Published by Proverbs 30:5 says, “Every word of God is pure.” However the problem facing us is whether we have all the words of God in the Greek and Hebrew texts and if so which text is the one which is the most accurate, the most consistent with the originals which are lost. The nearest we can get to these in time are papyrus fragments such as the fragments of John’s Gospel in the Rylands library, in Manchester, England.
The fact that these are just about contemporary and may date from the Apostolic age is of tremendous importance. There are no other ancient manuscripts of which we have originals of this nature. Caesar, Homer, the Roman writers such as Tacitus, the ancient Indian writings like the Ramayana and the Mahabharrata are all from manuscripts which are hundreds, even thousands of years after the originals were put together. This fact makes the manuscripts of the New Testament unique and the subsequent compilations of a Greek text a human possibility.
With regard to the Old Testament it was to Israel that God entrusted the Word of God and this was in three parts, the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. “What advantage, then hath the Jew, and what profit of circumcision? Much every way; chiefly indeed that unto them were committed the oracles of God.” So the Apostle Paul wrote to the Romans (Rom 3:1,2.). This trust and this commitment Israel maintained faithfully.
The New Testament seems more difficult and it seems to me that here, with regard to the Bible, we have God’s test for us today. Much, as in every age, there is a test of faithfulness, as the tree of knowledge of good and evil in Genesis three. God seems to have entrusted to us the work of sorting out a faithful Greek text, as much like the originals as faithful scholarship can make it. This is bound up with interpretation.
The Roman church succeeded until the time of Wycliffe, to hide the word of God in the Latin language so only committed Romanists were allowed to read it. Wycliffe translated Jerome’s Latin version. This was the first popular version in the English language. It was Tyndale, however, in the time of King Henry viii, who finally produced a translation in the English language. This was based upon Erasmus’s Greek text and his own studies. One complete edition was destroyed at sea and Tyndale was killed for his work. We see what we are up against.
The Textus Receptus, that is the text on which the Authorized Version of 1611 was based, is almost completely Tyndale’s Greek text. The very opposition and the trouble it went through to get it finally published suggests to me that it must have been close to the original since it went through the fires, as it were and men gave their lives for it.
That is only one part of the problem. Since Westcott and Hort and the 1881 revision we have had a succession of new translations which are based largely on the more recently discovered manuscripts, the Sinaiaticus, the Bezae, and the Vaticanus in particular. The fact that no-one except a favoured few in Rome get to see the latter, suggests that here there may be some doubt as to its reliability. The former has discrepancies with other uncials and all the uncials are questionable when compared with the papyrus manuscripts, the quotations and the early translations.
The fact that they are complete documents and not fragments suggest that they were of the nature of the Alexandrian manuscripts which Eusebius had copied for his admired Emperor who decreed toleration for Christendom then, finally made Christendom’s religion the religion of the empire. Constantine was a brilliant politician, but he was never a Christian. One has one’s doubts, for that matter about Eusebius and many of the so-called “church fathers”.
Each translation, in modern times has played ducks and drakes with the text and has tried to delete Trinitarian doctrines. It also does not like ideas such as judgement and the second coming of the Lord Jesus.
All this leads us to the problem of the reliability of the Received Text. There are also problems of translation whether to try to give the sense in modern terms or to do a word for word rendering. Clearly any modern translation must be something of a compromise between the two.
The quote from Proverbs(above) is important. So are some verses in John’s Gospel as 3:34. “For He whom God sent speaks the words of God.” The word translated “words” here is the Greek word “rhema”, it is equivalent to the Hebrew word “imrah” or “imreh”. These words mean a word spoken or written, that is a singular word. I suggest you look up these words in a Concordance and in Vine. Vine says what I have said above and explains the other word we have to deal with. This is the word, Logos. Vine says it means: “Expression of thought, not the mere name of an object. Logos is as embodying a conception or idea.” So is the Hebrew word, “davar”.
So when we come down to the actual words of the Bible we are not dealing with the word logos(=heb. “davar”) but with the actual words. It must also be said that for there to be an accurate “Word” it must be expressed in accurate words. That is the actual words of God must be pure as the Proverb says (it is the word imrah) it must be written or spoken in words which give God’s precise meaning.
Peter says that “the word of the Lord endures for ever.” Surprisingly it is the word rhema which is translated “word”. Jude refers to, “the words (rhema) spoken by the Apostles.” All the following references are(N.T.) “rhema” and (O.T.) “imreh”.
The Lord Jesus said the following: “The words which I speak unto thee, they are spirit and they are life.” (John 6:63) “The words that I speak unto you (to them all) I speak not of Myself, but the Father…” (John 14:10.)
Romans 10:17 says, “faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God” So it would seem that faith, believing what God says, depends on knowing exactly what God says and that means the very words as the use of “rhema” shows us here. There are many other cases. Matt 4:4. 26:75. 2Cor 12:4 are examples. Perhaps the most convincing after Romans is Ephesians 6:17. The sword of the Spirit we take to be the Bible but since it is not “logos” which is translated “word” here, but “rhema” we see the importance of memorizing the very words of the Bible and not just knowing what is meant, or what we think is meant.
You might look up “Word” in Vine. He explains, as I have quoted the differences though I think his note on Eph. 6:17 is a bit weak and does not make the point which a study of the word brings out that it is individual words that are intended.
The Old Testament is also sure, let me give references. Deuteronomy 32:1. Joshua 24:27. Job 22:22 and 23:12. are cases in point. There are many others. However Psalm 119 always springs to mind when thinking about the subject. It wholeheartedly comes down on the side of my argument as stated above. Try the following verses, 11, 35, 41, 50, 58, 67, 76, 82, 103, 116, 133, 140, 148, 154, 158, 162, 170, 172, 173.
These all use the word “imreh” the actual word in print and not the thought or concept. There are of course many other cases. The use of a good Concordance will show these.
