If you believe that there are errors in our Greek and Hebrew texts, then how do you explain passages such as Psalm 12:6-7, Psalm 119:89, Matthew 24:35 and others that say it is perfect?
[Editor’s note: The question below is a follow-up from a previous one in which the questioner is quite surprised that a faithful believer would agree that Christians do not have access to a perfect text of the Bible, to which I replied about the textual evidence for the great (but not perfect) reliability of the New Testament text.]
Question:
I want to thank you very much for responding to my question so quickly and just wanted to ask you a few follow up questions. The first of which is simply how you would explain certain Bible passages that talk about Bible preservation in light of what you said? Psalm 12:6-7 says “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever.” That passage seems to say God’s words will not only be preserved forever, but that they will be preserved purely, without error. Also, Psalm 119:89 “Forever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven” to me this verse also seems to say that God’s word is already settled, because if it’s settled in heaven then surely it’s settled on earth, for who needs it more, God or us? So I would think that this verse seems to say that God’s word is already settled. The third verse I wanted to point out was Matthew 24:35 “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” I just wanted to point out with this verse that Jesus says his words shall not pass away, and I believe that he used the plural form of word intentionally, and I believe that in using the plural form he was saying that his words, as in none of his words, would pass away. But, to say that the Bible is riddled with copyist errors seems to be the same as saying that these verses are wrong. Now I could go on listing verses, but for now I think that’s enough. I would however implore you to read Psalm 105:8, Psalm 119:111, Psalm 119:152, Psalm 119:160, Ecclesiastes 3:14, Matthew 4:4, Matthew 5:17-18, 1 Peter 1:23-25. I would also like to say that I have previously studied the manuscript basis for the Bible and that while some manuscripts have been corrupted and do have errors that doesn’t mean that they all do. I’m sorry that this has gotten so long, but I just honestly want to know what you think about this issue in light of these verses. Thank you so much for reading.
Response:
Let me repeat that I really respect and appreciate your confidence in the reliability of the Scripture and I believe that such faith is fully justified by the evidence. But, if I can say this without being critical, I believe that you may have been raised with a somewhat overly simplistic understanding of what it might mean for the Bible to be fully inerrant—a somewhat simplistic concept of inerrancy. Let me repeat what I have already said, which is that I believe that, with the meaning of inerrant properly understood, the original texts of the Old and New Testaments are inerrant and, of course, inspired, but that copying by humans has not been perfect. I suggest you look at the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy, from very conservative scholars to guide you in thinking about this.
As for the quotes from Psalms, we ought to bear in mind that this is poetry, and it is the poetic and emotional expression of David’s heart. The words of the Bible have not literally been tried in a furnace, and they have not literally been purified seven times. However, David is expressing in an emotional and metaphorical way his confidence in the reliability of the words of God. He is not making a doctrinal statement here, but expressing a deep feeling of faith. That God’s word is settled in heaven is not a doctrinal statement that the Old Testament manuscripts are without error in copying. The Jews recognized that copying errors had slipped into the text by the first millennium AD, which is why they produced the corrected and amended Masoretic Text.
When Erasmus produced his “textus receptus” in the sixteenth century, it was the result of his scholarly research into a very small number of Greek texts he had available to him, all of which were from after AD 1000. This was the source for the King James translation. Yet, scholarship tells us that there were many textual errors in the textus receptus. Discoveries of much more ancient manuscripts such as codex sinaiticus or codex vaticanus have shown that the King James version is based on manuscripts with a number of errors. This is indisputable fact.
You say that “if it’s settled in heaven then surely it’s settled on earth.” This may sound logical to you, but it is worth noting that this is not what the passage says, and the evidence does not support the rigidly literal interpretation of this passage, at least with respect to copies of the Greek manuscripts here on the earth.
You propose that there is probably one manuscript which is perfect. OK. So, which of the thousands is the correct one? The answer is that, even if such a perfect manuscript existed, and I am highly doubtful that it does, which would be the correct one, and how would we know? There is no practical way to choose the perfect one. This idea of the existence of a perfect manuscript, even if true, would not solve the problem, which is that we do not have a 100.00% perfect text of the Greek New Testament. The same is true, but even more so, with the Hebrew Old Testament.
Yes. God’s word is already settled, and it is found in what are called the signature texts—the originals, to which we do not have access. Jesus words will never pass away. This is true, absolutely. However, he did not say that all of those copying the text of the letters of Paul would be 100.00% perfect. In fact, they were not, which is a matter of fact, not speculation. We need to put these awesome statements about God’s word in the Bible in their historical and literary context, not force a modernist, overly literalized Western view of how to think about such words.
I did not say that our current best Greek text is “riddled with copyist errors.” Not at all. Not even close. Like I already said, due to multiple manuscripts and common sense spelling corrections and so forth, we have a New Testament text which is somewhere around 99.8% accurate. This does not amount to “riddled with errors.” Not at all.
So, let me end by asking you a question. If you accept the obvious, which is none of the truly ancient manuscripts we have are 100.00% exactly the same, and you propose that there is a literally perfect one out there, then which is the perfect one, and what is your evidence that it is perfect? Are you proposing that the signature texts are hidden away somewhere? If so, since we do not have access, what is the practical implication of this?
Again, my confidence in the Bible is not altered in the least by these considerations. I am a devoted teacher of God’s word who has helped many dozens come to Christ through teaching his Word to people. I believe that it is inspired and authoritative in all aspects, and I believe that any miniscule possible copying errors does not change a single aspect of Christian belief.
John Oakes
