PROBLEM TEXTS (Continued)
In this session we will concentrate on the story of the woman taken in adultery from John 7:52 through John 8:11. There are those Bible critics who would deny this woman her audience with the Savior. Merrill Unger (Unger�s Bible Handbook) gives one reason why some have denied this passage a place in the inspired Scripture.
�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 is was omitted in certain manuscripts on purpose because the grace in dealing with the woman was unpalatable to legalists.�
Many other passages are treated with the same disdain. They are either deleted, marked of by lines or dots in the text, or debated as unworthy in the footnotes. Many legalists of our own day would deny this woman her place. The reasons may differ; the primary base under which they passage is disputed is that many of the critics do not accept that the Scripture was preserved of God. Thus, when they come to a passage that they �feel� does not belong, they argue against that passage.
How sad that the �feelings� of Bible critics are allowed to override the �leading� of the Holy Spirit in His preservation of the Scripture.
Hills (The King James Version Defended) notes that �...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.
Over and over we see the same criteria cited. The cry is that the �oldest and best� manuscripts do not contain a certain section. We are rarely informed of the small percentage of such witnesses. Remember, the oldest isn�t the best if it is wrong. That these are aberrations which disagree with the Traditional Text is shown by the fact that they were not copied into the primary (85% to 95%) of the available stream of texts.
The Annotated Study Bible says, of this passage, �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.�
How nice. The passage is O.K. It�s just that the writer�s of Scripture were wrong when they recorded it.
What!?
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! Well, the answer to that, as we have so often noted, is that the modern day Bible critics often do not accept that the Words of God have been preserved.
If we are to 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. This is true unless we only consider that Scriptural record to �contain� the Words of God rather than to �BE� the inspired and preserved Words of God.
Hills, again, explains why this section might have been deleted by certain early scribes who mishandled the Words of God by altering them. It is from these sort of manuscripts, either direct forgery, sloppy copyist work, or heretical addition and deletion, that have given birth to most of these aberrant readings.
And yet we accept them today? Hills argues about this.
�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 the 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.�
Still, even though Hills admits to �...so widely omitted...� in regards to this verse. That percentage of omission is still so small as to constitute an aberration of the text. It is the true text which would see the widest dissemination. The false would always be in the minority as one mistake would not overtake thousands of correct copies. Since each of the copies would give rise to more copies, the few would give evidence to their impurity. This is especially so when one considers the great number of the evidence available.
Even Scofield (The First Scofield Reference Bible), who accepted many of the fallacies of the Westcott and Hort committee, did not dispute that this passage belonged in the inspired record.
�[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 the 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).�
In case you might doubt it, I am a �fan� of C. I. Scofield and his reference Bible. However, it must be noted that Scofield often played loose with the Scriptural record. He was one of the first persons to popularize the �Day Age� theory in the Genesis creation accounts. This was an obvious attempt to set �square� the Biblical record with the science of the day.
Darwin influenced much more than biology. Bibliography was also influenced by the idea of �evolution.� That is the basis behind the idea of a non preserved Bible. The concept of �change� means that the Bible, Itself, must have changed. Thus comes the theories of Westcott, Hort, Tischendorg, et. al. Scofield picked up on this concept; a reading of his notes at most of these so called �disputed� passages will note that he casts doubt on the preservation of the Scripture at nearly every turn.
Hills, again, appeals to the history of the opposition to this passage from John�s Gospel account.
�[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 make its insertion into the Gospel text very difficult.�
Again, the argument is made as to why the passage was ever included in the Scriptural texts. The only answer is that this passage is authentic. There is no reason to suggest that it is a �pious interpolation,� or forgery.
Hills also takes notice of the actions of the Eastern Church as regards this passage. When we recall that the Easter Church spoke Greek, the language in which the New Testament was originally written, this is a powerful witness.
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 Easter Church has selected nine out of those twelve verses to be the special lesson for October 8.�
Hills also argues that the passage belongs where it is found, in the Gospel of John at the beginning of the eighth chapter.
Some of the critics will argue that this portion is out of harmony with all the narrative around it. Hills disagrees.
�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 is now occupies?�
The opening verses of this passage tie it in which John 7:52, as Hills notes, and that which leads to this verse.
I�ve read this passage, as have you. It does not seem out of place. The narrative flows. But, even conceding that the passage does not �fit� in with the surrounding narrative, which I do not! - there is no need that it do so. John 20:30 informs us �Any many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book.� The Gospel of John is not a day-to-day itinerary of the life of Jesus. It is entirely possible, although I think it not probable, that this event could have taken place at another time and STILL be included as part of the Divine record.
Besides, as Hills again notes, if this portion were left out of the Scripture, the narrative would read, �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.
Somehow I think it wise to accept that God has inspired what He wanted inspired and He has preserved what He wished preserved.
In our next session we will take a look at I John 5:7.
14 December 2007
PROBLEM TEXTS (Continued)
This session will concern itself with I John 5:7. I would like to give this verse in its immediate context below. I will underline the seventh verse.
�Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the son of God? This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.� (I John 5:5-8)
As we look at the extended passage we will see that verses five and six make mention of the Trinity. In verse five Jesus is mentioned as �the Son of God;� this is a mention, albeit by inference, of the Father. Verse six picks up on the point of the miraculous incarnation. This verse also speaks of the �third� member of the Trinity in that it says that the Spirit gives His witness to these facts.
Verse seven, the verse in question, is an outright affirmation of the Trinity.
Verse eight speaks of three witnesses on earth that bear witness to the same Truth, that of the incarnation of Jesus. These three are the Spirit, the water which is an intimation of the physical birth of Jesus, and the blood which is an intimation of the divine pre-existence of Jesus.
This is three instances of mention of the Trinity of the Godhead. This just seems an interesting formula to me. The formula also, as it appears here, is the belief of the churches on earth, as based in the reality in Heaven. We are then, in the final verse, given the fact that the witness of Heaven is even greater than the witness of man on earth.
This is a verse, however, which has been under constant attack in �church� circles. Some of the reasons for the attack are, I would believe, quite valid. Still, I accept this verse as part of the preserved Words of God.
Most of the information I will present here is a defense of the verse from the negative. �It is because something lacks in the dismissal.� This is a concept which bother me. Some of the facts presented, quite frankly, concern me.
It is at times like this that I must resort to �Jonah faith.� Jonah was a man who was called of God to do a specific task. Jonah didn�t want to perform that task. His entire cultural upbringing and rational argued that this was the wrong thing to do. Jonah ran from the call of God. God had �prepared a great fish� (Jonah 2:1) and Jonah was prepared as a great fish food.
God got the attention of Jonah. Jonah did that which he was called to do. But, as we read the Book of Jonah we will see that Jonah never did get around to agreeing with God. I have always considered this a great act of faith. Even though Jonah did not agree with God, Jonah did the bidding of God. Even when everything in his life said �NO!,� Jonah acted simply because, well with a little prodding, God had said �YES!�
Folks, that is great faith. When everything we�ve ever learned argues against doing the known will of God, we need to do it anyway. God said so. That settles it.
What it all boils down to is that I accept this verse as part of the Scripture simply because this verse is included in the Scripture which bears the stamp of the approval and preservation of God.
Hills (The King James Version Defended) argues for the verse. There are manuscripts which do not contain this verse. Of them Hills would argue that, 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 the 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 Sabellian and would consider those which did not contain it to be the pure text.
We often use the illustration of the Trinity that it is like a man who is a father, husband, and son. He is the same man in whatever place he stands. It is just that he is viewed in different lights by different people. This is not, however, an accurate representation of the Trinity. If it were we would have the absurdity of Jesus praying to Himself in the Gospels. At the stoning of Stephen we would see Jesus sitting at His Own right hand.
Granted, if God said that those things were true in the Spiritual realm, they would be true. But, we understand the Trinity to be three distinct Persons Who are of One Essence. In John 1:1 we read, �In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.� The picture here is of two equals sitting face to face.
When we speak of the Trinity, as it is revealed in the Bible, we are often at a loss to explain a concept of Spirit and Eternity as we work within the confines of the physical and time. There are things we will not understand until we are passed from this existence into our eternal existence. �For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.� (Isaiah 55:9)
A better illustration of the concept of the Trinity might be sitting near me right now. It is a simple cup of coffee with sugar and cream. The three elements are distinct elements. I can taste them each as I drink the coffee. But, they are joined together to produce just one beverage. They are inseparable even as they are diverse.
This is an admittedly poor illustration. But, it is the best I have to offer for us to consider the Spiritual things of God with our finite minds.
Faith remains the medium of the Christian.
Hills also argues that the �Johannine comma� might have actually dropped out of the Greek manuscripts only to be preserved by the Western Church in the Latin Text. �...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...�
�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 txt from the Old Latin manuscripts...�
It is very important to note the above. This verse was not originally in Jerome�s Vulgate. It was, however, in a writing which was based on the Old Latin text. The Old Latin Vulgate, the word �Vulgate� simply meaning �common,� and was applied to a translation made around 157 A.D., would give the verse the imprimatur of antiquity. Such a translation, obviously a translation of an even older document, would argue for Apostolic authority for the verse.
Hills further argues in the negative for the inclusion of the verse in our Bibles today.
�If the comma originated in a trinitarian interpretation of I John 5, 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 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.�
This argument from the negative is that, if a forger had wanted to make this verse only seem to be part of the original, he would not have written it as it is written. A forger who wanted his fake money to be accepted would not substitute my picture on a one dollar bill for that of George Washington. Even though my hair is approaching the color of Mr. Washington�s powdered wig, it would not be accepted.
Finally, Hills argues that God has worked with man, specifically through the Spirit�s influence upon the churches, to preserve the Canon of Scripture.
�...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.�
Some have disputed the veracity of the story about the �specially prepared manuscript� above. The story, however, is unimportant. What is important is the great outcry about the lack of one verse. It seems that the Spirit of God moved upon the people of God in the churches of God in defense of the proper reading.
The Words of God have been preserved for us in exactly this manner. The true churches, people by the true Blood bought believers, have been gifted to �try the spirits.� �Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.� (I John 4:1)
The Words of God had been preserved in many old manuscripts. A fresh supply of them flooded Europe after the fall of Constantinople. Those Words were not being brought into the Protestant Reformation. This was an area where the Latin of Jerome had held sway for hundreds of years. The dominant Roman Church has decreed that the populace could not have Bibles in their own languages. The Roman Church had kept the precious Words of God, the Words meant for all humanity, under the lock and key of Church control and tradition.
Now that a new day had dawned, the people wanted the True, and Pure, Words which God had inspired and preserved. I believe that the Spirit acted strongly upon the people to rescue the Words of this verse from power of Satan as he attempted to �downgrade� Jesus in the eyes of the people. A less than divine Christ would be a false Christ. A false Christ would be a weak Christ in the eyes of the people. This could be used as a wedge to drive the emerging movement back into the error of Catholicism which proclaimed herself as the power of God on earth and her pontiff as the true representative of Christ, through the chair of Peter, on earth.
In conclusion, 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 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 fatigue or carelessness of the copyist. I have caught myself doing that very thing as I copy from my note cards onto these pages.
The point, here, is that it would be quite easy for a passage, such as I John 5:7, to be dropped from some manuscripts. It is not anywhere near as easy for a copyist to insert such a passage.
In our next session we will begin to look a little more closely at the Textus Receptus.
28 December 2007
THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS
As we begin this session with a study of the Textus Receptus, we must touch upon the person of Erasmus. Although his efforts were not called �Textus Receptus,� that appellation was not applied to his work. The copies of this �Received Text� (the meaning of the term), did not come until years later and was applied to the work of a successor in the work of codifying the text of the Reformation.
In this session we will take a superficial look at the person of Erasmus.
Hills (The King James Version Defended) tells us the obvious when he relates that Erasmus was a great scholar. �Ten columns of catalogue of the library in the British Museum are taken up with the bare enumerations of the works translated, edited, or annotated by Erasmus.�
Erasmus was among the very first, and the first so published in a print form, who sought to supply a copy of the Biblical text, from the original Greek, in the days of the Protestant Reformation. One of the hallmarks of this Reformation, indeed, the very rational for its existence, was a reliance upon the Biblical record as a standard of faith and practice.
So far had the Roman use of tradition and church teaching removed the faith from this reliance that the reformers saw the need to find what God had said rather than what man was teaching. This, of course, led to a renewed interest in just what the Bible did, in fact, have to say.
The importance of Erasmus was not near as important as that upon which his work centered. Hills notes this of the textual work of Erasmus.
�Although not himself outstanding as a man of faith, in his editorial labors on this text he was providentially influenced and guided by the faith of others. In spite of his humanistic tendencies Erasmus was clearly used of God to place the Greek New Testament text in print, just as Martin Luther was used of God to bring the Protestant Reformation in spite of the fact that, at least at first, he shared Erasmus� doubts concerning Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation.�
About the use of the term �humanist� used to describe Erasmus, a word of explanation might be in order. Williams (The Lie that Changed the Modern World) supplies the definition of that word which was current in the time of Erasmus.
�...he became known as one of the world�s greatest humanists. A humanist at that time in history did not have a bad connotation. A humanist was simply someone who had gained a great deal of human knowledge. It was not viewed as a form of �religion� as that which is called Humanism today. There are �modern� writers who are not informed of this change in terminology. They have assailed Erasmus for being �a humanist,� not understanding the terminology refers to his great knowledge.�
Erasmus did not, as did the great reformers such as Luther, come out from the Roman church. For this he has been castigated as less than true to the Lord. Such is not necessarily the case. Just as in our time, many remain in modernistic denominations simply because that is where they have always resided. Would it be better if such were to �come out from among them?� Of course. But, our bodies of clay do not always follow that which we ought. This fact does not make things �right.� But it does seem to make things more understandable in human terms.
Williams, again, does address the issue of the continued presence of Erasmus in the Roman church.
�He had long grown tired of Rome�s exploitation, and spoke out against the Catholic Church and its abuses. In opposition to one of Rome�s greatest fears, the Scripture in the hands of the populace, Erasmus had been instilled with the intense desire to place the Words of God into the hands of the common people.�
As for Erasmus staying within the Roman church, Erasmus does not seem to have given her his complete allegiance. It is known that he did refuse the hat of a Cardinal of Rome when Pope Paul III made him that offer. Had he been a loyal son of The Church he would have quickly accepted this honor from the Pontiff. To the loyal Catholic the Pontiff sits in the chair of Peter and is the leader of the church. To have turned down this honor would have been tantamount to refusing Christ.
Instead of the work of the reformers, in breaking with Rome and beginning what are today the great Protestant denominations, Williams, again, notes that �...Erasmus tried to reform the [Roman Catholic] Church from within...�
It is easy to condemn such things as his remaining in the Roman church. But, it is instructive to see what the contemporaries in the Reformation movement seemed to think of Erasmus and his standing. Hills, again, speaks of one such Reformation person.
In his commentaries, �Calvin mentions Erasmus by name 78 times, far more than any other contemporary scholar. Most of these references (72 to be exact) are criticism of Erasmus� Latin version and once (Phil. 2:6) Calvin complains about Erasmus� refusal to admit that the passage in question teaches the deity of Christ. But five references deal with variant readings which Erasmus suggested in his notes, and of these Calvin adopted three. On the basis of these statistics therefore it is perhaps not too much to say that Calvin disapproved of Erasmus as a translator and theologian but thought better of him as a New Testament textual critic.�
Of course, when we speak of Erasmus we are not speaking of his theology, or even of his person. We are speaking in context of the work he did with preparing a Greek New Testament base, a precursor to the Textus Receptus. It matters not what is our opinion, really, of Erasmus. It matters much that the Words of God, which he handled in his works, were properly credited.
That has been proven to be the case.
In our next session we will look at some of the influences which were upon the life of Erasmus. We are spending much more time on this man than I would like. But, often we are given the false view that his work was not trustworthy. I would, of course, disagree. Again, Erasmus is not in question. The question falls upon his work in supplying a Greek base which was accurate to the preserved Words of God.
28 December 2007
THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS (Continued)
We�ve been spending quite a bit of time on Erasmus as we begin to discuss the Textus Receptus. This is so because of the great importance generally given to the work of Erasmus in this area even though the term �Textus Receptus� was never applied to his work.
However, the term �Textus Receptus� simply means �Received Text.� This is what Erasmus was intending for his work to be. He was attempting to edit a rendition of that historical text which the Holy Spirit had preserved for the churches.
I honestly believe that the greatest influence upon Erasmus was the Spirit of God. Erasmus was a collator of texts. He was influenced by the people of God who made up those churches which were faithful to the Words of God and the God of the Word. It was by these people that he was guided in presenting his works to the printer.
There were other influences upon the life of Erasmus. Hills (The King James Version Defended) sees Laurentinus Valla (1405-1458) as one of these influences. Valla was a well known scholar of the Italian renaissance. He believed that language was important. He saw the decline of Greece and Rome due to a decay of their languages. Valla held a very high view of the Greek Text of the New Testament, favoring it over the Latin which he felt had not only addition but also omission from the Greek Text.
The was not the �official� view of the Roman Church at this time. Their entire system of Bibliology, although their view of the Bible was greatly tempered by both Church Tradition and Church Teaching, was that the Latin of Jerome was the �official� text of the Church.
The teaching of the Church, and tradition, were the prism through which the Words of Scripture were allowed to reach the masses. But, what reached the masses was the Vulgate of Jerome.
The rest of Christendom was not so influenced by the Vulgate of Jerome. The Eastern Church, and those pockets of resistence to Rome among the Bible teaching churches of Europe, saw the Traditional Text as the actual Scripture.
Hills (Believing Bible Study) sees that for centuries before Erasmus the Traditional Text was received as the true text of Scripture. Although Erasmus �...was not himself, indeed, notable as a man of faith, but his intention was to provide a text which would be purchased by the general public. Hence he was influenced by the faith of others, and this placed a restraint upon...� his work.
It was in this manner, as mentioned above, that God providentially preserved His true text in printing. The Spirit of God, working through the people of His churches, influenced the work of Erasmus the pragmatic collator of the preserved Text.
Hills (The King James Version Defended) also sees that Erasmus was influenced by the scholastic theologians of his day. These were men who revered the Latin Vulgate of Jerome, as did the Roman Church, as the True Text of Scripture. To disallow the superiority of this text was to disallow the authority of the Roman Church in their minds.
Such, of course, was true. The Roman Church had tied her authority to a text which was deficient.
�No one at that time drew the logical but unpalatable conclusion that the Greek Church rather than the Roman Church had been providentially appointed guardian of the New Testament text. ... Leo X, who was pope from 1513 to 1521 and to whom Erasmus dedicated his New Testament ... [and] Erasmus� close friends ... John Colvet, ... Thomas More and Jacques Lefevre, all of whom sought to reform the Roman Catholic Church from within...,: did share the view of �common faith� that the True Text did reside in the Greek Majority Text. Even the scholastic theologian Martin Dorp was finally persuaded by Thomas More to adopt this view.
What the above is testifying to is that these men, who had every reason - from their own faith to their schooling, to not accept the Traditional Text, were so persuaded by the Spirit that this is exactly what they did. They parted from the Latin, which their reason told them to accept, and moved to the Greek of the Traditional Text in response to the providential work of the Holy Spirit of God.
Erasmus had a methodology to his work. Hills, again notes the custom of Erasmus was to look at whatever manuscript evidence he came across.
�It is well known ... That Erasmus looked for manuscripts everywhere during his travels and that he borrowed them from everyone he could. Hence although the Textus Receptus was based mainly on the manuscripts which Erasmus found at Basel, it also included readings taken from others to which he had access.�
Erasmus is generally dismissed in his work because of those few manuscripts at Basel. This is a false argument. As Mooreman (Tape: The Battle for the Doctrinal Heart) has noted, Erasmus was even aware of the key readings of the Vaticannus, but rejected those readings.
It is upon these readings that most of the modern English language versions are based.
Erasmus even knew, as Hills points out, about the so-called �problem texts� of the modern day critics. �...for example, Erasmus dealt with ... problem passages...� We will list several of these below.
Erasmus dealt with �...the conclusion of the Lord�s Prayer (Matt. 6:13)...�
Erasmus dealt with �...the interview of the right young man with Jesus (Matt. 19:17-22)...�
Erasmus dealt with �...the ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20)...�
Erasmus dealt with �...the angelic song (Luke 2:14)...�
Erasmus dealt with �...the angel, agony, and bloody emissions (Luke 22:43-44)...�
Erasmus dealt with �...the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53 - 8:11)...�
Erasmus dealt with �...the mystery of godliness (I Tim. 3:16)...�
�They [the above] were all mentioned in his notes placed with the text.� Basically, what I am suggesting is that the next time someone slights the ability, or even the library, of Erasmus as a textual critic, you might want to reconsider the evidence.
Fuller (A Comparison of the New American Standard Version with the King James Version) makes this assertion about the text of Erasmus as it regards the King James Bible. Even with this we must consider that the translating committee of the King James Bible did not make extensive use of the work of Erasmus. They held much more to the text of Beza.
That being said, we must give due respect to the work of Erasmus in �getting the ball rolling� as to the printing of the Received Text.
Fuller said, �We do not say that the King James Version is infallible. There are changes that could be and should be profitably made, but we do say and with emphasis, there are no errors found therein. The four or five thousand extant Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, in whole or in part, agree in ninety-five percent of their contents with the text of Erasmus...�
In our next session we will conclude this examination of Erasmus as we look at some of the Vulgate readings included by Erasmus which are not included in the Traditional Text.