THE OLD MSS. (Continued)
Last week we began to look at the issue of the false texts which have found their way into the base of almost all of the modern English language versions. I don�t want to spend too much space on this. We do not spend a great deal of our time, comparatively, on the cults when we are in seminary. We spend most of our time learning the Truths of the Biblical story. The reason for this is that we be well grounded in that Truth. Then, when we are confronted with the false cults, we will see that they do not measure up to the Truth of actual Biblical Christianity.
This is a safe guard from any false cult. We don�t have to understand all about them. We have to understand all we can about the true Gospel message. Anything that fails to line up with that Gospel is false. It is a representative of a false gospel when it is aberrant to the True Gospel.
Still, we take the time to look at a few of the false concepts so that we may have a general familiarity with the false. In this we are strengthening our reliance upon the True.
In looking at the false texts, last week we majored on the True template. We saw that the Traditional Text is the historical and God honored Text which has been preserved by the Hand of the Spirit in those churches which remained true to the Biblical record and the God Who gave that record to humanity.
There are those who do not wish to accept that God could have, or would have, preserved His Word. This view was beginning to take hold among many �churchmen� in the middle of the 19th century. Among these people were Dr.�s Hort and Westcott. They were the driving force behind the Revised Version of 1881. They entered in this work with the preconceived confidence that the Traditional Text, the base of the King James Bible, was a vile and corrupt text. No matter that this was the Text of the Reformation and had enjoyed the obvious blessing of God for hundreds of years, they rejected it out of hand.
How can I make such a claim about these men? Take a look at what they did accept. McKingly (Why, The King James Version) makes note that, despite the history and blessing of the Traditional Text, Westcott and Hort �...chose Roman Catholic Alexandrian manuscripts against 5,226 Koine Greek manuscripts which were available. They choose these two [Aleph and B] because these were the �oldest,� and therefore they had to be the �most accurate...��
We have spoke of this myth of �the oldest and best� in the past. Quite demonstrably the oldest are often the worst. These were obviously not well received, or studied, by their original owners or they would have succumbed to the dust as did all others. These two, especially, had been set aside and not studied or read for hundreds of years. They were not hidden in the rubble of a destroyed area. They were not unearthed from the tomb of a pious person who wanted to be buried with his treasured Scripture. One resided in a monastery; the other was in the Vatican library. And, yet, they were ignored. Why is this? Apparently their owners understood their imperfection, or were not led into a study of the Word by the power of the Spirit which was not shining through these copies.
McKingly also made mention that these, which were are the heart of the revision committee of Hort and Westcott, as well as, almost without exception, the translation committees of the newer versions, were Roman Catholic manuscripts. This they were. When people say that there have been new readings found in the past four hundred years, they are either mistaken, stretching the truth, or putting their own �spin� on the issue. The Douay-Rheims Version, an edition in English produced prior to the King James, contains these readings. There have been many discoveries in the past four hundred years. They have been no discoveries of new text families.
That these are Catholic readings is an important point. The Catholic Bible was the Bible of the Dark Ages. The Protestant readings produced the Bible of the enlightenment. Although a different base text than that of the Catholic Vulgate of Jerome, this is the true text of history. It is found in the writings of the early translations and the writings of the early church fathers.
The Traditional Text has stamped upon it the mark of the blessing of God. This was the Text of the Reformation. This was the Text of all of the great revivals of the past. This is the Text which the historic churches which were committed to the pure Gospel were disposed to accept as the Word of God.
Since the introduction of the new versions, from the old corrupted manuscripts, into the world, we have seen a devaluation of the culture of the Western World - which was once seeped in things Biblical - and a lack of true vitality of the churches as they have begun to seek a way for the world to accept the Church, rather than a way for the Truth of the churches to meet the world�s spiritual need!
Fuller (Which Bible?) makes the following observation:
�Does the truth of the text of Scripture dwell with the vast multitude of copies, uncial and cursive, concerning which nothing is more remarkable than the marvelous agreement which subsists between them? Or is it rather to be supposed that trust abides exclusively with a very little handful of manuscripts, which at once differ from the great bulk of witness, and - strange to say - also amongst themselves?�
It is obvious, or should be so, that God blesses the faith in His Word. That is why He gave His Word in the first place, so that �showers of blessing� could fall on the proclamation that Jesus Christ died in time so that others could live in eternity.
Fuller (Counterfeit or Genuine) makes another point when he says that it is important that we have the true text. For example, in Galatians 3:15 Paul bases his entire argument on the Old Testament use of the singular rather than the plural use of the word �seed.�
In summery, the false text brings not blessing, but religion. It brings not the true smile of God upon the churches, but a form of Godliness which lacks the true power of God. Look at the great city-wide revivals of even a Billy Graham. Hundreds, thousands of people come forward to accept Christ. We can watch this on our television screens. But, go back to those cities just a few days after Rev. Graham packs up his tent (I joke!) and moves on to the next crusade and you will find very little has changed in the life of that area. I do believe that people are saved. But, I do not believe that the power of God rests upon the lives which should have been touched. God honors His Word. In His grace He will save some who have been exposed to a pale imitation of that Word through false texts. But, He gave His Words for a purpose. His full blessings are reserved for those who are willing to bow down to the alter of faith in Him rather than faith in a translation committee.
Next week we will begin to look in a little more detail into the True Text which underlies the King James Bible.
12 August 2006
THE OLD MSS. (Continued)
For the past few weeks we�ve been looking negatively at some of the texts which form the basis of most of the modern language English translations.
Fuller (True or False) makes the following observation about the work of the translating committee of the King James Bible.
�...in the setting of [the textual base which underlies the A.V.], due weight was given to the concurrent testimony of the numerous MSS in actual use in different churches, widely separated from one another and also to the corroborating testimony of the most ancient Versions and of the patristic writings...�
There is a fallacy held among many that the translators of the King James Bible (or Authorized Version) settled on their textual base with just a small amount of evidence. That just isn�t so. The translating committee had various readings, from various sources. Not only did they consider the manuscript evidence which they had on hand, they also consulted ancient translations and the writings of the �church fathers.�
A short aside here: The Hort - Westcott committee of the 1881 revision argued that the ending to the Gospel of Mark was a late addition. Their argument was that this was part of a �fourth century ecclesiastical revision.� But, when the writings of the church fathers are consulted, we find that Ireanius quoted from this passage in about 120 A.D. The bulk of the true evidence stands in favor of the reading which we have in our King James Bibles. Only a very small minority of manuscripts will tamper with these words. Unlike the fiction perpetrated in most of our marginal readings, the true oldest and best witnesses support the ending of the Gospel.
It has also been argued by many that the manuscript evidence of the King James translating committee was very flawed. �After all,� we are told, �there have been many discoveries of older manuscripts in the succeeding four hundred years.� It is true. There have been many discoveries of older manuscript evidence in the time since the publication of the King James Bible. But, there have been no new discoveries of new readings. All of the readings which we are encouraged to accept in the modern language English versions are contained in the base of the Douay - Rheims Roman Catholic English translation. This edition was completed prior to the work of the King James translators.
To argue against the base of the King James Bible on the basis of new discoveries is somewhat disingenuous.
James (The Corruption of the Word) argues that this base, of the King James Bible, is the Text which God has preserved throughout history.
�The King James version is based upon the mainstream traditional wording found in a large percentage of the 5,000 + surviving copies of the New Testament that our ancestors handed down to us. The modern versions are based upon a small handful of copies that are very old but oppose the mainstream tradition at thousands of places.�
Once again we are confronted with the vast weight of evidence to the Traditional Text in the actual record.
If we accept the concept of a God of Goodness, we must accept the concept that He would wish to convey the message of a full life, and the prospect of an eternal life, to His created creature. If we accept this, it must follow that He would have given this important message via the medium of inspiration so that the message would be clear and correct. This leads us to conclude that He would wish to guard, or preserve, this message in the form in which He had given it to mankind. Even allowing for the pernicious attempts of heretic and agnostic to tamper with this Word, it must be conceded that the God of Power and Creation would be able to thwart these efforts to destroy His message. Therefore, although there would be false wordings in the writings of man, the great bulk of the writings would be superintended by God so that the vast majority would contain those words which He wanted to convey to humanity.
When we see that between 85% and 95% (depending on who is consulted) of the evidence agrees with the Traditional Text, we are left with no real option but to accept this as the God preserved Text of His Message. To do otherwise is to mistrust God and to underestimate His power and love.
When McKingly (Why? The King James Version) makes note of this, he makes a stinging rebuttal of the base text of the modern versions.
�Only the King James Version, itself, is based on and translated wholly from the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus... Almost all other modern English translations of the Bible are based on the corrupt Westcott and Hort Text, which can be traced back to the corrupt Eusebius and possibly to Origen the infidel.�
With this consensus in mind, we must reject the newer translations. It is not that they are evil, or that the persons on their translating committees were evil persons. The problem is that they are not true representations of the preserved and inspired Words of God. They are based on false texts and can do no other than reflect the falseness of these texts.
Neither, of course, is the King James Bible inspired. But, the KJB is based on the truly inspired and preserved Words of God. As an accurate translation, it is an accurate rendition of the Words which God intended for us to hear. The newer versions, based on faulty manuscript evidence, can not make that claim!
Fuller (Which Bible?) makes the point that I had made earlier.
�It is true that thousands of manuscripts have be brought to life since 1611, but it must be emphasized that the great majority of these are in substantial agreement with the Traditional Text underlying the Reformers� Bibles and the King James Version.�
The idea of trumpeting the �new� discoveries is simply a smoke screen meant to obscure the fact that the text of the King James Bible is the text of antiquity. It is the text of preservation. It is the text of inspiration. It is the text of God.
The base text of the new translation is not a reconstructed text from antiquity. It is a flawed text from antiquity which was consigned to the dust bin of history by the preserving power of God. It is only a lack of faith in the preserving power, and the love, of God which has reached into the burning barrel and plucked out a false text. This is rummaging through the garbage of antiquity when God has set the table for us with the Good Food for our souls.
Fuller continued:
�...that confidence in modern critical Greek texts depends ultimately on one�s confidence in contemporary scholarly judgement. It should be clear, however, that when the whole problem of textual criticism is reduced to a series of arguments about the relative merits of this reading over against that reading, we have entered an area where person opinion - and even personal bias - can easily determine one�s decision.�
The bottom line is that the modern critical, and eclectic, texts are simply the best judgement of men who do not have the firm faith in God that He was Good enough, or powerful enough, to preserve His Own Words. That fact, alone, speaks volumes, to me at least, about the finished product of these modern day redactors.
Next week, God willing, we will begin to speak some about the Textus Receptus.
18 August 2006
THE OLD MSS. (Continued)
There has been some controversy of late over the terminology used to describe the newer English versions which are translated from the eclectic and Alexandrian texts rather than from the Textus Receptus.
In a tract reviewing J. J. Ray�s book, God Wrote Only One Bible, Fuller has this to say about the word �version,� �A version is that which is translated, or rendered from one language to another. The Textus Receptus is NOT a version. It is composed of basic manuscript copies from which the King James Version was made.�
So, why are so many (myself included) now describing the King James Bible, as opposed to referencing others translations as versions? The reasoning is really quite simple. Since the King James Bible is just about the only English translation on the market which is based on the God preserved Traditional Text, we consider it to the be the �Bible� for the English language reader. The other translations are referred to as version because they purport to be translation of God�s text and they are not. They are �versions� of that text. And, in that they are flawed versions.
The Textus Receptus has been maligned because it was composed by Erasmus. Part of the reason for this is the argument that Erasmus had very few texts with which to work. This is a fable. Erasmus traveled extensively throughout Europe and has copious notes and many manuscripts, not a few as many allege. His work was very important. But his work was not the penning of a new text. He was judiciously preparing a codification of the Traditional Text. This is the same sort of work, albeit on the proper text rather than a fabricated text, in which the Bible critic of today is engaged.
The primary difference between the work of Erasmus, and others who followed in searching out the God preserved Traditional Text, and the critic of today is that faith which trusts that God has, indeed, preserved His Own Word for His Own churches.
On this subject, I quote this from my own work, �There Can Be Only One True Guide�
��Erasmus,�� we are told, �was not a Godly man. Therefore the Textus Receptus was flawed and from it the King James Version.� Once again, a straw man without merit. Although Luther used the Greek edition of Erasmus as a base for his German Bible, the translators of the King James Version used other sources. Besides this, Erasmus was only one of many who made Greek editions which bore the appellation of Textus Receptus. Further, the words of even his text were not the words of Erasmus; he only edited a copy of the Traditional Text.�
McKingly (Why, The King James Version) has this to say about the Textus Receptus. �The Textus Receptus or Majority Text is based on 5,226 manuscripts which agree magnificently among themselves even though those 5,000+ manuscripts were found in different parts of the world.�
This, that these texts of antiquity which support - overwhelmingly support - the Textus Receptus and Traditional Text are found throughout the world. They come from groups and libraries over the entire Christianized world. The text of the modern versions, however, are centered in the sands of Egypt. This was, we may recall, one of the strongholds of the Gnostic.
In support of this contention, Fuller (Which Bible?) reminds us:
The manuscript family from which came the Received Text, :...was adopted as the official text of the Greek Catholic Church. There were local reasons which contributed to this result. But, probably, far greater reasons will be found in the fact that the Received Text had authority to become, either in itself or by its translation, the Bible of the great Syrian Church; of the Waldensian Church of northern Italy; of the Gallic Church of southern France; and of the Celtic Church in Scotland and Ireland; as well as the official Bible of the Greek Catholic Church.�
Fuller (True or False) continues to argue that the Received Text �...is identical with the Text of every extant lectionary of the Greek Church, and may, therefore, reasonably claim to be spoken of as the Traditional Text...�
These lectionaries of which Fuller spoke were much like our responsive readings in the back of many of our church hymnals. They were written, at a time when few individuals could afford the cost of a complete Bible, to be used as readings of the Word of God during the church services. These, along with the writings of the church fathers point to a time before the so-called �oldest and best� manuscripts were written. It is true that these lectionaries and writings were not complete editions of the Scripture. But, it is instructive to note that when they quoted the Scripture available at the time of their own writing, they were quoting the Traditional Text.
The Complete Biblical Library [John] gives the following assessment of the work of the Westcott and Hort revision committee of 1881. The work of this committee is the fountainhead from which all the streams of the modern day Biblical critic must find his genesis.
�Westcott and Hort opposed the Textus Receptus because it was based on the Byzantine text form. Most scholars agreed with their contention, and the Textus Receptus fell into disrepute. However, Westcott and Hort made their assumption before the Greek papyri were discovered, and in recent years some scholars have come to the defense of the Byzantine text and the Textus Receptus. They have learned that some of the readings in the Byzantine text are the same as those found in the earliest papyri, dated about A.D. 200 and even earlier (p43, p45, and p66 for example). This seems to take the Byzantine text back at least as far as the Egyptian.�
The quotation above is actually somewhat �short� in its assessment of the �Byzantine� (This is a misnomer as it identifies a universally found text with a single geographical area.) Text. The writings of those aforementioned church fathers, the lectionaries, and several translations will take the Traditional Text back even further.
It is also instructive to note that all of those �manuscript discoveries of the past four hundred years� which we are assured are shouldered together to discredit the King James Bible and the base from which it was translated, are found to strengthen the case for the King James Bible! Again, no new readings have been found. But, more readings to bolster the Traditional Text have been unearthed.
James (The Corruption of the Word) says that, while the oldest manuscripts are not always the best, the oldest wording is the best. The oldest wording, simply, is the original words. Remember this well when the notes in your Bible margin will try to argue that the Words of God are not true because the (so-called) oldest and best texts do not agree.
We will continue looking at the Textus Receptus, God willing, when we meet again next week.
25 August 2006
THE OLD MSS. (Continued)
This week we will continue our look at the Textus Receptus. Many make the claim that the Textus Receptus is flawed because of the influence of Erasmus upon the text. It may be instructive for those who hold to this view to hear the words of Burton (Let�s Weigh the Evidence) when he says that �...even though the name �Textus Receptus� was coined twenty-two years after the Authorised Version was translated, it has become synonymous with the true Greek Text originating in Antioch.�
Now, I take issue with Burton on one point. The Greek Text did not originate in Antioch. The Greek Text originated at various locations as the Spirit breathed out the Words of God through the pen of several human instruments.
It is true that Antioch is closely associated with this text due to the work of a Scriptorium in the area. But there were many other locations, all over the Christian world where this same text was copied and revered. To place this text as originating in Antioch is simply not correct.
The salient point from the Burton quote is that the name �Textus Receptus� did not originated until nearly a quarter century after the translating committee of the King James Bible had completed their work. To attempt to discredit the King James Bible because of its use of the �Textus Receptus� is simply an historical error.
Also in error is the charge that the translators of the King James Bible used the work of Erasmus. Although his work may have begun the caravan, the King James group probably relied much more upon Beza than upon Erasmus. Also, this translating committee had many more manuscripts as they worked to refine the previous editions of the English versions.
They even had access to, although these were rejected, most of the readings on which the modern day English translations are based. It is also an historical fiction to allege that the discoveries of the past four hundred years had outdated the manuscripts upon which the King James Bible was based. Among those discoveries of the past four hundred years are no, repeat no, new readings which were not available to the translating committee of the King James Bible.
The translators of the King James Bible were not interested in, nor were they charged with the duty of, producing a completely new translation. Their work was to produce an updated version of what had gone before in the English speaking translation tradition.
These were men of faith. They were not ready to even imagine that God had somehow lost control of, or had willfully withheld, His true Text from their predecessors. They knew that the Words of God were inviolate. They understood that any translation of these words into another tongue was not the originally inspired Words of God. The translation was simply a vehicle to convey the truth of God to the world of men. To that end these translators did not seek to rewrite what had already given evidence to the power and blessing of God. They only sought to make those words more clear to the English reader.
This has not been the case with the modern day English versions. They may make the claim that they are easier to read. But, what is it of which they are easier to read. They have, almost without exception, jettisoned those God blessed and Preserved Words of the Traditional Text. They have replaced this base with an eclectic base founded in the firm conviction that God has not, for whatever reason, preserved His Word to man. These are edifices not to faith in God, but to faith in man, and his own reasoning power, to repair the little mess that God has made through sloppy handling of His Word.
Speaking on this subject, Fuller (Which Bible?) has remarked that �The Received Text was put for centuries in its position of leadership by Divine Providence, just as truly as the Star of Bethlehem was set in the heavens to guide the wise men.�
It seems somehow strange to me that men who were saved by the preaching of the Word of God from an English Translation of the Traditional Text are now ready to doubt that very text. It is but a short step from there to a necessary doubt of their own salvation. For them to proclaim otherwise is an exercise in faulty linear reasoning. If the word (small case intended) was not true as the record of God, how can they then trust anything that this word (again small case intended) has said on any subject - to include the heart of the Gospel message that Jesus Christ died in time so that men might live in eternity.
If the text is uncertain, altered and untrustworthy, how can anything it has said be trusted? If the eclectic texts are in the same state of uncertainty - and they must be as the same race of man was responsible for their existence if we discount the Preserving Hand of God, how can we lay claim to any manner of Christian authority? The truth is that we cannot. It becomes, then, time to lay aside our own firmly held belief system as nothing more than a good guess at the message from God. Is this on any firmer spiritual ground than any other belief system.
If we do not have a preserved Word from God we might as well go out and worship a tree. At least we know from where the tree came!
Fuller continues when he considers that Christian scholarship can study the text to resolve the minute disparities between various manuscripts of the Traditional Text. He says, �The Textus Receptus is the starting-point for future research, because it embodies substantially and in convenient form the traditional text.�
It is not scholarship which we deride. It is that scholarship with lacks a bond of faith in the power and goodness of God to preserve His eternally important message to mankind.
Further, Fuller argues that:
�One cannot say that the Textus Receptus ... is ... Verbally inspired. ... But it embodies substantially the text which even Westcott and Hort admit was dominant in the church from the middle of the fourth century on. The text used by the Church Fathers from Chrysostom�s time on was not materially different from the text of Erasmus and Stephanus.�
This is another point where I would disagree with my cited source material. Fuller is quite correct when he states that the wording of the Textus Receptus can be traced, with only very minimal variations, from the time of the Church Fathers. As such it predates the so-called �oldest and best� cited in the margins of most of our Bibles.
But, when Fuller states that this preserved Traditional Text is �not verbally inspired,� I take issue.
Just about a year ago I had to retake my driver�s exam to renew my license. There are books at the Department of Motor Vehicles which contain all the information which one needs to understand to pass his driver�s text. These are not the same documents as those which were voted upon by the state legislature. Nor or these the same documents as that to which the Governor attached his signature. But, since these are exact copies of those documents they do carry the same force of law as do those original documents which are in the state capitol.
So, too, do copies of the originally penned Words which God breathed out on the original parchments of Scripture carry the same inspired authority as do those long worn out �original manuscripts.�
We have a God we can trust because we have a Word we can trust. If the Word is uncertain, then so also is our knowledge of God uncertain. To the English speaker, you can trust your King James Bibles which are an accurate representation of the originally inspired and preserved Word of God!
God willing, we will continue this view of the Textus Receptus when we meet again next week.
Bible Study for April 2006