GOD KEEPS HIS WORD - UNDERLYING TEXTS
I. Only a translation which uses the True text type can be trusted.
A. �...no amount of care in the work of translation will tend to cure defects in the original Text...� (True or False p. 63)
B. �There are tremendous issues involved; the text of the Word of God is in Question.� (Which Bible? p. 148)
C. John Burgon wrote [concerning the Hort and Westcott translation of 1881], in a letter to Right Hon. Viscount Cranbrook, �It is, however, the systematic depravation of the underlying Geek which does so grievously offend me; for this nothing else but a poisoning of the River of Life at its sacred source.� (True or False p. 16)
D. �Inaccurate Scripture will give us an inaccurate understanding of our Redeemer, which will make it impossible for us to be accurately conformed to the image of God�s dear Son.� (Why The King James Version p. 2)
E. �...if the underlying Greek Text be mistaken, what else but incorrect must the English Translation be?� (True or False p. 124)
F. It matters not how conservative, or evangelical, or even fundamental be the theology of the translator. Unless he has the true Word of God in his text, he cannot give the true Word of God in his translation. He cannot draw pure water from a polluted pool.
II. The Douai-Rheims.
A. Prior to the publication of this Catholic Bible, �Protestants had long refuted and neutralized Roman Catholicism by the phrase, �The Bible says so.�� (An Understandable History of the Bible p. 99)
B. The style of English used in the Douai Bible was such that its effect is to mystify rather than enlighten even the more intelligent reader. More serious still, however, were the attempts of the translators to perpetuate the misconceptions the Latin Vulgate had helped to install.� (The Bible in the Making p. 139)
C. The Douai-Rheims (1609 & 1582) Catholic Translation is based on the Latin Vulgate of Jerome. The basis of this translation is the Alexandrian Greek base. �Strangely enough, the desire ... to �correct� the Authorized Version with Jerome�s corrupt Vulgate is exactly what Protestant scholars did in 1881, 1901, 1952, 1960, 1973, and in every �new� and �improved� translation since 1611.�
(An Understandable History of the Bible p. 166)
D. �The people for whom the Douai Bible was intended were spiritually unprepared to desire an English Bible. ... Only where the Reformation had touched men did they seek the Bible,� (The Bible in the Making p. 252)
III. The Revised Version. �We have on the one hand, the Greek Text of 1611 which served as the basis for the A. V. - a Text that represents and agrees with a thousand manuscripts going back as far as the fifth century, and with Versions and quotations going back to the second. As to this there is no dispute at all; for Drs. Westcott and Hort admit the evidence of this Text, and even assume that it was discussed and approved by convocation of the Eastern churches as early as the third century. On the other hand, we have the Codices Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Beza, supposedly dating, as to the first two, from the fourth century, and as to the last from the sixth, which manuscripts present thousands of divergences (omissions, additions, substitutions, transpositions, and modifications) from the Received Text.� (True or False pp. 81-82)
IV. �...dynamic equivalency aims to adjust the wording of the translation to the culture of the receptor people rather than literally translate the cultural terminology of the original text.� (Dynamic Equivalency - A Frightful Influence on Fundamental Translation p. 5)
V. The majority of the MSS.
A. �Since I hold that the true text can be found in the Majority Text, in order to determine what this is one must count the number of manuscripts of any given reading. This method has been bitterly criticized because it does not consider the age of the manuscripts. But as was discussed earlier, the readings supported by the preponderance of manuscripts is more likely to be the original text. Since the original text is the oldest, it is reasonable that the largest number of manuscripts would best represent the original. If the percentage were close, then the number of manuscripts would not be so significant; but since the Majority Text represents from 80 to 90 percent, it is significant.� (Counterfeit or Genuine pp. 210-211)
B. �...the Traditional Text, found in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts, is the True Text because it represents the God-guided usage of this universal priesthood of believers.� (The King James Version Defended p. 193)
C. �Today there are about 5,255 extant manuscripts: 81 Papyri; 267 Majuscules; 2,764 Minuscules; 2,143 Lexionaries. Of these manuscripts the overwhelming majority - somewhere between 80 and 90 percent - support the Traditional Text.� (Counterfeit or Genuine p. 209)
D. �The overwhelming majority of these manuscripts [those found in the 350 years since the time of the KJV publication] agree so closely that they may be said to present the same Greek Text.� (The Providential Preservation of the Greek Text of the New Testament p. 11)
VI. The Text of faithful witnesses.
A. �The great 4th - century conflict with the Arian heresy brought orthodox Christians to a theological maturity which enabled them, under the leading of the Holy Spirit, to perceive the superior doctrinal soundness and richness of the True Text. ... Christians in the higher social brackets abandoned the corrupt prestige-texts which they had been using and turned to the well worn manuscripts of their poorer brethren, manuscripts ... Found in reality to be far more precious, since they contained the True New Testament Text. ...copies [were] made of these ancient books, and this was done so often that these venerable documents were worn out through much handling by the scribes. But before these old manuscripts finally perished, they left behind them a host of fresh copies made from them and bearing witness to the True Text. Thus it was that the True (Traditional) Text became the standard text now found in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts.� (The King James Version Defended p. 185)
B. The work of Lake and von Soden, �...seems to have established the essential uniformity of the Traditional (Byzantine) text on a firmer basis than ever. They have shown that the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts exhibit precisely that amount of uniformity of text which one might expect the God-guided usage of the Church to produce. They agree with one another closely enough to justify the contention that they all contain essentially the same text, but not so closely as to give any grounds for the belief that this uniformity of text was produced by the labors of editors, or by decrees of ecclesiastical leaders, or by mass production on the part of scribes at any one time or place. It was not by any of these means that the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts came to agree with each other as closely as they do, but through the God-guided usage of the Church, through the leading of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of individual believers.� (The King James Versions Defended pp. 182-193)
C. �...because it was difficult for these less prosperous Christians to obtain new manuscripts, they put the ones they had to maximum use. Thus all these early manuscripts of the True Text were eventually worn out. None of them seems to be extant today. The papyri which do survive seem for the most part to be the prestige-texts which were preserved in the libraries of ancient Christian schools.� (The King James Version Defended p. 184)
VII. �...the comparative excellence of the Text of Stephenus [one of the editors of one of that group which we call the Textus Receptus] ... Is due in no small degree to the fact that in its composition the Vatican and Sinaitic Mss. were not consulted.� (True or False p. 64)
VIII. The Holy Spirit worked on individual Christians to preserve His Text.
A. The Holy Spirit guided the preservation of the True Text not by �...the Church as an organization but by the Church as an organism.� Rather than the Church councils, it was church congregations which the Holy Spirit guided into the True Text. The Holy Spirit worked upon Christians, �...the common people, the rank and file, and then rapidly built up such strength that the bishops and other official leaders were carried along with it.� (The King James Version Defended p. 186)
B. �...the New Testament text has been preserved by the universal priesthood of believers, by faithful Christians in every walk of life (I Peter 2:9).� (The King James Version Defended p. 193)
IX. The italics of the King James Version.
A. Many times in translating, English words must be added which were not in the original so that the statement will make sense to our ears. �...only the King James Version and the New American Standard Bible indicate the added word in italics.� (Getting the Most from Your KJV p. 13)
B. [About the words being added to the text by the translators:] �...some versions and especially paraphrases of the Bible have many words added by man. You have no way of knowing which words are the translator�s own without a knowledge of the original language.� (Getting the Most from Your KJV p. 15)
1. If you do understand the original languages this well you probably have little need for the translation.
2. Psalm 14:1 - Unless you know that the �There is� has been added by the translator you will not know that the fool may have said, �There is no God.�, or he may have said, �No,� to God. �Either way the man is a fool, because he refuses to believe God exists, or to obey Him, but the use of the italics does give you, the reader, more insight into God�s Word.� (Getting the Most from Your KJV p. 15)
X. The superiority of the Traditional Text.
A. �QUESTION: Where was the Bible before 1611? ANSWER: In the available
Antiochian manuscripts.� (Let�s Weigh the Evidence p. 60)
B. �Not only in the Greek Church but also throughout all Christendom the medieval period was one of spiritual decline and doctrinal corruption. But in spite of this growth of error and superstition the New Testament Text most widely read and copied in the medieval Greek Church was the orthodox, Traditional (Byzantine) Text.� (The King James Version Defended p. 193)
C. �The first printed text of the Greek New Testament was not a blunder or a set-back but a forward step in the providential preservation of the New Testament.� (The King James Version Defended p. 193)
D. �If modern English translations ... were easier to understand, then the Holy Spirit�s message to the Christian would flow freer and accomplish greater spiritual victories in the lives of God�s people on an individual basis. Yet it is sadly evident that this is not happening.� (Are They Easier to Understand? p. 6)
XI. The Protestant Reformation and the Traditional Text.
A. �In spite of the corruption of the medieval Greek Church ... [there] were pious folk [who] ... Had a saving faith in Christ ... if there were such a group of believers in the medieval Greek Church, why did not this group finally produce the Protestant Reformation? ... This question can be answered, at least in part, linguistically. ...the leaders of the Greek Church, being Greeks, were saturated with Greek philosophy. Hence in presenting the Gospel to their fellow Greeks they tended to emphasize those doctrines which seemed to them most important philosophically and to neglect the doctrines of sin and grace... Hence, even if the Greek Church had not been overrun by the Turks at the end of the Middle Ages, it still could not have produced the Protestant Reformation, since it lacked the theological ingredients for such a mighty, spiritual explosion.� (The King James Version Defended pp. 189-190)
B. �...two great teachers [Tertullian and Augustine] entered into the doctrinal system of the Roman Church a slender flame of evangelical truth which was never entirely quenched even by the worst errors of the medieval period... This [the Protestant Reformation] occurred after the Greek New Testament Text had finally been published in Western Europe.� (The King James Version Defended p. 190)
C. �God further placed His stamp of approval upon the Traditional Text when He used it as the Text of the Reformation.� (The King James Version Defended pp. 111-112)
1. �In their dealings with the New Testament text the Protestant Reformers were guided by the common faith of Christendom, by the general belief, that is, the currently received New Testament text was the true New Testament text which had been preserved by God�s special providence. This common faith in the current New Testament Scripture was the result of the providential preservation of these Scriptures during the Middle Ages by means of the universal priesthood of believers. Hence it was not produced by the Protestant Reformation but preceded the Reformation and made it possible. If this common faith in the current New Testament had not existed the Reformation could never have succeeded.� (Believing Bible Study pp. 62-63)
2. �The most vital and immovable weapon in Luther�s arsenal came in the form of his German translation of the New Testament in 1522. This put the pure words of the [Received] Text back into the hands of �Bible-starved � Christians.� (An Understandable History of the Bible pp. 86-87)
3. �...through the usage of Bible-believing Protestants God placed the stamp of His approval on this first printed text, and it became the Textus Receptus (Received Text).� (The King James Version Defended p. 193)
D. �...when we consider what the A. V. was to the world, the incomparable influence it was to exert in shaping the course of events, and in accomplishing those eternal purposes of God for which Christ died and rose again and the Holy Spirit came down from Heaven - when we consider what this Version was to be, more than all others combined, �the Sword of the Spirit,� and that all this was fully known to God beforehand, we are fully warranted in the belief that it was not through chance, but by providential control of the circumstances, that the translators had access to just those Mss. which were available at that time, and to no others. This belief in no way conflicts with the fact that man�s part in the preparation of the A. V. is marked and plainly enough, by man�s infirmities. (True or False pp. 80-81)
XII. The Text of the Old Testament.
A. ��In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.� If this first sentence is unauthentic, the whole Bible is untrue and for six thousand years men have been duped and deluded who have loved and cherished its teachings.� (Which Bible? p. 117)
B. �...the Old Testament text was preserved by the Old Testament priesthood and the
Scribes and scholars that grouped themselves around that priesthood (Deut.
31:24-26).� (The King James Version Defended p. 193)
C. �The Old Testament, precisely as we have it, was endorsed by Jesus Christ, the Son of God. When He appeared on the earth, 1500 years after Moses, the first of the prophets, and 400 years after Malachi, the last of them...� (Which Bible? p. 113)
GOD KEEPS HIS WORD - THE WORDS ARE IMPORTANT
I. The basis of the newer translations.
A. �Textual criticism cannot be divorced entirely from theology. No matter how great a Greek scholar a man may be, or no matter how great an authority on the textual evidence, his conclusions must always be open to suspicion if he does not accept the Bible as the very Word of God.� (Which Bible? p. 157)
B. �Dr. Gordon D. Fee, a professor at Wheaton College said in an article in the magazine Christianity Today... �The contemporary translations as a group have one thing in common: they tend to agree against the KJV... In omitting hundreds of words, phrases, and verses.� NOTICE ... Dr. Fee was promoting the new versions yet he realized that the new versions, as a whole, are different.� (Let�s Weigh the Evidence p. 13) [Compilers note: I include this citation because Mr. Burton has been a reliable source; however, the citation of Issue, Number, and Date of the Christianity Today in question was lacking. Nevertheless, the statement is unquestionably in its essence!]
1. �The pathetic question of Pilate, �What is truth?� is not more pathetic than the error of those who say that only by balancing one version against another, or by examining the various manuscript readings - those of apostates as well as those of the faithful - can we arrive at approximate truth.� (Which Bible? P. 314)
2. The �...CORRECTORS OF THE AUTHORIZED BIBLE DENY THAT GOD HAS PRESERVED HIS WORDS FOR ALL TIME�, but the Word of God says: I Pet. 1:23, 25; Ps. 12:6-7; 119:160; Matt. 24:35; 5:18; Is. 59:21.� (Correcting the King James Bible p. 7)
C. �...the Word of God actually is being brought down to the level of the people rather than the people being brought up to the level of the Holy Scripture.� [This is especially so in the paraphrased editions.] (Dynamic Equivalency - A Frightful Influence on Fundamental Translation Work p. 6)
D. The newer translations agree together that God lost control of His Word.
1. �They believe that all during the medieval period and throughout the Reformation and post-Reformation era that the true New Testament text was lost and that it was not regained until the middle of the nineteenth century, when Tischendorf discovered it in the Sinaitic manuscript Aleph and Westcott and Hort found it in the Vatican manuscript B. Such inconsistency, however, is bound to lead to a skepticism which deprives the New Testament text of all authority.� (Which Bible? pp. 99-100)
2. �It is for them to show, and by testimony which carries through conviction, that God left His people for fifteen centuries or more to the bad effect of a corrupt text, until, in fact, the chance discovery by Constantine Tischendorf, in the middle of the 19th century, of some leaves of parchment so lightly valued by their custodians that they had been thrown into the waste paper basket, and until (for some mysterious and as yet unexplained reason) the Codex Vaticanus was exhumed from its suspicious sleeping place at the papal headquarters.� (True or False p. 79)
E. �...this carefree attitude [that all manuscripts are flawed and it is therefore unimportant which is used] leads to complete agnosticism and anarchy as far as Christian doctrine is concerned.� (Believing Bible Study p. 37)
II. The Words, not merely the Thoughts, are inspired.
A. �...God has given His Word in Holy Spirit - taught words (I Corinthians 2:12-13; Matthew 4:4; etc.) and no one can accurately translate the Scriptures when aiming only to transfer the basic thoughts or general ideas.� (Dynamic Equivalency - A Frightful Influence on Fundamental Translations Work p. 5)
1. �The liberals, at least many of them, believe that the Bible contains the words of God, along with some of the words of men and errors that they placed in the Bible.� (�King James Fans�(?) p. 38)
2. �Neo-orthodox teachers like Barth and Brunner teach that the Word of God means the message of God rather than the Words of God.� (Correcting the King James Bible p. 4)
3. �As for thoughts being inspired apart from the words which give them expression, you might as well talk of a tune without notes or a sum without figures. No such theory of inspiration is intelligible. It is as illogical as it is worthless.� (Why I Preach that the Bible is Literally True p. 63)
B. To doubt the Words of God leads to doubt in the Word of God.
1. �...if the New Testament is just an ordinary book, then the trustworthiness of the text is, at best, only a possibility, never a certainty.� (Which Bible? p. 105)
2. �If God has not preserved His Word perfect, but has allowed some errors,
then, since we don�t have the �original autographs,� we must assume that we have been preaching out of a book that is not completely reliable.� (Let�s Weigh the Evidence p. 7)
3. We have a soul need for a certain Word from the Scripture. (Entire section: Why I Preach that the Bible is Literally True pp. 137-138)
a. �If we put an �if� into the Decalogue you lay a charge of dynamite under the morality of men and nations.�
b. �If you put an �if� before the story of the manger in Bethlehem you destroy the Incarnation in human flesh by a preexistent Christ.�
c. �If you put an �if� by the side of the cross of Calvary you cast doubt upon the hope of the forgiveness of our sins.�
d. �If you put an �if� by the side of the story of the empty tomb in Joseph�s garden, our visions of life and immortality vanish into thin air.�
C. �...Scriptures are inspired as to their words (Matt. 5:17, 18). Christ affirmed here the indestructibility of the law, not its substance only but its very form, not the thought but the word itself.� (Why I Preach that the Bible is Literally True p. 21)
1. �The self-disclosure and the revelation was made in words. It was not in the general realm of ideas. We are told specifically that the disciples did not grasp it, but the revelation is there because the precise words are recorded. The same comment can be made about Simon Peter�s confession in Caesarea Philippi (Matt. 16:6). Peter said what he said was by divine revelation but afterwards was rebuked because he did not comprehend the meaning of what he said (v. 23).� (Why I Preach that the Bible is Literally True pp. 62-63)
2. �We can see the extent of the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures by looking at the use the Bible will make of a single word. In Galatians 3:16 Paul will make an argument for a great doctrine on the basis not only of a single word in the Scripture but also of a single letter. The entire doctrinal discussion turns on one letter of one word, the difference in the Scriptures� use of �seeds� and �seed.� In doing this Paul was but following the example of his Master and our Lord Jesus Christ who based the doctrine of the resurrection from the dead on the use of a certain tense of a verb in the Old Testament (cf. Matt. 22:31-35).� (Why I Preach that the Bible is Literally True p. 68)
III. The importance of revelation.
A. �No reasonable person imagines that the translators [of the King James Version] were infallible or that their work was perfect, but no one acquainted with the facts can deny that they were men of outstanding scholarship.� (Which Bible? p. 23)
B. �God reveals HIMSELF, not mere information concerning Himself. The Protestant Reformers understood this fact. To them the Bible was no mere book of doctrine but the revelation of the living God.� (The King James Version Defended p. 39)
C. �Translation has been most vehemently desired since the day when the Renaissance, the Reformation and the invention of printing made possible the wide circulation of the Bible in the vernacular. Such enthusiasm was based on at least two typical convictions...� (Entire section: The Memoirs Called Gospels p. 39)
1. �...that the Church must be brought under the judgment of �the Word� so that only institutions and observances clearly justified by or �agreeable� to the Word of God will be recognized....�
2. �...that the �perspicuity� [insight] of scripture is such that, aided by the inner witness of the Spirit, the humblest as well as the greatest may hear the voice of God sufficiently.�
D. �If God was lying when He said �The grass withereth, the flower fadeth; but the Word of God shall stand forever.� Isaiah 40:8, THEN ... How do you know that He wasn�t lying when He said... �He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life...� John 3:36" (Let�s Weigh the Evidence p. 89)
E. �There exists no reason for supposing that the Divine Agent, who in the first instance thus gave to mankind the Scriptures of Truth, straightway abdicated His office; took no further care of His work; abandoned those precious writings to their fate.� (Which Bible? P. 91)
IV. Words from the Word.
A. �The compiler of this book [Which Bible?], and the able writers whom he quotes, all contend that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant and authoritative Word of God
and that there has been a gracious exercise of the Divine providence in its preservation and transmission.� (Which Bible? pp. 5-6)
B. Psalm 12:6-7 - �This answer of Jehovah is most precious. It promises the preservation of the trusting. The psalmist breaks out in praise of the purity of Jehovah�s words and declares that Jehovah will �keep them� and �preserve them.� The �them� here refers to the words. There is no promise of widespread revival or renewal. It is the salvation of a remnant and the preservation of His Own Words which Jehovah promises.� (An Exposition of the Whole Bible p. 225)
C. Isaiah 40:8 - �Its [this verse] full implication will emerge in I Pet. 1:23-25, where the Word, in its final form as gospel, is no longer the mere contrast to our transience, but the cure of it.� (The New Bible Commentary p. 611)
D. John 5:46-47 - �...we remind you that Christ and the Bible stand or fall together.� (The Son of God p. 128)
GOD KEEPS HIS WORD - PROBLEM TEXTS
I. Matthew 6:13b -
A. Some critics argue that the ending of the Lord�s prayer is a late addition and not part of the original manuscript. Hills argues that these early Christians would not have ended this prayer, which came from the lips of the Saviodr, with a Jewish prayer formula. The unusual thing, if this were an addition, is that no mention of Jesus� Name is given. �...the early Christians were united in their emphasis on the name of Jesus.� (Acts 2:38; 4:12; 9:21; Rom. 1:5; John 20:31) �...if the early Christians had invented this doxology or had adopted it from contemporary non-Christian usage, they would have included in it or inserted into it their Saviour�s name.� (The King James Version Defended pp. 147-148)
B. The Didache (or �The Teaching�) of the twelve Apostles, a liturgical book from the �...first half of the 2nd century...� contains the phrase, �...for Thine is the power and the glory for ever...� at the end of the Lord�s Prayer.� (The King James Version Defended pp. 148-149)
II. Mark 16:9-20 -
A. Faithless omission.
1. �Probably Mark�s original copy was transcribed and became a textual tradition before he finished it. Later he finished it, giving rise to another text (the fuller one, consisting of verses 9 - 20). This later text is referred to by Irenaeus (c. A. D. 170) and is found in the Alexandrian and Cambridge manuscripts.� (Unger�s Bible Handbook p. 610)
2. �Conbeare found in an Armenian MS of the 10th century a note ascribing the verses to Aristion, the disciple of John of whom Papias speaks. This would mean that they are at least very early (perhaps A. D. 100), even if non-Markian, and would have something of the authority of John.� (The New Bible Commentary p. 885)
3. This footnote appears in The Full Life Study Bible �Although vv. 9-20 are omitted from two of the oldest Greek manuscripts, they do appear in other old manuscripts as well as in the majority of Greek manuscripts from all over the ancient world. Many scholars conclude, therefore, that any reading attested to by the majority of ancient manuscripts is likely to be part of the original writing of the Biblical author; Vv. 9-20 should thus be considered part of the inspired Word of God.� However, this version places a line and the following between v. 8 and v. 9: �(The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have mark 16:9-20)�
Bear in mend, also, that this is in the line of text and not in a footnote! (The Full Life Study Bible p. 105) Sort of like saying, �Yeah, God might have inspired it. So, what?�. isn�t it!)
B. Faithful acceptance.
1. Burgon (The Last Twelve Verses of Mark) and Westcott and Hort (New Testament in th Original Greek) both agreed that �...just as Jerome and other later writers copied Eusebius� Epistle to Marinus so in this Epistle Eusebius himself was merely copying some lost treatise of Origen...� If this suggestion is correct and Origen was the original author of the Epistle to Marinus, then the consequences for textual criticism are very important. For all the documents that omit Mark 16:9-20 are in some way
connected with Alexandria or Caesarea, the two localities in which Origen, the great textual critic of antiquity, lived and labored. The absence of Mark 16:9-20 from these documents and the doubts which Eusebius seemed to have felt about them may all be due to an error of judgment on the part of Origen.� (The King James Version Defended p. 166)
2. Many early Christians had difficulty reconciling Mark 16:9 with Matthew 28:1. Matthew seems to indicate a Saturday evening resurrection; while Mark seems to suggest a Sunday morning resurrection. Couple this with the practice to put the Gospels in Western Order, that is Matthew, John, Luke, and Mark. If a scribe, especially an Alexandrian scribe who were accustomed to favor shorter readings, found a copy of a codex with the last page (Mark 16:9-20) missing, this problem would be �solved.� The last page, he would reason, was not part of the original. (The King James Version Defended pp. 162-163)
3. �...it is an easy thing to say that the genuine portion of the Gospel of Mark ends at 16:8, but it is a difficult task to support this statement with a satisfactory explanation as to how the Gospel came to end there, a task so difficult that it has not yet been adequately accomplished.� (The King James Version Defended p. 161)
4. �...it must be said that the note in the Revised Version, however accurate, does not succeed in giving any notion of the strength of the case in favor of the remainder of the Gospel. It tells us that the two oldest manuscripts omit them, but we do not read that in one of these a space is left for the insertion of something, known by the scribe to be wanting there.� (The Expositor�s Bible pp. 439-440 [Mark])
5. These verses �...are found in all the Greek manuscripts except Aleph and B and in all Latin manuscripts except k. All the Syriac versions contain these verses, with the exception of the Sinaitic Syriac, and so also does the Bohairic version. And, even more important they are quoted as Scripture by early Church Fathers who lived one hundred and fifty years before B and Aleph were written...,� men like Justin Martyr, Tatian, Irenaeus, and Hippolytus. (The King James Version Defended pp. 161-162)
6. �Meyer (1847) and other critics made much of the fact that two typically Marcian words, namely euthus (straightway) and palin (again) were not found in Mark 16:9-20. Burgon [The Lat Twelve Verses of Mark] showed that euthus did not occur in chapters 12 and 13 of Mark and palin did not occur in chapters 1, 6, 9, and 13 of Mark. Thus the fact that these words did not occur in Mark 16:9-20 proved nothing in regard to the genuineness of this section.� (The King James Version Defended p. 163)
7. �It is sometimes said that the last twelve verses of Mark are not really important, so that it makes little difference whether they are accepted or rejected. This, however, is hardly the case. For Mark 16:9-20 is the only passage in the Gospel which refers specifically to the subject which is attracting so much attention today, namely, tongues, healings, and other spiritual gifts. The last verse of this passage is particularly decisive (Mark 16:20). Here we see that the purpose of the miracles promised by our Lord was to confirm the preaching of the divine Word by the Apostles. Of course, then, these signs ceased after the Apostles� death. Today we have no need of them. The Bible is the all-sufficient miracle. And if we take this high view of the Bible, we cannot possibly suppose that the ending of one of the Gospels has been completely lost.� (The King James Version Defended p. 168)
8. �...if the last twelve verses of Mark are in such obvious disagreement with what immediately precedes, how could they ever have been added by a later hand?� (The King James Version Defended p. 164)
9. The Gospel of Peter is an apocryphal book written about 150 A. D. according to James (The Apocryphal New Testament). It portrays Jesus on the cross saying, �My power, my power, thou has forsaken me.� This goes with the docetic heresy that, at the cross, �...the divine Christ departed to heaven and left only the human Jesus to suffer and die.� This also gives a false account of the resurrection of Christ. K, the document which gives the so-called �short� ending of Mark, give an account of the resurrection which is similar to that found in the apocryphal Gospel of
Peter, and omits His post-resurrection appearances. �Do not these facts fit together perfectly and explain each other? The same docetic heretics who tampered with the first half of Mark 16 in k also abbreviated the second half of Mark in this same manuscript. They evidently thought that in the last twelve verses of Mark too great emphasis was placed on the bodily appearances of Christ to His disciples. They therefore rejected these concluding verses of Mark�s Gospel and substituted a �short ending� of their own devising, a docetic conclusion in which Christ�s post-resurrection appearances are almost entirely eliminate.� (The King James Version Defended pp. 166-167)
10. �Some scholars think Mark 16:9-20 does not belong to the original Markian text because it is absent in the two oldest manuscripts (Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus); however evangelicals generally accept this passage as authentic.� (The People�s Study Bible p. 1576)
11. �...it was evidently not Mark�s intention to satisfy our curiosity about the women or to report the meeting of Christ and His disciples which is promised in Mark 16:7. His purpose was to emphasize the importance of faith in the risen Christ.� (The King James Version Defended p. 164)
12. �The commonest of all mistakes in copying manuscripts, or in repeating a matter, are mistakes in omission, or lapses of memory, or the results of inattention. Hence it is an accepted principle of evidence that the testimony of one competent witness, who says he saw or heard a certain thing, carries more weight than that of a dozen who, though on the spot, can only say that they did not see or hear it, or that they do not remember it. Therefore, other things being equal, the affirmative evidence of the other three ancient Codices and Versions, and that of the �Fathers� who quote those verses as unquestioned Scriptures, is an hundred-fold more worthy of credence than the negative testimony of two which were allowed to control in settling the text of the R. V.� (True or False pp. 85-86)
13. �...most modern versions infer that �most versions� agree that these versions were not in the original manuscripts. ... That is a very misleading statement! Out of 620 ancient manuscripts of the book of Mark, these 12 verses are found in 618 of them. To say that they were �probably not in the original writings� is ridiculous!� (Let�s Weigh the Evidence p. 34)
III. Luke 22:43-44 - It has been argued that, since Luke 22:43-44 is not in Papyrus 75 it was omitted during the 2nd century. It is not likely that the orthodox Christians omitted it,
rather the omission came, more likely from the docetists. They believed that �...Christ�s human nature was merely an appearance (phantom)...� Irenaeus, among others, appeal to this Scripture was an answer to the heresy. �The easiest way for the docetists to meet this orthodox appeal to scripture was to reject Luke 23:43-44 altogether. And when once this omission was made, it would be accepted by some of the orthodox Christians who for various reasons found these verses hard to reconcile with Christ�s deity.� (The King James Version Defended pp. 131-132)
IV. Luke 23:34a -
A. �It may be that Marcion was ultimately responsible for this mutilation of the sacred text. For, as Williams observes [Alterations to the Text of the Synoptic Gospels and Acts], �Marcion was anti-Jewish in all his sentiments.� It is true that, according to Harnack�s analysis [Marcion, Dew Evangelium van Fremden Gott], Marcion still included this prayer of Christ in his edition of Luke�s Gospel (probably relating it to the Roman soldiers), but some of his followers may have referred it to the Jews and thus come to feel that it ought to be deleted from the Gospel record.� (The King James Version Defended p. 135)
B. �Westcott and Hort�s theory, however is a most improbable one [that this was merely an oral tradition which was later inserted]. This prayer of Christ would be interpreted as referring to the Jews and, thus interpreted, would not be something likely to have been added to the Gospel narrative by 2nd-century Christian scribes. For by that time the relationship between the Jews and Christians had hardened into one of permanent hostility, and the average Christian would not have welcomed the thought that the Jews ought to be forgiven or that the Saviour had so prayed.� (The King James Version Defended pp. 132-133)
V. John 1:3-4 -
A. Certain [early] heretics took the phrase �that was made� from the end of the third verse and applied it to the beginning of the fourth verse to read: �and without him was not anything made. (4) That which was made in him was life...� This supported their theology that Jesus was a created being.� (The Corruption of the Word p. 13)
B. Some Christian writers, �To avoid giving aid to these blasphemers, ... simply refused to acknowledge the words.� They left them out! (The Corruption of the Word p. 13)
VI. John 1:18 - �This passage is very obscure, but at least it is clear that the reading favored by Valentinus was precisely that now found in Papyrus 75, the only begotten God [as
opposed to the only begotten Son of God in the Traditional Text]. What could be more probable than Dean Burgon�s suggestion that Valentinus fabricated this reading by changing the only begotten son to the only begotten God? His motive for doing so would be his apparent desire to distinguish between the Son and the Word (Logos). According to the Traditional reading, the Word mentioned in John 1:14 is identified with the only begotten son mentioned in John 1:18. Is it not likely that Valentinus, denying such identification, sought to reinforce his denial by the easy method of altering Son of God (a change of only one letter in Greek) and using the word God in an inferior sense to refer to the Word rather than the Son? This procedure would enable him to deny that in John 1:14 the Word is identified with the Son. He could argue that in both these verses the reference is to the Word and therefore the Word and the Son are two distinct Beings.� (The King James Version Defended p. 134)
VII. John 7:52-8:11 -
A. Some omit this passage or place it in different locations.
1. �Many textual critics omit this incident on evidence from the oldest manuscripts. The RSV includes it, but sets it in small type to distinguish it from the main text. Others place it after Lk. 21:38. Still others think it was omitted in certain manuscripts on purpose because the grace in dealing with the woman was unpalatable to legalists.� (Unger�s Bible Handbook p. 554)
2. �...the usual location of the pericope de adultera is in John between 7:52 and 8:12. The manuscripts which have it in any other place are exceptions to the rule.� The notes which suggest that the passage is either missing or placed elsewhere in �most� or �the best� ancient manuscripts are misleading. (The King James Version Defended p. 155)
3. �Certain ancient manuscripts do not contain this passage, while others place it later in John�s Gospel, or in Luke�s. Certainly the passage records a historical event in the life of Jesus, so we need not doubt its authenticity.� (The Annotated Study Bible p. 1623)
a. If we are certain that this passage is Scripture inspired by the Holy Ghost, how can we doubt it�s spiritual applications and position in the preserved Word!
b. If we doubt this passage is true Scripture, if we believe it to be a forgery, it is suspect by its very existence and should not be included in the Scriptural record.
B. This passage is not in some manuscripts.
1. �It is not surprising that the pericope de adultera is omitted in Papyri 66 and 75, Aleph, B, W, and L... For all these manuscripts are connected with the Alexandrian tradition which habitually favored omissions. Once this had begun, �...the ascetic tendencies of the early Church were such that the practice would spread rapidly especially in Egypt... And the fact that the section had been so widely omitted encouraged later scribes to play the critic, and thus were produced the unusually large number of variant readings, which appear...� This does not prove that he passage is not genuine; indeed the prejudice against it proves the opposite. �There would be a motive for omitting it but no motive for adding it.� (The King James Version Defended p. 159)
2. �[This passage] is not found in some of the most ancient manuscripts. Augustine declares that it was stricken from many copies of the sacred story because of a prudish fear that it might teach immorality! But the immediate content ... beginning with Christ�s declaration, �I am the light of the world,� seems clearly to have its occasion in the conviction wrought in the hearts of the Pharisees as recorded in verse 9; as, also, it explains the peculiar virulence of the Pharisee�s words (v. 41).� (The First Scofield Reference Bible p. 1125)
3. �[Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonenis, records Cyprian (c. 250) as saying, in regards to the Pericope de Adultera] ...that certain bishops who preceded him in the province of North Africa �thought that reconciliation ought not be given to adulterers and allowed conjugal infidelity no place at all for repentance.� ... Such being the case, it is surely more reasonable to believe that this story was deleted from John�s Gospel by over-zealous disciplinarians than to suppose that a narrative so contrary to the ascetic outlook of the early Christian Church was added to John�s Gospel from some extra-canonical source. There would be a strong motive for deleting it but no motive at all for adding it, and the prejudice against it would makes its insertion into the Gospel text very difficult.� (The King James Version Defended p. 153)
4. Although many of the church Fathers do not speak of this passage, the Eastern Church, as Burgon points our [The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text], has had, �...as far back as the written records of her practice reach, - and they reach back to the time of those very Fathers whose silence was felt to be embarrassing - the Eastern Church has
selected nine out of those twelve verses to be the special lesson for October 8.� (The King James Version Defended pp. 157-158)
C. The passage is in its proper place in the Traditional Text.
1. The critics argue that this portion is out of harmony with all the narrative around it. �But by these arguments the critics only create new difficulties for themselves [Steck in aus der Schweiz]. For if the pericope de adultera is an interpolation and if it is so markedly out of harmony with the context and with the rest of the Gospel of John, why was it ever placed in the position which it now occupies?� (The King James Version Defended p. 158)
2. The opening verses of this passage tie it in with John 7:52 and that which leads to this verse. (The King James Version Defended p. 156)
3. Leave this portion out and the Scripture says, �Out of Galilee ariseth no prophet. Then spake Jesus again...� Look even further back to see who was there. There were two hostile parties, some who wished to lay hands on Jesus, Sanhedrin members who were upset that their underlings had not forcibly held Him. And then we are to believe, Jesus said, �I am the light of the world...� Without this portion of Scripture, the flow of the story is not even. (The King James Version Defended pp. 158-159)
VIII. I John 5:7 -
A. Some good witnesses do not contain this verse.
1. If, during the 2nd and 3rd centuries, this phrase were dropped through carelessness, it might be continued to be omitted because of the Sabellian heresy. The Sabellian�s held that the members of the Trinity are identical; they are but different views of One Being, rather than the orthodox view that, while The Members of the Trinity are of the same essence, They are individual Personalities. The orthodox would see the copies which contained this phrase as being favorable to the heresy of the Sabellians and would consider those which did not contain it to be the pure text. (The King James Version Defended pp. 212-213)
2. �...on the basis of the external evidence it is at least possible that the Johannine comma is a reading that somehow dropped out of the Greek New Testament text but was preserved in the Latin text...� (The King James Version Defended p. 210)
B. �It is found in r an Old Latin manuscript of the 5th or 6th century, and in the Speculum, a treatise which contains the Old Latin text. It was not included in Jerome�s original edition of the Latin Vulgate, but around the year 800 it was taken into the text from the Old Latin manuscripts...� (The King James Version Defended p. 210)
C. �If the comma originated in a trinitarian interpretation of I John 5:8, why does it not contain the usual trinitarian formula, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? Why does it exhibit the singular combination never met with elsewhere, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit? According to some critics, the unusual phraseology was due to the efforts of the interpolator who first inserted the Johannine Comma into the New Testament text. In a mistaken attempt to imitate the style of the Apostle John, he changed the term Son into the term Word. But this is to attribute to the interpolator a craftiness which thwarted his own purpose in making this interpolation, which was surely to uphold the doctrine of the Trinity, including the eternal generation of the Son. With this as his main concern it is very unlikely that he would abandon the time-honored formula, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and devise an altogether new one, Father, Word, and Holy Spirit.� (The King James Version Defended p. 211)
D. �...the Textus Receptus has both its human aspect and its divine aspect, like the Protestant Reformation itself or any other work of God�s providence. And when we consider the manner in which the Johannine Comma entered the Textus Receptus, we see the human element at work. Erasmus omitted the Johannine Comma from his first edition (1516) of his printed Greek New Testament on the ground that it occurred only in the Latin version and not in any Greek manuscript. To quiet the outcry that arose, he agreed to restore it if but one Greek manuscript could be found which contained it. When one such manuscript was discovered soon afterwards, bound by his promise, he included the disputed reading and thus it gained a permanent place in the Textus Receptus. The manuscript which forced Erasmus to reverse his stand was written at Oxford about 1520 for the special purpose of refuting Erasmus, and this is what Erasmus himself suggested in his notes.� (The King James Version Defended p. 209)
IX. Many of the disputed passages are the result of copyist errors. The most common error was to see a word, or a set of words, on one line and then to look back after copying that passage and seeing the same words or set of words at another place on the page. In this manner words, sentences, even paragraphs could be left out (or more uncommonly, copied twice) through the fatigue or carelessness of the copyist. I have caught myself doing that very thing as I copy from my note cards onto these pages!