Scripture is the basis of our understanding in determining belief and
practice according to the truth of God.[1] The one God is revealed in continuity
as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as well as the God and Father of Jesus
Christ our Lord. The Bible inseparably consists of both the Hebrew scriptures of
the Jews the apostolic writings which testify to the Gospel of God in Christ
Jesus.
Canon of Scripture
The Bible pertains both to
the Hebrew scriptures of the Jews, referred to as the Old Testament, and the
apostolic Greek texts collectively called the New Testament. The Scriptures of
the Old Testament (Jewish TANAKH) consists of the five books of Moses (TORAH),
the prophets (NEVI’IM), and the writings (KETHUVIM). The New Testament includes
the Gospels[2], the Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline epistles, other apostolic
epistles, and the Revelation of Christ.
While we accept no
apostolic writings outside the 27 books of the traditional New Testament canon
to be authoritative, we understand that the books canonized in the 4th Century
by the Church of Rome under Constantine are not all equal in their degree of
divine inspiration and in their efficacy for teaching and preaching the things
concerning the Gospel. While most of the minor epistles were not initially
considered canonical [3], we accept these as authorities – yet as supplemental
to the more undisputed apostolic writings. Of the other books disputed early in
Christianity, we hold the Revelation to be truly the revelation of Christ and
the book of Hebrews to truly reflect the testimony of Christ and the Gospel.
The most significant distinction that should be made regarding the
NT cannon is the authority of the synoptic gospels Mark and Luke over the gospel
attributed to Matthew. While Matthew has traditionally been the most endeared on
account of its language, style and presentation of Jesus, it is the least
creditable of the synoptic gospels. We reject Matthew as a primary authority due
to the numerous contradictions, discrepancies[4], and additions compared to the
other more creditable testimonies of Mark and Luke. Matthew was written later
than Mark and Luke and can be demonstrated to embellish the accounts of Jesus
and to expand upon his words. For these reasons we associate Matthew with the
belief and practice of later Christians rather than of Christ’s Apostles.
Earliest texts as primary authorities
Popular
English translations of Scripture follow a bias according to conventions,
dogmas, and creeds that were not held by Christ or by the apostles. Therefore we
consider only the most original text as Scripture inspired and authoritative
in the revelation of God and his truth. The Bible consists of the writings
inspired by God in its original language and content. The most original texts
are of authority over any translation and are infallible as divine Scripture to
the extent that the text is free from corruption. Modern scholarship has done
much in producing restored texts that are much more accurate than those widely
accepted centuries ago.
Our official Old Testament source is the
Hebrew Text of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS, 2nd ed., 1983). The BHS
is a scientific, printed edition of the Leningrad Codex-the oldest complete
masoretic manuscript of the Bible. Various edited forms of the BHS are to be
primary sources, especially the Hebrew text based on the MCW[5] version of the
BHS by The Jewish Publication Society (JPS, 2nd ed. 1999).[6] The official New
Testament Greek texts are the 1993 editions of the Greek New Testament (4th
ed.), published by the United Bible Societies (UBS), and Novum Testamentum
Graece (27th ed.) edited by Nestle and Aland.[7] The texts of these two sources
are identical, differing only in their lists of variant readings and
documentation.
Translations of Scripture
We assert that
that popular English translations of Scripture follow a bias according to
conventions, dogmas, and creeds that were not held by Christ or by the apostles.
Because of the express shift of Christianity from its original roots in Judaism
to the influence of paganism toward false doctrines, we understand that even the
early writings and creeds of the 2nd through 4th century “church fathers” cannot
be taken as truly reflecting the belief and practice of the apostles. Yet, all
popular Christian translations of the Bible are in accordance with a
presupposition toward the unbiblical doctrines of the later “orthodox” tradition
. For example, the doctrine of the Trinity wasn’t widely accepted until the 5th
century, yet this doctrinal influence has dominated every major English
translation of the Bible since the beginning of English translations during the
16th century.
All translation is interpretation. Since their is
no way to perfectly equate one language to another, translators make a vast
number of interpretations in the translation process. For this reason “original”
sources must be considered the primary authority over any translation into
English or another language. Even the most literal translations of the Bible
contain within them a substantial amount of interpretation. While it is
necessary to use translations of the Bible, we believe a translation should
accurately maintain both the content and meaning of the earliest most creditable
manuscripts. Accuracy is best ensured by a literal word for word translation, as
opposed to a “thought for thought” paraphrase.
Since the heritage
of current popular translations is a predisposition toward “orthodox” tradition,
only the most literal of the popular translations should be used in study and
discourse of the Holy Scripture. The English Standard Version (ESV), 2001, by
Crossway Bibles is one of the most acceptable translations widely available.
Despite the traditional “orthodox” heritage of ESV, it is an “essentially
literal” translation and doesn’t exhibit the degree of bias in editing and
formatting as other literal editions. The New American Standard Bible (NASB), is
probably the most “literal” of the widely available translations but uses
misleading and interpretive section headings while also departing from correct
English in the subjective capitalization of common nouns and pronouns
“pertaining to Deity”. Editorial choices like these, as well as phrasing,
punctuation and even indicating the words of Jesus in red[8], reflect a
significant degree of subjectivity although words themselves may be quite
literal.
The most universal bias in translations of the New
Testament is the identifying of both the Greek pneuma (spirit) and logos (word) of
God as persons rather than qualities or aspects of God. The consequence of
non-biblical Trinity dogma has thus resulted in rendering pronouns attributed to
these qualities of God as ”he”, “him”, and “himself” rather than the pronouns
“it” and “itself” that would result from abstract nouns. Of the misleading use
of pronouns and personification of abstract nouns, the most widespread deception
in the New Testament occurs in the prologue to the Gospel of John, wherein the
logos, God’s reason by which he created all things, is construed to be a
pre-incarnate person of a triune God, being “with” God and being “God”. For a
more proper translation of John’s prologue, refer to William Tyndale’s
translation of the New Testament.
References:
[1] 2 Tim.
3:15-17 [2] Mark, Luke, and John as primary, the gospel attributed to Matthew as
secondary [3] II Peter, II John, III John, James, and Jude were not originally
considered canonical. [4] For example, the phrase “kingdom of heaven” occurs 31
times in Matt but nowhere else in the NT. “Kingdom of God” is the standard
phraseology occurring 61 times throughout other books of the NT. [5] The
Michigan-Claremont-Westminster (MCW, 1987) is an electronic version of the BHS
developed to produce optimal accuracy and good documentation. [6] The JPS
Hebrew-English Tanakh, 2nd ed., is a suggested reference for the Old Testament
language study and translation of Hebrew to English. [7] The Nestle-Aland
Greek-English New Testament, 2nd ed., is a suggested reference for the New
Testament language study and translation of Greek to English. [8] John 3:16-21
and 3:31-36 are more correctly monologues of John rather than direct quotations
of Jesus and John (the Baptist) respectively.
