THE OLD MSS. (Continued)
This week we will look at some of the heretical passages which Hills (The King James Version Defended) has pointed out as having been made by the Alexandrian text type.
As with last week, I will make a few introductory remarks to avoid unnecessary confusion: The abbreviation "Pap" refers to Papyrus, with the number by which that papyrus is known following it. The abbreviation "WH" refers to the work of Westcott and Hort. These men were responsible for the English revision of 1881. Their work has been the basis of the newer translations which have abandoned the preserved Traditional Text with the mindset that God's True Word was lost to His churches for over a thousand years.
The designation "B" is given to the Vaticanus, while "Aleph" refers to the Sinaiticus. These two are the oft mentioned "oldest and best" which are referenced in the margin of most of your Bibles as overriding the Traditional Text of the King James Bible. While we agree that these two are among the oldest testimonies, we will see that they are far from the "best."
I will quote the verse from the King James Bible. Then, in quotation marks, I will list the comment of Hills on each of these verses. Finally, I will add some small comment of my own about the deviation from the Traditional, preserved, Text.
Luke 23:42 reads, "And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise."
"In Luke 23:42, according to the Traditional Text and the Old Latin and Sinaitic Syriac, the prayer of the dying thief was, Lord, remember me when Thou comest in Thy kingdom. But according to the Alexandrian text (represented by Papyrus 75, Aleph, B, D, L, and the Sahidic), the thief said, Jesus, remember me when Thou comest in Thy kingdom. Modern critics insist that the latter reading is the original one, but is this at all a reasonable hypothesis? The dying thief recognizes Jesus as the messianic King; he is praying to Him for pardon and mercy. Would it be at all natural for the thief to address his new found King rudely and familiarly as Jesus? Surely not. Surely he must have commenced his dying prayer with the vocative, Lord! In the Alexandrian text this prayer has been tampered with by the docetists, who believed that the divine "Christ" returned to heaven just before the crucifixion, leaving only the human Jesus to suffer and die. In accordance with this belief they made the thief to address the Saviour not as Lord but asJesus."
I might note, also, that this is just one of the passages where the doctrine of the deity of Jesus has been watered down in the modern versions. It amazes me that the defenders of the newer versions, mostly patterned upon these Alexandrian texts, will say that their works are "easier to understand." Yet, they will also argue - about passages such as this, that "all the doctrine is still in there. You just have to search harder to find it."
Which is it? Is it easier or harder? Or, is it just plain wrong!
John 3:13 says, "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."
"In John 3:13 the Traditional Text reads with the Old Latin and Sinaitic Syriac, No man hath ascended up to heaven but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man who is in heaven. But the Alexandrian text (represented by papyri 66 and 75, Aleph, B, etc.) omits the clause who is in heaven. This mutilation of the sacred text ought also, no doubt, be charged to heretics hostile to the deity of Christ."
This verse is one of the clearest teachings of the divinity and eternality of Jesus. The natural mind would rebel at the thought that this same Jesus, Who was speaking to a man in first century earth, would reside in Heaven at that same time! But, to the God of the Universe, this is a simple statement of fact. We need not understand (Indeed, often can not understand!) all that God has said. By the understanding of faith we simply accept His Word as true.
I do not understand the Spanish language. To me it is mere gibberish. I am wrong. Spanish is a language used by people around the world to communicate, study, enjoy life, all the things I do with the English language. My understanding, or lack thereof, does not diminish the truth of the Spanish language. Neither does my lack of understanding of all things spiritual diminish the truth of things Heavenly.
God doesn't have to clear things with my intellect to make them true! His Scripture is a Teacher to my soul of things I would not otherwise know.
John 9:35 reads, "Jesus heard that they had cast him out: and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?"
"In John 9:35, according to the Traditional Text and the Old Latin version, Jesus asks the blind man, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? But, according to the Western and Alexandrian texts (represented by Papyri 66 and 75, Aleph, B., D, the Sinaitic Syriac), Jesus' question is, Dost thou believe on the Son of Man? Tischendorf and Von Soden reject this Western-Alexandrian reading. Very probably because it represents an attempt on the part of heretics to lower Christ's claim to deity."
Once again a very subtle change. Just one word - three letters - and the whole meaning of the passage is changed. That is just one reason why we need to know that we have the Word which God originally inspired. To allege that the Word was lost and, hopefully, reconstituted to the best of man's ability - the same race of man who was originally responsible for that Word being lost! - is to admit that we can not know with any degree of certainty what it is that God has said!
What a weak faith this view engenders!
John 9:38-39 says, "And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him. And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind."
"John 9:38-39 And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped Him. And Jesus said... These words are omitted by Papyrus 75, Aleph, W, Old Latin manuscripts b 1 and the 4th-century Coptic manuscript Q. The confession of the blind man can scarcely have been left out accidentally. Its absence from those documents goes far toward proving that this passage was tampered with in ancient times by heretics."
This is possibly the most important omission made by Satan in his reworking of the preserved Word of God. Romans 10:17 tells us, "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."
Satan does not want us to have the complete and preserved Word of God. That is from whence the root of the modern translations is planted and grows. Tischendorf was searching for a witness closer to the originals when he found the Siniaticus. Why was he doing this? He did not believe in the preservation of the Scripture. Westcott and Hort were both ardent opponents of the Traditional Text even before they composed the new text for the revision of 1881.
Sadly, many men who are good and otherwise sound have been taught the lie that God could not, or did not, preserve His Word. From this camp come the modern translations based on eclectic texts of man made origin. Considering the doctrine of the preservation of the Scripture to be unacceptable to their human egos, they have fallen into reconstruction with the use of ancient texts which are, quite often, those of heretical groups.
Consider just what was left out of that passage. "But what saith it? The word is nigh thee even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart, that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed." (Romans 10:8-11)
What is left out of this passage in John 9:38-39 is the confession of belief in Jesus Christ. Wow! Do you think that Satan would appreciate this being left out? No kidding! It is primarily from this character of witnesses that the modern translations are based.
Unbelief, the doubt that the goodness and power of God would preserve His Own Word, begets unbelief. Unbelief will not consider to confess that Jesus is Lord!
Some of the Pharisees asked a question in the very next verse: "And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?" (John 9:40) The same question could be asked by some of the fundamentalist leadership who argue for a weak God and an uncertain Word.
John 19:5 reads, "Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man!"
"In John 19:5 Papyrus 66 omits the following famous sentence, And he saith unto them, Behold the man. Four Old Latin manuscripts and the Coptic manuscript Q also omit this reading. This omission seems to be a mutilation of the sacred text at the hands of heretics, probably Gnostics. They seem to have disliked the idea that Christ, whom they regarded as exclusively a heavenly Being, actually became a man and was crucified."
There are those, even in this day, who consider the "Christ spirit" to have resided on several religious leaders throughout history. Some will argue that this "spirit" came upon the human Jesus at His baptism.
Jesus was unique in the history of the universe. He was (IS!) God in human form. I Peter 2:24 reminds us of the unique Savior. "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins; should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed."
Jesus died as a man so that He could pay the price for our sins. Jesus rose as the God He is to display the power which He, alone, possessed to perform that redemptive act.
I Timothy 3:16 reveals, "And without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."
"In I Tim. 3:16 the Traditional Text reads, God was manifest in the flesh, with A (according to Scrivener), C (according to the 'almost supernaturally accurate' [Lake - The text of the New Testament] (Hoskier), (Ignatius), (Barnabas), (Hippolytus), Didymus, Gregory of Nyssa, and Chrysostom. The Alexandrian Text (represented by Aleph) reads who was manifest in the flesh, and the Western Text (represented by D2 and the Latin versions) reads, which was manifest in the flesh. Undoubtedly the Traditional reading, God was manifest in the flesh, was the original reading. This was altered by the Gnostics into the Western readings, which was manifest in the flesh, in order to emphasize their favorite idea of mystery. Then this Western reading was later changed into the meaningless Alexandrian reading, who was manifest in the flesh."
Notice, once again, the diminished respect paid to the deity of Jesus.
The point to emphasized, by me at least, is the progression of changes. Look at the abandon of man to change the Word of God when he is predisposed to disagree with that Word.
Too many of the modern fundamentalists have decided that they can not accept a God Who has preserved His Word. To justify their preconception they have sought the works of heretic and sinner to bolster their arguments.
Might it not be better to just say, "Thus saith the Lord?" He did, after all.
13 January 2006
THE OLD MSS. (Continued)
If you will look in the footnotes, or margins, at the end of the Book of Mark, you will find a little fiction masquerading as a help to your understanding of the Word of God. This fiction is that the last part of the sixteenth chapter of the Book is an insertion. The footnotes will generally ascribe this supposed fact to "the oldest and best manuscripts."
The two "oldest and best" are, of course, the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus. These two, both dating back to the fourth century A.D., are among the oldest. That much is true. But the best? That much is not true.
Later in this study we will have an entire section dedicated to the so-called "problem passages" such as the ending of Mark. We will see that these are not "problems" unless one is willing to jettison the Traditional Text with the fiction that the Word of God is not preserved by the providence of God.
When Westocott and Hort commandeered the revision committee of 1881, they had the purpose of supplanting the Traditional Text as the base text of the Bible. Again, we will dedicate a section to this later in this study.
One of the ways which these two led that revision committee to discard the Traditional Text was with a fabricated story about an earlier Great Revision of all the New Testament copies available to the churches. They argued that a great church council had edited the text of the New Testament, and decreed that all succeeding copies be made according to this new standard. Only a few (primarily Vaticanus, but also Sinaiticus) were spared from this revision. These two were considered to be a "neutral" text which was not sullied by error and revision. Thus, when they constructed their new text, in 1881, Westcott and Hort relied heavily upon these sources since they considered the Traditional Text to be flawed.
This fiction ignores two very important facts. On the one hand they argued that their theory meant that the True Text had been lost to God's churches for over one thousand years. In this intervening time period, apparently, God had honored a false text with His blessing.
Also, they ignored the fact that history has no record, or even hint, of such an early church council which would have so tampered with the Sacred Story.
The amazing, but sad, fact is that almost without fail, the editors of the newer translations of Scripture have accepted the basic theories of Westcott and Hort. They have tried to assign the God preserved Traditional Text to an ash heap of history.
The preserved Word of God abides despite the attacks of the critics, and Her pseudo champions who deny the power of God to preserve His Own Word.
This week we are going to look at some comparisons between these two "neutral" texts and consider their purity and usefulness.
Dr. David Otis Fuller (Which Bible?) makes this observation about these two texts:
"One's faith in the 'Neutral' Text ought to be shaken or strained if one would pour over the many pages which list in detail more than three thousand real differences between the texts of B and Aleph in the four Gospels alone!"
Did you notice that fact? There are over "three thousand real differences between the texts" of these two ancient manuscripts which are purported to be a pure rendition of the original message of the New Testament text!
The Traditional Text is said to be wrong because of a revision. The "true" text is said to reside in witnesses that are at odds with one another in thousands of instances. Fuller, again (True or False), notes that disregarding minor errors "such as spelling," B and Aleph disagree with each other more than 3000 times. "Now one or the other has to be wrong 3,000 places - it is simply a matter of mathematics."
Fuller continues, "...[in the Gospels alone] B has 598 readings quite peculiar to itself, affecting 858 words - Aleph has 2460 such readings affection 2640 words."
This is an astounding fact. Consider that it is from this that the true text is said to be found. This is a text at war with itself. The purity and reliability of the Traditional Text is shunted aside and this new text, with very little in the way of continuity, is considered to be what the God of Reason had given to mankind.
Might I ask a silly question? Why did God allow His pure Word to be kept in such disarray while He allowed a false text (according to the modern scholars) to remain so direct and synchronously preserved? I ask you, did God inspire His Word because the message was important to mankind? If so, would he have allowed such confusion in the transmission of His message as to allow over 3000 differences, in the Gospels alone, to have reign in His two most important witnesses?
Fuller, again, concludes that, "The impurity of the texts exhibited by Codices B an Aleph is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact."
Yet, these two witnesses, B and Aleph, are among the oldest. Why?
It is true that the texts of the churches were valuable commodities. They were used, and often used up, only to be replaced by true copies. Often the templates were burned, or buried, much as in the way that old, and soiled, U. S. flags are ceremonially dispatched in our day.
Other copies of the Scripture were often confiscated, and burned, during persecutions. By the way, these persecutions did not end with the fall of the Roman Empire. As Satan rolled out his wrath against the Living Word of God, so also does he attack the Written Word of God. The modern versions are simply a tactical change which Satan has made in his endeavor to destroy the preserved Word of God.
I, honestly, believe this to be true even as I, honestly, believe that many good Christians have been duped by the tempter to discard that preserved Word in response to the wiles of that "roaring lion." (see I Peter 5:8)
About the fact that these two witnesses are still in existence, the question must be asked as to why they have survived when others of their age have not survived.
Fuller gives an answer. I tend to agree with his assessment.
"...we suspect that these two manuscripts are indebted for their preservation, solely to their ascertained evil character, which has occasioned that the one eventually found its way, four centuries ago, to a forgotten shelf in the Vatican library, while the other, after several generations of critical correctors, eventually (viz. in A. D. 1844) got deposited in the waste paper basket of the convent at the foot of Mount Sinai. Had A and Aleph been copies of average purity, they must long since have shared the inevitable fate of books which are freely used and highly prized."
It is known that when Constantine decided to use the name of the Christian churches for political purposes in his empire, he commissioned that fifty copies of the Scripture be produced for his state church. It is argued, by many, that these two are representative of those so produced.
Rather than representing, in this view, the great purity of the originally inspired Scriptural record, these two are then seen as a limited group produced to further temporal ends.
Rather or not the above is true, it must be argued, as did Fuller, that, "...we are constrained to regard them [B and Aleph] as little more than a single reproduction of one and the same scandalously corrupt and (comparatively) late copy."
To give them the enormous weight of evidence, as have the more modern versions, is not warranted by the facts.
Indeed, any argument which would suggest that the precious Word of God was denied to His churches for over a thousand years should be rejected simply because this is not representative of the love and care, as well as the power, of God toward his created humanity. If He cared enough to inspire His message it seems obvious that He would care enough to make that message available to His servants and churches.
Fuller, again, asks the question, "...how is it that these MSS have survived for upwards of 1500 years? It is clear that they were not heavily used for they would have been worn out."
Fuller continues, "Judging by the copies we have, great age in a manuscript should arouse our suspicion rather than reverence."
I would also argue that any copy of supposed Scripture which does violence to the Word which God has preserved, should be more than suspect. It should be rejected! This is simply in response to the picture of God as revealed in the True Scripture.
Next week we will begin a more in depth look at the Vaticanus (B) and, if we have time, also the Sinaiticus (Aleph).
20 January 2006
THE OLD MSS. (Continued)
Of the two so-called "oldest and best" manuscripts of Scripture from antiquity, the primary source lies in the Vaticanus. This witness is usually designated as "B." Westcott and Hort argued that this was a "pure" text which had somehow escaped an ecclesiastically sponsored revision.
This "revision," neither mentioned nor alluded to in history, is a method used by Westcott, Hort, and others of their ilk, to explain why the vast majority (between 85% and 95% depending on the expert consulted) of the witnesses of antiquity follow the wording of the Traditional Text.
This is a tacit admission on the part of the revisors that the base text which underlies the King James Bible, and the base text which underlies the newer versions, is not the same text. That much of their argument would be undeniably true.
But, if this is true - and if their postulate of a revision and rediscovery of the inspired Text is also true - we can reach no other conclusion than to admit that the true text of the Scripture was hidden from God's people, and God's churches, for over one thousand years since the Traditional Text and the "restored text" are not one-in-the-same. If one Text is correct, the other text must be false. Two conflicting views may occupy the same debate stage; but, two conflicting truths cannot occupy the same space of veracity. If one is true, the other must be false. Two and two equals four. Two and two cannot, therefore, equal six.
There are many areas where the truth may be in doubt. This is not one of those situations. If one Text must be true, then one text must be, therefore and by definition, false.
Since our contention is that, 1) God has inspired His Message to mankind; 2), God thus used supernatural means to deliver this message; and, 3) That message must be important or it would not have been given. Therefore, we believe that God's message is necessary to our understanding of the things which God wants us to know.
Further, we would argue, 1) God has the power to preserve His message if He so chose; 2) Since this message is, by definition, important to the creature of humanity God would choose to preserve that Text; and, 3) The goodness and holiness of God would require that this message be understandably God's Words to man. Therefore, we believe that God's message would lie in the witness which has survived throughout the history of His churches rather than witnesses which lay hidden for about one thousand years.
With these two assertions in mind, we must conclude that any witness which disagrees with the Traditional Text cannot be a true text. It must, by definition, be a false text.
"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." (Revelation 22:18-19)
It could be argued that the above verses apply only to the prophecy which was revealed to John. However, this prophecy is generally acknowledged as the last Book written by the Apostles of Jesus. The date (@ 90-95 A.D.) would place this Book as the ending of the Canonical Books inspired of God for His churches. These statements would seem to be a logical and fitting final argument to keep His Text pure.
Another argument to consider this passage as applicable to the entire Library of God, is that God given principles demand that what one portion of Scripture places as Truth be considered as Truth in all portions of Scripture. God does not change. He is the True, and Singular, Author of the Scripture. Therefore, it is reasonable, Biblical!, to apply this passage to all Scripture.
With these things in mind, it is not a giant leap of logic to understand that any text which is in consistent variance with the Preserved Text of God, is not a true text. It is a flawed and, spiritually, polluted text.
Fuller (True or False) puts some numbers to the variances between the Vaticanus and the Traditional texts. He argues that, in the Gospel accounts alone, the Vaticanus differed from the Traditional by omitting 2,877 words, adding 536 words, transposing 2,098 words, modifying 1,132 words, and exhibits a total of "7,578 verbal divergences" whereby words that merely have a similar sound are substituted for the proper preserved words.
Fuller further a notes that the "Sinaiticus is even worse, for its total divergences in the particulars stated above amount to nearly nine thousand."
We will discuss the Sinaiticus more fully later.
Ruckman (How Are New Bible Translations Alike?) notes that the Vaticanus "...leaves out whole words or whole clauses no less than 1,491 times..."
As for some of those portions left out, Ruckman notes that this witness culled from the Vatican Library, "...conveniently omits part of Hebrews... which declare that there is no further need for a priesthood, [and] that Christ's sacrifice is done for all time..."
These parts so left out are instructive in that what they have to say about certain practices of the Roman church. The confessional is a lonely room where a person stands before the priest to confess his sins and be given penance to perform for the absolution of those sins. The Bible, however, teaches that Jesus is our Mediator. It is to Him that we confess our sins and receive forgiveness. (see I Timothy 2:5)
The Roman churches considers the elements of the Eucharist to be the very body and blood of Jesus rather than a memorial to His death. (see I Corinthians 11:24) In this manner they see Jesus as offering Himself up, during the mass, as an offering whereby grace is obtained for the people of the Church. Compare this practice with Hebrews 7:27 where it is said of Jesus, "Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself."
Now I would like to look at two instances where Hills (The King James Version Defended) has pointed out false textual alterations in the Vaticanus. I will follow the same procedure as I have in the last two weeks: First the verses will be listed from the King James Bible; then the comments of Hills will be listed; then I will make a short comment of my own in relation to these passages.
The first of these examples actually concerns three verses:
Mark 9:29 reads, "And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting."
Acts 10:30 reads, "And Cornelius said, Four days ago I was fasting until this hour; and at the ninth hour I prayed in my house, and, behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing."
I Corinthians 7:5 reads, "Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency."
"In Mark 9:29, Acts 10:30, and I Cor. 7:5, Aleph, B and their allies omit fasting. These omissions are probably due to the influence of Clement of Alexandria and other Gnostics, who interpreted fasting in a spiritual sense and were opposed to literal fasting..."
Note again the witness of the Gnostic hand in the Alexandrian text. Fasting is a physical offering to God which can enhance our spiritual lives. As with any work, it should only be conducted with the leading of the Spirit of God. To do any work in the flesh, if it is done in our own power and volition, is an affront to God.
How could fasting, often commanded by the Scripture, ever be wrong? After all, fasting is putting our bodies and emotions in subjection. Shouldn't that be to the glory of God?
It can be as wrong as is the casting out of evil spirits as recorded in the Book of Acts. Look at this passage from chapter nineteen of Acts:
"And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul: so that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons; and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them. Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by the Jesus who Paul preacheth. And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so. And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye? And the man in whom the evil spirits was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded." (Acts 19:11-16)
Do you see? Even a normally good thing, if it is done in our own spirit rather than in His Spirit, is wrong. We are not the master's of our Lord. We never pray, even after - or while, fasting, "Lord, I deserve..." We deserve nothing but condemnation. It is only the grace and love of God which is our thankful portion.
We do not perform good, or religious, works to gain His favor. We only respond to the fact that, "For the LORD is good, his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations." (Psalm 100:5)
The last part of that verse says, "...his truth endureth to all generations." To attempt to change the preserved Word of God because of a doctrinal dispute with that verse, is always wrong. It is an affront to the God of that Word.
To make changes in the preserved Word of God so that It will agree with texts polluted with Gnostic readings is a terrible affront to the God of that Word. It is a rejection of His Goodness in giving the pure Word. It is a rejection of His Power in preserving that pure Word. It is a rejection His Doctrines as laid forth in that preserved and pure Word.
I Corinthians 11:24 reads, "And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me."
"In I Cor. 11:24 Aleph, B and their allies read, This is my body which is for you, omitting broken, either for Gnostic reasons or to avoid a supposed contradiction with John 19:33ff. Many denominations have adopted this mutilated reading in their communion liturgies, but it makes no sense. Even Moffett and the R.S.V. editors recognized this fact and so retained the traditional reading, broken for you."
I've listed my objections to the Gnostic reasoning above. I do consider that this is the reason that the text was changed in these Alexandrian texts. However, Origen - one of the chiefest of the Alexandrian editors, believed that nothing in Scripture should violate his own human reasoning. He, therefore, was quick to change passages - correct, he would argue - with which he had problems.
Let us take a look at the verses from John with which the Alexandrian editors may have seen conflict:
"But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe. For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken." (John 19:33-36)
What are those passages which were fulfilled? Jesus was crucified at the time of the Passover. The Passover Lamb is a type, or symbol, of Jesus Whose blood was shed so that others might not face spiritual death. Exodus 12:46 says, of the Passover lamb, "In one house shall it be eaten; thou shalt not carry forth ought of the flesh abroad out of the house; neither shall ye break a bone thereof."
When the lamb was eaten, it's flesh became part of the person who consumed the meat. When Jesus is accepted as Savior, He comes to reside in our life. He become part of our reality.
The lamb was once offered. It was completely offered and not to be carried forth from that place. Jesus was once offered. (see Hebrews 9:28) We are not to carry forth relics of His sacrifice; rather, we are to carry forth the remembrance of the salvation He has given.
The salient point in our present discussion, however, is that not a bone in the sacrifice was to be broken. The same was to be true of the Perfect Sacrifice of which the Passover was only a shadow.
Psalms 34:20 is a Messianic passage, as attested to by the reference the Holy Spirit made in the above inspired passage in John, which says, "He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken."
Well, if the above prophecies are true, and the Traditional Text passage in I Corinthians 11:24 is at seeming odds with these prophecies, isn't the Traditional Text wrong at this point? Scofield, of the venerable Scofield Reference Bible, actually - in his marginal notes - makes the argument that this is so.
It is not so!
God's Word is not wrong, nor contradictory! When we see a supposed contradiction we must yield our own intellect to God and accept that He is right.
This verse is not even a very serious example of a supposed contradiction. The Bible very plainly says that there was not a bone broken in the body of the Savior in His ordeal upon the cross. But, the Bible also says that His body was broken. Both are medically true!
The great violence of the agony of crucifixion would tear bones out of their sockets. This is not "broken bones;" it is "dislocated bones." The diaphragm with which one breathes would also be torn. This is why the legs would be broken to hasten death. With the diaphragm broken one would have to find another way to expand and contract the chest cavity to facilitate breathing. Flexing the legs would do this. Therefore, to break the legs would be to hasten death by asphyxiation.
Since Jesus was already dead, the Roman soldiers saw no need to break His legs.
It is good that we trust the Goodness of God in preserving His Own Word. Paul did this when he referenced the Gospel accounts of Jesus' suffering. John did this when he referenced the Old Testament prophecies concerning the death of the Savior. Both showed a trust in a preserved Scripture.
Next week we will begin a look into the Sinaiticus.
27 January 2006
THE OLD MSS. (Continued)
Last week we looked at the Vaticanus manuscript. This week we will begin to take a look at the Sinaiticus. These are the two "oldest and best" that rate reference in the marginal and footnotes of your Bible. They often, quite often!, disagree with the Traditional Text which underlies our King James Bibles.
I will agree that they are the oldest; I cannot possibly agree that they are even among the best witnesses from antiquity as to the inspired Word of God.
I have heard it said that there is only about one half of a page of differences between the Traditional Text and the Hort/Westcott/eclectic texts of the new English translations. I invite you to take a short walk down the center column references in your Bibles. Peruse, especially the ending of the Book of Mark and the incident of the woman taken in adultery in John, chapter eight. I think you'll have to agree that it would take a very small type setting to confine all of the differences into only one half of a page!
I also think that this little trip will convince you that the base line text of the newer English versions, and the Traditional Text of the King James Bible, are not the same texts!
I heard it said that the Monastery of St. Catherine's, where the Sinaiticus of Tischendorf was found in the burning barrel, has among it's treasures from antiquity, a letter from the Moslem prophet, Mohammed, in which he promises safety for this monastery.
I don't know whether or not this story of the letter is true or not. But, if it is true it is quite instructive. The Moslem scripture would argue that the Christian Scripture has been altered and is not the same as that which was first penned by the prophets and apostles. Had Mohammed compared the Sinaiticus manuscript, and the manuscript of the preserved Scripture, he could have reached no other conclusions due to the differences between the two.
That, interestingly enough, is the same argument made by the purveyors of the newer translations which are based on the eclectic texts. They, too, argue that the Scripture of the New Testament has changed much. Rather than ascribing to a doctrine of preserved Scripture, they hold to a doctrinal belief in a perverted scripture.
They are, of course, correct. But, the perverted scripture is that from which they take their correcting pens and attack the true preserved Scripture of the Traditional Text.
Ruckman (How Are New Bible Translations Alike?), after noting that Tischendorf found the Sinaiticus in a wastebasket at the monastery, notes that:
"Since [the Codex Sinaiticus] was of the 4th Century, Tischendorf, deceived by the outmoded philosophy 'older is better,' immediately altered his 7th edition of the Greek New Testament in over 3,500 places. He had claimed that his 7th edition (1856-1859) had been perfect and could not be superseded. His 8th edition (1865-1872), based primarily on Aleph, was apparently 3,500 times more perfect!"
Tischendorf was not a friend of the doctrine of a preserved Scripture. The fact that he was at the monastery, looking for old manuscripts, was his predisposition to believe that the true text of Scripture had been altered by many hands down through the centuries. He was attempting to trace the text back to its original purity.
He could have saved many miles of travel by simply accepting that God had the power, and the inclination, to preserve His Own important message to His churches and His people!
Fuller notes (Which Bible?) that Tischendorf at one point, and, "...at the request of a French publishing house, Firmin Didot, ...edited an edition of the Greek New Testament for Catholics, conforming it to the Latin Vulgate."
Since the Latin Vulgate was, essentially, a product of the Alexandrian text, as is the Sinaiticus, these two would be often in agreement.
It is interesting, also, to note of the Sinaiticus that the many alterations within this text show it to have been known, by its owners over the centuries, to be deficient. Strange that modern critics do not share this assessment.
Fuller (True or False) quotes Dr. Scrivener on this subject. Dr. Scrivener was a member of the committee which produced the revision of 1881.
"Dr. Scrivener published [in 1864] 'A Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus,' with an explanatory introduction in which he states, among other facts of interest, that 'the Codex is covered with such alterations' - i.e. Alterations of an obviously correctional character - 'brought in by at least ten different revisers, some of them systematically spread over every page, others occasional, or limited to separate portions of the Ms., many of these being contemporaneous with the first writer, but for the greater part belonging to the sixth or seventh century."
The point of bringing this witness to the discussion is to show that the revisers of the Hort/Westcott group fully understood the character of the Codex which they used, in large part, to supplant the Traditional Text of the King James Bible. They did not, in this case at least, simply look at the Codex, ascertain its great age, and then assume that it must be a pure text. They looked at this Codex, saw the many corrections which gave evidence to the opinion held of the fidelity of this Codex to its Scriptural forebearers by even those of the day it was produced, and proceeded to pronounce it as among the best that had ever been found.
This displays a willful predisposition to change the preserved Word of God rather than to submit to that Sacred Page.
Also, about the changes so made to the Sinaiticus, Mooreman (Tape - The Battle for the Doctrinal Heart) observed:
"Around 1938 the British Museum looked at many of the hundreds of corrections in Sinaiticus. Many of the corrections were of the same time as the original writing - corrections made immediately. Others were much later. But, by a 5 - 2 ratio, these corrections moved toward the readings of the Received Text."
That is an interesting fact to consider, as well. The correctors, including early ones, continually - and somewhat consistently - worked to move the text of Sinaiticus toward the template of the preserved Word.
Still, the revisors have continued to move the text of the preserved Word toward a flawed reading based on Alexandrian aberrations.
Of those correctors, and the owners of the codex, Fuller (True or False) continued:
"Considering the great value to its [the Sinaiticus'] owner of such a manuscript [it is on vellum of the finest quality] and that he would be most reluctant to consent to alterations in it except the need was clearly apparent, it is plain that this much admired Codex bears upon its face the most incontestable proof of its corrupt and defective character."
Fuller continues, later in his work:
"...condemning Codex Aleph [Sinaiticus] ... At least ten different Revisers from the 5th century downwards had labored to remedy the scandalously corrupt condition of a text which, 'as it proceeded from the first scribe,' even Tregelles describes as 'very rough.'"
Such is the history, and background, of one of the oldest and best witnesses listed in the margins of your Bible as an authority to change the changeless Word of God.
Would you accept, on face value, the witness of such a one as this in a court of law?
Neither should we accept this as a witness to the lack of power, or goodness, of God in preserving His Own Word!
Next week we will begin to look a little closer at some of the contents of the Sinaiticus.
for
January 2006