Section 6: The Logical Consequence – Arianism in Modern Translations
Throughout this article, we have examined how specific translation choices in modern versions, which depart from the traditional Textus Receptus and Masoretic Text, introduce theological ambiguities that can inadvertently align with Arian doctrines. Arianism, which denies the co-eternity and full deity of Christ, historically used such ambiguities to argue that Christ was a created being, subordinate to the Father. Although many proponents of modern translations, including Mark Ward, likely do not intend to support Arian views, the logical consequence of certain renderings is a doctrinal shift that subtly aligns with Arianism. This section will synthesize these translation shifts, demonstrating how, collectively, they support interpretations that weaken orthodox Christology and introduce a theology inconsistent with traditional Christian beliefs.
A. Summary of Theological Shifts in Key Passages
The cumulative effect of translation changes in Proverbs 8:22, Micah 5:2, John 1:18, and 1 Timothy 3:16 is significant. These passages, each in its own way, address fundamental aspects of Christ’s nature—His eternality, divine Sonship, and incarnation. The traditional renderings, as found in the King James Version, uphold key doctrines such as the eternal generation of the Son, His unique relationship with the Father, and His divine nature. By contrast, modern translations that follow the critical text often adopt wording that downplays or ambiguates these doctrines:
- Proverbs 8:22 – “The Lord created me” (modern) vs. “The Lord possessed me” (traditional) affects the view of Christ as either created or eternally begotten.
- Micah 5:2 – “From ancient times” (modern) vs. “From everlasting” (traditional) shifts the perception of Christ’s origin from eternal to merely historical.
- John 1:18 – “Only begotten God” or “One and only Son” (modern) vs. “Only begotten Son” (traditional) obscures Christ’s eternal Sonship and implies exclusivity that excludes believers’ adoption.
- 1 Timothy 3:16 – “He was manifested in the flesh” (modern) vs. “God was manifest in the flesh” (traditional) introduces ambiguity regarding Christ’s divine identity.
Each of these shifts introduces a level of doctrinal uncertainty that aligns with the theological leanings of Arianism. Collectively, they paint a picture of Christ as potentially created, subordinate, and distinct in essence from the Father—views that Arian theologians have historically championed.
B. The Cumulative Effect of Translation Choices on Orthodox Christology
Orthodox Christology rests on the understanding that Christ is fully God, eternally begotten of the Father, and equal in essence with Him. By deviating from traditional texts, modern translations introduce a cumulative weakening of this foundation. When passages that affirm Christ’s eternality and divine nature are softened or rephrased, the result is a subtle but significant drift from orthodox doctrines toward interpretations that challenge Christ’s co-equal status within the Trinity.
For instance, translating Proverbs 8:22 as “created” suggests that Christ’s existence had a starting point, a view that harmonizes with Arian thought. Similarly, the rendering of Micah 5:2 as “from ancient times” instead of “from everlasting” implies a beginning to Christ’s existence, further aligning with Arian arguments that deny Christ’s co-eternity with the Father. The cumulative impact of these changes is a doctrinal reorientation that, whether intended or not, supports an Arian-like perspective.
C. Modern Translations and the Risk of Unintended Arianism
By endorsing modern translations that rely on critical text renderings, scholars like Mark Ward may unwittingly advance a theological framework that aligns with Arianism. While these scholars may argue that textual accuracy is their primary motivation, the doctrinal consequences of their choices cannot be ignored. Arianism, with its denial of Christ’s full deity and eternality, has been historically condemned by the church as heretical. However, the language found in many modern translations creates an environment where these same ideas can find subtle support, weakening the church’s ability to proclaim an unambiguous doctrine of Christ’s deity.
The potential for unintended Arianism is particularly concerning given the historical impact of Arian thought. The early church battled extensively to clarify and defend the doctrine of the Trinity, culminating in the Nicene Creed’s declaration of Christ as “begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father.” By adopting translations that compromise this clarity, modern versions reintroduce the ambiguity that the early church worked so diligently to refute.
D. Mark Ward’s Responsibility in Promoting Doctrinally Sound Translations
As a public advocate for modern translations, Mark Ward has a responsibility to consider the theological implications of his endorsements. While he may view these translations as more linguistically accurate or accessible, his support for renderings that align with Arian theology poses a risk to the doctrinal integrity of the church. By promoting translations that deviate from traditional texts, Ward and others contribute to a subtle but potentially profound theological shift, one that undermines the church’s historical stance on Christ’s full deity.
Ward’s acceptance of modern translations that favor critical text choices ultimately weakens the foundation for orthodox Christology. Whether intentional or not, his endorsement of these translations aligns with interpretations that diminish Christ’s unique Sonship, His eternal nature, and His full deity. For those concerned with preserving traditional doctrine, this alignment is problematic, as it creates a path toward doctrinal erosion and a diminished understanding of Christ’s identity.
E. The Need to Preserve Traditional Texts for Doctrinal Clarity
The traditional texts—the Textus Receptus and the Masoretic Text—have historically served as a bulwark against heretical interpretations. By preserving renderings that affirm Christ’s eternality, divine Sonship, and unity with the Father, these texts uphold a doctrinal clarity that modern translations frequently lack. For instance, the rendering “God was manifest in the flesh” in 1 Timothy 3:16 leaves no room for doubt about Christ’s identity, while “He was manifested in the flesh” introduces a level of ambiguity that can be exploited by unorthodox interpretations.
Preserving traditional texts is therefore not merely a matter of textual preference but a theological necessity. By upholding renderings that have been historically affirmed by the church, these texts safeguard key doctrines that are foundational to the Christian faith. In contrast, the adoption of modern translations introduces doctrinal uncertainties that align with Arian and other heretical views, compromising the clarity of scriptural testimony to Christ’s nature and identity.
Conclusion of Section 6
In conclusion, the logical consequence of the translation choices found in modern versions is a subtle but significant alignment with Arian theology. By favoring renderings that introduce ambiguity regarding Christ’s eternality, Sonship, and deity, modern translations inadvertently support interpretations that weaken the foundation of orthodox Christology. While Mark Ward and other proponents of these translations may not intend to promote Arian views, their support for the critical text leads to a theological drift that risks diminishing the church’s witness to the full deity of Christ.
The responsibility to maintain doctrinal clarity lies not only in theological affirmations but in the very texts we choose to translate. Traditional texts like the Textus Receptus and the Masoretic Text preserve essential doctrines by offering unambiguous affirmations of Christ’s divine nature. Modern translations, however, compromise this clarity by introducing renderings that align with historically rejected views. This section has demonstrated that the logical outcome of endorsing these translations is a potential shift toward Arian interpretations, underscoring the importance of preserving traditional texts to safeguard the church’s doctrinal heritage.
Section 7: Rebutting Potential Objections
In any discussion about the doctrinal implications of translation choices, there are likely to be objections. Proponents of modern translations often argue that changes in wording are simply a reflection of better manuscript evidence or linguistic precision, not an intentional departure from traditional doctrine. Mark Ward, for example, might argue that his endorsement of the critical text is based on scholarly rigor and a commitment to accuracy, rather than a desire to undermine Christ’s deity. This section addresses several common objections to the position outlined in this article and demonstrates why these objections do not negate the theological consequences of adopting modern translations.
A. Objection 1: “The Differences Are Minor and Do Not Impact Core Beliefs”
One common objection is that translation differences, particularly those between traditional and modern texts, are minor and do not affect central doctrines. Proponents of this view argue that the variations between the Textus Receptus and the critical text are inconsequential to the core beliefs of Christianity, suggesting that phrases like “only begotten God” versus “only begotten Son” or “He was manifested in the flesh” versus “God was manifest in the flesh” are negligible.
Response: While these differences may appear minor on the surface, their cumulative effect is doctrinally significant. As shown in previous sections, the translation choices in verses like John 1:18, 1 Timothy 3:16, and Micah 5:2 have direct implications for the understanding of Christ’s nature, His eternal Sonship, and His unique relationship with the Father. Each change, by itself, may seem small, but together, they contribute to a theological shift that aligns with Arian interpretations. The integrity of doctrine rests on precision, and small changes in wording can lead to substantial shifts in meaning, particularly when it comes to Christology.
B. Objection 2: “Modern Translations Reflect More Accurate Manuscripts”
Another objection often raised is that modern translations are based on older and supposedly more accurate manuscripts, such as Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, which allegedly bring us closer to the original text. Advocates of this view contend that these texts are preferable because they reflect a more reliable manuscript tradition. Mark Ward, for instance, might argue that his preference for the critical text is rooted in a commitment to the best available textual evidence.
Response: While it is true that critical text editions rely on older manuscripts, the age of a manuscript does not necessarily equate to its accuracy or theological reliability. The Reformers and early church fathers relied on texts that aligned closely with the Textus Receptus, seeing them as providentially preserved by God through the centuries. The older manuscripts favored by the critical text often diverge from the theological clarity found in traditional texts, particularly in passages that affirm Christ’s deity. Moreover, the theological implications of these differences cannot be dismissed on the grounds of textual age alone; doctrinal integrity must remain paramount, and the traditional texts have a proven history of supporting orthodox doctrine.
C. Objection 3: “Translation Choices Do Not Impact Doctrine if Readers Understand the Context”
Some argue that translation choices do not inherently change doctrine because readers can interpret verses in their broader biblical context. According to this view, even if a verse like 1 Timothy 3:16 reads “He was manifested in the flesh” instead of “God was manifest in the flesh,” the broader context of Scripture affirms Christ’s deity, preventing any doctrinal misunderstanding. Proponents might argue that readers will still understand Christ’s divinity through other verses.
Response: While it is true that the broader context of Scripture affirms Christ’s deity, individual verses carry specific doctrinal weight, especially those that historically served as proof texts for foundational beliefs. When verses like 1 Timothy 3:16 and John 1:18 are altered, the clarity of the doctrine they convey is weakened, and readers may find it harder to defend Christ’s deity against heretical interpretations. Moreover, not all readers possess an in-depth theological background or the tools to interpret ambiguous passages in light of broader doctrines. Clear, unambiguous renderings in key verses ensure that orthodox beliefs are easily accessible to all readers, regardless of their theological training.
D. Objection 4: “Modern Translations Are Not Endorsing Arianism; They Are Seeking Linguistic Fidelity”
Another objection asserts that modern translations are not intentionally aligning with Arianism but are merely seeking greater linguistic fidelity to the original languages. Supporters of this view might argue that terms like “only begotten God” or “one and only Son” reflect the nuances of the Greek text more accurately than traditional renderings and are not intended to support Arian theology.
Response: While linguistic fidelity is essential, translation choices cannot be divorced from their theological implications. The translation of “only begotten God” or “one and only Son” may be defensible on certain linguistic grounds, but the theological consequences of these phrases are undeniable. A translation that prioritizes linguistic accuracy without regard for doctrinal clarity risks undermining essential doctrines. By adopting ambiguous language, modern translations unintentionally create a path for Arian interpretations. Translators and advocates of these versions, including Ward, bear responsibility for considering the theological impact of their choices.
E. Objection 5: “Mark Ward and Other Modern Advocates Do Not Intend to Support Heresy”
A final objection is that figures like Mark Ward, who advocate for modern translations, do not intend to support heretical views such as Arianism. Their endorsement of the critical text and modern renderings is often motivated by scholarly principles, not a desire to align with unorthodox beliefs. According to this view, accusing Ward and others of promoting Arianism is an unfair characterization of their intentions.
Response: It is essential to recognize that unintended consequences can still have doctrinal ramifications. While Mark Ward and others may not intend to support Arianism, the translation choices they endorse contribute to a theological shift that aligns with Arian thought. Historical Arianism was built on subtle reinterpretations of Scripture, similar to the shifts seen in modern translations. Even if Ward’s intentions are not heretical, his endorsement of critical text choices has practical consequences that weaken the church’s ability to defend Christ’s deity. This issue is not about personal motives but about the logical consequences of adopting ambiguous or theologically weakened renderings.
F. Objection 6: “Even if the Doctrine is Weaker in One Place, It’s Still Taught in Other Places”
A common argument in defense of modern translations is that even if a doctrinal affirmation is rendered weaker in one specific passage, the same doctrine can still be found in other parts of Scripture. For instance, advocates may argue that even if 1 Timothy 3:16 is rendered as “He was manifested in the flesh” rather than “God was manifest in the flesh,” the divinity of Christ is still affirmed in other verses. By this logic, weakening or altering certain key passages does not eliminate the doctrine entirely, as it can still be found elsewhere.
Response: While it is true that doctrines like the deity of Christ can often be supported by multiple passages, introducing contradictions or weakening the clarity in specific verses creates a risk of logical inconsistency within the text. Such inconsistencies undermine the coherence of Scripture, opening the door for selective interpretations that exploit ambiguities. This approach is problematic because if there are logical contradictions within the text, one could theoretically “prove” anything by selectively using those contradictions, leading to doctrinal confusion and inconsistency.
This phenomenon can be understood through the Principle of Explosion in formal logic, which states that from a contradiction, any statement can logically follow. In other words, if a single contradiction exists within a system, it allows for any conclusion to be drawn, no matter how disparate. Applied to Scripture, if certain passages teach one thing and others appear to contradict it, one could theoretically use this inconsistency to justify interpretations that are logically disconnected from Christian doctrine. Instead of affirming doctrinal coherence, this approach leads to interpretive chaos and opens up space for heretical views to gain traction.
Case Study: The Genealogy in Matthew 1 – Amon, Asaph, and Amos
A specific example of this issue can be seen in Matthew 1, where modern translations have introduced discrepancies in the genealogy of Christ. In the Textus Receptus, Matthew 1:10 lists “Amon” as the father of Josiah, consistent with the Hebrew Scriptures (2 Kings 21:19). However, some critical text manuscripts list “Asaph” instead of “Amon,” introducing a figure not historically recognized as part of Christ’s genealogy. This change creates an inconsistency within the genealogy that modern translations must explain away or ignore.
Further complicating this is the variation in Matthew 1:7-8, where some critical text manuscripts list “Asaph” and “Amos” instead of “Amon” and “Asa,” respectively. These differences are not merely transliterations but the names of entirely different individuals, disrupting the genealogy’s internal coherence and raising questions about the accuracy of the text. While proponents of modern translations may argue that this inconsistency does not impact doctrine directly, it introduces contradictions that weaken the internal logic of Scripture, especially in a passage foundational to affirming Christ’s rightful lineage from David.
By introducing variations such as “Asaph” and “Amos,” the critical text allows for logical contradictions within the genealogy, leading readers to question the textual consistency of the Bible as a whole. When such contradictions are present, the integrity of doctrine suffers because the Scripture’s authority is undermined by inconsistencies. This scenario illustrates the Principle of Explosion in that contradictions within the text can lead to a slippery slope where interpretive conclusions become arbitrary, as one could “prove” conflicting viewpoints by selectively using contradictory passages.
G. The Importance of Prioritizing Theological Clarity in Translation
The objections raised by proponents of modern translations reveal a tension between scholarly rigor and theological clarity. While the pursuit of accurate translation is commendable, it cannot come at the expense of doctrinal integrity. The history of the church is filled with examples where theological clarity was prioritized to safeguard the faith. Doctrines such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the eternal Sonship of Christ have been maintained through careful preservation of clear and unambiguous texts. To compromise on these points is to risk diminishing the very doctrines that define Christianity.
The traditional renderings found in the Textus Receptus and the Masoretic Text were not chosen arbitrarily; they represent a commitment to doctrinal precision. By retaining phrases like “God was manifest in the flesh” and “only begotten Son,” these texts uphold the theological clarity needed to defend orthodox beliefs. The modern translations that diverge from these renderings introduce ambiguity that may be exploited by heretical interpretations, undermining the theological foundations of the church.
Conclusion of Section 7
In conclusion, while proponents of modern translations may argue that their choices are rooted in scholarly principles, the objections they raise do not negate the theological consequences of these choices. Small shifts in translation can lead to significant doctrinal implications, particularly in verses that address the nature and identity of Christ. Even if Mark Ward and others do not intend to support Arian interpretations, their endorsement of critical text renderings contributes to a theological shift that weakens the church’s ability to proclaim Christ’s deity with clarity.
The objections to preserving traditional texts ultimately fail to account for the importance of doctrinal integrity in translation. By prioritizing theological clarity, the church can ensure that its teachings remain consistent with historic Christian orthodoxy. The changes introduced by modern translations, however minor they may seem, carry the risk of aligning with interpretations that the church has long opposed. This section has demonstrated that the objections to traditional renderings do not outweigh the need for preserving doctrinally sound translations, underscoring the value of traditional texts for maintaining the church’s witness to the true nature of Christ.
