THE OLD MSS. (Continued)
When we speak of the newer English versions of the Bible we speak of an uncertain textual base. This base is heavily weighted toward the Alexandrian text type because two witnesses from this genre are very ancient. They are, in point of fact, among the most ancient texts available to the textual critic. These are often cited, in the margins of your Bibles, as the �oldest and best.�
We will agree that they are among the oldest. We will not agree that they are anywhere near the best. In past chapters of this report we have noted some of the theological errors which are found in these witnesses.
With this weeks issue we will begin to look at how some of those errors found their way into these texts.
Much of this has to do with Origen. Origen was a textual critic. He was the principle leader of those who labored in the Alexandrian Scriptorium. He was also a person of faulty theological stances. These lead him, and his followers, to adopt � and often compose, readings which were not of the original, inspired, writings of the true Scripture.
Burton (Let�s Weight the Evidence) quotes from The New Standard Encyclopedia (vol. 9, pp. 154-155) regarding one of the fallacies of Origen�s doctrinal teaching.
�One of the most notable of Origen�s ideas was his Logos Doctrine. This idea had been expressed in John 1:1-5 and in other Christian writings but Origen gave it the fullest treatment. In Greek philosophy Logos was the name of the divine principle of creation and rational world order. Origin applied the principle to Christ�s, the Logos (created by God) who bring reason to the world. In this he neglected the figure of Jesus Christ as a man who lived and taught on earth. This doctrine provided the foundation for the fourth century Arian Doctrine.�
In teaching the non-physical aspect of the man Jesus, Origen made the error of disregarding the mystery of the incarnation. It is via that incarnation that Jesus was able to effect our very salvation. Jesus, on this earth in the first century Middle East, was God. But, He was God in the flesh of mankind. To downplay this aspect of His dwelling among men is to ignore the very purpose for which He came into the world.
Evangelist Ed McKingley, (Why? The King James Version) quotes from Dick Cimio�s The Book, about Origen: He taught salvation via the sacraments, a form of purgatory, that ��priests and bishops participated in the forgiveness of sins in case of grievous faults�, that � many verses in both Testaments were ABSURD AND UNREASONABALE�� [As an example] �He [Origen] took the word �carpenter� out of Mark 6:3, simply because HE did not think that it should be there�, that Peter was the head of the church [as well as the writer of a gospel], that everyone had a second chance for salvation after death, that Jesus was a �created god,� that Jesus did not bodily raise from the dead, that Jesus was not returning, and that everyone would be saved! Further, he did not accept Adam and Eve as historical, nor did he believe in a physical resurrection.
Further, Fuller (Which Bible?) notes that Origen taught, ��that the soul existed from eternity before it inhabited the body, and that after death it migrated to a higher or lower form of life according to the deeds done in the body; and finally all would return to the state of pure intelligence, only to begin again the same cycle as before. He believed that the devils would be saved and that the stars and planets had souls, and were, like men, on trial to learn perfection.�
You may have noticed several religious philosophies, in those above accounts, which are being popularized in our day. When one considers the weight given by the modern critic to the works of the Alexandrian copyists, it is not surprising. One tends to go, when he is conscientiously following directions, to the place where the one doing the directing has in mind.
If a church were to call a pastor, they would seek to find a pastor who was sound in his doctrine and deportment. If his actions were unsound, the church would not be likely to issue the prospective pastor a �call.� Likewise, the duty of the Deacon Board is to quiz the prospective pastor about his doctrine. Is he sound? Is his view of Scripture in line with the teaching of that Scripture? Does he impart the true Word of God during his teaching and preaching?
All of these are important questions to consider in the calling of a pastor.
Should not, also, each of these be an important question to consider in judging the soundness of the textual basis of the Scriptural translation which that same church would use in its services and outreach?
It would seem that this is only a reasonable course. This course will lead us to the true preserved Word of God which is the underlying text of the King James Bible.
10 March 2006
THE OLD MSS. (Continued)
This week we are going to take a look at Origen as a textual critic. Some might ask why we are spending two weeks on this one man. The reason is simple. The newer Bible translations are based upon the work which this man, and the Scriptorium where he was very influential. It is from his critical methodology that the two, so-called, oldest and best � which are mentioned in the marginal notes of even many of our King James Bibles of this day � manuscripts were birthed.
Jasper James Ray, in his work �God Wrote Only One Bible,� noted that, �Origen, being a textual critic, is supposed to have corrected numerous portions of the sacred manuscripts. Evidence to the contrary shows he changed them to agree with his own human philosophy of mystical and allegorical ideas. Thus, through deceptive scholarship of this kind, certain manuscripts became corrupt. Evidently from this source our modern revised version Bibles and paraphrases have come.�
It was the theory of Hort and Westcott, of the 1881 English Revision, that the great bulk of the manuscript evidence � the Traditional Text � was faulty. They saw the Alexandrian text, heavily influenced by Origen, as a Pure text which had not been contaminated by the Traditional text type. I was going to say �most,� but the truth is that almost all of the modern textual critics have followed the same train of thought. In this they have not considered that the Alexandrian text is on a side track, rather than the main line, of the manuscript evidence.
When the theological stance of the man most responsible for the Alexandrian text is examined, as we did last week, it should be apparent that the Alexandrian, differing as it does in important aspects from the great bulk of the evidence, is suspect, rather than the other way around.
Fuller (Which Bible?) gives Origen his due as an intellectual � while pointing out his shortcoming as an orthodox source. Origen, Fuller reminds us, was a tremendous intellect. He was,
�A prodigious reader as well as a prodigious writer, his words would have been of incalculable value, but he seems to have been so saturated with the strange speculations of the early heretics, that he sometimes adopts their wild method; and in fact has not been reckoned among the orthodox Fathers of the Church.�
Fuller expands on this same theme: �Hear also Bishop Marsh on the same subject (Lecture 11, edition 1838, page 482). �Whenever therefore grammatical interpretation produced a sense which in Origen�s opinion was irrational or impossible according to the philosophy which Origen had learnt at Alexandria, he then departed from the literal sense.� This sums up many other matters connected with Origen�s treatment of textual matters, so that we do not necessarily recover Origen�s manuscripts when we are inclined to follow Aleph and B, but very likely only Origen himself.�
This means that the texts of the modern versions are suspect, and so � in line of reason � are those very versions and translations.
Just a short time ago I read a humorous page of advertising campaigns which had been translated into other languages. The translations were often laughable. If you have attempted to assemble something with instructions written by persons not familiar with your native tongue you probably have an idea of the mistakes and absurdities which are possible when the rules of translation are set aside by well meaning people who do not wish to be misunderstood.
The same thing will happen when a translator uses a faulty text upon which to base his translation. There may be, almost certainly isn�t!, any malicious intent. But the flow of information is hampered by a faulty base.
In the transmission of the Words of God this should not, must not!, happen! We need the pure Words which God inspired. We find these in the Traditional Text which is that God-preserved record of those God-inspired Words.
Fuller makes a pertinent point when he says, �Many of the important variations in the modern versions may be traced to the influence of Eusebius and Origen � �the father of Arianism.��
Should the minority opinion of an ancient critic be accepted as superior to the vast bulk of the manuscript evidence? Is this not an especially important question when that scholar is known for his theological heresies? Sadly, it is upon this base which our modern Bible translations are based when they draw water for their stew of verbiage from a contaminated well.
Burton (Let�s Weigh the Evidence) makes this point when he says, �You can thank Origen for the corruption of the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and you can thank the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus for the corruption of the modern versions.�
Fuller (Which Bible?), sums up the problem of accepting the base text of the newer versions and paraphrases when he says, �The fact is that B and Aleph were the products of the school of philosophy and teaching which found it�s vent in Semi-Arian or Homoean opinions. It is a circumstance that cannot fail to give rise to suspicion that the Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts (B and Aleph) had their origin under a predominant influence of such evil frame.�
As a Biblical critic, Origen � and through his eventual leadership the Scriptorium at Alexandria � was a brilliant man. But, he was the holder of heretical beliefs and theories. Compounding this is the fact that he was prone to �correct� Scripture with which he did not agree.
Would a fundamental church accept the writings of a cult as the basis of its Sunday School literature? Of course not! Then, why do they accept the writings of heretics as the base text of their pew Bibles?
God forbid that we should follow any but the pure Words which He has preserved!
17 March 2006
THE OLD MSS. (Continued)
In the past couple of weeks we have been looking at the great Bible critic of Alexandria, Origen. The reason we have taken the time to do this is because the two most trusted witnesses of antiquity, the manuscripts Aleph (Sinaiticus) and B (Vaticanus) are drawn from this well.
These two witnesses are revered because of their great age. It is our contention that these two should be suspect due to their great divergences from the God preserved Traditional Text. Instead they are often called upon as correctors of that text form. A small example of this is found in the marginal readings of no less than the venerable and respected Scofield Reference Bible. In that edition there are numerous marginal readings which say that the �oldest and best� manuscripts do not agree with the King James Bible text. That is, primarily, a reference to these two manuscripts.
We have argued that these two witnesses are, indeed, among our oldest witnesses. But, we have also argued that these two are among our worst, rather than our best, glimpses into the text of the apostles.
Kevin James (The Corruption of the Word) has well argued that, �The evidence [is] that during the earliest history of the church both heretics and the orthodox (to a lesser degree), made deliberate changes to scripture. � It follows, then, that the text of a manuscript is not �good� simply because of the age of the writing material and ink.�
There are examples where error was introduced to support a belief which the pure Scriptures would not allow.
We all know that the Bible says, �Cleanliness is next to Godliness.� We all know that the Bible says, �God helps those who help themselves.� We all know that the Bible says, �There is no such thing as a free lunch.�
What? Those aren�t in your Bible? Well, they are good proverbs to live by. If they aren�t in the Scripture, they ought to be!
Ah! Therein lies the problem. Many of the early groups which claimed the Name of Christ were as apostate as are some of the modern cults which claim His Name. According to their reasoning, there were things which were not in the Scripture which they believed were warranted because of their doctrinal presuppositions. There were other things in that Scripture which were at odds with their doctrinal basis.
These felt that, in order to be true to the spirit of their understanding of theology, the Scripture must be �corrected� to conform to what they believed God must have meant to say. This is the same spirit at work in the Bible correctors of our day. Since they refuse to consider the doctrine of the preservation of Scripture, they must search all the available �evidence� and try to find what is the true word among the many words. In their human reasoning they will give scant attention to the Traditional text because it is, in their minds, so obviously a late construction.
They will argue that the many witnesses which contain the Traditional readings are too much alike. This, the say is an evidence of an ecclesiastical �revision.� It is our contention that the 85% to 95% agreement of all the available evidence on the side of the Traditional Text gives ample proof to the preserving power of the God of that Scripture.
Rather than accept this argument, the modern critics use their �critical method� to produce a �new� text and proclaim it as closer to the �old� text. They never claim to have reconstructed the �original� text which was God inspired. But, they do claim that their efforts have done what God could not, or would not, do: they have given the world a purer text than all the Christian community have been able to view for well over one thousand years. Their intellect and work have saved the Bible from the enemies of Scripture � the churches of Jesus Christ down through the ages.
It is to this mindset that we are turning to find the pure Words of God? To quote Paul, the apostle, �God forbid!� (see Romans 6:15 ff)
MacLean (The Providential Preservation of the Greek Text of the New Testament) has noted that in Aleph, B and some of the other ancient manuscripts, some see the heresy of Gnosticism and suppose that these copies have only survived because the early church knew that they were untrustworthy copies and did not use them. �Had they, after they had been made, been used to any extent, they would have become worn-out and perished long ago, as has been the fate of hundreds, if not thousands of others. Their age, considered in conjunction with the aforementioned other factors, witnesses rather to their corruption than to any special purity of text.�
There has been great controversy of late about the Gnostic influences of the early church heretics being stamped out by the weight of the imperial Roman church. However, as Moorman has noted (The Battle for the Doctrinal Heart), ��Adoptionism,� the Gnostic belief that Jesus assumed the Christ �Spirit� and was �adopted� into the God-Head, was centered in Alexandria, Egypt.�
The very etymology of the word �Gnostic� is knowledge. The Gnostic believed that he possessed a knowledge greater than others. This, he felt, made him more spiritual than the brethren who followed other forms of the faith.
Isn�t this a commentary on the present discussion. Those of us who accept the premise that God could, and did, preserve His Word, are looked down upon. Our scholarship is questioned. Our faith is called �simplistic.� We are reminded that the �real intellects of Christianity do not accept the doctrine of the preservation of the Scripture.�
Some things may change. People, and the attacks of Satan, seem to follow in circuit.
As an example of this type of tampering with the inspired record, as we have discussed above, is available today. I have about forty translations in my study. All but one of them will translate John 1:1 in the same general manner: �In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.� That one aberration is The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures � the official Bible of the Jehovah�s Witness cult. They do not accept the Trinity or the full Divinity of Christ. Their translation: �In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was god.�
I don�t mean to accuse them of any vile purpose in this aberration. They have simply followed their theological bias in the interpretation of their scripture. Since they feel that they alone have the correct doctrine, they must assume that the Scripture would adhere to their doctrinal stances.
That this is a simple exercise of human nature must be accepted. But, that same thing occurred in an earlier era in the Scriptoriums of Alexandria. That same sort of bias is evidenced by the departure of the Alexandrian text type from that of the Traditional text type.
The simple evidence of this escapes the critic who does not accept the doctrine of the preservation of the Scripture simply because this is his bias. He must, as human nature dictates, follow where his own human reasoning leads him.
It might be better to accept the Word of the Holy Spirit.
24 March 2006
THE OLD MSS. (Continued)
Last week we examined some of the intentional errors which were added into the Scriptural record. We, also, examined some of the reasons why these errors might have found their way into the Scripture. Most of those we looked at were of the sort made by persons who did not accept the doctrine of the preservation of Scripture. These were errors made so as to correct, in the eyes of the critics so disposed, errors they envisioned as being in the record.
For the most part these were errors introduced by groups, and Scriptoriums, which carried a specific doctrinal bias which they believed had been slighted by former copyists. These saw themselves as not only copyists, but as correctors.
Of such ilk, also, is the modern critic who supposes his own human intellect as superior to the preserving power of the God of the Word.
Fuller (Which Bible?) considers this type of individually introduced error when he says, �This rising flood [of heretics], as we shall see, has multiplied in abundance copies of the Scriptures with bewildering changes in verses and passages within one hundred years after the death of John (100 A. D.) as Irenaeus said concerning Marcion, the Gnostic: �Wherefore also Marcion and his followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the Scriptures, not acknowledging some books at all; and curtailing the Gospel according to Luke, and the epistles of Paul, they assert that these alone are authentic, which they have themselves shortened.�
As an interesting side note here, one of the main criteria of Westcott and Hort was their preference for the shorter reading as always being preferred.
Today we have a rising crescendo of support for recently discovered Gnostic works such as �The Gospel According to Thomas.� We are told that these should have been accepted as part of our Scriptural record.
Besides their character of contradictory theology, one of the reasons which these can never be considered as part of the true canon of Scripture is that they had lain lost for so long. If, as we believe, and as both Scripture and faith demand, God produced and preserved His Word, then those works which were not preserved, available to the churches throughout the ages, could not have been part of His inspired and preserved canon.
The root of Gnosticism is found in the ancient texts which were not among those preserved through the priesthood of the believer among the true churches of God. These are among those which are most highly cherished by the purveyors of the modern versions. The root of this lies in the rejection of the power of God to either preserve, or His unwillingness to preserve, His Word for all generations.
These are predisposed to search for older manuscripts to correct that which has been preserved because they reject that preservation of God.
Fuller notes what havoc was caused by one of these �Bible correctors� of an early time. He notes that Justin Martyr continued to wear the robe of a pagan philosopher even though he claimed Christianity. One of his pupils was Tatian. �After the death of Justin Martyr in Rome, Tatian wrote a Harmony of the Gospels which was called the Diatessaron, meaning four in one. The Gospels were so notoriously corrupted by his hand that in later years a bishop of Syria, because of the errors, was obligated to throw out of his churches no less than two hundred copies of this Diatessaron since church members were mistaking it for the true gospel.�
I quote the above partly to show that the fallacy of �The oldest is always the best� is just not true. Many copies of Scripture were being tampered with early on in the life of the church. Finding an old copy means only that an old copy has been found. It does not testify as to its fidelity to the Truth of God. It only testifies to the theology of the person who made the copy.
A pious copyist would try to adhere to the Words as he found them to be. A heretic would be tempted to change those Words to comply with his belief system.
Secondly, this displays one of the reasons why an older copy � especially a much older copy, is to be questioned. The early church was not slow in disposing of contaminated copies of the pure Word of God. Those which were pure and true copies were used until they fell into disrepair and were then burned. Other true copies were taken by the authorities during the persecutions and burned.
One should ask, when presented with an extremely old copy, �Why does it still exist? Why did not the church continue to use a valuable, hand printed, copy of the Scripture? Could we expect that the churches, as zealous as they were to have copies of the Scripture, would allow a serviceable copy to be accidentally put aside and lost?�
There were, of course, errors made by copyists. A tired or careless scribe may have made errors. Heretics made intentional errors to make the text conform to their heresy. Also, as Fuller (Counterfeit or Genuine?) well noted, �There were also men with good intentions who attempted to supply conjectural emendations instead of correcting defects by comparing readings with other manuscripts.�
By and large, these errors could be found, and corrected, by simply comparing a copy with another copy. I have heard an illustration somewhat along these lines from Dr. Waite of The Bible for Today. If there are five good copies and one of them has an unintentional error introduced by a copyist, and there are four copies made of each of these. In the next generation there will be a sixteen to four ratio of copies without the error. Therefore, the simple math of the matter is that the greatest number of readings available would bear the imprint of authenticity.
This simple fact is discarded by the modern critic who lumps all the evidence into �families� of texts � each given the same weight regardless of numbers of available witnesses. In the modern concept the four would have just as much weight as the sixteen since they would view the ratio as one to one.
In this way between 85% and 95% of the evidence has been shunted aside by the modern critics because they fail to accept the possibility, or the goodness, of God to preserve His Own Scripture.
There were also times when even true Christians would made additions or deletions to �strengthen� the text, or to combat the errors of heretics. Once again, the mathematics of God�s preserving power would cleanse His Word for succeeding generations.
Hills (The King James Version Defended) makes note that, �Heretical readings were invented and did circulate for a time, but they were rejected by the universal priesthood of believers under the guidance of God.�
The concept of the doctrine of the preservation of the Scriptures does not argue that there were never any corrupted Scriptures. The doctrinal stance would only argue that these corruptions were �weeded out� by the gardening of the Spirit of God.
The sad fact is that far too many modern day Christians, by the use of modern versions which have scrapped the God preserved Traditional Text, are feasting in the garbage dump of antiquity rather than being fed by the bounty of the preserved Word of God.
Next week we will begin to look at the influence of Constantine.
31 March 2006
THE OLD MSS. (Continued)
In the year 312, just before the Battle of Milvian Bridge, Constantine reported that he had seen a vision of a cross in the sky. He was told, �In this sign conquer.� He, then, decided to place a picture of this cross on the shields of his soldiers. He won the victory and gave the credit for this victory to the God of the Christians. Shortly thereafter, when he had consolidated his political power, he issued the Edict of Milan which granted freedom of religion, to include the Christian religion, to the citizens of Rom.
The heart of Constantine seemed to be with the Christian religion. Christianity was later given status as the favored religion of the empire. Eventually Christianity would become the State Religion of Constantine�s empire. It is argued that, from this beginning, this was the true inception of the Roman Church.
I think it might be good to examine this �conversion experience� of Constantine. McKingley (Why: The King James Version) talks about the well known vision of Constantine. Constantine was told, �In this sign conquer. � That is interesting for we believers are told, �in the NAME CONQUER.� He was told by a voice from heaven, �in this SIGN conquer.�
McKingley has well spoken. The early Christians did not consider the cross to be a talisman. The actual form was that of an execution device. It was not a revered symbol of itself. The cross was not an ornament of worship. What symbolism might have been associated with this symbol was directed to He Who had died upon it. Jesus, and the fact of His substitutionary death, was the True Object of worship among the true Christians of the day. It has ever been that this is so!
A more apt symbol of veneration might have been an empty tomb. It was the tomb from which Jesus arose which held the allure to the Christian. Others had claimed to be god-men. They had led movements of spirituality. But, Jesus alone was proven to be the Savior of the World by His resurrection from that empty tomb.
Jesus is the only True Object of worship. Victory lay not in the cross of His crucifixion. Victory would not even lie upon an empty tomb. True victory was only possible through the Risen Savior.
To expect to follow a cross to victory, a sort of spiritual good luck piece, is not only historically illogical, it is historically unchristian. McKingley makes another interesting comment about the cross of Constantine�s vision. �That cross [which Constantine saw] had a vertical piece with a cross bar on top of that, and above the cross bar was a circle. �it is not the cross, but rather is the �ankh� � the Egyptian symbol of life, �the Egyptian sun god. That was the sign that Constantine conquered in � not in the name of the Lord Jesus nor in the sign of the genuine cross, but rather in the sign of sun god of Egypt!�
It should be noted, and we will consider this point in more detail in the coming weeks, that the Bible which Constantine chose to present to the state churches he birthed, was from the land of Egypt. It is these Alexandrian bibles from which critics today seek to recast our God preserved Scriptures.
I, among others, would question the actual conversion of Constantine. He gives no record of ever coming to the Savior to repent of his sins. He does give a record of using the religion of the Christian as a means of uniting his temporal kingdom and gaining political influence.
If, as I have alleged as probable, the Roman Church sprang from the efforts of Constantine, we can see scant evidence of true, Biblical, spiritual vitality down through the ensuing centuries. We do see that the office of the spiritual Pope closely corresponds with that of the temporal Caesar�s. The spiritual College of Cardinal�s closely corresponds with that of the old temporal Roman Senate.
In a religion crafted to unite the people behind a temporal ruler, this is to be expected.
Meanwhile, the confessional, while not even hinted about in the Scriptural passages, closely allies with the religion of Isis. The very veneration of the �Queen of Heaven� is also copied from the religion of Egypt, as found in the worship of Isis. Even the multitude of �saints,� each with a specific protectorate, is borrowed from the religion of ancient Egypt. Constantine may have well conquered in �this sign,� but he did not conquer in the Name of Jesus Christ.
Again, in a religion crafted under the sign of the Egyptian Ankh, this is to be expected.
It would be well for us to remember that any departure from the Word which God has preserved for His Own Church is a departure from the leading which He has sought to give to his earthly servants. This was so in the days of Constantine. This is also so in this day of multiplied versions whose only agreement is that God was too weak, or too disinterested, to preserve His Own Word to the churches which constitute the Bride of Christ.
Likewise, the royal protection which Constantine offered to the persecuted churches engendered a trust in the power of man to protect the Christian. Our only true protection is offered from Him Who sits on the Throne of Heaven, not from a temporal ruler who sits on a temporal throne � no matter in which nation, so-called �Christian� or profane, that this ruler sits.
Finally, no ersatz �Bible� which is not that which is God protected and God preserved, will offer true spiritual guidance. Constantine gave the people of his day a �Bible,� but it was drawn from the well of polluted water rather than from the well of Living Water. In this day we are beginning to return, as did those ancient Christians, to the polluted well. We have seen a weakening of the spiritual vitality of the churches of Jesus as they have drunk spiritual water which is tainted by the hand of man.
This weakening of the Message of Jesus Christ to the world, and of the Christians who are in that world, will continue until we decide to cure our spiritual ills by a return to the purity of the true Words of God. This isn�t a prediction on my part. This is a simple historical fact. The early church did not turn apostate overnight. It was a slow process brought on by the slow poison of a weakened faith caused by a weak, sin infected, view of Scripture and this same tainted view which wrongly considered the power � and goodness, of God!
This has been a rather short study this week. I want to be able to devote an entire section, next week, to the religion which was embraced by Constantine. At that time we will look at the Christianity of Constantine.