Re: The Preservation of the Word

From: BibAnsMan@aol.com
Date: Thu Dec 07 1995 - 00:10:59 EST


In a message dated 95-12-06 13:07:49 EST, Eric Weiss writes:

>Criticism (MTC), I'd like to ask: Where in the Scriptures does God
>explicitly promise to preserve His Word (as the proponent of BTC seems to
>say) where "Word" means the written Scriptures or especially the canon of
>Scripture, including its each and every letter? Does the Scripture use the
>phrase "the Word of God" to mean the written Scriptures? If so, where?
>

I am not aware of any Scripture which explicitly states that God will
preserve every letter. However, there are certain passages which make it
clear that every word and letter is more than just important, but determined
by God to succeed. In Matthew 5:18 Jesus states "For truly I say to you,
until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall
pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished." The smallest letter is
the Hebrew Yod (similar in size and form to an apostrophe in English). The
stroke is the Serif which distinguishes two nearly identical letters, the
Daleth and the Resh. It is a projection of a letter. Jesus was undoubtedly
using some euphemism here. But we must realize the intent of this euphemism
not dismiss it as such! He was stressing the determination of God to fulfill
every word of Scripture down to the letter. I believe God considers every
word important.

You are probably quite aware of 2 Timothy 3:16 which states that "All
Scripture is inspired of God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for
correction, for training in righteousness." PASA GRAFH QEOPNEUSTOS. All
Scripture is God-breathed. In 2 Peter 3:15-16 Peter includes Paul's writings
in Scripture.

>It's always seemed odd to me when discussing the
>question of the preservation of the original inerrant text that the one New
>Testament book (the Apocalypse) which contains a warning about adding to or
>subtracting from its words is as I understand it one of the worst attested
to
>as to its original text in the manuscript tradition. If I'm wrong about
that
>statement, please let me know. But if it's true, it does raise the question

>that if God promised to preserve His canonical written word, why did He do
>such a poor job with the Apocalypse?)

This is a negative view of the textual preservation. You do not cite any
evidence for your supposition. Neither do you refer to any statistics. It
is not good to quote things in this manner unless you have some evidence.
 You might want to ask a question how it is attested, but don't come against
Scripture without some specific research.

I look at Bruce Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament and
there are other books that have more variant readings by far than the book of
Revelation. p47 is one of the earliest and best preserved portions of the
New Testament dating from the middle to late third century! It is composed
of ten well preserved leaves of a codex measuring about 9 1/2 by 5 1/2 inches
of the book of Revelation, chs. 9-17. A fourth century codex called the
Sinaiticus contains the entire New Testament, including Revelation. Codex
Alexandrinus from the fifth century contains Revelation also.

I would not say that it is the "worst attested." Rather, when speaking of
anything such as this, I would say something like, "It is not attested to as
well as the others." I say this because there are over 5400 Greek
manuscripts which contain all or part of the New Testament. Compare it to
Caesar's Gallic Wars which only contain 10. Does anybody else have something
from that age that has more than 10? I seem to remember that this is the
next best comparison. I would say the New Testament is well-attested.

Jim McGuire
Professor of Greek at
Logos Bible Institute
13248 Roscoe Blvd.
Sun Valley, CA 91352



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:33 EDT