Preservation: How and What?

The doctrine of preservation of the Scriptures has been hotly debated in recent years. Much has been written and said, but most of the rhetoric on the subject has been closely connected to defending or rejecting one view or another on the translation issue. The result has often been that important foundational questions have been overlooked in a rush to get to conclusion A or B in the translation debate.

Among the neglected questions are these: (1) what process did God say He would use to preserve His word and (2) what form did He say that preserved word would take? Both of these are subsets of another neglected question: What does Scripture actually claim (and not claim) about it’s own preservation?

The questions of process (“how”) and form (“what”) are at the heart of the controversy because nobody (among fundamentalists or conservative evangelicals) denies that the word has, and will, endure. The question of what Scripture actually claims is critical as well, for multiple reasons. For one, only a clear answer to that question can put us on the right track to answering the others.

Two general schools of thought exist regarding the how and what of preservation.

Discrete preservation

One set of views on the how and what of preservation holds that the word must be preserved in a form that is accessible and identifiable with certainty as the preserved form. In other words, preservation means there is an original language text one can identify as “the preserved text.” In most cases, discrete preservationists believe this must also extend to a translation—one existing (or future) translation in each language, which we can identify as “the preserved translation.”

A missionary I spoke with on the subject a few years ago offered the following observations:

I believe since we do not have a copy of the originals, and Scripture mentions God would preserve His word, we have to have His word in a translation. I believe the only translation that was preserved in the English language is the translation coming from the Textus Receptus; the King James Bible.

A more detailed and incisive variation of the view is expressed in this Bible college doctrinal statement:1

We believe … that the King James Bible is God’s preserved word in English. We reject any attempt to correct it with the Greek critical text as is done in the Revised Standard Version, New International Version, and the New King James Version.

We believe … that God’s Word was spread around the world by the Reformation Era Bibles and Bible translations made from them during the beginning of the modern missions movement (1700’s and early 1800’s). Tragically, for nearly two hundred years, the United Bible Society … has tried to replace these Received Text Bibles with corrupt translations.

… the Word of God in Spanish is to be found in the Reformation era 1602 Valera Bible and properly done revisions …

Book length cases for word perfect preservation in discrete form are now available as well (for example, Thou Shalt Keep Them: A Biblical Theology of the Perfect Preservation of Scripture edited by Kent Brandenburg, 2003) in addition to numerous articles and blog posts on the Web.2

Dispersed preservation

Another approach to the how and what of preservation emphasizes the challenge we face in looking for answers to preservation questions. For example, the writers of Bible Preservation and the Providence of God offer the following caution:

What is less clear is how God is preserving the Bible. Though the Bible describes a little of the process of inspiration, it does not describe in detail the process of preservation. Since God also chose in His providence not to preserve the autographs [originals], it takes more effort to understand the process. (Schnaiter and Tagliapietra, 33)

In the chapters that follow, Schnaiter and Tagliapietra detail their view of the process and form of preservation. In an appendix, Schnaiter summarizes as follows:

I believe that the presence of copyists’ errors or translator’s errors or publishers’ errors in every copy of the New Testament … justifies the conclusion that God has not preserved the precise wording of the text … in any particular manuscript or copy or translation, but that He has indeed preserved both wording and sense. The sense is preserved in every copy since each is generally unaffected by the wording variations. (Schnaiter and Tagliapietra, 285. Emphasis original.)3

James White describes a similarly complex process and form of preservation:

You see, if readings could just “disappear” without a trace, we would have to face the fact that the original reading may have “fallen through the cracks” as well. But the tenacity of the New Testament text, while forcing us to deal with textual variants, also provides us with the assurance that our work is not in vain. One of those variant readings is indeed the original. (White, 48)

To these writers, and many others, preservation is not something God does by maintaining a singular certainly-identifiable form, but rather, something He has done (and is doing) in a dispersed way in the manuscripts He has kept from extinction.

The Bible on preservation

To most of us the burning question is, “What does the Bible itself say about its preservation?” In particular, what does the Bible reveal about God’s preservation process and what does it reveal about the form in which His preserved word will reach His people?

Seven passages speak most directly and clearly about the enduring nature of God’s word. Those who believe God has preserved His word in each language in one translation based on the proper Greek text often cite one or more of these in support of their view. For summary purposes I list them here with brief excerpts (in the KJV).

  • Psalm 119:89 “forever … thy word is settled in heaven”
  • Psalm 119:152 “thy testimonies … thou hast founded them forever”
  • 1 Peter 1:24-25 “the word of the Lord endureth for ever”
  • Psalm 12:6-7 “thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever”
  • Psalm 119:160 “every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever”
  • Matthew 24:35 “my words shall not pass away”
  • Matthew 5:18 “one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass”

Analysis

In Psalm 119:89 we have probably the least helpful passage of the seven for discerning the how and what of preservation on earth. The Psalmist’s goal is to magnify the Lord by pointing out that His word is natsav, firmly fixed and unchanging, just as God Himself is. But the location is “in heaven.” Similarly, Psalm 119:152 reveals that God’s word is “founded” (yacad) forever. The idea again is a firm (and by implication, unmoving) placing. But we do not gain any information as to what we should expect to be able to hold in our hands and read.

Psalm 12:6-7 are a special case because what is meant by “them” in “preserve them” has often been debated. However, if we grant for the sake of argument that “them” refers to God’s “words” (in v.6), what we have again, is a promise that the words of God will not be destroyed by any evil generation (“from this generation” refers to the idle speakers, flatterers and oppressors described in 12:1-5). We do not have a promise here that the words will be accessible or identifiable with certainty.

In 1 Peter 1:24-25 and Psalm 119:160, however, we gain—by inference—a little information about God’s preservation of His word for readers. Peter describes the contrast between the short and frail lives of mortals and the eternally enduring word of God, quoting from Isaiah 40:8. The psalmist indicates that what will endure is comprehensive: not one of God’s judgments will be lost. But it’s the context of these two passages that is most helpful. In both texts, part of the point seems to be that God’s word endures for us. It endures in some form believers will be able to access from generation to generation.

With Matthew 24:35, we gain still more information. Here Jesus affirms that His own words will never pass away. And, though we have no details concerning the form or process of their preservation, we do have a hint regarding the location of their preservation. “Pass away” translates the Greek parerchomai, meaning a passing by or passing from. Jesus’ implication is that His words will continue to exist in the world where His followers live.

Jots and tittles

Matthew 5:18 might be the most important passage on the subject. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus assures His listeners that “one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass until … ” The statement actually includes two conditions, two “untils”: until heaven and earth pass away and until all (the law) is fulfilled. Here again, we learn more about what God will preserve: every iota and keraia, every smallest letter and smallest stroke. The verb parerchomai (pass from) occurs again indicating that the words will be preserved here below.

What has been promised

Discrete preservationists see in these passages a promise that every “jot and tittle” of Scripture will be available to every generation in a certainly-recognizable, written form. That is, believers of every age will be able to point to a copy and say with certainty, “Every jot and tittle is right here.” But there are several reasons to believe this is not what has been promised:

  1. The passages do not actually say there will be a recognized form with every jot and tittle perfectly preserved.
  2. Neither Jesus nor the other speakers or writers in these passages say that the word will be accessible for “every generation.” Even if a letter-perfect form of God’s word could be identified with certainty, the promises do not preclude the possibility that this form could be lost for some generations then recovered again (the fact that something has not passed away does not mean we must know exactly where it is.)
  3. None of those who heard these promises when they were given could point to a written form they knew to contain every preserved jot and tittle. That is, already multiple copies existed, and variations among them existed—not only in jots and tittles but (by Jesus’ day) in whole words. (When Jesus spoke, the Scriptures available were hand made copies of the Hebrew OT and Greek versions of the OT known collectively as the Septuagint).

Conclusions

A close examination of what Scripture claims about its own preservation reveals that God’s word is preserved forever independently of anyone’s access to it (“in heaven”). This examination also reveals, however, that every word—even every letter—will always be preserved, and at least potentially accessible, on the earth. Scripture does not claim, however, that its availability in word-perfect form will be without interruption or that God’s people will always be able to identify it with certainty. There is nothing close to a promise that a word-perfect translation of such a text will exist in English or any other language. (If we have no promise that the Scriptures will be translated at all we cannot possibly have any promises about the quality of translations.)

Some will object that if we cannot identify the perfectly preserved text or translation, we do not have preservation in any meaningful sense. But this argument is a distraction from facts we cannot escape. Whether or not we like the implications of what Scripture says (and doesn’t say), the Bible still says only what it says—no more and no less.

Case-making

One additional distinction is important here. The fact that we have not been promised a certainly-identifiable, perfect text or translation does not prove that we are without one. What that fact does do, however, is point the way to what kind of case must be made for a perfectly preserved text or translation. Such a case must consist of inferences from Scripture, historical data, other external evidence, and reasoning from these. In short, just as the case for preservation “somewhere in the manuscripts” derives from the silence of Scripture plus external data, the case for perfect preservation must also be made by appealing to external data. Divine authority cannot be properly claimed for either position.

Works Cited

Schnaiter, Sam, and Ron Tagliapietra. Bible Preservation and the Providence of God. Self published. Xlibris Corp., 2003.

White, James. The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? Minneapolis. Bethany House Publishers, 1995.

Notes

1 I regret that I can no longer identify the source of this quotation. Either I am misremembering the college that posted the statement or they have since replaced it with something more conciliatory. In any case, the view they described is not unique to them.

2 Examples include “The Modern Texts and Versions Have Produced the Fruit of Theological Liberalism,” “Reasoned Preservation of Scripture, “A Sniff Test for the History of Preservation of Scripture,” “Biblical Preservation: B. B. Warfield and the Reformation Doctrine of the Providential Preservation of the Biblical Text,” and many, many more.

3 In the book, the emphasis in this paragraph is in all caps rather than italics, probably because the section is a response to correspondence in which all caps occur frequently in reference to Schnaiter’s views.


Aaron Blumer, SI’s site publisher, is a native of lower Michigan and a graduate of Bob Jones University (Greenville, SC) and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He, his wife, and their two children live in a small town in western Wisconsin, where he has pastored Grace Baptist Church (Boyceville, WI) since 2000. Prior to serving as a pastor, Aaron taught school in Stone Mountain, Georgia, and served in customer service and technical support for Unisys Corporation (Eagan, MN). He enjoys science fiction, music, and dabbling in software development.

Discussion

I say this and then note somewhat humorously that the NKJV is the default translation of Sharper Iron. So…
Bob, I’m NKJVO so don’t knock my translation. ;)

Actually, NKJV is the default for the Reftagger options, but the original default was NIV and I couldn’t have that! But you can set your personal pref. in your profile if you want something else… I think you know that but figured I’d post for the benefit of any who haven’t discovered that.

(But I guess non-members are stuck w/NKJV… might want to rethink that)

Also @Bob: when are you going publish your book on the subject? Sounds like you must have a terabyte of stuff on it.

Steve, I’m interested in your idea… can you elaborate more on what this might look like in our own day?

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

There are so many other good books on the topic. I do want to write more on it some day. But for now I’m a busy father of four girls ages 6 and under….

I think the NKJV is a fine translation, and appropriate given the audience of Sharper Iron too. I was just taking a stab at some humor….

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.

The trouble is that today getting people to standardize would be super-complicated in some ways due to all the fragmentation of today’s audiences. What was different in earlier times was the ability to have a catholic (with a small “c”) group that could meet and speak with some credibility and the followers in general would get behind it. I suppose smaller groups or fellowships do this that are KJVO, for example.

Could a fellowship and/or denomination choose a preferred version at least? Or would we cause more fragmentation by even bringing it up? I’d just as soon not bring it up in most fellowship or denominational settings because I think (within a narrow range that I’m assuming serious Christians would think credible) English Bible versions or even preferred Greek texts are generally unworthy of splitting over. It seems to me that in earlier days church was able to reach consensus based on what was right or best or had the “ring of truth”. Do today’s believers have the nobility to get beyond their parochial interests to do what is best? Does it cost more than it is worth for us?

In fact, there is a sense in which it is not in many people’s best interests to do so. If we standardized, what would be the value of so many trying to churn out more and more translations.

As I think more about it, maybe there are some criteria we could apply to translation and translations that would give them some sort of standardized stamp of credibility at least. What makes a translation credible? We ought to be able to grade translations on their “literalness” or to what degree they are “sense translations” or have been paraphrased with specific examples. There are certainly examples in many translations also of theological bias (for instance, the decision to transliterate “baptize” than to translate “immerse”, in many versions, even in the KJV).

In terms of texts, I think the manner in which texts have been classified are not clear for many and there is a need to step back from some of the dogmatism on all sides of the textual arguments. I don’t want to go beyond my very limited understanding (I’m also raising a family and working a job and I’m 15+ years out of school). To me, anyone who says they know which text is the preserved text is overconfident. But I don’t necessarily trust the work of the textual critic either.

[Aaron Blumer] What if some archaeologist digging around in Turkey or Rome or Jerusalem finds a well preserved manuscript dating solidly to, say, 2nd century, that matches TR perfectly? Of course, you’d have to say “Which TR?” but let’s suppose it perfectly matches what Erasmus settled on, even with the portions reverse engineered from the Vulgate. What does it do to the debate?
Let’s stand that on it’s head - what if we tomorrow, for example, found out that all the TR manuscripts were absolutely totally corrupted and worthless? How would that affect our Bibles and our view of preservation?

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Aaron,

You had to know this was coming:
Over at SharperIron, perhaps the most well-known fundamentalist blog and forum on the internet, the owner/editor, Aaron Blumer, a very decent Christian man, has written an article on preservation. He separates positions on preservation to two, and one of them, what he calls the discrete position, is the one we take. I wouldn’t call it the discrete view, nor do I think it should be called that, but it is what Aaron thinks of it. I believe he is being far, far more fair than most on this issue. However, he does not represent our position fully and therefore not accurately either. He references our book, but what he writes doesn’t seem to have interacted with it much (in the comment section, you will see that Aaron hasn’t looked at our book–ooops!). I will be answering his post here at my blog…. ([URL=http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2010/01/heads-up-on-preservation-ar… Kent Brandenburg[/URL] )
It will be interesting to see his response.

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.

I actually would like to have a good look at Kent’s book. I actually didn’t even know it existed until just before the article was scheduled to post, but I knew what Kent’s views were, so thought it would be good to include a reference to it so folks could take a look if they want to get details on that view.

It does seem that “discrete” is overly obscure word. Didn’t realize that. FWIW
[Merriam Webster] Main Entry: dis·crete

Pronunciation: \dis-ˈkrēt, ˈdis-ˌ\

Function: adjective

Etymology: Middle English, from Latin discretus

Date: 14th century

1 : constituting a separate entity : individually distinct

2 a : consisting of distinct or unconnected elements : noncontinuous b : taking on or having a finite or countably infinite number of values

synonyms see distinct

— dis·crete·ly adverb

— dis·crete·ness noun
Not to be confused with “discreet” (which has to do with being cautious and wise… though I did initially have that spelling in there once, it’s a different word entirely)

Given definition 2 there, it’s not the best word for that reason also…. though def1 fits what I meant quite well.

I’d be happy to hear some suggestions for a better word that captures the idea of “in one place, distinct and identifiable.”

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

[Aaron Blumer]

I’d be happy to hear some suggestions for a better word that captures the idea of “in one place, distinct and identifiable.”
I don’t know if that is the best term to describe this view, however. They view it as something which has always been accessible throughout time, due to God’s miraculous preservation. “Discrete” tends to bring up the image of re-inspiration or some second work to get some wholly new thing. Advocates of TR Onlyism, such as the authors of the book Kent edited, don’t think it is a new thing. They think in time God brought the right words to get used in the creation of the TR and in the printing of the English Bible and Greek TRs. But that all along the true words were available to God’s people in good manuscripts that they had access to (not that there was one clear cut copy with all the words in that one copy). Maybe “complete” preservation would work, to convey preservation of the complete Word of God as being discernible in its entirety. Or their own term “perfect” preservation.

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.

[Bob Hayton] Here’s a link where you can buy his book. It tries to make an exegetical case for “perfect preservation”. I remain unconvinced but it is one of the best books out there making this case.

[URL=http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2008/04/you.html http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2008/04/you.html[/URL]
My view on this book is similar to Bob’s. I got the first edition (I think it was 2003), and since I was trying to understand the direction my then church had taken (becoming strongly KJVO from a position of acceptance of and friendliness to translations like the NASB) over the years prior to when this book was published, I read it twice thoroughly, the second time taking notes. I liked the approach — taking the argument almost entirely from the scriptures. Since my pastor at that time was one of the contributors to that book, it gave me even more reason to want to read and understand it.

Ultimately, though, it didn’t convince me either. For an example of one of what I thought to be weak arguments, in the chapter on Ps. 12:6-7, it presents the view that “words” are referred to by “them” because of a special case of gender disagreement in the Hebrew. Even though there were other examples of gender disagreement pointed out, and compared favorably with this passage, there was no clear evidence presented that such gender disagreement HAD to be in play in these verses, such that “them” could not refer to men. This is just a single example.

Similar to what Aaron presented above, though, with or without Ps. 12:6-7 being on the side of preservation, I still believe in a doctrine of preservation anyway, but not in the sense of perfect preservation in a single manuscript. If you are one of those for whom this topic is either very interesting or something that is currently affecting your church or fellowship with other churches, you should probably read it to fully understand the side of the perfect preservationists. However, in the end, I thought “Thou Shalt Keep Them” still fell short of convincing me that their view is the correct one.

Dave Barnhart

Bob I think you bring up a good point. I know Dave Cloud (and I assume Kent B.) would not want to be associated with KJVO, of the Ruckman/Riplinger variety. I actually read a suggestion once of distinguishing them from KJVO (who say the KJV is superior to the Greek and Hebrew) by being called Preservationists.

We have to remember that much of their understanding of the issue is that Satan and is demons are real and that there is and has been throughout history attempts to destroy humanity (in the garden), the nation of Israel, the line of the Messiah, the Messiah himself, the church, and the Word of God. Therefore there is not just an idea of God preserving the Bible so that it exists, but that it exists in a reliable, dependable, uncorrupted fashion. So I believe one of the disconnects between the different sides in the debate are due to fundamentally different worldviews. In what I have read from the perspective of textual critics, they talk alot about text and methodologies but not so much about the spiritual dimension of the whole thing. The question if the Bible and preservation is not simply a historical curiosity, it is not all academic.

I would like to see better distinction between the different factions of what is called KJVO because I believe there are some very reasonable people making reasonable points that should be taken seriously, but they often get lumped in with others that are more extreme.

I have also observed there is a part of the worldview of various KJV Only that see themselves as the pure ones, the holdouts who are the remnant, who are faithful to God while the rest of Christianity apostatizes. The use of other bibles is a litmus test issue for many of whether or not you have drunken the devils kool-aide.

Jason E. Schaitel MCP

co-founder FrancisSchaefferStudies.org

student at Veritas School of Theology

schaitel,

Assuming we are to factor in the reality of demonic devises (and I have no doubt that at every turn they have sought to dismantle, corrupt and influence in some negative fashion the perpetuity of Scripture) along with the necessary academic or scholarly issues, how would those holding to a form of KJVO you describe as “very reasonable people making reasonable points” respond to the application of this principle when examining the translational shortcomings of the KJV?

Could not those pointing out some of the translational issues say just as well, “Look at the evidence that it is not as trustworthy and demonic forces have obviously introduced some obfuscation and inaccuracies and therefore it certainly cannot be the preserved Word of God”? The problem I see is that regardless of the validity of the spiritual considerations regarding subterfuge by demonic forces, it does not negate the translational issues with the KJV (and if this question is determined to be out of bounds regarding the special rules for discussion then may it be pardoned and moved to its appropriate location with the hope of it still being answered).

Schaitel,

You bring up an excellent point yourself, here. As a former KJVO, the loose, flippant treatment of KJV Onlyists coupled with not much effort to distinguish between varying degrees and types of KJV onlyists, put me off. When I read James White’s book on the issue in Bible College, the fact that he picked Riplinger and Ruckman as two of his three KJV Only examples really gave me cause to doubt his story. Taking care in distinguishing what the reasoned KJV view actually is, is at least a charitable duty, and at best a tactic which may win some to our side of the debate.

This is not to downplay Alex’s valid point that Satanic activity could be posited as behind either side of the Bible debate. But where preservation comes into play here is worth noting. Since God promised to preserve His Word, they argue, why should we expect to find it buried in the sand 1800 years later? Wouldn’t we rather expect to see it in the hands of God’s people down through the ages? And from a certain vantage point, the TR would have a good claim to being that revered traditionally used text, which would seem to be how we think God would preserve His Word.

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.

Interesting that someone mentioned Satan’s attack on the word of God in the garden. I would agree that the Devil attacked God’s word specifically (though it was his way of attacking God Himself and assaulting faith in Him). And we would be foolish to suppose the Devil has gotten out of the word attacking business. But when we look at Satan’s attacks on God’s word in Scripture, how much of the time was it word in written form he went after? In the garden for example, what he attacked was their memory of what God had spoken… and the meaning of what He had spoken.

Given the rarity of written copies in the hands of God’s people over the millennia, I have to think Satan’s attacks on the word have more often taken this form, rather than the copying and “transmission” process. (The incident in Jeremiah 36 with the scroll is so memorable because it is so unusual, among other reasons.)

So the “Satan is attacking the word” argument, while true, works for both sides because he is not focused on destroying written word but also more than willing to attack the word unwritten and attack people’s understanding and memory of the word. Of course, I’m among those who believe we do not have “unwritten word of God” today, but it is possible to argue that the devil is attacking the word by encouraging folks to use a translation they are more likely to misunderstand (or not read) or by steering them toward a text that seems pure but is not.

I’m not saying exclusive use of KJV is the devil’s work to attack the word of God at the level of understanding, but I’m pointing out that this line of argument doesn’t work exclusively as a “attacks on the pure text” argument.

About variations of KJVO I’ll echo the call for more careful distinctions. It would be a great help for the cause of peaceful coexistence (if not unity) if terms for the various flavors of KJVO could be developed that each group would be willing to own, it could at least make it possible for rhetoric on the topic to be more fair, less sloppy, and ultimately more helpful.

But we still have a fair number of well meaning people using “KJVO” as a term for all the variations and associating them with the most extreme elemements… which just makes alot of people angry where that could have been avoided.

Maybe I’ll write a piece on “What kind of KJVO?” and interact w/some folks to try to get some good handles. Though, so far, my handle-making work isn’t going super great (as with “discrete preservation”)… but at least the view represented hasn’t found the term offensive.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

RPittman said things far better than what I said above, but I think we are making the same point. I agree that usage by the believing church is a far better way of establishing what has the “ring of truth” than the vast majority of the arguments heard today. I also agree that we do not need to know (and indeed don’t know) the exact process by which Scripture is preserved. It is oversimplification to call it the “church history” argument. It is how what was and was not correct was sorted out through usage.

I’m not KJVO and in fact received my textual criticism instruction at Central. Through all that it was not any clearer to me how I should know what is and is not the proper text and not have it be subjective. I do wish we could settle down enough to make a translation that deals in modern language that we all can agree on.