Problem Dismissing Parts of the Bible, Pt. 1

Tweet

As I was studying Romans 8 for my sermon, I read these words from a Biblical scholar that I greatly respect. He was dealing with Romans 8:1: "'There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.' Be sure to put a period at this point, if one is not there in your Bible. The remainder of that verse does not belong in the original." (Romans: the Gospel of God's Grace, The Lectures of Alva J. McClain, p. 163)

What are the rest of the words? "Who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" (KJV, NKJV). The reasoning for leaving that part of the verse out is because we are told, "archeologists have found many older manuscripts and not one has that clause in it" (McClain, p. 164). When I hear those things, I am driven to dive deeper. It certainly would make my exposition simpler if it wasn't there. But, shouldn't we be required to deal with the extant copies that are given to us rather than dismiss them outright?

I need to say, I am not a KJV only expositor. My favorite translations are the HCSB and the NKJV. Both are modern translations that strike a balance making the Word of God both enjoyable and scholarly. I actually would be placed in the Majority text camp. That means, I believe that the Majority texts of the ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament are accurate...not perfect, mind you...but accurate. I mean 99+% accurate. That means what you hold in your hand is fine for you to read and study and believe. Save for 3 translations, the Revised Standard, the New Revised Standard, and the TNIV (which is the current NIV), no matter of faith, theology, or practice is violated in any way.

But for me, it comes down to this, shouldn't I be held to a standard of dealing with the Scripture we have been given rather than dismissing every passage that some would question as authentic? Passages that include John 8 (the adulterous woman), Romans 8:1, Mark 16:9-20, and 1 John 5:7. My desire is that the Bible student exegete each and every passage that the Majority Text? Consider what the 5000+ manuscripts affirm. Be careful that you don't dismiss a passage because it happens to be left out in a few texts. On the surface, the older texts such as Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus should be more accurate, right? But you should remember is, when it comes to textual study, older is not always better. Age of the text might be one variable, but a much better standard is how many generations of copies the text has been transcribed from. A textual critic needs to ask both of these questions: 1) how old is the manuscript? and 2) Is this copy, no matter the age, closer to the original generationally?

We would be better served as Bible students and Bible believers asking the right questions as we interpret, exegete, and discuss all what's included in the Bible.

More tomorrow.

Pastor Trey Rhodes

Posted with Blogsy