Inspired (non-Greek) scripture

[Poimen]

First of all I should say that I don't claim to be an expert on this issue so please bear with my ignorance.

Second of all, I was taught to regard the UBS and NA versions of the Greek NT to be the most accurate text to work from, so that is my bias.

My question is: would someone like to evaluate the following comment?

Preservation of scripture does not demand that every reading be preserved in the original language of inspiration -- only that the reading be preserved, such as the Comma was in the Old Latin/Vulgate Latin and Waldensian vernaculars which were based off the Old Latin.

http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/1john5n7.html

This seems problematic to me because then we would be denying the Renaissance/Reformation cry "ad fontes" and open ourselves up to the (past) corruption of Rome in her received translation the Vulgate.

Can we base our understanding of a verse on uninspired copies of the original when they aren't even written in the original (Greek) language? I hardly think so.

[Edited on 7-8-2005 by poimen]

 

[Poimen]

Please note that I am not looking for a debate about textual families, translations etc. Rather I would like a discussion of our understanding of inspiration based on the quote.

 

[kevin.carroll]

One rather sticky wicket in your question is that there is no such thing as an inspired copy of the original. Inspiration applies to the autographs only.

 

[Poimen]

Originally posted by kevin.carroll
One rather sticky wicket in your question is that there is no such thing as an inspired copy of the original. Inspiration applies to the autographs only.

I agree. However, that's not what I meant (mea culpa: I should have put a question mark behind the title of the post). What I mean is that this gentlemen is basing his understanding or scope of inspiration to include non-Greek copies of the original.

 

[brymaes]

Originally posted by kevin.carroll
One rather sticky wicket in your question is that there is no such thing as an inspired copy of the original. Inspiration applies to the autographs only.

Please explain in light of the following:

VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;(r) so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.(s) But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,(t) therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,(u) that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner;(w) and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.(x)

(r) Matt. 5:18.
(s) Isa. 8:20; Acts 15:15; John 5:39, 46.
(t) John 5:39.
(u) I Cor. 14:6, 9, 11, 12, 24, 27, 28.
(w) Col. 3:16.
(x) Rom. 15:4.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by SharperSword

Originally posted by kevin.carroll
One rather sticky wicket in your question is that there is no such thing as an inspired copy of the original. Inspiration applies to the autographs only.

Please explain in light of the following:

VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;(r) so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.(s) But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,(t) therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,(u) that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner;(w) and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.(x)

(r) Matt. 5:18.
(s) Isa. 8:20; Acts 15:15; John 5:39, 46.
(t) John 5:39.
(u) I Cor. 14:6, 9, 11, 12, 24, 27, 28.
(w) Col. 3:16.
(x) Rom. 15:4.

Please clarify where you are coming from . . . are you arguing that all of our extant Greek manuscripts are without any textual error whatsoever?

That would be an impossible stance to defend, because our extant manuscripts are not identical . . . they differ from each other in various (albeit usually innocuous) places.

Please clarify . . . I'm just trying to understand your position.

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by SharperSword

Originally posted by kevin.carroll
One rather sticky wicket in your question is that there is no such thing as an inspired copy of the original. Inspiration applies to the autographs only.

Please explain in light of the following:

VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;(r) so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.(s) But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,(t) therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,(u) that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner;(w) and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.(x)

(r) Matt. 5:18.
(s) Isa. 8:20; Acts 15:15; John 5:39, 46.
(t) John 5:39.
(u) I Cor. 14:6, 9, 11, 12, 24, 27, 28.
(w) Col. 3:16.
(x) Rom. 15:4.

Please clarify where you are coming from . . . are you arguing that all of our extant Greek manuscripts are without any textual error whatsoever?

That would be an impossible stance to defend, because our extant manuscripts are not identical . . . they differ from each other in various (albeit usually innocuous) places.

Please clarify . . . I'm just trying to understand your position.

Whom are you directing that question at?

 

[psaulm119]

Originally posted by kevin.carroll
Inspiration applies to the autographs only.

That's an interesting statement. Is this understanding of inspiration taught anywhere in the Bible? If so, where?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The difference being highlighted by the post is the difference between inspiration proper, and preservation. The Word you are reading (typically a translation) is no less "inspired" than the original autograph, as far as it says the same thing as the original autograph, no more, no less.

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
The difference being highlighted by the post is the difference between inspiration proper, and preservation. The Word you are reading (typically a translation) is no less "inspired" than the original autograph, as far as it says the same thing as the original autograph, no more, no less.

Right. No translation is inspired in the sense that that the autographs were. Nevertheless, due to the preservation of the Word by God's providence, we can be assured that we possess the Word of God.

The whole issue does raise some interesting questions when one deals with textual variants, though.

 

[larryjf]

The same God who inspired the originals preserved the copies.
To suggest that He inspires perfectly, but preserves "almost" perfectly is slighting God.

The scriptures do not tell us "how" God's word is preserved, only that it is. We are also not told in the scriptures that we can perfectly "extract" the preserved word. It may very well be that in the extant manuscripts of all ages the perfectly inspired words exactly as they were in the originals "could" be extracted - but that doesn't mean that they have been.

Some feel that we are moving away from the perfect word of God with new bibles and manuscripts, others feel we are moving closer to the perfect word of God with the new bibles and manuscripts.

The thing is, that question is not answered in scripture. What we know from scripture is that God perfectly inspired His word, and He perfectly preserves it. Anything beyond that is speculation.

 

[street preacher]

Originally posted by poimen


This seems problematic to me because then we would be denying the Renaissance/Reformation cry "ad fontes" and open ourselves up to the (past) corruption of Rome in her received translation the Vulgate.

Can we base our understanding of a verse on uninspired copies of the original when they aren't even written in the original (Greek) language? I hardly think so.

[Edited on 7-8-2005 by poimen]

 

[street preacher]

You would have to have a Bible that came from the the original languages because those are the inspired manuscripts. I you had a Bible that was translated from another uninspired translation I would think that that would be as bad as reading from a paraphrase.

 

[psaulm119]

Originally posted by kevin.carroll
No translation is inspired in the sense that that the autographs were.

True, but this of course does not mean that copies/translations aren't inspired. Surely the scriptures that Paul referred to in II Tim (the ones that Timothy was brought up on) weren't the autographs.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by psaulm119

Originally posted by kevin.carroll
No translation is inspired in the sense that that the autographs were.

True, but this of course does not mean that copies/translations aren't inspired. Surely the scriptures that Paul referred to in II Tim (the ones that Timothy was brought up on) weren't the autographs.

This is an extremely interesting aspect of the doctrine of inspiration. Why? Because in fact it is most likely that was Paul was referring to in 2 Tim 3:16, was not only not an autograph, but it was most probably a translation - the Septuagint. And yet Paul treats the Septuagint as Scripture, not as something less than Scripture.

For my part, I think we give much too short a shrift (thanks in part to Warfield and Bahnsen) to the doctrine of Providential Preservation. An analogy might be how often in Reformed churches the doctrine of the Holy Spirit is truncated thanks to the excesses of the Charismatics and Penetcostals. Likewise, we tend to run from any legimate inferences in Providential preservation because of KJV only types.

 

[psaulm119]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
For my part, I think we give much too short a shrift (thanks in part to Warfield and Bahnsen) to the doctrine of Providential Preservation. An analogy might be how often in Reformed churches the doctrine of the Holy Spirit is truncated thanks to the excesses of the Charismatics and Penetcostals. Likewise, we tend to run from any legimate inferences in Providential preservation because of KJV only types.

I agree. I would also say that we minimize the importance of preservation because it tends not to play well with modern critical theories of the NT text, which hold that the purest NT MSS were "preserved" in trash bins and unused in monastery libraries.

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by psaulm119

Originally posted by kevin.carroll
No translation is inspired in the sense that that the autographs were.

True, but this of course does not mean that copies/translations aren't inspired. Surely the scriptures that Paul referred to in II Tim (the ones that Timothy was brought up on) weren't the autographs.

Sorry, but there is no way I can agree with that, unless you have some different definition of "inspiration" that I am otherwise unaware of.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Fred, you just blew my mind. Interesting thoughts.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by kevin.carroll

Originally posted by psaulm119

Originally posted by kevin.carroll
No translation is inspired in the sense that that the autographs were.

True, but this of course does not mean that copies/translations aren't inspired. Surely the scriptures that Paul referred to in II Tim (the ones that Timothy was brought up on) weren't the autographs.

Sorry, but there is no way I can agree with that, unless you have some different definition of "inspiration" that I am otherwise unaware of.

Kevin,

Since Paul was most certainly NOT referring to the autographs, and very likely not even referring to any Hebrew text when he wrote 2 Tim 3:16, exactly what did Paul mean when using the term "inspiration" ?

 

[turmeric]

I think the word y'all want is INERRANT, not inspired. The Scripture is inspired, the autographs are inerrant, but we can't find them, so we have copies which are the inspired Word of God, but are not inerrant copies.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by turmeric
I think the word y'all want is INERRANT, not inspired. The Scripture is inspired, the autographs are inerrant, but we can't find them, so we have copies which are the inspired Word of God, but are not inerrant copies.

Inerrancy is a quality of inspired texts. Sorry, but you can't make the problem go away in this fashion, Meg.

 

[psaulm119]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Kevin,

Since Paul was most certainly NOT referring to the autographs, and very likely not even referring to any Hebrew text when he wrote 2 Tim 3:16, exactly what did Paul mean when using the term "inspiration" ?

A very good question indeed. I think this will get to the heart of the matter. Kevin, if you do believe that Paul was referring to the autographs, now would be a good time to state this. If not, then I think you are going to have to come around to the idea that the Bible teaches that copies indeed are inspired.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Fred, you just blew my mind. Interesting thoughts.

Reading all of this is very interesting, and some of it is even new, as inspiration, inerrancy and canonicity is still admittedly one of the central doctrines on which I know very little in terms of making a thorough defense.

 

[alwaysreforming]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by turmeric
I think the word y'all want is INERRANT, not inspired. The Scripture is inspired, the autographs are inerrant, but we can't find them, so we have copies which are the inspired Word of God, but are not inerrant copies.

Inerrancy is a quality of inspired texts. Sorry, but you can't make the problem go away in this fashion, Meg.

I don't know; I was thinking along the same lines as Meg.
Are you sure, Fred, that the talking past each other that's leading to the debate here isn't over the difference between "inspiration" and "inerrancy"?

Surely we know that the Bible, even the way we have it today, is inspired.
We also know that there could be one or two "mistakes" in it: an extra word, a wrong word, a "typo", etc.

Am I on the wrong line of thinking here?

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Kevin,

Since Paul was most certainly NOT referring to the autographs, and very likely not even referring to any Hebrew text when he wrote 2 Tim 3:16, exactly what did Paul mean when using the term "inspiration" ?

What makes you so sure? I will admit that I stand unabashedly in the shadow of Warfield (et al) in my views of inspiration. And, what's more, I think the Standards concur.

WCF 1.8 says, "The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical."

It goes on to discuss translations, but does not call them inspired, correctly, I believe. Let me ask you: when you sit in a classroom, translating Greek or Hebrew, are you "inspired?" Nope. You're just translating. So are professional translators. You and they (and I) are all subject to error as we translate. If we are inspired, that says something about the Holy Spirit, doesn't it?

Unless your arguments are some sort of back-door KJV position, how does your position account for variants? Was one group more inspired than another? Is one translation more inspired than another? If so, which? What DO you do with variants? You can't ignore them and hold to your position.

I think the only tenable position you can take is that the idea of inspiration and inerrancy extend to the autographs and that, as the Standards affirm, God has providentially preserved His Word. We can be sure what we hold is the Word of God.

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by psaulm119

Originally posted by fredtgreco
For my part, I think we give much too short a shrift (thanks in part to Warfield and Bahnsen) to the doctrine of Providential Preservation. An analogy might be how often in Reformed churches the doctrine of the Holy Spirit is truncated thanks to the excesses of the Charismatics and Penetcostals. Likewise, we tend to run from any legimate inferences in Providential preservation because of KJV only types.

I agree. I would also say that we minimize the importance of preservation because it tends not to play well with modern critical theories of the NT text, which hold that the purest NT MSS were "preserved" in trash bins and unused in monastery libraries.

Poppycock. Preserved is preserved, regardless of the means. And, as I am fond of reminding Fred (of a thing that he well knows), Vaticanus is NOT a single document, nor is it the only witness to the NT text.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
This is an extremely interesting aspect of the doctrine of inspiration. Why? Because in fact it is most likely that was Paul was referring to in 2 Tim 3:16, was not only not an autograph, but it was most probably a translation - the Septuagint. And yet Paul treats the Septuagint as Scripture, not as something less than Scripture.

This is a significant point with respect to the exclusive psalmody debate.

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by turmeric
I think the word y'all want is INERRANT, not inspired. The Scripture is inspired, the autographs are inerrant, but we can't find them, so we have copies which are the inspired Word of God, but are not inerrant copies.

Inerrancy is a quality of inspired texts. Sorry, but you can't make the problem go away in this fashion, Meg.

Funny how there ARE errors in our supposedly inspired text then. You know it and I know it. Unless, as I said before, you think that some texts are more inspired than others.

I actually rejoice in the irony that God has used godless pagans to help restore the texts of the Bible. But hey.

 

[psaulm119]

I'm still waiting for reason to see that Paul was referring to the autographs when he wrote II Tim 3.

2Ti 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:


Paul in verse 15 states that Timothy has known the Scriptures, and in the next verse says that ALL Scripture is inspired. What Paul doesn't say is that only the originals were inspired. Surely Timothy didn't have the autographs at hand as a youth.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by kevin.carroll

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Kevin,

Since Paul was most certainly NOT referring to the autographs, and very likely not even referring to any Hebrew text when he wrote 2 Tim 3:16, exactly what did Paul mean when using the term "inspiration" ?

What makes you so sure? I will admit that I stand unabashedly in the shadow of Warfield (et al) in my views of inspiration. And, what's more, I think the Standards concur.

WCF 1.8 says, "The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical."

It goes on to discuss translations, but does not call them inspired, correctly, I believe. Let me ask you: when you sit in a classroom, translating Greek or Hebrew, are you "inspired?" Nope. You're just translating. So are professional translators. You and they (and I) are all subject to error as we translate. If we are inspired, that says something about the Holy Spirit, doesn't it?

Unless your arguments are some sort of back-door KJV position, how does your position account for variants? Was one group more inspired than another? Is one translation more inspired than another? If so, which? What DO you do with variants? You can't ignore them and hold to your position.

I think the only tenable position you can take is that the idea of inspiration and inerrancy extend to the autographs and that, as the Standards affirm, God has providentially preserved His Word. We can be sure what we hold is the Word of God.

Kevin,

(An aside - this is merely the public version of an interesting and friendly discussion we have all the time in person)

We can be sure that Paul did not have the autographs because of the way that the Hebrew text was preserved. At best, even if Paul had Hebrew texts and he used them (which is questionable given NT quotations from the LXX), he had the Masoric text, which does contain errors. And yet he calls what he had Scripture.

What the Confession actually says is that the Greek and Hebrew that we have are inspired, not the autographs. That is why Warfield's position was an advancement/backward movement (depending on your point of view) from the Confession, as a result of the inerrency battles of the 19th-20th centuries.

The providential preservation argument does NOT touch translations - because they are translations of extent Hebrew and Greek texts. What Providential preservation actually argues is that the Hebrew and Greek texts have been preserved by God. (and thus is a powerful argument against the critical texts.