The Canonicity of Esther

Taylor Marshall over at Canterbury Tales has a challenge for Protestants: why is Esther Canonical? A better than average discussion follows (for Blogs touching on Catholic-Protestant debates).

I have been re-reading R. Laird Harris' Inspiration and Canonicity of the Scriptures: An Exegetical and Historical Study. I believe it expresses a normative PCA view, as it is written by an ordained PCA minister and career Covenant Theological Seminary (PCA) professor, who was also a charter member of the NIV translation committee. From his discourse, I have not been persuaded that there is a good reason to include Esther in the Canon.

I believe the party line is as follows: 1) what was considered to be canon at the Temple in Jerusalem would be normative/definitive for all Jews at the time of Christ, 2) the Jewish canon at the time of Christ should be our O.T. canon, 3) omissions of Esther from the oldest extant list of canon (Melito) was possibly by mistake, 4) the later testimony of Josephus (Jewish scholar), Jerome and Origen (both of whom studied under Jewish scholars) indicates Esther was accepted with the "Prophets" texts in the Jewish canon, so 5) Esther is canonical. As reinforcement (or a substitute argument), 6) those books referred to directly or by category by Christ in the N.T. are canonical, 7) and since Christ referred to the "Prophets" category, and Esther is likely in that category, it is canonical.

I really struggle with his reasoning and these arguments overall, and would appreciate hearing from anyone who can back it up.

First, this suggests that the Jews at the Temple in 90 A.D. [for the canon was not actually formed at Christ's arrival even in Jerusalem, but was only later settled] have the authority to definitively define canon. Since the Protestant says we cannot trust (or do not need) Christian authority to define canon, why am I to trust the Jews of Jerusalem after Christ's death?

Second, I fail to grasp why we should accept the rule I've given under #6 and #7 above over a rule that says 'if Christ and the Apostles quoted the N.T. in Septuagint, then the Septuagint is more reliable than what the Temple Jews of 90 A.D. thought'. [The Septuagint has the Apocrypha/Deuterocanon - think about that!]

Third, Harris leans very much on early writing by those who studied under Palestinian Jews, so were naturally persuaded by their view of canon, and denies that other early church fathers' testimony points otherwise than the accounts of Origen, Jerome and Josephus (re: their not including the Apocrypha/Deuterocanon). One doesn't have to search far on Google to find evidence to the contrary.

This is a complex issue, so I am amply prepared for reproof.

Doctoring Doctrine, Part III

I just finished reading an interesting Orthodox critique of sola Scriptura, written by convert Fr. John Whiteford, which a kind reader pointed out to me. In it I encountered yet another translation of questionable merit in the NIV.

In 2 Thes 2:15, we are told (in the NIV), "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." According to Fr. Whiteford, the Greek word translated here as "teachings", paradosis, literally means "what is transmitted", and should be translated as "tradition". The Greek Orthodox use this word to refer to their Sacred Traditions.

Where paradosis is treated negatively in scripture (e.g., Mark 3:8), the NIV translates it as "tradition" (as in, the dirty, bad stuff used by those dirty, bad Catholics and Orthodox). Where paradosis is treated positively in scripture (e.g., 2 Thes 2:15 supra, 1 Cor 11:2), the NIV has it translated as "teachings". The lesson then is clear: teachings are good, and tradition is bad. This makes a substantive impact on the meaning of infallible Writ, and definitely affected my attitude towards Apostolic churches for some time. I am glad to learn that "tradition" is spoken of positively in Scripture!

There is no need for the NIV to provide their attempted distinction between good and bad "tradition", because the text itself is sufficient. In each instance paradoseis is qualified as either "of men" or "from me (or us)". Here is a clear and easy rule: trust not teaching that is transmitted by vain men, but what is transmitted from the Apostles (whether it be directly or by epistle).

Separately, do check out Fr. Stephen’s Orthodox Blog for an excellent analysis of the Greek language in 1 John 1:6-7. He stresses a weakness endemic to English translations, where ‘koinonia’ with God should be treated as “communion” instead of “fellowship.” Wonderful stuff!

This all reminds me that we need qualified teachers bound to a normative standard to transmit the teachings of Sacred Scripture. (My apologies in advance for any botched conversions of Greek into our Roman alphabet.)

Doctoring Doctrine Through Dynamic Equivalency, Part II

I previously wrote a post on an unnerving addition made to Sacred Scriptures by the NIV translators in an effort to make a "necessary" clarification. Let me reiterate that I have not been part of the Anti-NIV bandwagon, and have generally been sick of hearing people in the PCA say "out with the old (NIV) and in with the new (ESV or NKJV)!" But I am coming to appreciate that substantive changes were made to Holy Writ, and this merits serious attention. The NIV is among the most widely published English translations of the Bible.

Consider Hebrews 11:11, where the NIV tells us that, "By faith Abraham, even though he was past age—and Sarah herself was barren—was enabled to become a father because he considered him faithful who had made the promise."

Would you be at all surprised to learn that Abraham is not mentioned in this verse in the Greek? I was! The verse is literally something like this (and do check out the Interlinear yourself, since I'm not really qualified to do what I do in the remainder of this sentence), 'through faith also [the also modifies the preceding passage which IS about Abraham] barren Sarah was empowered for the laying down of seed, obtained beyond her season of prime, because she believed the one promising.'

Let me paraphrase these side-by-side to highlight what the NIV translators dodged:
NIV: Abraham's faith in the promisor enabled him, though he and Sarah were past age, to father.
Greek: Sarah's faith in the promisor enabled her to receive seed in spite of her age.

This is a substantive change to our infallible, God-breathed, solely sufficient Bible. Two main complaints come to mind, one minor but obvious, the other major but subtle:
1) Simple biology dictates that men do not experience menopause and become BARREN. Women do.
2) The NIV denies the reader the ability to appreciate that Sarah is an antetype of (that is, she prefigured) Mary. This verse in Hebrews does more than encourage our belief that the Old Testament prophesied the Messiah's coming just as He did; it tells us something substantive about Mary. It underlines that Mary was made able to receive the laying down of God's seed in her otherwise barren womb BY FAITH. The Reformed, I believe, are squeamish about this possibility, and so inclined to filter this verse. We say that Mary just happened to be the one chosen by God, without any regard for her personal merit (and indeed that the wicked Catholics and Orthodox are blasphemous for presuming contrary to predestinarianism that Mary was selected for her merit). Let the Scripture speak for itself.

Worth mention is that the NIV translators included an alternate reading of the verse in a footnote (without explanation), but it is an inadequate substitute, and it still misses the notion of being able to receive seed. Seed theology is not for the hogs.


Ironically, the Today's NIV, which "was produced to meet the ever-growing spiritual needs of today's generation of believers", reversed the text option and the footnote from the original NIV! To get a feel for the TNIV, check out the picture of it's cover. (Story? Are we referring to a Fable? Singular? It's one fable, not a collection of sacred fables? Of God? Not of redemption, but of God? We've encapsulated the Almighty in one story? Wow!)

To be continued...

Federal Vision Convert

Do stop by here for an interesting account of how the Federal Vision (FV) movement made one of its proponents (an OPC member) into a Catholic. I've heard tell elsewhere that many of the guys at the ground level of the movement have already become Orthodox or Catholic... (hearsay, I know...)

For those of you unaware, the PCA just approved a committee paper condemning what they understand to be Federal Vision theology. It an interesting debate, since no one admits to believing the unorthodox (so can't be disciplined), but they sure write like they do...

Burdens of Proof, Standards of Proof

Alexis Arapoff, Fourth Station of the Cross

[Forgive the legalese, and do view "opponent" in the spirit in which it is meant.]

My wife regularly notes that we are where we are, the Reformation happened, cats out of the bag, so who are we to go back? She is warmed by the C.S. Lewis saying (I paraphrase) that ‘the closer we are to the heart of our respective positions, the closer we are to each other.’

Hers is a common position, but one that presumes that the burden of proof for convincing any one Christian of any particular truth contrary to that which is taught in their current state is on the party opposite. I am the defendant-Protestant, and if you claim the truth is in [Orthodoxy] [Catholicism], you have to convince me.

If this standard is true, it sounds something of a death knell to the ecumenist. Each of us stands behind our wall of happenstance, refusing to believe without some degree of strong proof that we are in the wrong camp.

Is it possible to invert this formula? Can I place the burden on myself? Could we say, “I am the plaintiff-Protestant, and am confident enough in what I profess to believe that I can bear the burden of proof over my opponents”?

Even if we appreciate on which party the burden lies, we have to settle what the standard of proof for this burden is. In the secular law, various standards are used. To prove a case in civil court, one generally has to convince a jury with a preponderance of the evidence that one’s case is right (that is, somewhat greater than 50% certainty that claim X is right). To convict one of a capital crime, the state usually must present evidence that convinces the jury “beyond a reasonable doubt” of guilt.

Given the antiquity and obscurity of our primary evidence (the church fathers and scripture) in debates over the proper constitution of Christ’s Church, it seems that a discerning believer will never be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. Doubt is a low standard to meet. If we place the burden of proof on our opponent, and use “beyond a reasonable doubt” as our standard, each will remain convinced (relatively) of the supremacy of his own camp, and the fortitude of his own walls.

Truth requires better than this framework though. Instead of drowning in complacency, shouldn’t one be able to prove to others by a preponderance of the evidence that their position is justified? A fabulous courtroom drama it would be.

James White's 10 Questions For Discernment

Reformed Baptist apologist, Mr. James White, recently shared 10 questions any so-called Protestant should answer before considering converting to Catholicism. Since I am in his target audience, I pulled up my socks and tried answering these questions. Forgive the length, but Mr. White wasn't able to keep his questions short (lest he should miss a chance to preach):

10) Have you listened to both sides? …Have you actually taken the time to find sound, serious responses to Rome's claims, those offered by writers ever since the Reformation, such as Goode, Whitaker, Salmon, and modern writers? I specifically exclude from this list anything by Jack Chick and Dave Hunt.

Yes, and who are Chick and Hunt, and why are you excluding them? Now I’m curious!

9) Have you read an objective history of the early church? I refer to one that would explain the great diversity of viewpoints to be found in the writings of the first centuries…?

Yes. Well, only one or two that are objective, and several that are very biased in favor of their Reformed authors. I have yet to read a Catholic history of the early church. Maybe I should, so I know I'm listening to both sides! (Actually, no one can write an objective history - the non-Christian academician will write as an agnostic seeking to debunk the Mystery of Christ, and the Protestant or Catholic will be biased to their own position.)

8) Have you looked carefully at the claims of Rome in a historical light, specifically, have you examined her claims regarding the "unanimous consent" of the Fathers, and all the evidence that exists that stands contrary not only to the universal claims of the Papacy but especially to the concept of Papal Infallibility? How do you explain, consistently, the history of the early church in light of modern claims made by Rome? How do you explain such things as the Pornocracy and the Babylonian Captivity of the Church without assuming the truthfulness of the very system you are embracing?

I believe I have looked carefully. I do not know what Mr. White means by “unanimous consent”. If he means that 100% of church fathers have to believe something for the Catholic claims to be valid, that would give, ex post facto, a limitless veto power to any one father (who would not have realized he was wielding this power when he wrote). I do not know if he means Papal Infallibility the way I have read it defended. I do not know what remains to be explained about the Pornocracy et al. The Catholics claim that the church is not free from sinful people; they say the Church is semper reformanda.

7) Have you applied the same standards to the testing of Rome's ultimate claims of authority that Roman Catholic apologists use to attack sola scriptura? How do you explain the fact that Rome's answers to her own objections are circular? For example, if she claims you need the Church to establish an infallible canon, how does that actually answer the question, since you now have to ask how Rome comes to have this infallible knowledge. Or if it is argued that sola scriptura produces anarchy, why doesn't Rome's magisterium produce unanimity and harmony? And if someone claims there are 33,000 denominations due to sola scriptura, since that outrageous number has been debunked repeatedly (see Eric Svendsen's Upon This Slippery Rock for full documentation), have you asked them why they are so dishonest and sloppy with their research?

I have applied the same standards to all my analysis, thank you for asking. Regarding circular logic, I believe the ‘Romanist’ would say that Christ promised us that he would give his Holy Spirit, and the Book of Acts records this very event. This, and Christ’s commissioning of the Apostles should give us some reason to believe that their claims to authority could be valid, certainly valid enough to identify which texts this same Holy Spirit inspired. Rome’s claims do not nearly produce harmony. Many walked away from Christ when he explained that His flesh had to be eaten for salvation. Rome’s criticism (in observing the factionalism of Protestantism) is that our claim that the Bible is a sufficient sole rule of faith has been disproved by reality, as we are in such wide disagreement on its interpretation, even in essential matters. There may not be harmony, or even obedience in Catholicism about the use of, say, the Pill (an abortifacient), but at least everyone understands that their Church has spoken against it. Incidentally, and speaking of essentials, I believe Calvin would say that Mr. White's Reformed Baptists are not part of the true church, since they do not properly attend to the Sacraments.

6) Have you read the Papal Syllabus of Errors and Indulgentiarum Doctrina? Can anyone read the description of grace found in the latter document and pretend for even a moment that is the doctrine of grace Paul taught to the Romans?

I just pulled these documents up, thank you. I do not understand what point was sought to be made by the first, so need elucidation. The errors refuted by the Pope are, e.g., that the philosophy of Relativism is not in accord with Christianity. No surprise. Regarding Indulgences and Paul’s doctrine of Grace, this textual criticism does not account for the Catholic defense that Indulgences are able to relieve only temporal punishment. Eternal punishment is cured by Christ’s grace alone (Cf. Paul's doctrine of grace taught to the Romans).

5) Have you seriously considered the ramifications of Rome's doctrine of sin, forgiveness, eternal and temporal punishments, purgatory, the treasury of merit, transubstantiation, sacramental priesthood, and indulgences? Have you seriously worked through compelling and relevant biblical texts like Ephesians 2, Romans 3-5, Galatians 1-2, Hebrews 7-10 and all of John 6, in light of Roman teaching?

Yes, still weighing them, thank you. I have read those passages in light of Rome’s teachings, and continue to pray about this. These are hard passages that could be taken different ways. I am poorly qualified to judge individually what they mean. This reading makes me doubt the sola Scriptura claim of the perspicuity of scripture.

4) Have you pondered what it means to embrace a system that teaches you approach the sacrifice of Christ thousands of times in your life and yet you can die impure, and, in fact, even die an enemy of God, though you came to the cross over and over again? And have you pondered what it means that though the historical teachings of Rome on these issues are easily identifiable, the vast majority of Roman Catholics today, including priests, bishops, and scholars, don't believe these things anymore?

Second point first, so many people doubt. As all of John 6 made clear, many of the disciples, people who walked with Christ and heard him directly, doubted and walked away. Judas did not believe his teachings. The O.T. Jews, entrusted with the very Oracles of God (Rom. 3:2) did not believe (but this does not disprove the Abrahamic faith!). So no surprise that many Catholics do not believe their Church even if it is (hypothetically) right. How many use the pill? It’s still an abortifacient, so an evil sin.

First point second, of course we can all die impure even though we come to the cross over and over again. 1 Cor 11 seems to support such a possibility nicely – if you eat of the flesh in an unworthy manner, you are eating judgment on yourself! I think this question mischaracterizes the re-presentation theology of the mass. But Mr. White may be more of a eucharistic scholar than I am.

3) Have you considered what it means to proclaim a human being the Holy Father (that's a divine name, used by Jesus only of His Father) and the Vicar of Christ (that's the Holy Spirit)? Do you really find anything in Scripture whatsoever that would lead you to believe it was Christ's will that a bishop in a city hundreds of miles away in Rome would not only be the head of His church but would be treated as a king upon earth, bowed down to and treated the way the Roman Pontiff is treated?

I have considered it, and I don’t like it one bit. The Catholics would say Mr. White confuses “holy father” with “Heavenly Father” here. I note the use of "father" and "fathers" in Stephen's speech in Acts, incidentally. Regarding Rome, the early church testimony (like ~ 80 AD early) at least makes this a reasonable proposition. I do not find anything in scripture that tells me I have to find anything in scripture telling me it’s okay that the church was run the way it was run in the early centuries.

2) Have you considered how completely unbiblical and a-historical is the entire complex of doctrines and dogmas related to Mary? Do you seriously believe the Apostles taught that Mary was immaculately conceived, and that she was a perpetual virgin (so that she traveled about Palestine with a group of young men who were not her sons, but were Jesus' cousins, or half-brothers (children of a previous marriage of Joseph), or the like? Do you really believe that dogmas defined nearly 2,000 years after the birth of Christ represent the actual teachings of the Apostles? Are you aware that such doctrines as perpetual virginity and bodily assumption have their origin in gnosticism, not Christianity, and have no foundation in apostolic doctrine or practice? How do you explain how it is you must believe these things de fide, by faith, when generations of Christians lived and died without ever even having heard of such things?

This question is a sort of litany of doubt, perpetuating much confusion and clouding a clear ecumenical dialogue between Catholics and Protestants. I think it is imprudent. The origin of these teachings is not within Gnosticism, and much of Marian teachings (if not all) developed as Christology developed to refute Gnosticism and other early heresies. I seriously believe the Apostles could have taught Mary’s perpetual virginity, if it was true. I would not have slept with the woman who carried the Christ in her womb if I were Joseph. Calvin and Luther believed this doctrine. Anyway, this litany of doubt raises only secondary issues to the primary issue of church authority.

And the number 1 question I would ask of such a person is: if you claim to have once embraced the gospel of grace, whereby you confessed that your sole standing before a thrice-holy God was the seamless garment of the imputed righteousness of Christ, so that you claimed no merit of your own, no mixture of other merit with the perfect righteousness of Christ, but that you stood full and complete in Him and in Him alone, at true peace with God because there is no place in the universe safer from the wrath of God than in Christ, upon what possible grounds could you come to embrace a system that at its very heart denies you the peace that is found in a perfect Savior who accomplishes the Father's will and a Spirit who cannot fail but to bring that work to fruition in the life of God's elect? Do you really believe that the endless cycle of sacramental forgiveness to which you will now commit yourself can provide you the peace that the perfect righteousness of Christ can not?

I was actually offended by the first part of this question. If I ‘claim’ to have ‘once’ embraced the gospel of grace (followed by Mr. White’s definition of what that means), how could I embrace a system that does not give the ‘peace’ of assurance of salvation? Would such a system have been right to assure Judas that his selection as an apostle set in motion that good work that would result in his salvation? I think the Catholics would teach that God’s elect are preserved by the Holy Spirit, but that the rebellious are damned. Why else would Paul beat his body into submission? Why was Paul so concerned with running the race with perseverance, lest he should lost hold of the prize (1 Cor 9:27)? This is not cut and dry.

Young People Leaving

The Banner, the Christian Reformed Church's periodical, has an article worth reading entitled "Where Did Our Young Adults Go?"

Despite a point of minor bias over female ordination, the article is worthwhile for its multiple vignettes of those who left the Reformed Church in which they were raised. Some stopped going to church altogether, several joined baptistic or independent churches, and one fellow even goes to a Catholic Church occasionally.

Besides being geographically grouped so as to be an impracticable choice, the CRC lost me because of female ordination and like movements to 'modernize' (motivated in large part, I believe, by anxiety over the question "how do we keep our young people?"). But head-to-head, I think as much of the CRC as I do of the PCA.

It's a haunting question over at the CRC; how do we keep our young people?

Ancient Christian Commentary: Acts 1:3

The Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, published by IVP, is "an ecumenical project, promoting a vital link of communication between the varied Christian traditions of today and their common ancient ancestors in the faith." These volumes give a sort of Church Fathers Gloss on scripture - excellent stuff!

I own a few volumes, and was perusing their New Testament Volume V on the Books of Acts online with Amazon's handy "Search Inside!" feature. I came across this marvelous passage of St. Chrysostom on Acts 1:3 (from his Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily 1) (taken from the New Advent website):

"But why did He appear not to all, but to the Apostles only? Because to the many it would have seemed a mere apparition, inasmuch as they understood not the secret of the mystery. For if the disciples themselves were at first incredulous and were troubled, and needed the evidence of actual touch with the hand, and of His eating with them, how would it have fared in all likelihood with the multitude? For this reason therefore by the miracles [wrought by the Apostles] He renders the evidence of His Resurrection unequivocal, so that not only the men of those times—this is what would come of the ocular proof—but also all men thereafter, should be certain of the fact, that He was risen. Upon this ground also we argue with unbelievers. For if He did not rise again, but remains dead, how did the Apostles perform miracles in His name? But they did not, say you, perform miracles? How then was our religion (ἔ θνος ) instituted? For this certainly they will not controvert nor impugn what we see with our eyes: so that when they say that no miracles took place, they inflict a worse stab upon themselves. For this would be the greatest of miracles, that without any miracles, the whole world should have eagerly come to be taken in the nets of twelve poor and illiterate men. For not by wealth of money, not by wisdom of words, not by any thing else of this kind, did the fishermen prevail; so that objectors must even against their will acknowledge that there was in these men a Divine power, for no human strength could ever possibly effect such great results. For this He then remained forty days on earth, furnishing in this length of time the sure evidence of their seeing Him in His own proper Person, that they might not suppose that what they saw was a phantom. And not content with this, He added also the evidence of eating with them at their board: as to signify this, the writer adds, "And being at table with them, He commanded." (v. 4.) And this circumstance the Apostles themselves always put forth as an fallible token of the Resurrection; as where they say, "Who did eat and drink with Him." (Acts x. 41.)" (All emphases mine).

We have been given not only well-equipped witnesses to the Resurrection, in the form of the Apostles and those they taught, but irrefutable evidence from the nature of the spread of the early church (we would say res ipsa loquitur, or 'the thing speaks for itself' in the law).

Witness

James Swan at Beggars All shared a Google Books nugget, George Stanley Faber's The Difficulties of Romanism, published in 1829. It reminded me of the importance of witnesses in the context of the Orthodox/Catholic - Protestant discussion.

Faber's premise is simple: Rome claims to have immutable doctrines, so these doctrines must have been held by the Apostles. To be believable, there must be evidence (in the form of an unbroken chain of witnesses through time in strict mutual harmony with each other) that the apostles taught these doctrines.

We believe what reliable people have told us. Early Mormons believed Joseph Smith saw the Book of Mormon through the Seeing Stones. They believed this because people they trusted as witnesses transcibed the writing while Joseph was behind a curtain. Today's Mormons accept the early Mormons' testimony. (I disbelieve the Mormon faith because of other witnesses and testimony.)

Likewise, Christianity depends on eye witnesses to Christ's life and teachings. We do not believe the Gospel of John to contain Truth because it feels good, or because the pages glimmer a special way. We believe it because the Church has borne witness to its authenticity through our history. (And, unlike in my Mormon analogy, I find no convincing contrary testimony.)

Faber said that if any gap appears in the chain of testimony, what is claimed earlier is unbelievable. I do not agree. If I can only see down the chain, say, 500 feet, should I disbelieve that it is 2,000 feet long, or that the links on the end are painted red? Maybe. But what if someone I trust is standing 500 feet down the line, and they hollar to me that it goes as far as they can see, another 500 feet? At some point we have to trust our witnesses.

Our Ancient Creeds are witnesses to me. I can't question the 2nd Century Apostles' Creed based on my individualistic interpretation of Holy Scriptures. I also cannot redefine the Creeds' terms (see my post on original intent in credal language).

There are rich scriptures on witnessing. Remember that the Prophets were witnesses, and those who claimed to be prophets but whose prophecies did not come true were to be STONED.

To note just a few passages: John 1:15, John 5:39 (I believe referring to the then-extant Prophecies of the Messiah's coming), Acts 1:8, Acts 22:20, 1 Thess 2:9-11 (where a particular church is witness to the Apostles' behavior), 2 Tim 2:1-3 (Paul taught Timothy in the presence of witnesses, instructing him to pass that teaching on to others), Heb 12:1 (I have to admit, I now read "witnesses" in the great cloud in a totally differnt light in this context - I always thought they witnessed me, and cheered me on, but now I realize they witness TO ME, through the life they live(d), the True faith - as evidence by the words "let us also").

Adding To Sola Scriptura For Clarity

I had till now not joined the anti-NIV bandwagon that I've observed in several PCA churches. I remain displeased at the use of some other translation du jour (often the ESV or NKJV) from the pulpit and on the overhead while the NIV remains in the pews. I think that's inconsistent, and leads visitors to believe the Bible supplied to them by the church in the pews is unreliable. But in my devotions I just came across 1 Peter 4:6 and a bit of a shocker (for me) in the NIV Study Bible footnotes.

From 1 Peter 4:6, "For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to men in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit" (emphasis mine).

And the NIV Study Bible footnote, "The preaching was a past event. The word "now" does not occur in the Greek, but it is necessary to make it clear that the preaching was done not after these people had died, but while they were still alive. (There will be no opportunity for people to be saved after death; see Heb 9:27)" (emphasis mine).

A word does not appear in the Bible, but is necessary... sola Scriptura... not there, but necessary... sola Scriptura...?

Additions to the Bible published under the guise of being true scripture aside, I don't know that I find this addition even substantively agreeable. The previous passage in 1 Peter says, "For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah..." (1 Peter 3:18-20, emphasis mine).

Peter tells us that Christ preached to those in prison who disobeyed in the days of Noah, and then he goes on to say that the Gospel was preached to those who are [now?!] dead. The two verses seem related, making the NIV translators' addition even more inappropriate. Just my layman's two cents, but my view is in accord with Clement of Alexandria, Hilary of Arles, Oecumenius and Theophylact, as they are quoted in my wonderful Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Volume XI (though opposing voices are given).