55
the same word and so we accidentally omit something, or
20:58
simple misspellings, or substituting one similar looking
21:01
Greek letter for another. Now, intentional alterations did
21:04
occur, usually to harmonize accounts or occasionally to
21:07
strengthen a doctrinal point. But these are detectable, and
21:10
they're comparatively rare. So if the majority of these
21:13
differences are so tiny, how do textual critics decide which
21:17
reading is most likely the original 1?
21:19
What are the principles they use?
21:21
They rely on several guiding principles. 1 is the reading
21:24
which best explains the origin of the others is preferred.
21:27
Another critical principle is lectio brivier pogier.
21:31
The shorter reading is preferred.
21:33
The shorter reading is usually preferred.
21:35
Scribes were far more likely to add a clarifying word or a
21:38
strengthening word than they were to accidentally omit
21:41
something that makes sense. So if two manuscripts disagree
21:45
and one is shorter, the shorter reading is usually given
21:48
priority. That makes sense.
21:49
Another principle is assessing the geographical spread.
21:53
If a variant is only found in, say, Egypt, but the shorter
21:56
reading is found in Rome, North Africa and Syria, the shorter,
22:00
wider attested reading is preferred.
22:03
This methodology allows scholars to move beyond just counting
22:06
manuscripts and make forensic judgments about the history of
22:09
the texts transmission. That's the New Testament.
22:12
How does the Old Testament compare?
22:13
I mean, the texts are much older and the scribal tradition was
22:16
primarily Hebrew. The Old Testament is fascinating
22:19
because it's reliability comes from comparing 3 major textual
22:22
traditions, and each one provides unique checks on the
22:25
others. OK, what are they?
22:27
First, you have the Masoretic Text, or Mt.
22:29
This is the standard Jewish text tradition standardized between
22:33
AD 600 and 900. The Masorets were meticulous.
22:37
I mean just meticulous. They secured the text by adding
22:40
vowel pointing. Since earlier Hebrew texts only
22:42
had consonants. They counted every letter, every
22:46
syllable, every word in the Old Testament to prevent corruption.
22:49
Just an astonishing level of diligence.
22:51
Incredible. And the second.
22:53
Second, the Dead Sea Scrolls. The DSS discovered in 1947.
22:57
They provided Hebrew texts that did it all the way back to 200
23:01
BC and onward. This pushed our knowledge of the
23:03
Hebrew text back by over 1000 years, allowing us to check the
23:07
accuracy of the Masoretic transmission.
23:09
And what did they find? The scrolls confirm the
23:10
incredible fidelity of the Masorets.
23:12
And the third tradition. 3rd is the Septuagint, or the LXX,
23:17
which is the Greek translation of the Old Testament begun in
23:20
the 3rd century BC. The Septuagint is significant
23:23
because it's sometimes preserves a Hebrew reading that's older
23:26
than even what we find the Dead Sea Scrolls, giving us a window
23:29
into the text history well before the Masoretic
23:32
standardization. Are there cases where these
23:35
three traditions show significant variation, and if
23:38
they do, what's the consequence? Yes, there are variations.
23:41
A famous example is the Book of Jeremiah.
23:43
Masoretic Text version of Jeremiah is about 1/8 longer
23:47
than the version found in the Septuagint and supported by some
23:49
of the Dead Sea Scrolls. That's a pretty substantive
23:51
difference. It is, though it doesn't change
23:54
the overall message of Jeremiah's prophecy.
23:57
When critics find these divergences, they work to
24:00
determine whether the shorter text from the Septuagint and the
24:03
scrolls or the longer text from the Masoretic tradition is
24:06
earlier, and they often conclude the shorter text is the more
24:09
original. But even acknowledging these
24:11
variations, the textual confidence for the Old Testament
24:15
remains remarkably high, well over 90% security for the
24:19
overall text. The points of Divergent don't
24:21
affect the central theological claims of the Old Covenant.
24:24
Let's turn back to the New Testament and address some of
24:26
the most textually disputed passages.
24:29
If no Christian doctrine rests solely on these passages, why do
24:33
we still see footnotes and brackets around famous sections
24:36
like the story of the woman caught in adultery?
24:39
We see them because those passages are so deeply ingrained
24:41
in Christian history and tradition, even though the
24:44
textual evidence strongly suggests they were later
24:46
editions. They were probably inserted by
24:49
scribes into margins and then later found their way into the
24:51
main text. And the two most famous ones are
24:54
the two longest and most famous. Disputed passages are Mark
24:57
16.920, the longer ending of Mark and John 7.53 through 8.1,
25:03
the story of the woman caught in adultery.
25:05
In both cases, the earliest and most reliable manuscripts, like
25:08
Codex Vaticanus and Codex Saniticus do not contain this
25:11
material. You mentioned the UBSGNT
25:13
earlier. Can you explain the rating
25:15
system that textual critics use and what it means that these
25:18
passages have the highest rating against their inclusion?
25:21
Yes. the United Battle Society's Greek New Testament, the UBSGNT,
25:25
uses a rating scale from A to D to express how certain the
25:28
committee is of its chosen reading.
25:30
A means the text is virtually certain.
25:32
B means the reading is almost certain with only minor doubts,
25:36
C means the committee found it difficult to decide, but the
25:38
reading is preferred, and D means there's a high degree of
25:41
doubt about the reading. So where do these disputed
25:43
passages fall? When it comes to Mark 16.920 and
25:47
John 7.538.11, the UBSGNT gives the highest possible rating and
25:52
a for excluding this material. This means the Textual Critical
25:56
Committee is virtually certain that these passages did not
25:58
appear in the original author's manuscripts.
26:00
That certainty is really necessary for the integrity of
26:03
Scripture. In the case of Mark 16, there
26:05
are specific consequences if we treat that later edition as
26:08
Scripture out there. Absolutely.
26:10
The longer ending of Mark contains claims that believers
26:13
will be able to pick up snakes or drink venom without harm.
26:16
If you treat that as normative inspired Scripture, it can lead
26:20
to unnecessary risk and irresponsible behavior, as we've
26:23
seen historically. The consensus among textual
26:25
critics and sound theologians is that the inspired text ends at
26:29
Mark 16, verse 8. The text doesn't change core
26:31
theology, but it does change certain ethical expectations.
26:35
OK. We have confirmed the
26:36
authoritative collection, the Canon, and we have assurance
26:40
regarding the original words through textual criticism.
26:43
So our final step is the bridge from the original Greek and
26:46
Hebrew to modern English. This requires translation
26:48
philosophy. How do translators decide where
26:50
to prioritize fidelity to the original form versus clarity for
26:53
the modern reader? This is where we get to the
26:55
translation spectrum. All modern standard translations
26:59
are based on the same secure Greek and Hebrew critical texts.
27:04
The difference between them lies in where they osition themselves
27:07
on a spectrum that's defined by two competing priorities.
27:10
Which are. Accuracy, which means fidelity
27:13
to the original word order, the structure, the grammar, and
27:16
clarity, which is how readily and naturally the meaning is
27:18
understood in the target language in English.
27:21
Can you give us an analogy? Sure, a simple analogy might
27:24
help. If formal equivalence is like a
27:26
detailed geological map showing every original contour and fault
27:30
line, then dynamic equivalence is like a modern tourist
27:32
brochure, making the destination immediately clear and appealing,
27:36
and optimal equivalence tries to be a serviceable road map that
27:40
balances both. OK, that's helpful.
27:41
Let's start with the most literal approach, then formal
27:43
equivalence. What's its goal and what are its
27:45
limitations? Category One.
27:47
Formal equivalence or literal translation.
27:50
The goal here is to preserve as much as possible the form and
27:54
the structure of the original text.
27:56
They often try to translate a given Greek or Hebrew word
27:59
consistently with the same English word throughout the
28:01
entire Bible. And the value in that is for
28:04
deep study. Immense value for technical
28:06
study. If you're doing a word study or
28:08
outlining a passage or comparing nuances in verb tense, a
28:12
formally equivalent translation like the New American Standard
28:15
Bible, the NASB, or the English Standard Version.
28:17
The ESV is extremely useful because it keeps that structure
28:21
so close to the original. But I can imagine that sticking
28:24
too closely to an ancient structure could make the English
28:27
sound awkward, right? It can definitely result in
28:30
English that sounds stilted or what some people call wooden.
28:33
The meaning can be obscured by sticking so close to ancient
28:36
syntax. There's a famous example from
28:38
Romans 3.25. The NASB, which is highly
28:41
formal, renders A segment as whom God displayed publicly as a
28:45
propitiation in his blood through faith, a mouthful.
28:47
The sentence structure is highly literal to the Greek, but for a
28:51
new reader, propitiation in his blood can be difficult to
28:54
immediately grasp. The language just doesn't flow
28:57
naturally in a modern idiom. OK, so moving to the opposite
29:00
end of that spectrum where clarity is king, we find dynamic
29:05
or functional equivalence. How is their approach different?
29:08
Category 2. Dynamic or functional
29:11
equivalence. These versions prioritize
29:14
communicating the overall sense or the meaning of the original
29:17
text in modern natural language, even if that means abandoning
29:21
the original sentence structure or word order.
29:24
They focus on the function of the phrase in the original
29:26
context, not the form of the words.
29:28
So they're less concerned with translating the same Greek word
29:31
with the same English word every time.
29:33
Much less concerned if a Greek word means love in one context
29:37
and charity in another, They'll use the English word that makes
29:40
the most sense to a modern reader.
29:42
They frequently reword sentences, maybe converting an
29:45
ancient passive voice structure into a modern, clearer active
29:48
voice structure. Can you give us a concrete
29:50
example of how they handle idioms?
29:52
Because ancient idioms often don't translate well word for
29:55
word. Idioms are a perfect example.
29:57
In the book of Acts, Paul is told he is kicking against the
30:01
goads. A goad was a sharp stick used to
30:04
products and right. A formal equivalent translation
30:07
might keep that phrasing, and it leaves the modern reader a bit
30:10
confused about the meaning. A dynamic equivalent version,
30:13
however, might translate it functionally as fighting against
30:17
my will or resisting God's guidance, and that captures the
30:20
intended meaning instantly. I see.
30:23
Another good example is emotional tone.
30:25
Matthew 5.4 is traditionally blessed are those who mourn, for
30:30
they shall be comforted. The Good News Bible, a
30:32
dynamically equivalent version, renders this as Happy are those
30:36
who mourn. God will comfort them.
30:38
They choose happy over bless because they see it as a
30:41
clearer, more functional equivalent to the Greek concept
30:43
of Macario's. In modern English, though, some
30:46
scholars would argue you lose some of the richer theological
30:48
meaning of bless. Finally, then, we have the
30:50
translations that try to bridge that gap and maintain both
30:53
fidelity and right ability. That is category 3 optimal
30:58
equivalence or a balanced approach.
31:01
These translations are designed to achieve a balance, seeking as
31:04
much accuracy to the original form as possible, while also
31:07
recognizing that sometimes a functional adjustment has to be
31:10
made to ensure clarity in the target language.
31:13
And these are some of the most popular translations today.
31:15
They are versions like the New International Version, the NIV,
31:19
the Holman Christian Standard Bible, the HCSB, and the
31:22
Christian standard Bible the CSB.
31:24
They're widely recommended for the best overall combination of
31:27
accuracy and readability for the average reader.
31:31
They aim to be literal when the Greek or Hebrew structure makes
31:34
sense in English, and functional when a literal rendering would
31:37
just be confusing. What's an example of them
31:39
capturing nuance without sacrificing that clarity?
31:42
Consider the Greek word an idea In Luke 11.8.
31:45
It refers to persistence. A literal translation might
31:49
struggle to capture the full force of the word.
31:51
The NIV renders it as shameless audacity.
31:54
That's a great phrase. It is That phrase captures the
31:57
nuance of the Greek the persistent petitioner, who shows
32:00
no shame in his relentless asking while ensuring the
32:04
English is clear and forceful. It tries to preserve both the
32:08
conceptual meaning and the rhetorical force of the
32:10
original. Before we wrap up, we should
32:12
probably touch on the very far end of the spectrum, which moves
32:15
beyond translation and into what is really interpretation, the
32:19
paraphrase. Right paraphrases like The
32:21
Message or The Living Bible Paraphrased are aiming for a
32:24
different goal entirely. They were trying to make the
32:26
Bible come alive for new readers through strikingly fresh, often
32:31
contemporary language. They're really interpretive.
32:33
Commentary is presented in biblical form.
32:35
And there's a risk there. A significant risk because they
32:38
frequently add explanatory words or phrases that do not exist in
32:42
the original text. They're effectively adding
32:44
commentary directly into the scripture for serious study.
32:47
This presents a real danger of imprecision.
32:50
For instance, Psalm 119.105, Your word is a lamp unto my feet
32:56
becomes highly anachronistic. And one paraphrase is your words
32:59
are a flashlight to light the path ahead of me.
33:02
It's accessible, sure, but the added interpretation means they
33:04
just can't be used as a reliable standard for doctrine or
33:07
detailed study. So we finished our deep dive.
33:10
We've established the robust historical criteria that settled
33:13
the authoritative collection, the Canon, and the scientific
33:16
discipline that assures us of the integrity of the original
33:19
words, textual criticism. We also understand the spectrum
33:23
of interpretive choices that give us our English
33:25
translations. What's the practical take away
33:27
from all of this for the serious student of Scripture?
33:29
The practical take away is the confidence that comes from this
33:32
kind of intellectual scrutiny. We should be confident that the
33:36
66 books we hold are exactly the standard that Canon that God
33:40
intended. And furthermore, we should
33:42
really appreciate the plurality of excellent modern translations
33:47
we have at our disposal. Because translators have to make
33:50
these interpretive choices. The serious student is strongly
33:53
advised to consult more than one translation when studying a
33:56
passage intensively or dealing with a controversial issue.
34:00
Yeah, I always try to have an ESV and an NIV open side by
34:04
side. That's the best way to do it.
34:06
Comparing a highly formal equivalent translation like the
34:09
NISB with a balanced one like the NIV is the best way to
34:12
discover where the original Hebrew or Greek wording might be
34:15
ambiguous, or where textual variants exist.
34:18
This comparison just forces you to acknowledge the nuance that's
34:21
inherent in the original languages.
34:22
This evidence, both historical and textual, it's really
34:26
compelling. It shows God's Providence.
34:28
Working through history, we have this astonishingly reliable text
34:32
secured by thousands of witnesses.
34:34
It's the most reliable text of the ancient world, and yet it's
34:37
transmission was left entirely to fallible human beings.
34:41
You know, scribes with flickering lamps, errors,
34:43
insight, and just human limitations.
34:46
It really secures the authority of Scripture for us.
34:49
And it leads us to the final, necessary theological
34:52
consideration. If God intended the Scriptures
34:55
to be our absolute rule for faith and practice, and He is
34:57
sovereign over history, then we have to ask why did God in His
35:01
Providence arrange for the transmission of Scripture to
35:03
fall into human hands, resulting in these variations, however
35:06
minor, incorrectable they are, rather than ensuring an error
35:09
free, perfectly preserved copy that would require no textual
35:12
criticism at all? That's a question that requires
35:15
us to ponder the relationship between divine sovereignty and
35:18
human agency in the very operation of sharing the Word.
35:21
It suggests that maybe the process itself is meant to teach
35:24
us something about humility and handling the text and the
35:27
necessity of communal wisdom in securing its truth.
35:30
Thank you for joining us for this extensive deep dive into
35:32
the criteria for canonization and the philosophies that shape
35:35
the translations we rely on. We encourage you, our listener,
35:39
to embrace the evidence, to study diligently, and to always
35:42
seek the standard, The Canyon in your own reading.
35:45
Until next time on Reformed thinking.