This is from Bryan Chapell in "Christ Centered Preaching" which has been a good read. But I don't understand his paradigm here:

Do textual variants give us confidence in the Spirit's inspiration of Scripture? If so, how? To my simple brain it would seem the other way around.

Earlier in the paragraph he wrote:

Is he saying that if there were no variants that it would tear down at the authority of the Bible? How so?

__________________

For what little it is worth, I agree with you.

I think variant texts and translations actually make the bible less authoritative. Even if they are inevitable, I think they ought not to be celebrated.

__________________
Mark Li
International University Church
New South Wales, Australia

Ken - I suppose a good study bible can help, but I believe a working knowledge of the orginal languages is best. But I can't help but wonder how textual variants present a real problem. None of them put into question any doctrines. They don't negatively effect christology or soterigoloy. I suppose in that sense a good case can be made the variants are insignificant.

yes? no?

P.S. And just to make sure I am on the right page with the OP, by textual variants do you mean questionable texts like Mark 16:9-20?

__________________
B.B.
Elder
GBC

Deo volente

I have definitely heard that argument before. But the author seems to be saying that the existence of textual variants amplifies the authority of the Bible. IOW, they are *significant* in that they boost our confidence in the inspired nature of the scriptures.

That seems to be the author's definition as well.

Ken,

On pages 45, 82, and 107-8 the text Chapell uses is the NIV. This need not detract in the slightest from the excellence of his book (my favorite commentator, Wm. Hendriksen, uses the Critical Text).

No doubt in Chapell's view he considers the CT the reliable text and the marginal notes give him warning concerning "spurious texts." He feels secure in the judgment of the editors who introduced those notes, which originally were Westcott and Hort. This is what he means when he says,

Personally, I like the margin notes in the NKJV so as to give me a heads-up on the variants other textforms use.

A minister should educate the flock as to the basics of text criticism and what, in his view, are the reliable Scriptures.

In fact, variants from the TR 1894 (i.e., disagreeing with it) are the spurious. Though, as Bill says, they are "insignificant" in the main. Clearly we should agreeably disagree on which textform has "the Spirit's imprimatur."

In preaching, His 'imprimatur" on our hearts and minds is the crux of the matter.

Steve

__________________
Steve Rafalsky
Elder, International Evangelical Church (Reformed)
Limassol, Cyprus

"I am set for the defense of the gospel" (Philippians 1:17)

"Strengthened with all might, according to His glorious
power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness..." (Colossians 1:11)

Thanks, Mr. Rafalsky.

So some scholars see the existence of textual variants as support for the Holy Spirit's inspiration and providence of Scripture because they are relatively few and 'insignificant'. Their assumption would be, I assume, that if it were just any old book there would be many variants and they would be 'significant'. Does this fairly capture the essence of their assumption?

My only question would be, if there were no variants at all, would that undermine the Spirit's inspiration and providence?

No. We have exactly what God intended. Whether the redactors made changes or whether there were fragments of text that were not part of the C.T., the point was made (and seconded) that they do not effect the veracity of the bible.

Variants convince us of the historicity of the Scriptures. They did not drop down from the heavens like The Book of Mormon or The Koran but were given to men as they were moved by the Holy Spirit to address the issues of the day. The variants thus demonstrate that our Bible is grounded in history and fact.

(argument stolen from Dr. Peter Jones of WSCAL).

__________________
Rev. Daniel Kok
Pastor of Grace Reformed Church (URCNA)
Leduc, Alberta CANADA
Church Blog

"there is no creature, either in heaven or on earth, who loves us more than Jesus Christ"
Belgic Confession, Article 26

So... variants were providentially brought about by the HS to convince us of and give us confidence in the inspiration and preservation of Scripture. And if there were no variants that would actually cast doubt on the authority of the Bible in the same way it does the Books of other religions. Am I summarizing correctly?

I am not 100% up to speed on the variants issue, but I believe that the cornerstone of the Bible's veracity is that the Scriptures are so consistent over the span of thousands of years and multiple authors, testifying to the inspiration of the HS.

My summization on the variants is that, while variants exist with differing degrees of "variation", they still do not detract from overall orthodoxy, thus the HS inspired message is not impacted by them and this fact substantiates the infallibility of the words from the HS.

link

__________________
-JD
[URL="http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B52C005.htm#V21"]1Thess5:21[/URL]
Ordained Deacon, PCA
Serving on Ministry Staff, SBC
MS

[url=http://www.christianskepticism.org]Team blog: ChristianSkepticism.org[/url] | [URL="http://mbbchurch.com"]Martin Bluff Church [/URL] | Personal:[URL="http://jdlblog.blogspot.com"]...a Longmire rambles[/URL]

I understand that argument. What I am trying to understand is the argument that the existance of variants actually strengthens our confidence in the authority of scripture.

I guess maybe that is my point - even the determined efforts of the variants authors did not succeed, so that fact strengthens the case (and our confidence) for the immutability of the HS's message.

OK. I think I see what you are saying. The fact that the HS was able to preserve the scriptures 90% intact in spite of man's negligence or abuse strenghtens our confidence. The assumption being that if preservation was left to man alone, there would be a great deal more variants and they would be of a more significant nature.

And if there were no variants, that would actually make us suspicious of the Spirit's 'imprimatur'.

No, I take his statement as saying that we have greater confidence when we know where the variants occur because we'll know which parts of Bible are not in question, and can have confidence in these sections (not in the sections where variants exist).

I might be reading it wrongly because I don't have the full text, but that's what it seems to me.

__________________
Marty

From Creation to New Creation via Redemption

After further reflection - I would modify your statement:

The fact that the HS was able to preserve the Scripture 99% (?) intact in spite of man's negligence or abuse strengthens our confidence. The assumption being without the HS acting to preserve the Scripture, there would be a great deal more variants and they would be of a more significant nature.

No. Variants simply remind us about and support the historical, organic view of inspiration. I would not be so bold to say that the HS did this for that particular reason. Reason and logic, however, simply lead us to this conclusion.

I believe the loss of the original manuscripts and the textual variants proof this:

That is - everything associated with this creation - paper, scrolls, original texts and documents, etc... will fall and fade away, but the word of the Lord remains forever...

I have never heard of inspiration as being 'organic'. (But there are a great deal of things of which I have not heard) Do you believe there was anything organic in the original manuscripts, or just those that have been preserved? I mean, was it hit or miss with the originals? Is that why we only have two letters to the Corinthians, because Paul screwed up on the others? Or is it organic in the sense that the writers may have written more than one manuscript with slight variations in each?

I have heard it argued that the fact that all four gospels (or three if you discount Mark because of the variants) describe the resurrection in different ways actually strengthens their veracity. If all the gospels told the story in the exact same way it would actually diminish the testimony of the resurrection. Is this the same kind of argument?

No, it is not.

The perfect accord from four different witnesses (and upon close examination – not cursory – there are no discrepancies between them) does “strengthen their veracity.” The same argument does not apply to the manuscripts and the variants (definition: “having or showing a difference from the norm”).

There are those – the CT adherents – who feel the variants represent a true copy. This is the hand-to-hand combat in the trenches: examining each one (or each significant one) and evaluating the evidence for its authenticity. If, after a multitude of evaluations, a particular text-type shows itself to have superior attestation for its readings, even to the minutiae, then that text-type is deemed to be the best, i.e., the truest to the autographs.

There are other factors to be considered, such as a plausible account for that text-form’s existence – a reconstructed history of its origins and transmission – which would be buttressed by the evidences for its readings.

Variants are those readings which differ from the normative or “true” text-form – the standard. Starting with the Reformation, in its defense against the assaults of Rome, the Standard Scriptures have been the Byzantine text with a few readings brought into it from the Latin and other sources, deemed by some to have been so brought in by the Providence of God in His final step in preserving His word, according to promise.

By definition, the variants are those readings which differ from this Reformation text. Rome consciously used the existence of variants to try to overthrow the Reformers’ claim that they had a sure word of God per se, which did not need either interpretation or validation by Roman authority. Rome denied this. The Reformers were able to make their defense. The Reformation succeeded. The Presbyterian and Reformed churches prospered.

Liberalism, a child of the Enlightenment, crept into the camp – initially in the form of rationalistic (unbelieving) German text critics and philosophers, as well as Papal scholars – and continued the deconstructing assault on the Reformation Standard text, as well as the Reformation faith.

Even believing text critics and scholars (Tregelles) joined the unbelieving (Semler, Griesbach, Lachmann, etc.) in this “enlightened” approach to text criticism, which simply continued Rome’s agenda but under a different banner. As can be seen, they succeeded. Through allies, Rome’s assault against the despised “Protestant Pope” took the field. Multitudes today do not realize what has happened. They rationalize the “variant weapons” that have penetrated the hull of the Protestant Flagship and exploded within, and do their best to accommodate to and minimize the damage, as can be seen in the explanations of the variants given above.

What is not realized by most is that the ship has taken a lethal hit, and will not stay afloat as it is. In this generation, it most likely will, but in one or two from now, our great grandchildren (should the Lord tarry that long) will have a much harder time explaining away the “debunked Bible texts,” the patch-work crapshoot of the modern versions. Smaller ships will carry much of the passengers en route to the Golden Shore, and they will have a sure text.

The variants so glowingly spoken of above are lethal “hunter-seeker” missiles sent from the ancient Adversary. One by one they must be stopped, dismantled, and disarmed. Since they are spiritual weapons aimed at the mind some will like their allure and let them pass into themselves.

Bottom line: a variant is either true or false. If false, ultimately it is from the father of lies. The fighting is in the trenches.

Steve

I'll let Berkhof explain the meaning of 'organic' inspiration. From Summary of Christian Doctrine

Taken from - http://www.mbrem.com/shorttakes/berk3.htm