THE OLD MSS. (Continued)
This week we will conclude our first look at the Sinaiticus (Aleph) text. This week we will focus on some of the contents of this text which display it to be deficient in character.
To be completely honest, the first of these deficiencies is a matter of guilt by association. Sloan (Survey of the New Testament) notices that, "The copy of the Bible found in St. Catherine's monastery [Sinaiticus] in 1859 and made about 350 has as its New Testament the same twenty-nine books listed by Origen."
Besides the deficient character of the contents, words and letters, this lining up with the New Testament of Origen in canon is also troubling. Origen was not one of the church fathers. At least he was not one of the fathers of the true churches of Jesus Christ. He was a heretic who would change the words with which he was in disagreement.
His religious philosophy was that nothing in Scripture should be alien to his human reasoning. Thus, he would take his knife of deletion, or his pen of addition, to the sacred page at any point. He considered himself as the arbitrator of the Word of God rather than one in subjection to that Word.
This is an attitude remarkably similar to the modern day critics who would discard the God preserved Traditional Text and replace It with the words they have decreed to be the accurate, although hidden for centuries, words which God had inspired. Well, they don't go quite that far. They would only argue that their newly minted words and phrases are closer to what God might have said.
Friends, a disrespect for the Word of God is also a disrespect for the God of that Word.
That the Sinaiticus would follow the form of Origen is testament to the fact that it did not follow the Form of God.
It is speculated, among many, that the Sinaiticus was one of the fifty copies of Scripture ordered by Constantine to sit in his state churches of Rome. If that is so, and I believe that it is, then this copy came from Alexandria. The contents would show that it is Alexandrian in form and heritage. The belief is that it is also Alexandrian in manufacture.
Nathanael asked, "Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?" (see John 1:46) The answer is that there certainly is some Good Thing that came out of Nazareth - the Living Word of God - Jesus Christ, came unto Nathanael from out of Nazareth.
Can any good thing come out of Alexandria? The answer, at least in the form of manuscripts of Scripture from antiquity, is "No." Whereas Jesus displayed Himself to be Truth in His life, works, death, and resurrection, the manuscripts out of Alexandria have displayed themselves to be at odds with the truly preserved Word of God.
"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God; and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you." (II Corinthians 6:14-17)
This is the Scriptural principle: Separation of the things of God from the things of Satan. Separation of the pure from the soiled. Separation of the True Words of God from contamination by the soiled words of those who have rejected those True Words. This is reason enough to reject the Sinaiticus as a trusted witness to the Word of God.
But, let us look at the condition and witness of the manuscript itself.
Ruckman (How Are New Bible Translations Alike?) quotes Burgon where Burgon has noted that, in the Sinaiticus, "...on many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness. Letters, words or even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately canceled; while that gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament.'"
On the same subject, Fuller (True or False) quotes the words of Dr. Scrivener, who was on the committee which produced the eclectic text of Westcott and Hort, when he says of the Sinaiticus, "This manuscript [Aleph] must have been derived from one in which the lines were similarly divided, since the writer occasionally omits just a number of letters which would suffice to fill a line, and that to the utter ruin of the sense; as if his eye had heedlessly wandered to the line immediately below."
Fuller continues that, "Dr. Scrivener cites instances 'where complete lines are omitted,' and others 'where the copyist passed in the middle of a line to the corresponding portion of the line below.' From this it is evident that the work of copying was done by a scribe who was both heedless and incompetent."
I would argue, further, that this scribe who produced Aleph either was heedless and incompetent, or he was irreligious in the Christian sense of the word - or both.
The men who copied the Word of God were mostly pious men who held an absolute fidelity to that Word. We have already seen testimony to the great care which they took to ensure that their copy was an exact copy. They were not simply interested in making another copy of the Word of God, they were committed to producing an exact copy of the Word of God. Since the inspiration lay on the Words, themselves, this was the only manner in which an authoritative copy could be produced.
Since not everyone had an education which enabled them to write, during most of this period, it was only the highly educated who would be chosen to take up the task of a scribe in the copying of the sacred page.
Neither the training, nor the religious devotion, of such men would allow them an agenda to miscopy the Word before them. Therefore, the question must be asked as to why a foul copy such as the Sinaiticus would even exist.
One who was committed to a trust in the Word of God would take the care to not change a single word. One who was not committed to a trust in the Word of God would not be as likely to assume such care. Therefore, we can conjecture that the original writer of Aleph was not one who highly valued an allegiance to the Word of God.
It is from the pen of such a one as this that we are asked, by the critics of the day, to assume Aleph as one of the oldest - which it surely is, and one of the best - which is surely is not, witnesses to the Word of God.
Finally, in this section, we need to look at the theology of the writer of this text. I will follow the same form (verse from the King James Bible, commentary from Hills (The King James Version Defended, and short commentary of my own) as we have followed for the past few weeks.
Mark 1:1 reads, "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God."
"In Mark 1:1 the Traditional Text reads with B and most other manuscripts, The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Aleph, Theta, 28 and several other documents omit the Son of God. This seems to be the work of heretics unfriendly to Christ's deity."
I would note that this manuscript, Aleph, disagrees with B. B, the Vaticanus, seems to be the template for the Alexandrian manuscripts. Thus, even though the hand of the Gnostic may be evident in the denial of the deity of Christ, it would seem that the scribe was careless. About his theology this would say that he placed little reliance upon the words of the Word. He seemed to be one who was interested in the "story" of the Gospel more than he was in the Truth of the Gospel.
He may have been interested in the "message" of the Gospel more than in the words which gave meaning to that message. This is a strange thing to consider. Yet, it is exactly the translation method used of many of the modern day translations which opt for a paraphrase, such as is used in the NIV - for example, rather than a word-for-word, as much as was possible, method as used by the translation committee of the King James Bible.
But, it is only by use of the word-for-word method that one can convey the true meaning of what was originally said. For instance, a military commander can say, "We're going back to Hill 29. It may be hard, but we are going to take this hill and hold it!" Or, he may say, "We have to return to Hill 29. We will do the job; but you should make your peace with God before we try." Both men have said the same general thing. But one is different from the other.
This is the problem with paraphrase. It necessitates the use of our human commentary. We paraphrase what the original meant to us. We need to know what God said to us.
The words are important because it is by use of them that we find what it is that God has said to us!
Romans 14:10 says, "But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ."
"In Rom. 14:10 the Traditional Text speaks of the judgment seat of Christ, implying that Christ is the Jehovah spoken of in Isa. 45.23, to whom every knee shall bow. This Traditional reading is also found in Polycarp, Tertullian, and Marcion. But the Western and Alexandrian texts (represented by Aleph, B, D2, etc.) take away this testimony to Christ's deity by substituting judgment seat of God for judgment seat of Christ. It is difficult to believe that this substitution was not also made by heretics."
We should notice that the same hand which erased "the Son of God" from Mark 1:1 has omitted "the judgment seat of Christ" from this passage in Romans. The denial of the full divinity of Jesus is often, and overt, in these Alexandrian texts. This is a diminishing of His rightful glory.
It is also a diminishing of His redeeming power. If Jesus was just another man, even a very good and anointed man, He had no power to save my soul. Since Jesus is divine, He had the power to pay for my sins by His death on the Cross of Calvary.
We will continue our study of aberrant witnesses next week as we begin to look at the Western Text type.
Remember, these are aberrations. The Traditional Text, upon which the King James Bible is founded, is the text from eighty-five to ninety-five percent of the witnesses available from antiquity. All others are aberrations.
Only the True Word of God, as evidenced in the Traditional Text, bears the stamp of the preserving power of God. All others, even those trusted by modern critics and modern translators, are suspect. They do not have the imprint of divine preservation upon them!
10 February 2006
THE OLD MSS. (Continued)
This week we will begin to look into the Western Text type. This is a very minor witness. It's prestige lags behind that of the Alexandrian type. It's main claim to fame among modern scholars seems to be that it is different from the Traditional Text. It seems, somehow, that the only strong area of agreement among the modern critics lies in a disdain for the God preserved Traditional Text which underlies the King James Bible.
As to the influence of the Western text, Hills (Believing Bible Study) tells us that: "The Western family consists of those New Testament documents which contain that form of text found in the writings of the Western Church fathers, especially Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Cyprian." Also included are the Old Syriac and the Diatessaron of Tatian, as well as the Coptic manuscript G67.
Hills also states that, "...the use of the Western text spread to all parts of the civilized world [outside of Byzantine, through] the prestige of the Roman Church..."
At this point I would disagree with Hills. I believe that history shows the Bible of the Roman Church to be of Alexandrian ancestry. It is this Alexandrian Text type which was the dominant Bible of the Dark Ages. Where true Christian groups gathered, branded as dissenters and heretic by the Church of Rome, the Traditional Text held sway. But, the great mass of the population was held in superstition and darkness by the agencies of the Alexandrian Text of the Roman Latin versions.
The newer versions will, for the most part, join in with this Alexandrian base text which was the basis of the Bible of the Dark Ages. It is instructive to note that many of the newer versions will place the apocrypha alongside the Old Testament Scriptures - as is done in the Roman Bibles.
That the first editions of the King James Bible also contained the apocrypha is true. But, in these editions those books were placed between the testaments and clearly defined as non-canonical. They were accepted as devotional readings, much as we might accept the works of Bunyon in this day. But, they were not considered as inspired Scripture.
But, today we are addressing the Western Text types.
We will look at some of the Western additions as noted by Hills (The King James Version Defended). The same order as was used to discuss selected Scripture when we looked at the Alexandrian Texts will be followed: first the verse from the King James Bible, second the commentary of Hills, and, finally, my own commentary.
As an overview, it should be noted that the copyist of the Western text was prone to add commentary to the Scripture. This was probably done so as to make the Scripture seem clearer and easier to understand. The problem with this is that inspired Scripture is that which has been inspired of God. The need is that His Words be conveyed. It is not likely that He needs our help to correct His error. He didn't make error. He made Scripture.
Matthew 3:16 says, "And Jesus, when he was baptized went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him."
"Matt. 3:16 To the account of Christ's baptism certain Old Latin manuscripts add, and a great light shone around."
I can see two reasons why this phrase might have been added. First, "a great light" could be indicative of the Father's presence. This would serve to dilute the claim to the deity of Christ among certain groups of heretics.
Second, this could be an attempt to make this verse line up with John 1:8 where Christ is called a "light" to the world.
Added to these possible explanations would be the heresy that the "Christ Spirit" came upon the "man, Jesus," at the time of His baptism. This was a Gnostic claim. I might note, at this point, that this is also a tenet of many "New Age" practitioners who envision a succession of "Christ's" in history as various men are "enlightened." This could be one of the reasons why the work of men like Brown, in The DaVinci Code, are able to gain converts.
Perhaps another reason that these variations of ancient heresy are gaining ground in our day is through the influence of the newer translations which tend to promote these insights.
Matthew 20:28 reads, "Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many."
"Matt. 20:28 After the familiar words, The Son of Man came not to be ministered unto but to give His life a ransom for many, D and certain Old Latin manuscripts add, But as for you, seek to increase from that which is small, and from that which is greater to become less. And when ye come in and are invited to dine, do not sit at the best places; lest some one more honorable than thou approach, and the host come and say to thee, Move farther down, and thou be ashamed. But if thou sit down at the lower place, and some one less than thou approach, the host also will say to thee, Move further up, and this shall be profitable for thee."
A very similar passage to this addition is found in the fourteenth chapter of Luke's Gospel. The situations are similar but not identical. It appears that the copyist was simply reminded of the Luke account and decided that it would be good for people to hear it at this point in order to contrast the humility of Christ with the pride of all too many people.
The problem with this is that Jesus was talking of His sacrificial death at this point. Any other subjects brought in would only serve to obscure this important teaching.
We - always! - need to let the message of the Holy Spirit shine through. Our own pride may be stroked by "showing off" our knowledge; but, it is only the message of the Spirit that will heal the troubled soul!
Luke 3:22 says, "And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased."
"Luke 3:22 At Christ's baptism, according to D and certain Old Latin manuscripts, the heavenly voice states, Thou art my Son. This day have I begotten Thee."
This, once again, is an intimation of the heresy that the "Christ spirit" came upon Jesus, the human man, at His baptism.
It is true that Jesus is "the only begotten of the Father." John 3:16, a very familiar verse, supports this claim. The claim of this addition is obviously not that Jesus was begotten in Bethlehem. If this were the claim, it could be addressed and substantiated - to a degree.
Jesus did not enter into existence at Bethlehem. In John 8:58, for instance, He claims to have existed prior to Abraham. Colossians 1:17 states that Jesus predates all creation. John 1:3 describes Him as the Creative Agent, who must have existed before the time of His baptism.
However, the claim made is that God has said, "This day," Jesus is begotten. The claim, therefore, has to do with His baptism. This is false, as discussed above in relation to Matthew 3:16.
Luke 6:4 reads, "How he went into the house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread, and gave also to them that were with him, which it is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone"
"Luke 6:4 At the end of this verse D adds this apocryphal saying of Jesus. On the same day, seeing a certain man working on the Sabbath, He said to him, Man, if thou knowest what thou doest, thou art blessed, but if thou knowest not, thou art cursed and art a transgressor of the Law."
This verse is occasioned when the disciples of Jesus are seen taking grain and eating it on the Sabbath. The Pharisees saw this and called it a sin. Jesus reminded them of the passage in I Samuel, chapter twenty-one, where David ate the shewbread as he was fleeing from Saul.
This verse is followed by the statement of Jesus that He is the Lord of the Sabbath. This gives Him the authority over the Sabbath and, especially, over the man made laws which the Pharisees had added to the God ordained Law.
By the way, for anyone who insists that Jesus never claimed divinity, what was He doing here? He claimed that He was the Lord over a Law which was instituted by Jehovah. That claim was a confirmation that He considered Himself as equal with Jehovah.
Again, I have two problems with this addition to the text. First of all, the alteration to the verse seems to imply that anyone could take precedence over the Law of God as long as they did it in a pure spirit. It is, however, the Law of God which is pure. To sully the Law by the fiat of any man is, by simple deduction, impure and sin. It is pride and a rejection of God's Law. It is also a setting of the Law of God as secondary to the whim of man.
This is not unlike those who have tried to set aside the preserved Word of God while claiming that their scholarship and instincts have found a word that is more pure.
My second problem with this addition is that this man is judged according to his knowledge. This is one of the basic tenets of the Gnostic belief system. They counted knowledge as a determining factor of true (to them) religion.
Luke 23:53 states, "And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid."
"Luke 23:53 After the words, where never man before was laid, D, c, Sahidic add, And when He was laid there, he placed before the tomb a stone, which twenty men could scarcely roll."
A comparison of this addition with Matthew 27:62, and following verses, will show this addition to be error.
The stone was placed, on order of Pilate, by Roman guards after the Jewish religious leaders had asked that it be done. Their purpose in requesting the tomb be sealed, and guarded, was out of fear that the disciples would remove the body of Jesus and claim His resurrection.
What these jealous, and blind, religious leaders did not understand was that this seal and guard would only serve to make the story of the resurrection more compelling. It was obvious, although the guards were bribed (see Matthew 28:11-15) to say the disciples had stolen the body, that the disciples would not have been able to overpower the Roman guards to steal the body of a dead Jesus. Neither would a Roman guard, not all of them, have been asleep at his post.
It took the miraculous power of the resurrected Jesus to escape the confines of that tomb.
The addition of "which twenty men could scarcely roll," sounds like the stories told of the mythical gods of the Greeks and Romans. All in all, a story such as this would only serve to make less plausible the reality of the Resurrection.
John 6:56 reads, "He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him."
"John 6:56 After Christ's solemn statement, He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood, dwelleth in Me and I in him, D and the Old Latin add, according as the Father is in Me and I in the Father. Verily, verily I say unto you, except ye take the body of the Son of Man as the bread of life, ye have not life in Him."
The imagery invoked by Jesus with His words was very familiar to the disciples who would be gathered together for Passover meals. It was the image of that first Passover in Egypt. The lamb was to be completely consumed. There was to be nothing left of it. As the Lamb of God, about to become the ultimate Sacrifice for the sins of the world, thereby freeing those who would accept Him from their slavery to sin, Jesus asked the same of His disciples.
They were not to pick and choose which part of His teaching or ministry they might wish to accept. They were to incorporate all into their own lives. They were to view His very life's blood, shed on the Cross, as the agent of the cleansing of their sin - which in truth it is!
The Roman Church would teach a doctrine which holds that the elements of the Eucharist (the celebration of the Lord's Supper) become, upon being blessed, the actual body and blood of the Savior.
That this is a symbolic meal is evident from the setting of the meal in the Upper Room. The body and blood of Jesus was not multiplied by creative force as was the fishes and loaves at the feeding of the multitudes. There was one Lord before, after, and during the memorial.
Neither did the body and blood multiply as did the fish and loaves. The fish and loaves became more fish and loaves. Again, there was one Lord before, after, and during the memorial.
The symbolism is further explained by reference to I Corinthians 11:34 where Paul is explaining the Lord's Supper in one of his letters to the churches. "And if any man hunger, let him eat at home: that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."
What was the rest? I don't know. The Holy Spirit didn't inspire that word for our edification. But, this much He did give us: We know that the purpose of the Old Testament Passover was to save the Israelites from physical death. The purpose of the New Testament sacrifice of Jesus is to save the sinner from spiritual death. The Old Testament Passover was a physical meal which was a remembrance of a physical event. The New Testament "meal" is a mere "sampling" of a meal; it's purpose is not to consume food. The purpose of the New Testament "meal" is, however, also (I Corinthians 11:26) designed to be a memorial of the day God purchased our freedom from sin.
The reading of this addition seems to suggest that salvation comes from the act of taking part in this celebration. This, by extension, would lead to the Roman error of salvation residing in a relationship with the Church rather than in faith in Christ, alone.
I doubt that this was the reason that this passage was added by that first scribe who took it upon himself to add his own comments to the Words of God. He was, probably, just trying to explain the glory of the event.
That, however, adding to the Word our own words, is an entrance into error. The Word of God is His Word. We must allow Him to speak where He speaks. We should not be prone to the fallacy that His Words need our help to speak to man. The Holy Spirit is THE Interpreter of the inspired page.
It is via instances such as this that so many of the true churches of God became A Church in error and apostasy. It isn't the long pass of Peyton Manning which will normally score the touchdown for Satan's lie; it is the "three yards and a cloud of dust" of Woody Hayes. The big error is easy to see and correct. It is a thousand little errors, each slowly adding themselves upon the preceding error, which causes the soul damning retreat from a reliance upon the Word, and the Person, of God.
That is just another reason why we cannot accept the error of the false texts of the modern translations.
Acts 15:20 reads, "But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood."
"Acts 15:20 To the apostolic decree D, Sahidic, Ethiopic add these words (The Golden Rule in negative form) And whatsoever they do not wish to be done to themselves, not to do to others."
Notice the subtle shift that occurs when this passage is altered by the addition. Whereas the primary focus of the prohibition was to live a pure life before God, the change is to live a pure life before men. This isn't a bad thing. We ought to (must!) live a pure life before men. But, this we do as an offering toward God.
Too much of modern religion is based on man's relationship with man. That is a good thing. But, it is not a means of salvation. It is not the best thing. True religion is a relationship with God as provided for in the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross of Calvary. Anything which would serve to hide this fact is a tool of the tempter!
Acts 23:24 says, "And provide them beasts; that they may set Paul on, and bring him safe unto Felix the governor."
"Acts 23:24 Here the Old Latin and the Vulgate give an interesting explanation why Claudius Lysias sent Paul away by night to Felix the governor. For he feared lest the Jews should seize him and kill him and he meanwhile should be accused of having taken a bribe."
This is, obviously, pure fabrication. The addition runs counter to the words of the rest of the story. Read the entire chapter to see the context and you will note that there was a fear of an insurrection, albeit a small one with the limited goal of lynching Paul, which caused Claudius Lysias to remove Paul from the small garrison to the larger complex of the governor.
Any sort of insurrection, given the climate of the political state at the time, could have boiled over into a larger problem for Rome. Consider the fact that it was not that many years from this time that the destruction of Jerusalem occurred during a larger insurrection. Claudius Lysias was simply acting to preserve the peace - and the life of his prisioner.
Hills continues, "These longer Western reading have found few defenders and are one of the many indications that the Western New Testament text is a corrupt form of the divine original."
I would not add anything to Hills except that there are many in this day who do accept that these are witnesses to the early text. The modern critics will give equal prestige to these texts as they would to any text found in antiquity. They are choosing, all too often, corrupt text with which to reconstruct a text which was never deconstructed - the preserved Word of God!
Lack of faith leads to acceptance of error.
17 February 2006
THE OLD MSS. (Continued)
We continue this week to look at the readings which are peculiar to the Western manuscripts. Again, this is a very small group. It is so small that it should be called an aberration when the subject of Scriptural manuscripts from antiquity are discussed.
Again we will consult Hills (The King James Version Defended) to look at eight examples of these omissions. These are all contained in the last portion of the Book of Luke. Hills says that "These readings [are] usually called the Western omissions... ...they are omitted only by a few manuscripts of the Western group, namely D, certain Old Latin manuscripts, and one or two Old Syriac manuscripts..."
I will follow the same pattern as in the past few weeks. Once again I will quote the verse from the King James Bible. Following this will be notations of Hills. Finally, I will offer my own commentary where appropriate.
Luke 22:19-20 reads, "And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body, which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper; saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you."
"Luke 22:19-20 (the Lord's Supper) from which is given for you to is shed for you..."
The important difference between "given" and "shed" is that the former informs us that the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross was not a bad situation into which He had gotten placed. It was His purpose to offer Himself as the sacrifice for our sin. Anything which would weaken that truth would weaken the witness to the Love of God.
Such a change would also tend to weaken our view of the power of God to control events in the physical world. It would allege that Jesus was a victim rather than a Savior. Again, as in so many of these alterations from spurious texts, the divinity of Jesus is called into question in this manner.
Luke 24:3 reads, "And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus."
"Luke 24:3 (referring to Christ's body) of the Lord Jesus..." [is omitted.]
The disciples were not expecting the Resurrection. They came looking for a specific body; they sought the body of their Master Who had taught them for the previous three years.
Luke 24:6 reads, "He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee."
"Luke 24:6 (the angelic announcement) He is not here but is risen..." [omitted.]
Of course the body of Jesus was not there. The disciples could have been at the wrong tomb. The body could have been stolen. The body could have been eaten by wild animals. There are many reasons why the body might not have been there. We are not left to wonder which of these possibilities existed. The angels told His followers, "He is risen!"
The entire dynamic of the Christian faith is based on the truth that the tomb was empty because Jesus had risen from the dead. Is it honestly possible to accept the possibility that any first century Christian writer would have left that fact out of an account about the empty tomb!
Luke 24:12 reads, "Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre, and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass."
"Luke 24:12 (Peter's journey to the tomb) whole verse omitted..."
Again, this is an instance of one of the disciples, even after hearing the teaching of Jesus for years, not being able to comprehend the meaning of the empty tomb. The disciples did not expect Jesus to rise from the dead.
The resurrection of Jesus was not a mass hallucination by followers who expected Him to do so. It was a fact which was forced upon their unwilling minds and lives.
Luke 24:36 reads, "And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you."
"Luke 24:36 (salutation of the risen Christ) and saith unto them, Peace be unto you..." [omitted.]
These people in this room had just spent three very trying days. First their Leader, the Messiah of God, had been killed by the civil authorities on the recommendation of the religious leaders. From the natural standpoint, they had to wonder whether they might be next! Then the body of this Master was gone from His grave. Angels had said that He had resurrected to life.
Of course, Jesus said, "Peace." Not only is that a polite greeting, it was certainly warranted by the circumstances.
Let us not forget that He had promised to sent peace to His followers. "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid." (John 14:27)
Luke 24:40 reads, "And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet."
"Luke 24:40 (proofs of Christ's resurrection) And when He had thus spoken, He shewed them His hands and His feet." [omitted.]
Some would teach that Jesus did not die on the cross. They will argue that another took His place. Jesus showed His followers that He is the crucified Savior. He is not an impostor!
Luke 24:51 reads, "And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven."
"Luke 24:51 (the ascension of Christ) and was carried up into heaven..." [omitted.]
Jesus had prophesied that certain events would come into actuality only after He had left the scene. 'Nevertheless I tell you the truth, It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you." (John 16:7)
Jesus' preauthorization of the New Testament canon is predicated on the fact that He would leave the physical scene. "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (John 14:26)
Jesus said that the Comforter to come would be a witness of Him. "But, when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me." (John 15:26)
Would there be any purpose served by omitting a reference to the ascension of Jesus to the Father? To leave out this passage is to evidence very sloppy work on the part of the copyist. It also hints at a lack of piety in the individual who would not be certain to include the fact of the Savior's return to the Heavenly realms!
Luke 24:52 reads, "And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy."
"Luke 24:52 (recognition of Christ's deity) worshipped Him, and..." [omitted.]
Only two spiritual entities accept worship from men: God the Creator, and Satan the deceiver. We have noted previously that there are heretical groups which denied the divinity of Jesus. These would be hostile toward any implication that He accepted worship, or was counted worthy by the disciples to have worship extended toward Him.
Hills continues, "The omission of the eight [Western] readings in the R.S.V. and the N.E.B. is certainly not a matter than can be taken lightly, for it means, as far as these two modern versions can make it so, that all reference to the atoning work of Christ has been eliminated. Luke's account of the Lord's Supper (Luke 22:19-20) and that the ascension of Christ into heaven (Luke 24:51) has been entirely removed from the Gospels, Mark's account of the ascension already having been rejected by the critics."
When the defenders of the newer versions, based on faulty texts, which deny that God either has the power, or the will, to preserve His Word, say that there are no doctrinal differences, they are wrong! The redeeming work of Jesus is an important doctrine which has been silenced from the Gospel accounts, that is a core difference!
Hills also points out some intellectual dishonesty on the part of the modern critics. "The ascension of Christ into heaven is another important Western omission which the R.S.V. and the N.E.B. have wrongly relegated to the footnotes. The words and was carried up into heaven are not found in 'some' documents or 'many' documents, as these two modernistic versions misleadingly state in their footnotes, but in all the New Testament documents except for those few mentioned above [Aleph, D, the Old Latin and the Sinaitic Syriac]."
Remember, this ruse that the "oldest and best" do not agree with the Traditional Text which underlies the King James Bible, is a lie. The real meaning may refer to some of the oldest; but, they are far from the best when a small percentage of the manuscripts disagree with the vast majority of the evidence from antiquity!
Hills points out that the acceptance of these omissions evidences a faulty, possibly biased, critical judgment. Westcott and Hort argued that the Western Omissions were "...interpolations which had been added to the text..." in those majority texts where they appeared. However, all eight of these omission are found in Papyrus 75. "...it is hard to see how all these readings could have made their way into so early a witness as Papyrus 75..." unless they were true readings.
The changing nature of the critical view of the unchanging Word is illustrated, as Hills notes, in the attitude of the critic toward these omissions. "Because these eight omitted readings have been found to occur in Papyrus 75, critics are now changing their minds about them. Kurt Aland (1966), for example [Neue Neutestamentliche Papri II], has restored these Western omissions to the text of the Nestle New Testament. Hence the R.S.V., the N.E.B., and other modern versions which omit them are already out of date. And this rapid shifting of opinion shows us how untrustworthy naturalistic textual criticism is."
Untrustworthy, indeed! How can we be expected to trust the eternal destiny of our immortal souls to an uncertain word of a unpowerful, or uncaring, God Who could not, or would not, preserve His important Word to mankind!
In Believing Bible Study, Hills further remarks that the Western text-type should not be considered as a reliable text. "...there is no convincing reason for regarding either the Western text or the Alexandrian text as the true New Testament text. On the contrary, there are many grounds for believing that both these texts being usually characterized by additions and the Alexandrian by omissions."
We can only gather a "know so" salvation by appealing to a "know so" Word from God. This we have in the preserved text which underlies our King James Bibles.
24 February 2006
THE OLD MSS. (Continued)
Today we are going to take a very short look at Codex W. Codex W is a very old witness. It is from the same era as are the two, supposedly, "oldest and best" upon which the newer English versions are based. Therefore, Codex W stands as an interesting witness to what was the state of the art among the scribes and copyist's of the day in which Aleph and B were composed.
Of Codex W, Hills notes that "[Codex W] contains the Four Gospels in the Western order, Matthew, John, Luke, Mark. In John and the first third of Luke the text is Alexandrian in character. In Mark the text is of the Western type in the first five chapters and of a mixed 'Caesarean' type in the remaining chapters. The special value of W however, lies in the last two thirds of Luke. Here the text is traditional (Byzantine) of a remarkably pure type."
Codex W is another of the witnesses from Egypt. Since the three text types are combined, it is obvious that all three were available to the copyist. To me, this presents two problems with placing any real reliance upon the Egyptian manuscripts.
The first problem is the lack of adherence to any one textual type. It suggests a lack of fervor for the pure text of the autographs in the work of the copyist. He feels free to pick and choose just which sort of text he might wish to pursue at any place. This, as with the modern critic, means that his view of the Words of God was tempered by his view of what he might think the words should have been rather than what they might have been.
The second problem has to do with the theory of Westcott and Hort that the Traditional Text was a falsely constructed text made by ecclesiastical authorities in a fourth century revision. It was upon this theory, you may recall, that Westcott and Hort were able to jettison the preserved Text for an eclectic text of their own construction based on a small percentage of ancient, but demonstrably false, texts.
Hills, again, expands upon this latter problem.
"The discovery of W tends to disprove the thesis of Westcott and Hort that the Traditional Text is a fabricated text which was put together in the 4th century by a group of scholars residing at Antioch. ...Codex W is a very ancient manuscript. B. P. Hernfell [The Washington Manuscript of the Four Gospels] regarded as 'probably fourth century.'"
Hills continues,
"If the Traditional Text had been invented at Antioch in the 4th century, how would it have found its way into Egypt and thence into Codex W so soon thereafter? Why would the scribe of W, writing in the 4th or 5th century, have adopted this newly fabricated text in Matthew and Luke in preference to other texts which (according to Hort's hypothesis) were older and more familiar to him? Thus the presence of the Traditional Text in W indicates that this text is a very ancient text and that it was known in Egypt before the 4th century."
It is also obvious, of course, that the Alexandrian (a product of Egypt) and the Western text types were known to the scribe. The fact is that the age of a witness has little to do with the purity of that witness. Many of the most onerous errors were introduced quite early. The Gnostics, for example, were not slow to adapt the message of Scripture to fit their own theological bent.
To assume that "the oldest is best" in matters of textual criticism is to, quite often, assume that the worst is best. It would be much more reasonable to assume that the text which God has preserved is best. All others are suspect if God is, honestly, in charge of His Own Message!
Hills continues that a look at Codex A (Codex Alexandrius - 5th century) contains Alexandrian text of the B and Aleph type in the acts and Epistles, but in the Gospels, "...it agrees generally with the Traditional Text." Not only does it point to an early date for the Traditional Text, it is "...another witness to the early presence of the Traditional Text upon the Egyptian scene."
It is not alleged that the Traditional Text never was available to the Egyptian scribes. It is only noted that these scribes were not slow to change the pure text in an effort to make it seem more reasonable to their minds and theology.
Next week we will begin to look at some of the influence of Origen upon those scribes and copyists who made these changes to the pure, God preserved, Text.
Bible Study for February
2006