How can we be sure what should be included in the Bible or omitted?

This text is from a transcript of a talk by David Gooding, entitled ‘Unity, Origin and Victory’ (1987).

The question is a technical thing arising from 1 John 5. I said that in 1 John 5, older versions like the Authorised Version have a verse that says 'there are three that bear witness in heaven: the father, the Son and the Holy Spirit' (1 John 5:7 KJV). I left that verse out of my talk and I said it wasn't what John originally wrote. The question is, could you please clarify such omissions as 1 John 5:7; also John's Gospel, 7:53–8:11 (which you may remember is the story of the woman taken in adultery, and many manuscripts omit that story completely); and also Romans 8:1, and the second half of the verse, which in the Authorised Version reads 'There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit'; but you'll find that most modern translations leave out that last bit and simply put 'There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.'

And the question is, how can we be sure about such things, whether they should be included in the Bible or omitted?

And I understand the kind of thinking that is behind that. It's confusing, isn't it? You read your Bible with all good intentions and come across a verse and think about it and learn it, and then some awkward man comes along, like your lecturer, and says that verse isn't in the Bible. How on earth are you to know, and is not the man taking away from the word of God by saying such things shouldn't be there?

The reason is not a question of translation—how you are going to translate this. The question is first, what are you going to translate? The Bible, as we know, was not issued at first in a printed edition. Every copy had to be written out by hand. I don't know how many of us would have a Bible if we had to write our own out by hand. In the end I would defy anybody to write out a whole New Testament without making a mistake somewhere or other, however careful you are. When we look at these ancient copies that were written out by hand, I'm telling you nothing but the sheer truth, you will find that in them there are many, many mistakes. Mercifully, they're not all in the same place. They're in different places and therefore, when we come to translate the New Testament, we've first got to take those manuscripts, compare them one with another, and where they differ because of mistakes or additions, or somebody's gone and left a bit out, we first have to decide what the original text was.

Now that obviously is a task for experts. It is a gigantic task. Nowadays they use computers for it. Part of the reason is that there are so many hundreds and thousands of manuscripts. Let me tell you at once, the verdict of the great experts who know about these things is that, having compared all these manuscripts together, the amount of uncertainty as to whether this or that was what was originally written is less than two per cent. And of that two per cent, mostly it concerns little matters that don't make any difference to the sense whatsoever. And thirdly, no major doctrine of the faith remains uncertain, because in the wisdom of God no major doctrine of the faith depends on one isolated verse: the major doctrines are taught us all over the place. So if you cannot consult the manuscripts yourself, then be assured by your friends who can, that this is the situation.

Now some translations of the Bible and some editions of the Bible will themselves give you that information in the margin or in the footnotes. Here is a very ancient translation by a good gentleman known as J. N. Darby. His faith in the inspiration of Scripture was second to none. Absolute, immovable faith in the inspiration of Scripture, and here in 1 John 5, he has a little note. 'To avoid any mistake,' he says, 'I add in a note at the bottom of the page what I have omitted in the text.' So if you look at his text, you'll find that he omitted that verse. You might think I'm a little bit doubtful, but I hope you don't think his faith in the inspiration of Scripture was doubtful! As your good brother in the Lord, he is telling you what he knows from having consulted the manuscripts: that that verse was not part of the original; it was added later on. If you have a large edition of the New International Version, at that place, it too, I think I'm right in saying, will have a footnote to tell you about it. It says that late manuscripts of the Vulgate have this verse added, and that is so. It came first into the Vulgate as a result of some of the theological speculations of the theologians at that time about the Trinity and they added this verse in the Vulgate, and from the Vulgate it found its way into later manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. It never was original.

So it's not a question of cutting out some of the Bible. It is a question of doing our best to get back to what the original manuscripts had. Of course, for our missionary brothers and sisters that is a very real and practical problem. When they go out to the mission field and they've got to translate the Bible into some impossibly difficult new language, they first have to decide what they are going to translate. And for them, scholars have written quite a largish book that goes through the New Testament over such big issues as this, and they will discuss with you the reasons why you should follow this manuscript or that one, though of course they leave the decision to you. If you're interested at that level, go down to the Hibernian Bible Society there in Howard Street, and they'll gladly sell you a copy of the book and you can see the kinds of discussions that the scholars go through, as they examine the manuscripts and come to decide for this one rather than that one in any place. There is no great mystery about it, though the matters are technical and difficult.

Let me add that I am, or was, a textual critic, not of New Testament, but Old Testament. Textual critics are animals that look after manuscripts and study them and come to decide, when they differ, which better represents the original in any place. It was my task for some years to think about these things in the Old Testament and that, I might tell you, is a far more complicated thing than the New. Having spent a great deal of my life in it, I tell you here and now, I believe in the inspiration of the word of God one hundred per cent. If I wanted to, I could tell you about difficulties. However, in spite of all the difficulties, I believe in it one hundred per cent. That said, we must be realists. It's no good saying, 'Well I believe it because it's in the Authorised Version and if you deny that, you're destroying the word of God.' The question is, where did the Authorised Version come from? From what manuscripts was it translated? Were they good manuscripts, or not so good? You can take the worst old manuscript you ever set eyes on and, if that's the only one you've got, use it, my brother. There's enough in it of the truth to get folks converted and see them home to heaven.