WESTCOTT AND HORT
I. The Textual Criticism of Westcott and Hort.
A. �The Westcott-Hort method [of textual criticism] is certainly basically rationalistic, for it exalts the judgement of the individual critic. They were influenced either consciously or unconsciously by the liberal tendencies of their time. It was a period when the theory of evolution had been thrust before the popular attention with the publication of Darwin�s Origin of the Species in 1859. This theory had tremendous repercussions in every area of life. Both Westcott and Hort seem to have been theistic evolutionists.� (Which Bible? p. 155)
B. �Those who [examine the theories of Westcott and Hort] will find that the whole theory was based upon a fundamental error, namely the assumption that the reliability of these fourth century documents [Aleph and B] was in proportion to their age. There were no doubt bad copies in every age, some corrupted by accident, some by ignorance and some by design. These two exhibit the most amazing number of incorrect readings.� (The Providential Preservation of the Greek Text of the New Testament p. 18)
C. �It is hard to see how God would allow the true text to sink into virtual oblivion for fifteen hundred years only to have it brought to light again by two Cambridge professors who did not even believe it to be verbally inspired.� (Which Bible? p. 149)
II. The Theories of Westcott and Hort.
A. The Revision Theory of Westcott and Hort.
1. �...Westcott and Hort�s theory was that the Traditional Text was an official text created by a council or conference of bishops and leading churchmen meeting for the express purpose of constructing a New Testament text on which all could agree, and in their discussion of the history of the Traditional Text they continue to emphasize its official character. ... This emphasis on ecclesiastical authority, however, has been abandoned by most present-day scholars.� (The King James Version Defended pp. 178-179)
a. �[Hort�s} theory was that the �originals� agreed with the local [Alexandrian] Text, and that this Local Text was �edited� by the Syrian church at Antioch in the Fourth Century to become what we know as the Universal (Received) Text, and the forced upon the people by the church council.� (An Understandable History of the Bible p. 156)
b. �Since the latter nineteenth century the theory has been held by some scholars that this traditional text of the New Testament had been officially edited by the fourth-century church. Recent studies have caused significant changes in the view, and a growing number of scholars now regard the Received Text as far more reliable than previously thought.� (The Prophecy Bible pp. x-xi)
c. To realize how hard it would be for a revision such as envisioned by Westcott and Hort to have taken place without a loud cry of revulsion from, at the very least several quarters, one need only to look at the current KJV controversy. But, James sees no �paper trail� of any sort about this �revision.� (The Corruption of the Word esp. chapter 11)
2. �Why should anyone put credence in the Westcott-Hort theory that enabled the two scholars to reject as of no value about ninety-five percent of the available evidence and in effect to make the text of Vaticannus the magic touchstone?� (True or False p. 17)
B. The Conflate Theory of Westcott and Hort. (Entire section: The King James Version Defended pp. 175-176)
1. Hort and Westcott argue that the Traditional Text is a �conflate� (melding) of the Western and Alexandrian texts. Burgon in Revision Revised argues, �Why ... If conflation was one of the regular practices of the makers of the Traditional Text, could Westcott and Hort find only eight instances of this phenomenon? Their story ... Has at last forced them to make an appeal to Scripture and to produce some actual specimens of their meaning. After ransacking the Gospels for 30 years, they have at last fastened upon eight.�
a. �In these eight passages ... It is just as easy to believe that the Traditional reading is the original and that the other texts have omitted parts of it as to suppose that the Traditional reading represents a later combination of the other two readings.�
b. The radical German scholar Bousset [Text und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur], examined the eight conflate readings of Westcott and Hort. He agreed with them �...in only one of their eight instances... In four of the other instances he regarded the Traditional readings as the original reading, and in the three others he regarded the decision as doubtful. �Westcott and Hort�s chief proof,� he observed, �has almost been turned into
the opposite.��
2. It is argued by some critics that the Traditional Text �...is characterized by harmonizations, especially the Gospel of Mark.� The argument being that the editors of the traditional text smoothed over what they saw as errors of agreement. However, �There is no evidence ... To prove that the Traditional Text is especially addicted to harmonization.� Indeed, it is the Alexandrian Text (Aleph, B, C, L and a few others) which add And another, taking a spear, pierced His side, and there flowed out water and blood, after Matthew 27:29 in an effort to make it harmonious with John 19:34. It must be noted that Westcott and Hort (N. T. In the Original Greek), �Because this reading occurs in B, ... Were unwilling to reject it completely...�
C. The B and Aleph Theory of Westcott and Hort.
1. �...the Greek text of Westcott and Hort, founded as it was on two of the worst manuscripts, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, is filled with errors and contradictions as of necessity it must have been with such a shaky, unstable, inaccurate foundation.� (A Comparison of the New American Standard Version with the King James Version p. 15)
a. �...the Westcott and Hort Greet Text, which is equivalent to Codex (manuscript) Vaticannus, which is also the same thing as Codex Sinaiticus (with numerous changes), which are two manuscripts considered to be attributable to a man named Origen.� (Why? The King James Version p. 3)
b. �How can anyone honestly say that any modern version based upon the Westcott and Hort Greek Text is more accurate than the Authorized Version when the Westcott and Hort text is based upon two of the worst manuscripts, Aleph (Sinaiticus) and B (Vaticanus)?� (True or False p. 18)
c. The New Testament was written in a type of Greek called Koine,� which means �common.� It was the Greek of the common man. Both Codex B and Aleph were written in Classical Greek which was �...the Greek of the pagan, unsaved, unregenerated, God-rejecting philosophers...� B and Aleph were both �...altered to the Koine of the first century so you will think that those manuscripts were written in the language of the New Testament.� (Why? The
King James Version pp. 6-8)
2. Westcott and Hort �...admitted that the Textus Receptus is substantially identical with the Text used in the Churches of Syria and elsewhere in and prior to the fourth century.� (True or False p. 67)
D. �[Hort} used the same method to overthrow the authority of the [Received] Text as that Charles Darwin used to overthrow the fact of creation. He used a THEORY!� (An Understandable History of the Bible p. 156)
E. Many of the commentators cited made much of the fact that both Westcott and Hort were heavily influenced by the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church.
III. The Greek Text of Westcott and Hort.
A. Westcott and Hort�s �...Greek Text varied from the �received text� in nearly six thousand instances.� (The Bible in the Making p. 210)
B. �Westcott and Hort were responsible for the greatest feat in textual criticism, They were responsible for replacing the [Received] Text of the Authorized Version with the Local Text of Egypt and the Roman Catholic Church.� (An Understandable History of the Bible p. 117)
C. �One cannot help noticing parallels between the brilliant Westcott and Hort of the nineteenth century and the brilliant Origen, their favorite patristic authority of the third century.� (Which Bible p. 156)
D. The common faith �...has from time to time been distorted by the intrusion of unbiblical ideas. For example, many Jews and early Christians believed that the inspiration of the Old Testament had been repeated three times. According to them not only had the original Old Testament writers been inspired but also Ezra, who rewrote the whole Old Testament after it had been lost. And the Septuagint likewise, they maintained had been infallibly inspired. Also the Roman Catholics have distorted the common faith by their false doctrine that the Authority of the Scriptures rests on the authority of the Church. It was this erroneous view that led the Roman Church to adopt the Latin Vulgate rather than the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures as its authoritative Bible. And finally, many conservative Christians today distort the common faith by their criticism. They smile at the legends concerning Ezra and the Septuagint, but they themselves have concocted a myth even more absurd, namely, that the true New Testament text was lost for more than 1,500 years and then restored by Westcott and Hort.� (The King James Version Defended p. 194)
E. �...teachers talk about the danger of worshiping the King James Version, which would indeed be a great sin were anyone actually to commit it. But isn�t it a still greater sin to worship Westcott and Hort?� (Believing Bible Study P. 89)
THE OLD TRANSLATIONS
I. The Testimony of the Greek copies.
A. �In the second century, a disciple by the name of Lucian founded a school of the Scriptures in Antioch. Lucian was noted for his mistrust of pagan philosophy. His school magnified the authority and divinity of Scripture and taught that the Bible was to be taken literally, not figuratively as the philosophers of Alexandria taught.� (Let�s Weigh the Evidence p. 44)
B. �The very multiplicity of manuscripts provides checks by which errors may be detected, and the numerous versions demonstrate by their ancestry that there was a common origin.� (New Testament Survey p. 432)
II. The multiplicity of translations.
A. �...divine guidance was by no means confined to those ancient Christians who spoke Greek. On the contrary, indications can be found in the ancient New Testament version of this same God-guided movement of the Church away from readings which were false and misleading and toward those which were true and trustworthy.� (The King James Version Defended pp. 186-187)
B. �The New Testament books, widely circulated in Greek, were translated at a very early date into other languages.� (The Bible in the Making pp. 83-84)
C. �The point [of the ancient translations] has an important bearing upon the question we are now examining. For, remembering that �we have no actual copies (i.e., original Greek Texts)as old as the Syriac and Latin Version (i.e., translations) by probably more than 200 years� (The Traditional Text, Burgon and Miller) and that �The oldest Versions are far more ancient that the oldest (Greek) manuscripts� (Cannon Cook), and remembering too that those venerable Versions prove the existence in their day of a standard Text agreeing essentially with our Textus Receptus, and it will be recognized that �the most ancient evidence� is all in favor of the latter.� (True or False p. 84)
D. �...scholars have recovered copies of ancient translations in Latin, Syriac, Egyptian, Armenian, Gothic, etc. Some of these originated before our oldest existing Greek copies and thus testify to the contents of still earlier manuscripts. The great weight of ths evidence is favourable to the �Received Text� underlying the Authorized Version.� (The Providential Preservation of the Greek Text of the New Testament p. 11)
E. One of the Divine Safeguards for the Text is the multiplicity of the ancient translations. (True or False p. 83)
III. The Testimony of the Peshitta.
A. �Antioch was the capital of Syria where the early believers were first called Christians (Acts 1126). In a few years the Syrian believers could be numbered by the thousands. Their Bible, the Peshitta [translated about 150 A. D.], even today generally follows the Received Text.� (God Wrote Only One Bible p. 97)
B. Burkitt�s Theory.
1. The Peshitta dates from the 2nd century. About 350 manuscripts are extant. In 1904 �Burkitt ... and other naturalistic critics ... assigned a 5th-century date... But Burkitt�s hypotheses is contrary to the evidence...� Since all the sects of the Syrian church are loyal to the Peshitta, and these divisions occurred in the 5th century, it must have existed long before this. (Believing Bible Study p. 42)
2. �Until about one hundred years ago it was almost universally believed that the Peshitta originated in the 2nd century and hence was one of the oldest New Testament Versions.� In 1904 Burkitt [Evangelion DaMapharreshe] argued that the Peshitta �was prepared by Rabbula�s episcopate, because it was the received text of both of two sects into which the Syrian Church became divided. Since this division took place in Rabbula�s time and since Rabbula was the leader of one of these sects, it is impossible to suppose that the Peshitta was his handiwork, for if it had been produced under his auspices, his opponents would never have adopted it as their received New Testament Text.� (The King James Version Defended pp. 173-174)
C. �Some versions (i.e., translations) such as the Peshitta..., a Syrian translation, and the Old Latin Vulgate ... Are actually older than our oldest uncial MSS. The Peshitta was translated from the Greek in about 150 A. D. The Old Latin Vulgate was translated about 156 A. D.� (An Understandable History of the Bible p. 63)
D. �The Peshitta Syriac version, which is the historic Bible of the whole Syrian Church, agrees closely with the Traditional Text...� (The King James Version Defended p. 172)
IV. The Testimony of the Latin Versions.
A. The testimony of the Old Latin Version.
1. A �...Latin translation of the Gospels was made in North Africa during the
last quarter of the 2nd century.. Only about 50 manuscripts of this Old Latin version survive.� (Believing Bible Study p. 42)
2. �The Old Latin Vulgate had come into existence no later than 157 A. D. The Latin version of Jerome, translated by order of the Roman Catholic Church was published in about 380 A. D.� (An Understandable History of the Bible p. 68)
3. �...the Italic Church in northern Italy - later the Waldenses - is seen standing in opposition to papal Rome. Their Bible was of the family of the renowned Itala. It was that translation into Latin which represents the Received Text. Its very name, �Itala,� is derived from the Italic district, the region of the Vaudois. Of the purity and reliability of this version Augustine, speaking of the different Latin Bibles (about 400 A. D.) says: �Now among translations themselves the Italian (Itala) is to be preferred to the others, for it keeps closer to the words without prejudice to clearness or expression.�� (Which Bible? pp. 207-208)
4. �The Text of this oldest Bible of the Roman Province is known as the Old Latin. The Old Latin was known as the Latin Vulgate many years before the days of Jerome 342 - 420 A. D. This term �Latin Vulgate� referring to the Old Latin which was translated from the Received Text, was not replaced until April 8th, 1546, when at the Council of Trent, Jerome�s Revised Latin was declared to be the authentic Bible of the Roman Church. Since then the term Latin Vulgate refers NOT TO THE OLD LATIN in harmony with the Received Text, but the REVISED LATIN OF JEROME.� (God Wrote Only One Bible p. 99)
5. �The Old Latin Vulgate was used by the Christians in the churches of the Waldenses, Gauls, Celts, Albingenses, and other fundamental groups throughout Europe.� It got it name �Vulgate� from the people. It was the Bible of the �vulgar� (Latin for �common�) man. (An Understandable History of the Bible p. 67)
6. �Italy, France and Great Britain were once provinces of the old Roman Empire. Latin was then the language of the common people. So the first translations of the Bible in these countries were made from the Greek ... into the Latin. One of the first of these Latin Bibles was for the Waldenses in northern Italy, translated not later than 157 A. D. and was known as the Italic Version [Scrivener, Introduction to N. T., Vol. 2, p. 43]. The renowned scholar Beza, states that the Italic Church dates from 120 A. D. Allix, an outstanding scholar, testifies that enemies had corrupted many
manuscripts, while the Italic Church handed them down in their apostolic purity [Allix, Churches of the Piedmont, pp. 11, 288].� (God Wrote Only One Bible p. 98)
B. The testimony of the Latin version of Jerome.
1. Jerome�s Vulgate dates from 382 A. D. About 8,000 copies are extant. (Believing Bible Study p. 42)
2. �There was one problem which the Roman Catholic Church did not anticipate [when they translated a rival �Vulgate�]. The same problem which the businessmen publishing new versions cannot seem to avoid. The common people recognized the true Word of God because the Holy Spirit bears witness to it!� (An Understandable History of the Bible p. 82)
3. When Jerome translated the Alexandrian Text into the Latin (with the Apocryphal books included) the Roman Church named it the �Vulgate.� (An Understandable History of the Bible p. 82)
4. �...the Vulgate of Jerome was unused and unwanted by the true Christians for over nine hundred years. ... There was only one remedy to the situation, eliminate the �other� old, archaic Bible.� (An Understandable History of the Bible p. 84)
V. The non-Peshitta Syrian Version.
A. While not as old as the Peshitta, this early 3rd century version frequently agrees with the Traditional Text against the Western and Alexandrian Text types. �One of those Traditional readings thus supported by the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript is found in the angelic song of Luke 2:13. Here the Traditional Text and the Sinaitic Syriac read, good will among (toward) men, while the Western and Alexandrian texts read, among men of good will.� (The King James Version Defended p. 174)
B. There are only two manuscripts of the Old Syriac. It is called the �Old Syriac� based on Burkitt�s �...untenable hypothesis that the Peshitta was produced in the 5th century by Rabbula, bishop of Edessa.� The supposition being that this version, the, predates the Peshitta. This, of course, is not the case. (Believing Bible Study p. 42)
VI. �The Egyptian New Testament versions are called the Coptic versions because they are
written in Coptic, the latest form of the ancient Egyptian language. The Coptic New Testament is extent in two dialects, the Sahidic version of Southern Egypt and the Bohairic version of Northern Egypt. According to Betzger (Text of the New Testament), the Sahidic version dates from the beginning of the 3rd century. The oldest Sahidic manuscript has ben variously dated from the mid - 4th to the 6th century. The Bohairic version is regarded as somewhat later than the Sahidic. It is extant in many manuscripts, most of which are late. In the 1950's, however, M. Bedmer acquired a papyrus Bohairic manuscript containing most of the Gospel of John which was thought by its editor, R. Kasser, to date from the mid - 4th century.� (Believing Bible Study pp. 43-44)
VII. �The Philoxenian version was produced in 508 A. D. for Philoxenus, bishop of Mabbug, by his assistant Polycarp. In 616 this version was re-issued, or perhaps revised, by Thomas of Harkel, who likewise was bishop of Mabbug. The Philoxenian - Harclean version included the five books which the Peshitta omits, namely 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation [Metzger, Text of the New Testament].� (Believing Bible Study p. 42)
VIII. The testimony of the Waldenses.
A. �The Reformers held that the Waldensian Church was formed about 120 A. D....� (Which Bible? P. 208)
B. Leaders of the Reformation were invited into the Waldensian valleys. Olivetti saw MSS which went back to the old Vulgate and beyond. He took this knowledge to France and produced a French translation, the Olivetti, which had a great effect on France. (The Battle for the Doctrinal Heart [tape])
IX. �The fact ... That Ulfilas in A. D. 350 produced a Gothic version based on the Traditional Text proves that this text must have been in existence before that date.� (The King James Version Defended p. 174)
X. The early English translations.
A. �The first known translation ... Of any part of the Bible into Anglo - Saxon is Aldhem�s version of the Psalms, probably written toward the end of the seventh century.� (The Bible in the Making p. 106)
B. Coverdale�s translation, 1539, had access to the Greek Text of Zimenes� Complutensian Polyglot (an edition containing the New Testament in both Greek and Latin). This was a Roman Catholic work which was intended for study by her clergy. (The Bible in the Making p. 127 [& p. 113])
1. The translators of the King James Version compared the previous English translations as part of their work.
2. Since Coverdale had access to the Catholic Polyglot, which would have had access to Alexandrian readings, it follows that the translators of the King James Version had access to the readings which underlie the modern translation. These readings were rejected!
TRANSLATION METHODS
I. The doctrinal basis of translation.
A. An early group of heretics were called Gnostic. They felt that they had special understandings of the spiritual; they saw the ordinary Christian as somehow beneath them. Paul warns against them in I Timothy 6:20 where the word science comes from gnosis which means knowledge. These types of persons, influenced in the philosophy of Plato, exalted knowledge and understanding above Scripture. (Which Bible? pp. 183-184)
1. This sort of attitude will induce a translator to translate that which he believes God would have meant, rather than what God did say.
2. This kind of attitude will tend to cause a translator to look for new and novel readings rather than simply accepting what God has preserved via the Priesthood of the Believer�s and the historical, Bible loving churches.
3. This type of attitude will produce apostasy!
4. �The Israelites did not fully understand the law given from Mt. Sinai, or the details of the Tabernacle. They did not understand what manna was. That is what the word �manna� means, by the way - �What is it.�!� (Dynamic Equivalency - A Frightful Influence on Fundamental Translation Work p. 6)
5. �The philosophy condemned in this passage [Col. 2:8] is not the philosophy found in the sacred word, but the philosophy which is �after the traditions of men.� Even before the days of Christ [in His first advent], the very existence of the Jewish religion was threatened by intellectual leaders of the Jews who were carried away with the subtleties and glamor of pagan philosophy. This same temptation quickly ensnared multitudes who bore the name of Christian.� (Which Bible? p. 186)
B. �...the doctrines of Inspiration and Preservation are most important and Burgon believed and championed them both. What one believes does make a difference. No human being is capable of perfect objectivity...� (True or False p. 277)
II. Westcott and Hort.
A. Westcott and Hort used intrinsic probability and transcriptional probability in their text. �The former inquires what the writer would most probably have written; the latter, which of two or more readings would most probably account for the origin of the other or others in successive stages of copying. ...who can be
the proper judge of what one of the New Testament writers would most probably have written? There must be some standard.� (Which Bible? p. 159)
B. The use of the Vaticanus.
1. �...Dr Hort rests practically his entire case upon the Codex Vaticanus... as being proof of an imaginary text, supposedly more ancient than that which is acknowledges as �dominant� over wide areas long before that copy was made.� (True or False p.115)
2. �We hold it to be even axiomatic that a reading which is supported by only one document out of 1100 (more or less) already specified, whether the solitary unit be a Father, a version, or a copy, stands self-condemned, and may be dismissed at once, without concern or enquiry.� (True or False p. 211)
C. The dismissal of the Received Text.
1. �...Hort must have seen that to achieve his end [of supplanting the Received Text] he had to have a convincing history of the text - he had to be able to explain why essentially only one type of text was to be found in the mass of later manuscripts and show how this explanation justified the rejection this type of text.� (True or False p. 235)
2. �...we have only the word of two scholars ... that they [Westcott and Hort] have been able (how, they do not explain, and presumably we should be unable to understand the process if they did) to resolve this composite Text into its original constituent elements.� (True or False p. 112)
3. �...we have only the word of two scholars ... That they [Westcott and Hort] have discerned that the Received text was formed by the �conflation,� or fusing together, sometime previous to the 4th century, of two primitive Texts of Scripture...� (True or False p. 112)
D. The families of the texts.
1. �Hort felt that the genealogical method enabled him to reduce the mass of manuscript testimony to four voices - �Neutral,� �Alexandrian,� �Western,� and �Syrian.� Though such classifications have been generally �recognized� since Hort�s day, they have never been demonstrated to be valid.� (True or False p. 229)
2. The families outlook is useful in guarding against spurious texts. The Traditional Family (Hort called it Syrian) stands alone and above the Western and Alexandrian.
3. Westcott and Hort admit that �...a text practically identical with our Received Text, existed, and was �dominant� in Antioch and elsewhere, in and before the 4th century.� They [Westcott and Hort] also assume that two Texts, which they call �Western� and �Neutral,� predate this. �...of the two supposed primitive Texts, the �Neutral� was the purer text, and the �Western� the corrupted Text. ...how can we have even a conjectural opinion as to which of two supposed Texts was purer, when neither of them is known to have existed at all?� (True or False p. 113)
E. �Whereas Hort claimed to follow internal evidence and the �ring of genuineness,� Burgon used external evidence.� (True or False p. 270)
F. �It is commonly said that the older controversy around the Textus Receptus is dead, but this cannot be true; for if it can be shown that Westcott and Hort were wrong in their basic premises, then it will be necessary to go back before Westcott and Hort and to take up the study afresh. If the direction is wrong, further supposed progress only leads farther from the truth.� (Which Bible? p. 146)
III. The Modern Critics.
A. Richard Bently [b. 1662 - d. 1742], in 1713 developed a three-pronged ideal for textual criticism which is still in use today. (Entire section: The King James Version Defended p. 191)
1. Criticism of the New Testament text has nothing to do with doctrine as doctrine is essentially the same in �even the worst manuscripts.�
2. �...the New Testament text has suffered less injury by the hand of time than the text of any profane author.�
3. �We cannot begin the study of the New Testament text with any definite belief concerning the nature of God�s providential preservation ... we must begin our study from a neutral standpoint and then allow the results of this neutral method to teach us what God�s providential preservation of the New Testament text actually has been.�
4. �In other words [Bently�s plan seems to be that we] ... begin with
agnosticism and work ourselves into faith gradually.�
B. �Because of the changes which came about in the nineteen century, there arose a new type of Protestantism and a new version of the Protestant Bible. This new kind of Protestantism was hostile to the fundamental doctrines of the Reformation.� (Which Bible? p. 304)
C. �The principle which the modern editors have adopted, namely, that of following the oldest manuscripts in settling all questions of doubtful or disputed readings, throws us back upon the two Codices [Vaticanus and Sinaitic] which, though not dated, are regarded by all competent antiquarians as belonging to the fourth century; and its practical effect is to make those two solitary survivors of the first four Christian centuries the final authorities, where they agree (which is not always the case), upon all questions of the true Text of Scripture.� (True or False p. 73)
D. Dynamic equivalency. (Entire section: Dynamic Equivalency - A Frightful Influence on Fundamental Translation Work p. 5)
1. �...dynamic equivalency aims to translate thoughts rather than words.�
2. �...dynamic equivalency aims to make the Bible understandable to non-Christians. ... God says in I Corinthians 2:14 and other passages that it is impossible for the unsaved man to understand His Word. ... Praise God there are simple passages such as John 3:16 that the unsaved and even children can understand and thereby come to salvation. But it is folly to attempt to translate the Scripture so that unbelievers can understand them...�
E. �The most serious defect of the eclectic method is that it is essentially subjective.� (True or False p. 293)
F. �As with all Biblical study, we should keep in mind that anyone who works with the text and expects to put it together accurately must have a high regard for its integrity and inspiration and allow it to speak for itself. Just as there have been some who have written commentaries and theological studies who do not have a high regard for the text, there have been some who have engaged in textual criticism who have not held to the divine source of the text.� (The Handbook to Bible Study p. 17)
IV. The method of Dynamic Equivalency.
A. �...dynamic equivalency aims at the use of simple language and style throughout.� (Dynamic Equivalency - A Frightful Influence on Fundamental Translation Work p. 5)
B. �...dynamic equivalency assumes the Bible was originally written in language easily understood by the people then living.� (Dynamic Equivalency - A Frightful Influence on Fundamental Translation Work p. 6)
1. �The prophets themselves, according to I Peter 1:10-ll, did not always understand what they were prophesying!� (Dynamic Equivalency - A Frightful Influence on Fundamental Translation Work p. 6)
2. Daniel 12:8 - Daniel did not understand all of the prophecy intrusted to him.
3. �The translator�s job is not to water down the Word of God so the average man on the street ... can understand it, but to faithfully reproduce that which God has given from Heaven.� (Dynamic Equivalency - A Frightful Influence on Fundamental Translation Work p. 5)
C. �Dynamic equivalence versions are New International Version, Modern Language Bible, New English Bible, Today�s English Version, Phillips� paraphrase, and Living Bible. ... These versions [and there are some more titles as well - added by compiler] tend to become interpretations rather than translations.� (Which Version is Best p. 42)
D. The outworking of Dynamic Equivalency is to produce a paraphrase rather than an more accurate translation.
V. The early Christians revered Scripture.
A. �Naturalistic critics like to assume that the New Testament writings were not recognized as Scripture when they first appeared and thus through the consequent carelessness in transcription the text was confused and the original wording �lost� (in the sense that no one knew for sure what it was) at the very start.� With this, Hort agreed. (True or False p. 296)
1. �In I Tim. 5:18 Paul puts the Gospel of Luke on the same level as Deuteronomy, calling them both �Scripture.� ... Note that I Timothy is generally thought to have been written within five years after Luke.� (True or False p. 297)
2. �In II Peter 3:15-16 Peter puts the Epistles of Paul on the same level as �the other Scriptures.� (True or False p. 297)
3. �Many of the first believers had been devout Jews who had an ingrained reverence and care for the Old Testament Scriptures which extended to the very jots and titles. This reverence and care would naturally be extended to the New Testament Scriptures. Peter�s statement concerning the �twisting� that Paul�s words were receiving (II Peter 3:16) suggests that there was an awareness as to the text and the way it was being handled.� (True or False p. 297)
B. Paul warns, II Tim. 2:16-18, against those who would subvert the record of Scripture by trying to allegorize away the truth of that Scripture. (Which Bible? pp. 185-186)
VI. The text underlying the King James Version.
A. �That a reading should be freely recognized alike by the earliest and by the latest available evidence, we hold to be a prime circumstance in its favor.� (True or False p. 212)
B. The translators of the King James Version followed in a tradition of Godly men who had labored with the Word.
1. The translators of the King James Version considered the work of translation which had gone on before them.
2. �In AD 735 Bede labored ... on his translation of the Gospel [into English]. ... Early in the morning of �Ascension Day� in 735 he summoned his helpers to continue with the task and dictated to them the translation of John�s Gospel from the words, �What are they among so many?� As the sun was setting one of the scribes told him there was only one more chapter, but it seemed hard for Bede to speak. He replied, �Nay, it is easy, take up thy pen and write quickly.� The young scribe wrote on until he could tell his master that only one sentence was wanting, when Bede dictated it the young man [who] exclaimed, �It is finished, master!� Bede replied, �Aye, it is finished! Lift me up and place me by the window where I have so often prayed to God.� Then with the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit upon his lips he passed into the presence of the Lord.� (How We Got our Bible pp. 3-4)
3. �I believe the King James Version to be the very Word of God BECAUSE
THE TRANSLATORS OF 1611 BELIEVED THEY WERE HANDLING THE VERY �WORD OF GOD.� This is not true of modern day �translations.� They say that the Bible �contains the Word of God�...� (The Foundation and Authority of the Word of God p. 51)