written by L. G. Brigden, Senior Editorial Consultant - Linguistics

It is noteworthy that the many textual differences between the Authorised (King James) Version and the more modern English versions can all be traced to a crucial underlying doctrinal difference. The translators of the Authorised (King James) Version held not only to the doctrine of the divine inspiration of Scripture but also to the doctrine of the divine preservation of Scripture. Today, while the doctrine of divine inspiration is still generally held, the doctrine of divine preservation is largely lost and forgotten, and sometimes even denied.¹

However, the principle of the divine preservation of Scripture was once well known as a Biblical doctrine. Historic confessions, such as the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), contain an explicit statement of the doctrine (1.8):²

The Old Testament in Hebrew … and the New Testament in Greek … being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical

In this statement both doctrines, divine inspiration (‘immediately inspired by God’) and divine preservation (‘by his singular care and providence kept pure’), are conjoined and equally maintained as Biblical truths. But how many today will maintain the two doctrines equally? It is common enough for the first doctrine to be maintained, but the second is often silently passed over. Thus one important part of the historic Reformed doctrine of Scripture is generally absent from the modern church, and in regard to this important doctrine the church limps along holding only to a part and not to ‘all the counsel of God’ (Acts 20.27).

Some may perhaps object that the doctrine of divine preservation has not been generally abandoned at the present today, but it is only that the mechanism of ‘preservation’ is now conceived as being by the efforts of scholars in reconstructing the ‘critical’ text. But how then are we to explain the fact that the doctrine of the divine preservation of Scripture is in these days but rarely spoken of? Is it not evident that, whether it be openly admitted or not, the efforts of scholars in reconstructing the ‘critical’ text do not really qualify as ‘divine preservation’?

Remove the doctrine of the divine preservation of Scripture and the whole approach to Bible translation changes. Firstly, it will change our choice of the texts on which to base a translation. If we hold to the divine preservation of Scripture, we will look for that text which has been preserved by God’s providence throughout history, and for that text which has also been generally received by the church throughout history. And where else shall we look but to the Received Text? On the other hand, ignore or forget the doctrine of the divine preservation of Scripture, or worse still deny it, and we are all at sea, sifting through a mass of manuscript evidence but with no more guiding light than the subjective guesses of scholars.

Secondly, adherence to the doctrine of the divine preservation of Scripture affects the method of translation. If the words are not only the inspired but also the preserved words of God, then those words are precious in themselves and we will attempt to literally translate them, and not merely give the sense of them, whatever we may conjecture that sense to be. Thus we will choose the formal equivalent approach to translation rather than a dynamic equivalent approach. There is doubtless a connection between the rise and popularity of dynamic equivalent translations and the decline in the doctrine of divine preservation.

The Society holds not only to the divine inspiration of Scripture, but also, and quite explicitly, to the divine preservation of Scripture. These twin doctrines underlie and guide all the translational work of the Editorial Department. In thus holding fast the whole of the Reformed and Biblical doctrine of Scripture, it is our fervent hope that the Lord may be pleased to bless the translation work of the Society, consciously conducted as it is in accordance with those same principles He has so richly blessed in the past.

Endnotes

1. Daniel Wallace, for example, would be one of those today who deny the doctrine (see ‘Inspiration, Preservation and New Testament Textual Criticism’, Grace Theological Journal, 12.1 [1992] 21–50).

2. Equivalent, if not identical, statements are also to be found in the Savoy Declaration (1658), Helvetic Consensus Formula (1675), London Baptist Confession (1689).

This article was first published in Quarterly Record 624.