THE OLD MSS. (Continued)
I took a break from preparing this weeks study. I went to the kitchen to eat lunch. While there I turned on a T.V. to catch the midday news. There, being interviewed was a man hawking his new book. The premise of the book was that there are so many conflicting manuscripts of Biblical portions that it is impossible to know what the original words were. Thus, he concluded that we have no record that we can trust of the Scripture.
I turned off the T.V. I should have left it on for a little longer as I was not able to ascertain if this man were a rank liberal or a fundamentalist from one of our bulwark Bible colleges. A few years ago a man from one of our premier fundamentalist colleges was reported to say, �Can we speak of our Bibles today as inspired? In the technical sense, we cannot.� Later he continued, �God could have preserved his word but history proves he did not.�
What, I might ask, is the effectual difference between the words of an agnostic, deriding the Bible, and the words of a professor at a fundamentalist Bible College? Are not the words of both men designed to promote a lack of faith in the concept of an inspired and preserved Word of God? Which person is more likely to adversely affect the faith and trust of our young theological students: the words of the enemy clothed as an agnostic, or the words of an enemy clothed in the robes of a fundamentalist theologian?
Gipp (An Understandable History of the Bible) says:
�The Majority Text has been known throughout history by several names. It has been known as the Byzantine Text, the Imperial Text, the Traditional Text, and the Reformation Texts, as well as Majority Text. This text culminates in the Textus Receptus or �Received Text� which is the basis for the King James Bible, which we know also as the Authorized Version.�
It would be reasonable to assume that the correct text would reside in the depository which has been held by the historic churches which were true to the Lord throughout the centuries. This is the Traditional Text.
It would be reasonable to assume that the correct text would not reside in that manuscript tradition which belittled the written Word by assigning the tradition of their church an equal place in the formation of doctrine and policy.
It would be reasonable to assume that the correct text would reside in those manuscripts, the vast majority, which follow the same wording sequence as a matter of course. This is the Traditional Text.
It would be reasonable to assume that the same God Who felt His message as so important as to inspire that message, would also be inclined to preserve those important Words.
These things should be obvious to even one who paid only lip service to the concept of trust in God.
We discussed the concept of �families� of texts last week. Each �family� gives evidence to the template from which it was drawn. A template which was produced by a sloppy copyist will produce offspring which are singularly corrupt - even though they tend to agree among themselves. A template produced by a Gnostic group will produce offspring which bear the taint of Gnostic readings. A template which was faithfully copied from the originals would tend to produce offspring which are true to the original Words which God inspired.
Of the Traditional Text, Hills (Believing Bible Study) has said:
�The vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts belong to this family... The Pershitta Syriac version and the Gothic version ... [as well as] quotations of Chrysostom and other fathers of Antioch and Asia Minor seem generally to agree with the Traditional text.�
This being true, and it is, one who wished to �reconstruct� the original wording, if he were not predisposed to lack the faith that God has preserved His Words, would seem likely to work among the evidence of the Traditional Text family. Unfortunately, this has not been the case in regards to the work of those who have constructed a base text for our modern English versions. They have ignored simple reason, along with simple faith, and have just �picked and choosed� whatever wording might suit their fancy. It make no real difference, to these men, just from where those words originated.
The only �hard and fast� rule, it would seem, is to denigrate the vast majority of the evidence which is contained within the Traditional Text.
One might ask, why? I believe that God has supplied an answer. �Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.� (Romans 8:7) The concept of submitting to God�s Words is entwined within the concept of submitting to God. The pride of mankind, even those who claim the Name of Jesus, is to trust in their own minds rather than seeking the mind of God. By picking and choosing the words which they allow to be in their version, they have become the arbitrator of what God is allowed to say in these modern day English versions.
When you look into the margins of your Bibles you will generally find little notes which say that �The oldest and best manuscripts� do not agree. I don�t want to say that these notes are lying. But, I can�t say that they are telling the truth.
It is true that Aleph and B are the bedrock of the modern Bible critic. It is true that these are the oldest complete (or nearly complete) manuscripts available of the New Testament. It is true that the consensus of the Bible �scholars� will argue that the Traditional Text is a late edition which was produced as an �official revision� by church councils. (It is also true that history does not record, or even suggest, such a council has having taken place.) However, are any of these teachings correct?
Fuller (Counterfeit or Genuine) gives us a picture which suggests that the Traditional Text greatly predated the corrupt Aleph and B.
�The Traditional Text was prominent in the second and third centuries and had become dominant in the Greek-speaking churches by the end of the fourth century. By now scribes were on guard for defective copies. When copies were found which had been corrupted, they were taken out of circulation or destroyed. This may have been the case with Codex B and Aleph. Perhaps scribes detected their impurity and took them out of circulation. This enabled them to be preserved for a great number of years without much deterioration.�
This reasoning would account for how Aleph and B became the oldest manuscripts available. But, due to their constant divergences from the Traditional Text [and from each other!] it is not possible to rightly call them the �best.�
The Prophecy Bible admits that:
�A newer group of New Testament Scholars is persuaded that the best guide to a precise Greek text is the close consensus of the majority of Greek manuscripts. The Greek Text obtained by using this rule is called the Majority Text, which is similar to the Received Text.�
I wouldn�t want to take issue with the editors of this Bible edition. But, if this is so, why do we still see the newer versions all follow the basis of the Hort/Westcott template of dependance on the minority families?
I would add a word of caution in regards to the phrase, �The Majority Text.� This doesn�t seem to have been the intent of this phrase to the editors of The Prophecy Bible, but sometimes this phrase is played with in a loose manner.
Some have taken each family and given them a 1:1 ratio. In other words, in constructing a �Majority Text� the 85% to 95% witness of the Traditional Text is devalued to just another voice. A 1% witness is given as much weight as is the Traditional Text�s 90%. The argument is that this is treating all the evidence equally.
It isn�t! This is simply another sham produced to devalue the precious Words of God.
14 July 2006
THE OLD MSS. (Continued)
We have been studying the superiority of the Traditional Text.
It still amazes me that otherwise educated persons would dismiss about 90% of the available evidence and replace it with a few old copies which disagree with the 90% in so many areas. It further amazes me when these same people would make the claim to be persons of faith.
Where is their faith in the power of God to preserve His Own Words? Where is their faith in the love of God to preserve the Words He considered as so important as to verbally inspire? Where is their faith in the reasonableness of God? Do they really believe that God would give mankind and important message upon which the eternal salvation of immortal souls would hinge? Do they really believe that God would allow this important message, such importance proved by His relating that message to mankind in the first place, to be lost to His saints and His churches for, literally, hundreds of years? Or, do they really believe that God is so powerless that this message was ripped from His protective hands by Satan or the humans He created and desired to teach?
What is the reasoning that decrees that the best kept secret from antiquity is the very inspired Words of the Creator God?
Is the answer found in the need for man to feel in charge of his own destiny? Must man become the final arbitrator of the words which God is allowed to have said? Is the pride of man at the seat of the issue of the �new� Biblical texts introduced in the middle of the nineteenth century? Is the utter lack of faith in God among the leaders of the churches so pervasive that the preserved Words of God, attested by history and the fidelity of God fearing churches of the centuries, the rational that the pure Words of the Traditional Text are discounted as a simple remnant of a superstitious age?
I read this week that, in the Presbyterian Church (USA), 44% of the pastors �definitely� or �probably� favor allowing gay clergy who are active in that lifestyle. Meanwhile, only about 28% of the members of the churches are of the same opinion. This was in a 2005 poll. Never mind that this was a poll about abandoning Scriptural principles as regards to the fidelity of the church leadership. The salient point for our discussion is that dichotomy between the people in the pew and the preachers in the pulpit.
Jude 3b says, �...ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.� (The emphasis is mine.)
Pastors have a problem in remembering that the work of the pastor is as an undershepherd of Jesus Christ. They tend to, too often, consider the �job� as a �profession.� They seek to �climb the ladder of success.� The seek to �make a name� for themselves as part of that pursuit of professional acceptance. These persons will tend to find new and novel teaching to establish that they are truly professional in their craft.
This is why one will normally find a greater percentage of pastors, and church �leaders,� who accept novel teachings as opposed to the man in the pew who simply trusts The Book. The pastor will say, �God said it. I believe it. That settles it.� The man in the pew is more likely to say, �God said it. That settles it!� Belief �traditions� do not change readily for those who feel that God is in charge. Belief is an evolving process to those who feel that they are in charge.
Hills (Believing Bible Study) makes this very point in regards to the transmission of the Traditional Text which God has inspired and preserved.
�The true text ... was preserved during the 2nd and 3rd centuries mainly by the poorer, less educated Christians, mostly perhaps in the smaller towns of Asia Minor and Syria. These humbler brethren, being less skillful in the use of the pen, would tend to avoid making notes in the margins of their New Testaments and thus would keep their copies free from intentional alterations. Later, as the result of the doctrinal controversies of the 4th century, the Holy Spirit led the Church into an ever growing appreciation of the doctrinal soundness of this true text. More and more copies were made of it until it finally became the Traditional text found in the vast majority of Greek New Testament manuscripts. Then, after the invention of printing Erasmus, and the others, were guided providentially by the common faith to commit this Traditional text to the press. Thus, the printed Textus Receptus came into being, and from it the King James Version and the other classic Protestant translations were made.�
Thus the Traditional Text, in the pure Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, was stamped by the authority of the Preserving Power of God as the true Text of His message to mankind. This is the text of history, the churches which gave glory and honor to God, and some of the greatest revivals of the churches of Jesus. It is the text which led our forefathers from the bonds of superstition and apostasy. It is the text which kept groups of believers, spread over the world, form the pitfalls of paganism throughout the centuries of the churches. This is the sign of the guarantee that Jesus made that even the gates of hell would not overcome His churches. This is the message of God, preserved by His hand, which is for us today.
Some would argue (How Are New Bible Translations Alike?), �What happened to the manuscripts from the first century...? They were probably worn out from being read!�
Don�t let anyone deceive you! The oldest texts really are the best because they are the original autographs. It is true copies of these, contained in the Traditional Text which will bless your soul. These Words are the very breath of God to us in this day.
The, so-called, �oldest and best manuscripts� of the margins of modern day bibles are lies from the Father of Lies. They are give a view of God�s true words which has been distorted by the hand of men! They are not the oldest; they are fourth century revisions made by heretics and sloppy copyists. They are not the best because they are not the pure Words of God.
Only a few short years ago bank tellers were taught to be on the look out for counterfeit bills. They were trained to spot the counterfeits by constantly looking at the real thing. Then, when a counterfeit would pass through their vision, they would react that �something is wrong with this bill.� Now we have constantly updated currency. It is updated to foil the counterfeiter. But, it is updated so often that it has become harder to tell the real from the false.
It is the same with Scripture. When we are seeped, in our English tongue, with the properly translated words of our King James Bibles, we are able to quickly realize the false because it does not fit with the true. Our myriad new translations, based on faulty manuscript evidence, make understanding what are the true Words harder. Rather than making the world more able to access the Words of God, these made the Word of God less available to the people in the pew.
The result has been that, especially in the past forty years or so, people have not been able to understand the message. They don�t know what God has said. Their faith has been sapped by marginal notations which cast doubt on the veracity of the Scriptural record. They have lost trust in the Scripture because they don�t know what it might say as they shift from version to version.
The result of this has been a lack of spiritual vitality in the churches and a weakening of the influence of those churches in the general culture. Our churches have emptied and the Christian has come under attack because of a lack of fidelity to the Words of God.
We will pick up this discussion, looking into the perverted Greek texts, next week. Lord willing!
21 July 2006
THE OLD MSS. (Continued)
I don�t know how it is done today; but at one time bank tellers were trained to be able to spot counterfeit bills by constantly looking at real currency. By focusing on the real currency so often, there just seemed to be something wrong with a counterfeit bill to the eye of the teller.
There is a bit of a problem with that concept now. The government has begun to issue new styles of currency. The government explains that this is so that the counterfeiter will have more problems in trying to duplicate the real bills. The problem is that there are so many differing designs of bills flooding the market that it is hard to tell which is fake and which is simply a new design. In effect, in trying to make the job of the counterfeiter harder, the new currency is making it easier for the counterfeiter to pass of his bogus bills.
It has become that same way in our multiple Bible market. It is hard to detect the �wheat from the chaff� in all the confusion.
I used to teach, because I was taught, that all the various Bibles on the market are simply commentaries on the Word of God. I guess I could still teach that. Almost without exception all of the new English language versions are commentaries on the Words of God. To take just one example: A paraphrase such as the N. I. V. is a record of what a group of persons believe it is that God meant to say. �We�ve got the gist of the story,� is the only honest claim that these �translators� could make.
Yet, the claim is that this is enough. Actually, the belief is that this is enough. There is no compelling need seen to accurately translate in a word for word manner because the mindset of the modern translator is that we have no real idea what the actual words were. The belief of the modern day textual critic is that we have a corrupted text. They of the translation committees will work as hard as they can to cobble together their best estimate of what the original words might have been. They assure us that they will be close in their efforts. They also assure us that this is good enough as their estimation of preservation is only that the essential �story lines� have been preserved. �The dialogue may not be exact; but we are able to deduce the meaning of the scene.�
That is an awfully dangerous attitude to have when considering the inspired Words which God gave to mankind. The very word �inspire� means �to breathe out.� Therefore, when we say �the inspired Word of God,� we mean the actual Words of God. Are we to believe that God spoke distinctly? Or, are we to assume that God mumbled His message? Are we to assume that God was careful in his choice of words? Or, are we to assume that God really didn�t care all that much about what He said since men would be able to figure it out from the general outline?
I just had a book go to the publisher for publication. I edited the words several times before I sent it in. The publisher sent it back two more times for re-editing. They just sent me a copy so I could sign off on their formatting style. Why all the trouble? If you read all of the writing I put on this �blog� every week you will find numerous �typos.� I go back over everything. But, I still find things, weeks later, that needed correction that I had missed. We, the publisher and I, wanted this book to be as perfect as possible as we ask a price for the purchase.
All of this care is taken about my book when the truth is that in a very few years the only place to find my book will be in landfills. I know that. The publisher knows that. But, we still take the effort to make the manuscript as �perfect� as is humanly possible.
Why do men assume that God is any less careful with the human production and transmission of His eternally important Word to mankind?
If we assume that God is intelligent we must assume that he would take great care to produce His Work. If we assume that God is loving we must assume that he would want this exact phraseology to be preserved for mankind. If we assume that God is all powerful we must assume that His will would prevail in this preservation. If we assume that God is eternal we must assume that the same words which He spoke to Moses, and the rest throughout the Old and New Testaments, would be the same today as it was at that point in time.
Therein lies the problem with the modern English translations which are based upon a very small percentage of the extent evidence and disagree strongly with the Traditional Text which is the text of the historical churches of Jesus.
The assumption is made in these translations that the Words are not really important. Only the general story outline is preserved. The assumption is made that God wanted men to have His message, but not all men in all times since He was unwilling to preserve the words of that message. The assumption is made that the message of God is so time centric that it must be updated for each age and time. This �up dating� does not refer to the various translations only; this �up dating� also refers to revisions of what men believe the original text might have said. �Advances in cultural studies and languages,� we are told, �will give us greater access to the meaning of the texts we have in our hands.�
This sounds plausible until one realizes that the meaning of that sentence is that the words of the base documents from which our translations spring is considered as a fluid document. The Words of God are not, then, considered as �preserved,� because they were misunderstood for so long. Again, this theory would postulate a time centric, rather than an eternal, God as the Author of those words.
The above theory of a fluid text also neglects to consider that the Holy Spirit is at work in the lives of the believer. If we have the true words the True God will speak to our hearts. If we do not know that we have the true Words of God we cannot be sure whether the word is of God, of man, or in the case of some of the texts which have been corrupted by the heretic, by the hand of Satan.
A true trust in the True God will search for the true Words of His Message. This is what we have in the English in our King James Bibles. These are translated, with word for word equivalence wherever possible, from the Traditional Text which is the standard for the churches of antiquity and the overwhelming total of the evidence. The translators of the King James Bible were so zealous to translate the Words of the original into the English that they put even connecting words, used for the sake of clarity to the reader, in italics so the reader could differentiate between the Words of God and the words of the translators.
As for the other versions which are based on a minuscule amount of evidence, some very old (That, in itself, is enough to call them into question!), they may be �commentaries� but they are not the solid Word of God.
Next week we are going (God willing) to pick up this thread with a look at some of those perverted manuscripts which underlie the modern language versions.
28 July 2006
THE OLD MSS. (Continued)
The first thing I probably need to do if I�m to speak of a �perverted� text is to say why I consider it to be perverted. There are two dictionary definitions which are pertinent: 1) Perverted is to deviate from that which is proper, and, 2) Perverted is to be distorted.
What is the standard against which these perverted manuscripts deviate, or which they distort? Fuller (Which Bible) gives an answer.
�The vast majority of these extant Greek New Testament manuscripts agree together very closely, so closely, indeed that they may fairly be said to contain the same New Testament Text. This Majority Text is usually called the Byzantine Text by modern textual critic. This is because all modern critics acknowledge that this was the Greek New Testament in general use through the greater part of the Byzantine Period (312-1452)�
There are two important things to notice here. First of is the fact that this text was the text of the Greek speaking area of the early churches. It would be much easier for these areas to copy and distribute the Greek manuscripts which were originally written. There was no effort to change the language into a translation, as the Vulgate of Jerome in the Roman church, where the original words might be lost through the use of the versions.
The second salient point is that this Byzantine tradition was kept for over one thousand years. We have arguments from Biblical critics of this day that such a thing must be impossible. �There are errors crept in, additions made, deletions carved away, throughout the history of the Bible. This is the simple fact of human hands upon the inspired words.� So we are told. But, note strongly that this Byzantine Text was in use for over one thousand years. We see that the hands of the human copyist did not destroy the Words of God, they copied them faithfully!
Fuller continues:
�...it should be pointed out that a very large number of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament survive today. A recent [1975] list gives these figures, papyrus manuscripts, 81; majuscules (manuscripts written in capital letters), 267; minuscules (manuscripts written in smaller script), 2,764; ... (According to Prof. Kurt Aland). ... Also according to Prof. Aland a large majority of this huge mass of manuscripts - somewhere between 80 - 90% - contains a Greek text which in most respects closely resembles the kind of text which was the basis of our King James Version.�
By the way, most of the estimates of the amount of agreement among those manuscripts goes from between 85% to 95%.
The point I want to emphasize at this point is that Kurt Aland is cited as a source by Dr. Fuller. Dr. Aland is one of the critics who dismisses the great unanimity of witnesses to the Traditional Text. It would seem that, understanding the weight of the evidence, Dr. Aland is either a biased critic of the New Testament manuscripts or a man of great faith. But, that great faith is not in the God of Power to create and preserve that which He has inspired.
Fuller once again continues with an observation about the critic who dismisses the idea of the God preserved text from antiquity. He makes note of the many marginal citations as to variant readings of certain passages.
�The large number of conflicting readings which higher critics have gathered must come from only a few manuscripts, since the overwhelming mass of manuscripts is identical. ... There are numerous small variations, but the great majority of the documents give support to the Traditional Text and may thus be identified with it. It would be difficult to find even two �identical� manuscripts.�
The point being made by Dr. Fuller seems to be that there may be minuscule differences among manuscripts. The spelling may be different. The punctuation may vary slightly. There may even be small changes in word order. But, these manuscripts continue to agree together in the great mass of the Traditional Text. The ending of Mark, for instance, is in the great bulk of manuscripts. The large deletion of this passage is found in only a very, very minute group of those manuscripts which fall outside the group of the Traditional Text.
Small variation: possible. Changes: impossible in God�s preserved Word!
Burton (Let�s Weigh the Evidence) makes the same observation about the preponderance of the evidence in favor of the Traditional Text.
�There are 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts that contain all or part of the New Testament. These manuscripts agree together 95% of the time. The other 5% accounts for the differences between the King James and the modern versions.�
I think I should point out that the 5% difference refers only to the number of witnesses; it does not refer to the amount of differences from that 5% of the perverted witnesses. There is much more than a simple 5% difference in their textual bases. Things are left out, or added, or changed so that they seem to say that which they did not say. A very short list is included in the deletion of the last half of the final chapter of Mark, the woman taken in adultery moved or deleted, the Lord�s Prayer is different.
This short list does not even begin to touch the amount of changes in the perverted text from the Traditional Text. But, the biggest change is faith. We are no longer allowed to accept that there is a God in Heaven Who is interested in the affairs of this earth. After all, we are told He didn�t care to protect His Word. We are no longer allowed to have an abiding faith in an abiding Word. We don�t even know if we have the real Words of God, although we are assured we are pretty close!
These are not petty concerns if we are to accept the modernist position that the Words of God were not preserved. I have even heard a �fundamentalist� bible (small case intended) scholar who said that, technically, we do not have an inspired Bible in this day because God chose not to preserve that Word!
So, in answer to my opening opinion, any pseudo scripture which does not line up with the preserved Traditional Text of God�s inspired Words is a perverted Scripture.
That is the final text of all the new English versions. They should be based upon the unalterable, preserved Words which God inspired if they are to have any semblance to being English equivalents of the inspired Words. Are they based on a very few texts which disagree with the preserved Traditional Text? Are we trusting our eternal souls to bibles whose base text is founded upon manuscripts which disagree strongly even among themselves? Do we honestly believe that God lost control of His inspired Words, or that He refused (or was unable) to preserve those Words?
If you answer those questions in the negative, you must continue to use and trust the King James Bible. That among all of our modern English language Bibles is the only one translated faithfully from the preserved Traditional Text.
We will continue this discussion next week.