Is Jesus in the Heavenlies?

“For Jesus Christ after the resurrection rose up to heaven, and is seated at the [right] of God the almighty Father and from there will come to judge the living and the dead… By which it follows well, that if his body is in heaven, at this same time, then it is not on earth…” (Placard Against the Sacrifice of the Mass, 18 October 1534; translation mine).

The truth that Jesus is objectively in heaven—at this time—is an unavoidable fact in the Scriptures. Or is it? Does the New Testament clearly state that Jesus is in heaven at the right hand of God interceding for His people?

Here are some prominent verses on this topic:

“Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.” Hebrews 7:25.

“My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” 1 John 2:1.

Do these verses unequivocally teach the current location of Jesus? Or is this truth to be ascertained from other Scriptures?

Another verse on this topic is John 3:13:

“No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.” John 3:13 (NKJ).

However, in the 19th Century A.D. the last line, “who is in heaven,” was determined to be a scribal error and has since been removed.

“No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.” John 3:13 (ESV).

Again, another verse on this topic is Romans 14:9:

“For to this end Christ died and rose and lived again, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living.” Romans 14:9 (NKJ)

Textual critics removed the verb “rose” from this text. The verse now reads:

“For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.” Romans 14:9 (ESV).

When the second verb, “rose,” was removed, the third verb “lived again” became a synonym for the resurrection. The heavenly work of Christ, penned by Paul in a most unique way, appears to have been cleverly extinguished from this verse by the science of textual criticism.

Yet, how can we know the truth? All that we can ascertained is that the Greek Orthodox Greek New Testament contains both readings that the editors of the German Bible Society Greek New Testament now consider glosses. Here they are:

“καὶ οὐδεὶς ἀναβέβηκεν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν εἰ μὴ ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ.” John 3:13 (GOT).

“εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ Χριστὸς καὶ ἀπέθανε καὶ ἀνέστη καὶ ἔζησεν, ἵνα καὶ νεκρῶν καὶ ζώντων κυριεύσῃ.” Romans 14:9 (GOT).

It turns out that these same readings are also found in the Majority Text and Textus Receptus. Might it be that textual critics knowingly or unknowingly altered several verses supporting the early Protestant belief that Jesus is currently interceding for His people in the heavenlies at the right hand of his Father? We cannot know.

However, for us today, from whence is Jesus Christ ministering right now? Is He in heaven with the Father, interceding on behalf of His people? Or is he to be worshipped in the element of the Host through the sacrifice of the Mass? A good many people lost their lives in France after the 1534 Placard Incident because they believed and professed the former.

Double Assurance of Salvation in 1 John 5:13

“He will give him grace for his sin, & will restore his conscience, instead of his being as in danger of losing the gift of faith.”

Original: « Il lui fera grâce de son péché, & le restaurera en sa conscience, au lieu qu’il soit comme en danger de perdre le don de la foi. »

Such was John Calvin’s marginal notation on the last phrase of 1 John 5:13 in the 1588 French Geneva Bible that bears his name. So potent was the last phrase of verse 13 in Calvin’s mind, that it led him to teach assurance of salvation. In the case of the believer who sins, said Calvin, based on 1 John 5:13, he will receive grace to cover his sin, as well as a restoration a clean conscience between him and God.

I personally had never seen the last phrase in 1 John 5:13 until several years ago, perhaps in 2014. I was sharing the gospel door-to-door using a New King James Bible and incidentally read 1 John 5:13 to the evangelism contact. The end of the verse sounded incorrect. I had memorized it differently from my youth—using the New American Standard Bible.

Here are the two versions compared:

NASB: “These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.”

NKJV: “These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.”

The phrase in question is this, “and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.” So assured were the translators of the NASB that the last phrase was not in the original manuscript that they did not even include it in the footnote. On the other hand, the translators of the NKJV were so convinced of its authenticity, that they did include this in the text of 1 John 5:13.

Let’s briefly consider the textual history of this phrase.

It continues to exist in the Greek Orthodox 1904 “Patriarchal Text” as follows:

Ταῦτα ἔγραψα ὑμῖν τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἵνα εἰδῆτε ὅτι ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἔχετε, καὶ ἵνα πιστεύητε εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ.

The reader may consider the 10 words following the last comma in this verse. They are equivalent to the missing or omitted phrase in 1 John 5:13. In addition, this phrase is also found in the the following Greek New Testaments: Erasmus (1516), Codex Bezae (1562), Elzevir Brothers (1624, 1633, 1641), Hodges-Farstad (1982), Robinson-Pierpoint Byzantine Textform (2005), the Pickering’s New Testament according to Family 35 (2014), which history is often titled, “Majority Text”—in other words, the majority of the New Testament manuscripts in existence. In addition, the Greek Orthodox reading of the “Patriarchal Text” is followed by the Russian Orthodox, etc.

How is it that we English-speaking Evangelicals in the 21^st Century currently follow the “Minority Texts,” “Critical Edition Text,” or “Eclectic Text”? That is a discussion for another article. In short, in this author’s estimation, it involves subscribing to false premises combined with unequally applied principles.

There were two textual traditions in the 16^th Century—that is, in the century of the Protestant Reformation. There was the Protestant tradition and the Catholic tradition on this verse.

An authoritative example of the Catholic tradition, is the 1592 Clementine Vulgate. It reads as follows:

« Hæc scribo vobis ut sciatis quoniam vitam habetis æternam, qui creditis in nomine Filii Dei. »

As the reader might ascertain, the last phrase is not found in this verse. Hence, during the 16th Century, a standard Catholic Latin Vulgate did not include the last phrase, "and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God."

By clear contradistinction, all the Protestant Bibles of that era, being translated from the Majority Greek text, did include that phrase. For example, here are five French Swiss Protestant versions that span the 16^thCentury (close to original French spelling).

The last phrase of 1 John 5:13 is found translated in all five of these versions. Three important 16^th Century Protestant versions also include the last phrase of 1 John 5:13.

It is very interesting to note what has taken place in the 500 years since the Protestant Reformers gave us the New Testament translated from the Greek. A great reversal has taken place. Some of the Greek readings in the New Testament, that were not found in the Latin Vulgate versions of the 16^th Century, have now disappeared from the “Critical Edition Text” of the Greek New Testament, as curated by the German Bible Society.

The last phrase in 1 John 5:13 is an example. While it was found in all the 16^th Century Protestant Bibles. It is no longer found in most of the Bibles of their contemporary doctrinal descendants.

The science of textual criticism developed alongside of the sciences of higher criticism in the 19^th Century secularizing German universities. While more subtle, textual criticism undermined the verbal inerrancy of Scripture since the exact words of Scripture were in question. Only with an infinite progression of study of every possible manuscript of the Greek New Testament (along with other ancient languages), could one determine with a certain level of certainty which words were actually in the original manuscripts.

An unending quest for manuscripts was triggered. The constantly elusive “original reading” ever more in question. A shift took place from understanding the text to determining what is a part of the true text. And even with this enormous textual wound, Evangelicalism is prospering in the United States. While Evangelicalism may have a more difficult times in other parts of the world, it does not seem to have adversely impacted United States Evangelicalism.

Back to 1 John 5:13: Is our faith in Jesus Christ indeed certified by God Himself? Yes it is. Philippians 1:6 (NKJV) reads, 

“Being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ.” 

The certificate of our assurance then moves to the question, did God begin a good work in me? There are some “who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away” (Luke 8:13). First John 5:13 helps us differentiate momentary self-gratifying faith of the shallow soil from the true faith of the good soil, who “keep it and bear fruit with patience” (Luke 8:15).

If we truly believe in the name of the Son of God, says the elder Apostle John, we can be assured of two things: (1) that we now have eternal life, and (2) that we will continue to believe in the name of the Son of God. Therefore, God gives both (1) assurance of initial salvation and (2) assurance of a sustaining salvation. God is the source of saving faith in the first place, and He is also the source of sustaining faith.

As Calvin taught in his marginal notation on 1 John 5:13 of the 1588 French Geneva Bible: while sin may assail the true believer, God will give him forgiveness and grace in sin, restoring to him a clear conscience. The believer’s faith is secure in God. He is not in danger of losing his faith.

The Divine Nature of the Bible

The term “Bible” is used in the title of this article because I speak of true words on a page. Sometimes the term “Word of God” applies to an ethereal ideal that has no basis in today’s world. The following text addresses the divine nature of the Bible, the Scriptures, or the Word of God.

My thoughts move to the Psalmist’s description of words on a page as found in Psalm 119. This man of God interweaved four concepts that portray the divine nature of the words of the Word of God, rightly transferred and applied to the entirety of the Hebrew Scriptures, as well as to the New Testament.

• God’s Word is eternal. 

While mentioned four times in Psalm 119:89, 144, 152, and 160, perhaps one verse will be enough to exemplify the Psalmists view of the eternality of Special Revelation: Psalm 119:152, “Concerning Your testimonies, I have known of old that You have founded them forever.”

• God’s special revelation is both righteous and upright. 

Another truth repeated across the pages of Scripture and in 10 verses of Psalm 119: 62, 75, 106, 123, 128, 137, 138, 144, 160, and 164. Here are two verses that repeat these ideas several times: Psalm 119:137-138, “Righteous (tsedeq) art Thou, O Lord, And upright (yashar) are Thy judgments. Thou hast commanded Thy testimonies in righteousness (tsedeq) And exceeding faithfulness.”

• The truthfulness of God’s words 

Is reaffirmed in Psalm 119:43, 142, 151, and 160. For example, Psalm 119:160 reads, “The sum of Thy word is truth, And every one of Thy righteous ordinances is everlasting.”

• So also, God’s special revelation is deemed faithful

In Psalm 119:86 and 138. Psalm 119:138 reads, “Thou hast commanded Thy testimonies in righteousness And exceeding faithfulness.”

These four characteristics, eternality, righteousness, truth, and faithfulness are divine truths. The Psalmist seems to approach the Bible as if it were a divine book, not-at-all tainted by the sin nature of man. So also, a Psalm of David attributes to the written Word of God all the attributes of God:

Psalm 138:2, “For You have magnified Your word above all Your name.”

If, in fact, these things are true, would not God be required to create a “womb” around His Words, much like Jesus was kept pure from the sin nature of man within the womb of Mary? This womb would have to protect the original inscription of the individual words, and also the transcription of those words over the years.

It is clear that there is a mystery in the God-man homeostasis at work in all these processes. Further, it is obvious that the “serpent of old” was not asleep as God’s words became living and active agents of His will within this world. Yes, there are many complexities involved:

• Original inscription of the words from the mind of God and the mind of the human author.
• Original inscription of the words onto some type of medium: stone, velum, or papyrus.
• Transcription by numerous scribes through the years with the oversight of leaders: Priests and Levites for the Hebrew Scriptures, Bishops and Pastors for the New Testament Scriptures.
• The inevitability of some scribal error in the transcription processes.
• The storage, guarding, and maintenance of “best texts” by Bishops and Pastors within the history of the churches.
• The translation of these original language texts into the many languages of the world.

It appears, from Scripture, that God continues to guard these procedures. While they are not beyond the impact of “savage wolves … not sparing the flock” (Acts 20:29). God promised to preserve His words, and He is doing so in His way. Paul could speak to the Ephesian elders with divine assurance:

Acts 20:32, “So now, brethren, I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified.”

The “word of His grace” would preserve God’s people from the “savage wolves” he prophesied would ravage the flock of God. The only way that these words of grace could fulfill their promise of inheritance and accomplish their work of sanctification is if they themselves continued to perform these designated divine duties. God must-needs preserve His words. He has not left them to be devoured and twisted by the corruptions of men.

Psalm 12:6-7, “The words of the Lord are pure words, Like silver tried in a furnace of earth, Purified seven times. You shall keep them, O Lord, You shall preserve them from this generation forever.”

How God is accomplishing this feat remains within the depth of the riches of His unsearchable wisdom.

Obligation (ἀνάγκη) in Two Contexts

The Apostle Paul uses the word obligation in two contexts with which we can easily identify: giving and evangelism. For one he says, “not of obligation.” For the other he says, “I am under obligation.” The contrast is remarkable!

Of giving, Paul wrote “Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion [ἀνάγκη], for God loves a cheerful giver.” 2 Cor 9:7 (ESV). Paul encourages voluntary giving of finances to the church. The financial needs of the church are to be met by God’s people giving cheerfully—not under obligation!

In marked contrast, Paul himself explained the sense of spiritual obligation that he felt to evangelize, using that same word:

“For if I evangelize, that gives me no ground for boasting. For necessity [ἀνάγκη] is laid upon me. Woe is me if I evangelize not!” 1 Cor 9:16 (translation mine).

Whereas giving should not be compulsory, Paul received and taught a sense of obligation to evangelize. In the next verse he even stated that sometimes it was “against his will.” “But if not of my own will, I am still entrusted with a stewardship.” 1 Cor 9:17 (ESV). The urge within him to evangelize forced him to share the gospel out of obligation.

Giving—not compulsory; evangelizing—compulsory: what a contrast!

May a divine hilarity accompany our giving to the church, and may divine obligation compel us to evangelize those around us!

Analyzing 50 Years under the "Guiding Principles for Interconfessional Cooperation in Translating the Bible" (1968)

In 2011 Wycliffe Bible Translators were growing uneasy with the concept of computers replacing Bible translators.[1] With advances in Bible translation software came the reality that machine intelligence was replacing human Bible translators. Their concern was indeed valid—from 2000-2010 Wycliffe software engineers were completing work on two Bible software packages to speed up the digitization of Bible translation. They created “Fieldworks,” a software to be used by the missionary or linguist for inputting linguistic information. Fieldworks then accesses its “Language Explorer” to create four functions for the newly written language: Lexicon, Interlinear, Bulk Edit, and Grammar. Fieldworks then facilitates formatting, back-translating, error-checking, and exporting the final product. Once the Fieldworks phases are complete, the new Bible translation can be imported into “Paratext.” Paratext is the United Bible Society’s (UBS) proprietary software for all present and future Bibles that it publishes.[2]

Simultaneously the field of linguistics is exploding. Funded by the National Science Foundation, Eastern Michigan University partnered with Stockholm University to develop a Linguist List Map and MultiTree projects, now overseen by Indiana University. Wycliffe’s Summer Institute of Linguistics runs www.ethnologue.com, a website containing information on “7,097 known living languages,” categorized as either Institutional, Developing, Vigorous, In Trouble, and Dying. Beginning with 19^thCentury Protestant missionaries, Bible translation is now facilitating linguistic analysis of all the languages of the world.

But who controls the ethereal realm of the digital Bible? To gain an understanding of the complex web of cooperative agreements, we look back 50 years.

In 1968 the United Bible Society (UBS) was 24 years old. The UBS served to unite many major worldwide Bible Societies after World War II. Prior to that time these Bible societies cooperated on the basis of networks of comity agreements forged on the mission fields of the world in the 19^thCentury. However, the 20^thCentury ushered in an ecumenical wave. It was truly the “Great Century of Ecumenism.” The World Council of Churches organized in 1948. John XXIII announced the Second Vatican Council in 1959. A new day of Christian cooperation reigned in Western Christianity—especially impacting mainline Protestant and Orthodox churches, and a group of Roman Catholic leaders.

Meanwhile, within Evangelical Christianity, the Bible reigns supreme. The Bible and its translation informs and edifies both the Evangelical theologian and practitioner. The hearts of the trained and untrained are fed by the words of the Bible—as translated. God speaks through His words—as translated. The “nerve center” of Evangelical Christianity is Bible translation. In these past two centuries Bible Societies have exerted important oversight over Bible translation, publication, and dissemination.

It all started in 1802 when the Bible Society Movement was conceived in the Board Room of the Religious Tract Society in London. On February 1, 1803, the British and Foreign Bible Society (BFBS) was launched, its rules were adopted, and it became an official organization. Seventeen years later, in 1820, it reported, “The Auxiliaries of the Society itself amount to 265, and the Branch Societies to 364; forming together a total as of last year, of 629.”[3] The BFBS had grown exponentially as Evangelical Christians worldwide resonated with its Great Commission purpose of Bible distribution for the purposes of evangelism and discipleship.

Fifty years ago, in 1968, the modern Bible Society movement was 165 years old. Also in 1968, the United Bible Society (UBS), a different organization, was 23 years old.

In its 24^thyear, the UBS became one of two official signers of the 1968 Guiding Principles for Interconfessional Cooperation in Translating the Bible. The other signer was the “Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity” (SPCU). The SPCU was founded on June 5, 1960 by the Catholic Church. The Dutch cardinal, Augustin Bea, assumed its first presidency. The SPCU was organized for Catholics to participate in activities surrounding the “Great Century of Ecumenism.”

The Second Vatican General Council was called on Jan 25, 1959 and held its first meeting on October 11, 1962. However, the SPCU could not wait for Vatican II’s ecumenical decrees to begin its work. Four years after the founding of SPCU, on September 14, 1964, three mechanisms for ecumenical cooperation “were approved and promulgated by the Pope”:

• Unitatis redintegratio (schemata on ecumenism); 
• Orientalium Ecclesiarum (on the official view of other churches); and 
• Lumen Gentium (Dogmatic Constitution of the Church). 

Then the doctrinal and organizational framework was in place for Rome to “catch the wave” of Protestant and Orthodox ecumenism.

Two months after these Vatican II decrees were in place, a meeting of three persons was held in Crêt Bérard in Lausanne, Switzerland in November of 1964. They met to discuss ecumenical cooperation in Bible translation. The three persons were: Olivier Béguin, Secretary, Prisoners of War and Bible Departments, World Council of Churches; Augustin Cardinal Bea, president of the SPCU and rector of Rome’s Pontifical Biblical Institute; and Eugene Nida, Executive Secretary of Translations, American Bible Society. At that meeting, Nida took up pen and paper and handwrote the original draft of what was to become the Guiding Principles and then Guidelines. He devised principles by which Protestants (and Evangelicals) could be leveraged to cooperate as equals with Catholics in translating the Bible—all under the banner of the United Bible Society.[4]

Following this preliminary meeting these Guiding Principles began to circulate through various committees on both sides of the aisle, Catholic and UBS. Then, as if by magic, the following year, on September 14, 1965, after nearly 800 years of repeated prohibitions against Catholic lay persons reading the Bible, Vatican II allowed and encouraged Catholics to read the Bible. The Constitution Dei verbum (Constitution on Divine Revelation) allowed this change, all without the Catholic Church conceding any doctrinal changes.[5] The way was being prepared to market Nida’s Guiding Principles to Protestants and Evangelicals.

The Guiding Principles continued through another two and a half years of negotiations. Finally, on Pentecost Sunday 1968 (June 2), the Guiding Principles for Interconfessional Cooperation in Translating the Bible were jointly approved by the UBS and SPCU.

HIGHLIGHTS

The scope of Nida’s Guiding Principles was sweeping. The document considered what original language texts should be used. It discussed “borrowings.” It addressed cross-references. It recommended the makeup of translation committees. It covered copyright and the publishing of Bibles. The following illustrate salient points of the 1968 Guiding Principles,[6] as well as its 1987 revision, the Guidelines.[7] 

1.    Original language texts (OT and NT):

In order to facilitate “joint translations” the translators were to follow the Greek New Testament as published by the UBS. Byzantine tradition readings could be included when it was necessary for a certain constituency (1968). However, by the 1987 version, all Byzantine readings were to appear in the footnotes.

As far as Old Testament original language texts, the 1968 “Guiding Principles” recommended the Wurttemberg Bible Society text. By 1987, the UBS Hebrew Old Testament Text Project was to be considered.

2.    Canon (Apocrypha, yes or no?):

Decisions regarding the publication of Bible using the Apocrypha or Deuterocanonical books was left to the direct requests of respective churches.

3.    Exegesis:

The development of a “common exegetical base should be established.”

4.    Supplementary features:

Cross-reference systems: “run the risk of subjectivity.” 

Differences in Protestant and Roman Catholic interpretations: “it is better simply to omit reference in the interest of joint undertakings.” 

Anonymity of the Bible translators was encouraged: “It is not the practice of the United Bible Societies to associate the names of translators or revisers with translations of the Scriptures.”

5.    Borrowings

The 1968 document recommended that “borrowings should be kept at a strict minimum, for all such languages have a sufficiently large vocabulary or phrasal equivalence to make borrowing relatively unnecessary.”

6.    Procedures

It is in procedures where the “psychological climate” of various churches created difficulty as described in the documents:

“Procedures will differ radically, depending upon the nature of the project (a new translation or revision), upon the level of training and education of the constituency, upon whether the psychological climate is conducive to cooperation, and upon the adherence of one or another constituency to its distinctive traditions”

Low education language groups are especially vulnerable to manipulation, according to these guidelines.

7.    Climate for cooperation

The first part of the “Procedures” explained how to approach the “Climate for Cooperation”:

“Whether a revision or new translation can be undertaken jointly in a particular area depends largely upon the climate established by the respective constituencies.

“The strategic importance of the psychological attitudes involves a basic policy and procedures of the Bible Societies, which, though they generally hold the publishing rights for the Scriptures, only do so on behalf of the churches. Therefore, any cooperative undertaking will need for its success as wide an agreement as possible on the part of the constituencies concerned.”

“Psychological attitudes” and “psychological climate” seem to be code words for “doctrinal climate” or “ecumenical climate.” In like manner, “distinctive traditions” appears synonymous to “doctrinal distinctives.”

8.    Organizational structure of translation committees

A landmark feature of the 1968 document was its principle of equal composition of Protestants and Catholics on translation committees overseen by and funded through the UBS.

“For the most adequate development of a translation program, there is need for three groups: 1. a Working Committee, 2. a Review Committee, and 3. a Consultative Group. 

“Working Committee: Consisting of 4 to 6 persons equally divided between Protestant and Roman Catholic constituencies…”

The language in this section was changed in the 1987 revision:

“For the most adequate development of a translation program, there is need for three groups: 1. a translation team, 2. a review panel, and 3. a consultative group. … 

“Translation team: Consisting of not more than six persons of high competence from the Roman Catholic and other Christian constituencies…”[8]

9.    Appointment of personnel

The text of the 1968 document reads as follows. May the reader make his own conclusions:

“To find the most qualified persons to constitute the Working and Review Committees, it is necessary to use informal decision-making procedures. That is to say, an extensive investigation is made by some qualified individuals so as to assess the technical capacities of such persons and the probabilities of such persons being able to work together effectively in a committee. After determination, in consultation with church leaders, of the availability of such individuals in consultation with church leaders, they may be formally nominated by their respective churches and appointed by the Bible Societies. Without careful preliminary investigation unsuitable appointmentshave sometimes been made to the detriment of the whole project.”

10.  Formulation of principles and translation consultant

The development of translation principles was determined to be vital in “collective efforts.” Prior agreements in translation methods can help avoid “a number of psychological problems” (1968). The 1987 edition of the “Guidelines” added the work of a “translation consultant.” This consultant would help choose and train the translators, as well as edit and submit the final edition.

These ten points identify poignant elements in these two documents. A half-century view of the long-term impact of these agreements is possible.

FIFTY-YEAR ANALYSIS

Societal Changes: The onset of Bible digitization has definitely energized Bible study:

• Searchable digital Bibles have revolutionized the study of the Bible;
• Open-source Bible software and non-copyrighted Bibles have even allowed the proliferation of low-cost and even free Bible study tools;
• Although hard to prove cause and effect, in some parts of the world the availability of Bible software has occasioned a resurgence in conservative biblical Evangelicalism;
• Both the pulpit and the pew have benefited from Bible software.

Even while significant spiritual gains have coincided with the advent of Bible digitization, the advent of Bible software created administrative vacuums which were being filled following the above “Guidelines.” The long-term impact of these “Guidelines” may not benefit the ongoing proliferation of Evangelicalism.[9] Surely the missional advice of Jesus applies to an analysis of biblical digitization:

“Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves.” Matthew 10:16.

Bible Digitization: The following suggests disconcerting aspects of the digital Bible revolution:

• Digitization has inadvertently facilitated the centralization of editorial control of Bible translations to a smaller group of individuals;
• The UBS’ proprietary software (Paratext) has served to advance its functional monopoly over control of wordwide Bible translations;
• Copyright laws can be used to squeeze low cost Bible software in three ways: (a) charging excessive fees for books, fonts, and access, (b) requiring organizationally intrusive cooperative agreements for the use of materials, and (c) requiring access to software and personnel in exchange for the use of copyrighted materials;
• In various language groups and places, digitization has resulted in the selective unavailability (or censorship) of certain Bible translations;[10]
• Digitization has streamlined the ability for rapid changes to be made to many worldwide Bible translations simultaneously;[11]
• The multitudes of untrained Christians worldwide can be misled through the Bible translations made available to them.

It is difficult to ignore that differences in Bible translation are often related to the doctrinal presuppositions of the translators or controllers of a Bible’s copyright. Therefore, the doctrinal makeup of those who control Bible translations do matter.

Exegetical Changes in Bible Translation: The following three points are circumstantial, deduced or inferred from the past 50 years of Bible translation:

1.     The Louw-Nida Lexicon (1988) has replaced Strong’s Concordance (1890) in worldwide Bible translation;

2.     First, the 1952 Revised Standard Version, and more recently, the 1991 Contemporary English Version, the Good News Translation (GNT, 1992) and the 1992 French Le Semeur, have replaced the King James Version as the exegetical standard for worldwide Bible translation.

3.     The UBS Nova Vulgata (1979, 1984, 1992) now rivals the UBS Greek New Testament as the original language text for worldwide translation by the 1987 Guidelines’ appointment of personnel:

a)    Allowing Latin-only translators to use the Nova Vulgata as their base text;

b)   Assuring Latin-only scholars were credentialed to sit on translation committees; and

c)    Opening the door for Latin-only scholars worldwide to populate every translation committee.

All of these decisions are made in total anonymity due to the UBS practice of not disclosing the names of translators with their work.

By way of analysis, even while the Louw-Nida Lexicon’s organization into “semantic domains” was helpful, it did suggest doctrinally-focused readings.[12]

However, if point 3 is accurate, then it represents a 500-year alteration in Protestant Bible translation philosophy. Since Luther’s 1522 German New Testament, Protestant Bible translations lean toward a Greek NT textual priority. The 1987 “Guidelines” appear to reverse this 500-year precedent, reverting worldwide Bible translation efforts of the UBS to a Latin-textual preference. This explains why the Nova Vulgata (New Vulgate) was simultaneously released in 1979 with the Nestle-Aland 26^th edition, mimicking its textual variants. The Nova Vulgata appears to have been prepared to function as a parallel original language text for worldwide Bible translation.

This seismic return to a Vulgate preference in worldwide UBS Bible translation has apparently been overseen by the UBS and is now funded with its monies.

Therefore, while digitization has definitely revolutionized Bible translation, Bible software comes with blessings and concerns. Machine intelligence in Bible translation brings questions for future generations: How are Fieldworks and Paratext being programmed? Who controls the programming of doctrinal terms and concepts? How can doctrinal integrity be maintained in a digital world? There is another fundamental question that need to be addressed by friends of the Bible. How should Evangelicals address the contemporary Bible Society movement in light of the 1968 Guiding Principles and the 1987 Guidelines?

---

[1]Simon Crisp and Bryan Harmelink. “Computers as Translators: Translation or Treason?” The Bible Translator (2011) 62.59-60.

[2]Thomas P. Johnston, “Virtualized Biblical Authority: A 50-Year Megashift from Biblical Inerrancy to Automated Translation Work”; available at: http://www.evangelismunlimited.com/documents/virtualized-biblical-authority.pdf (Online); accessed 24 Nov 2018; Internet.

[3]“British and Foreign Bible Society, Abstract of Sixteenth Report,” Christian Watchman and Baptist Register, 27 January 1821, 1.

[4]Thomas P. Johnston, “Worldwide Bible Translation and Original Language Texts: An Analysis of the Impact of the 1968 and 1987 UBS and SPCU ‘Guidelines for Interconfessional Cooperation in Translating the Bible’”; available at: http://www.evangelismunlimited.com/ubs-spcu_text20090116b.pdf (Online); accessed 1 Oct 2018; Internet.

[5]“The Second Vatican Council wished to be, above all, a council on the Church. Take in your hands the documents of the Council, especially ‘Lumen Gentium’, study them with loving attention, with the spirit of prayer, to discover what the Spirit wished to say about the Church. In this way you will be able to realize that there is not—as some people claim—a ‘new church’, different or opposed to the ‘old church’, but that the Council wished to reveal more clearly the one Church of Jesus Christ, with new aspects, but still the same in its essence” (John Paul II, “Mexico Ever Faithful,” Osservatore Romano[5 Feb 1979], 1).

[6]“Guiding Principles for Interconfessional Cooperation in Translating the Bible”; in Thomas F. Stransky, C.S.P., and John B. Sheerin, C.S.B., eds. Doing the Truth in Charity: Statements of Pope Paul VI, Popes John Paul I, John Paul II, and the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity 1964-1980 (New York: Paulist, 1982), 166.

[7]“Guidelines for Interconfessional Cooperation in Translating the Bible”; Available at: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/general-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19871116_guidelines-bible_en.html (Online); accessed 5 Oct 2018; Internet.

[8]Consider the functional authority when Roman Catholic translators are in a majority using the Louw-Nida Lexicon to translate the word “drink,” used in John 6:55:

“5.6  πόσις, εως f ; πόμα, τος n: liquids used for nourishment or to satisfy thirst – ‘a drink.’ πόσις: τὸ αἷμά μου ἀληθής ἐστιν πόσις ‘my blood is true drink’ Jn 6.55. πόμα: μόνον ἐπὶ βρώμασιν καὶ πόμασιν ‘these relate only to food and drink’ He 9.10.

“Though in many languages the equivalent of πόσις and πόμα would be a verbal derivative meaning basically ‘that which is drunk,’ in other languages the equivalent may be ‘watery food’ or ‘liquid food.’

“In some languages, however, one cannot refer to ‘blood’ (Jn 6.55) as being ‘drink,’ since blood is classified as food rather than as drink. On the other hand, it may be possible to translate ‘my blood is the real drink’ as ‘my blood is real nourishment.’ The expression ‘food and drink’ (He 9.10) may be better rendered in some languages as ‘all kinds of food.’” (Louw-Nida Lexicon, Bibleworks 10.0.8.858).

The concept of transubstantiation looms large in the improper rendering of John 6:55. While the Catholic priest would be keen to  use of this verse to teach transubstantiation, the unsuspecting Protestant linguist may never understand that the issue under discussion in the priest’s mind in translating this verse is transubstantiation.

[9]“The fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is attractive to people who look to the Bible for ready answers to the problems of life. It can deceive these people, offering them interpretations that are pious but illusory, instead of telling them that the Bible does not necessarily contain an immediate answer to each and every problem. Without saying as much in so many words, fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide. It injects into life a false certitude, for it unwittingly confuses the divine substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human limitations” (“Pontifical Commission on Biblical Interpretation”; available at: http://www.ewtn.com/ library/CURIA/PBCINTER.htm; accessed: 17 Oct 2009; Internet).

[10]Consider, for example, the unavailability of hard copies of any Greek Orthodox texts of the OT and/or NT in Greek in American bookstores.

[11]For example, the American Bible Society’s 1992 Good News Translation rendered ὑστερέω (fallen short) in Romans 3:23 as “being far away from one’s presence”: “everyone has sinned and is far away from God's saving presence.” The French 1992 Le Semeur mirrored this unusual translation, “Tous ont péché, en effet, et sont privés de la glorieuse présence de Dieu.” Both translations betray a doctrinal bias in this translation.

[12]Consider the Louw-Nida Lexicon addressing the translation of the adjective θεόπνευστος (“breathed out by God”) in 2 Timothy 3:16:

“33.261  θεόπνευστος, ον: to a communication which has been inspired by God – ‘inspired by God, divinely inspired.’ πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος πρὸς διδασκαλίαν ‘every Scripture divinely inspired and useful for teaching’ or ‘all Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching’ 2 Tm 3.16. In a number of languages it is difficult to find an appropriate term to render ‘inspired.’ In some instances ‘Scripture inspired by God’ is rendered as ‘Scripture, the writer of which was influenced by God’ or ‘... guided by God.’ It is important, however, to avoid an expression which will mean only ‘dictated by God.’” (Louw-Nida Lexicon).

The last two sentences appear to influence the doctrinal result of the Bible translation.