The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown (10 page)

Some translators maintain that accurate translation requires a word-for-word approach of formal equivalence (KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, HCSB).
¹²⁷
Others contend that construing a straightforward one-to-one correlation between two languages actually distorts meaning.
¹²⁸
These translators employ a phrase-for-phrase approach
¹²⁹
of dynamic or functional equivalence (NRSV, NIV, CEV, NLT, TNIV).
¹³⁰
The goal of all translators, no matter what translation theory they employ is the production of an English version that is an accurate rendering of the text written in such a way that the Bible retains its literary beauty, theological grandeur, and, most importantly, its spiritual message.
¹³¹

Table 1.2: Translation Continuum

The good news is that there are faithful translations of the Bible in English available for a wide variety of readers. Whether a given person needs a rendition with a limited vocabulary and simple syntax or prefers an elevated style and grandeur of language, a faithful translation exists for him or her.

The history of the English Bible satisfactorily demonstrates that the Bible of today does indeed faithfully represent the Scriptures in their original languages. For centuries the only Bible available to Western people was the Latin Vulgate prepared by Jerome (c. 345–420), who was commissioned by Bishop Damasus toward the end of the fourth century.
¹³²
The Vulgate served as the official version of the Bible throughout Medieval Europe and was restricted to the clergy, monastic orders, and scholars.
¹³³

A British priest and Oxford scholar, John Wycliffe (1330–1384), was the first to make the entire Bible accessible to the common English-speaking people.
¹³⁴
His translation was based on the Vulgate and not on the Hebrew and Greek.
¹³⁵
William Tyndale published the first English NT based on the Greek text in 1526.
¹³⁶
Two close associates of Tyndale, Miles Coverdale and John Rogers, finished his work by publishing their own respective translations of the entire Bible: the Coverdale Bible (1535) and Matthew's Bible (1537).
¹³⁷
The Geneva Bible of 1560 provided a translation of the Bible entirely from the original languages.
¹³⁸
This paved the way for King James I to issue a translation that would correct the partisan nature of the Geneva Bible.
¹³⁹
Thus in 1611, the much-celebrated Authorized Version (AV or KJV), largely based on Tyndale's work, became the unrivaled English translation for approximately 270 years.
¹⁴⁰

The twentieth century has given rise to a number of new translations. Taking its point of departure from the revised Authorized Version in England in 1885, the American Standard Version (ASV) appeared in 1901. In 1952, the Revised Standard Version (RSV) was introduced. A Roman Catholic translation, the Jerusalem Bible, was released in 1966. The New English Bible (NEB), the New American Bible (NAB), and the New American Standard Bible (NASB) were all completed in 1970. The Good News Bible (GNB) or Today's English Version (TEV) was produced in 1978, the year that also saw the publication of the New International Version (NIV).

With the 1980s came the New King James Version (NKJV, 1982), the New Century Version (NCV, 1987), and the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV, 1989). The pace did not slow in the 1990s, which saw the release of the Contemporary English Version (CEV, 1995) and the New Living Translation (NLT, 1996). The new millennium has witnessed additional significant translations with the English Standard Version (ESV, 2001),
the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB, 2004), and Today's New International Version (TNIV, 2005).

The updating and production of new translations were necessitated by new manuscript discoveries, changes in the English language, and the advancement of modern linguistics. Today, when people open any English Bible, they may know that generations of faithful scholarship have managed to preserve and protect that Bible as it was originally given.

As the author of Hebrews states, “Long ago God spoke to the fathers by the prophets at different times and in different ways. In these last days, He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things and through whom He made the universe” (Heb 1:1–2). With this kind of revelation, there is no need to wait for another, greater revelation but to study, evangelize, preach, and teach the Word of God. The canon is the source of this information—inspired, illumined, and applied by the Holy Spirit. Truly, as one writer stated, the canon of Scripture is “the air we breathe.”
¹⁴¹

INSPIRATION AND INERRANCY:
WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE CANON?

The final topic for discussion in the present chapter relates to theology, that is, the doctrine of Scripture, and in particular the Bible's witness regarding itself. This consideration of the theological dimension of Scripture is needed in order to balance its historical development and the inclusion of particular books in the NT canon. This discussion deals with Scripture's witness regarding itself in the OT; the use of and approach to OT Scripture by Jesus and the early church; NT references to Scripture as “inspired” (2 Tim 3:16) and as deriving from men “moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pet 1:21); and inerrancy (the doctrine that Scripture is free from error) and hermeneutics (biblical interpretation).

The Broader Notion of “Inspiration” in the Early Church Fathers

In the discussion of the criteria for canonicity above, we observed that when the ancient church compiled the canon, its essential task
historically
was to recognize which writings bore the stamp of divine inspiration. Much of recent scholarship on the NT canon, however, rejects the
theological
notion of “inspiration” as a criterion of canonicity.
¹⁴²
While it is hard to deny that inspiration is a scriptural attribute, some argue that inspiration is not the sole prerogative of Scripture. Sundberg, for example, concluded not only that the church fathers did not include “inspired” in their criteria for canonicity but that they employed “inspired” versus “not inspired” language in polemical debates with heretical movements.
¹⁴³
According to these scholars, “inspiration” terminology was used not only with reference to the Scriptures but also with regard to their own writings. Thus Clement
said that Paul wrote with “true inspiration” (
1 Clem.
47.3) and that his own (Clement's) letter was “through the Holy Spirit” (
1 Clem.
63.2) as well. Similar language is used in other patristic writings.

Sundberg further claimed that the doctrine of the
unique
inspiration of Scripture is not a Christian doctrine at all but rather a Jewish notion that arose after Christianity had received the Jewish Scriptures and broken with Judaism. Later on, according to Sundberg, this doctrine of inspiration was seized upon by Luther in the polemical debates of his day in order to exclude the Apocrypha.
¹⁴⁴
Sundberg, for his part, claimed that everything that coheres with the Bible is inspired equally to the Bible. He stated:

Thus, in forming the canon, the church acknowledged and established the Bible as the measure or standard of inspiration in the church, not the totality of it.…Christian inspiration parallels biblical inspiration, complementing it, and opening every Christian age to theological verisimilitude, like the books of the Bible and the periods in which they were written are verisimilar.
¹⁴⁵

This, of course, creates some difficulty for believers who have been accustomed to understand
inspired
to mean “from God” and therefore authoritative. If there were ancient or contemporary documents that are equally inspired as the canonical writings, this would necessitate a broader definition of “Scripture.” But this raises several important questions. For example, is it legitimate to consider a noncanonical document or utterance as inspired and authoritative if it goes beyond canonical Scripture and adds new revelatory content? Should such documents be added to the existing canon? Even Sundberg would say no, because the canon, settled in the fourth century, is the rule by which all other works are to be judged. Thus the canon has a special place among the inspired writings. Yet Sundberg failed to adduce a proper biblical basis on which to exclude noninspired, noncanonical books.

The all-important point in this regard is that the church fathers' use of inspiration terminology is not prescriptive for the church today. Although they made an indispensable contribution to our understanding of the early days of the church, it is Scripture's own witness and doctrine of Scripture that are authoritative. Moreover, the church's role is best understood not as the acceptance of a certain group of writings on the basis of human criteria and deliberations but as the recognition of the books handed down to the church that bore the self-authenticating mark of divine inspiration.

For this reason it must be concluded that Sundberg's thesis is built on faulty presuppositions. The use of inspiration terminology in the church fathers is both unrefined and often generic, used to refer broadly to the participation of the Holy Spirit in their lives
and writings. The church fathers should not be faulted for failing to utilize a modern theological construct drawn from centuries of discussion on the biblical texts. For this reason, rather than taking the writings of the early church fathers as one's point of departure, it is more appropriate to start with the scriptural witness regarding itself.

Of necessity, many of the relevant references pertain to the OT Scriptures. However, if the NT is the collection of new covenant documents in analogy with the OT being the collection of old covenant documents, it stands to reason that the NT writings will exhibit the same types of characteristics as the books of the OT. Thus, when Peter affirmed Paul's writings as being on a par with Scripture, and when Paul, as is likely, affirmed the Gospel of Luke as Scripture on the same level as Deuteronomy, then both NT writers were ascribing to the NT (or at least to Paul's letters and the Gospels) the same characteristics as those found in the books of the OT.

The God portrayed in the OT is a communicating God. He speaks to his children, and he does so through his servants the prophets (hence the prophetic “Thus says the Lord”). Because it is God who speaks to and through his servants, he demands faith and obedience to these utterances. Thus king Jehoshaphat called on the Israelites to “believe in the Lord your God, and you will be established; believe in His prophets, and you will succeed” (2 Chr 20:20), and God himself is represented as addressing the wilderness generation with the following words:

“Listen to what I say: If there is a prophet among you from the Lord, I make Myself known to him in a vision; I speak with him in a dream. Not so with My servant Moses; he is faithful in all My household. I speak with him directly, openly, and not in riddles; he sees the form of the Lord. So why were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?” (Num 12:6–8).
¹⁴⁶

God's word to his servants was expected to be believed and obeyed as God was to be believed and obeyed.

The Scripture's Witness Regarding Itself: The Old Testament

But what should be said about the written Word? Scripture itself contains information regarding the writing of Scripture. These, as W. Grudem noted, are “reports of men writing down words that God told them to write, words that are then understood as God's words.”
¹⁴⁷
Exodus 17:14 states, “The Lord then said to Moses, ‘Write this down on a scroll as a reminder and recite it to Joshua.’” In subsequent generations, actions were to be performed in keeping with what was written in the law of Moses. This was explicitly
commanded in passages such as Deut 28:58–59. Consequently, the command to Joshua was related to this book of the law: “This book of instruction must not depart from your mouth; you are to recite it day and night, so that you may carefully observe everything written in it. For then you will prosper and succeed in whatever you do” (Josh 1:8). Joshua also copied the law of Moses at its ratification (Josh 8:32). His last word to Israel was, “Be very strong, and continue obeying all that is written in the book of the law of Moses, so that you do not turn from it to the right or left” (Josh 23:6). Clearly, the written law of Moses, as the Word of God, was understood as authoritative and as the path of blessing for Israel. In later generations this continued to be the declaration of the OT (see 1 Kgs 2:3). Significantly, after a time of religious decline in Israel, Hilkiah the priest found “the book of the law” in the temple (2 Kgs 22:8; 2 Chr 34:14). When young Josiah had the book read to him, it became to him a source of grief because “great is the Lord's wrath that is kindled against us because our ancestors have not obeyed the words of this book in order to do everything written about us” (2 Kgs 22:13). Josiah's subsequent reforms constituted a movement “back to the Bible.” A similar thing happened after the return from the Babylonian captivity when Ezra read the book of the law “that the Lord had given Israel” to the assembled clans of Israel (Neh 8:1).
¹⁴⁸