# Why do KJ Only types believe the Westcott and Hort manuscripts are bad?



## CDM

Why do KJ Only adherents say the new translations "leave out" many words and subsequently the doctrines? Why is it said to be the TR is reliable and not Westcott and Hort? What is the beef with W&H?

And, from a scholarly point of view, why are all translations now based on W&H? Is it superior to the TR?

When you hear some of these arguments it gets you thinking. For example why is "Lord Jesus" removed in modern translations (thief on the cross and in other places), and only "Jesus" is left?

Is it because the W&H manuscripts are older and believed to be more reliable? Does W&H not have "Lord" in their manuscripts? If they do, why is it left out in translation?


----------



## Pilgrim

The NKJV is not based on the Critical Text (which strictly speaking is not exactly the same as W-H, but similar) but on the Textus Receptus. The KJVO hardliners have problems with the NKJV because it notes the Critical Text renderings in the margin. The NASB, while based on the CT has actually moved toward TR renderings in some cases over the years since it first appeared. 

KJVO and TR only advocates accuse the CT of gnostic influence, but I've never seen any evidence offered for this, only assertions.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bob

The majority of KJV only people believe that the Wescott and Hort exts are erroneous because they read a pamphlet from the pamphlet rack at church that said that it was.

They feel comfortable with the fact that the TR is derived from from manuscroipts derived from the stream of texts that comprise the Majority Text. Wescott and Hort felt that the older manuscripts would best reflect the original manuscripts and were very critical of the TR because it was derived from only a handful of manuscripts. (Erasmus used what was availiable to him.)

Two very old manuscripts were discovered toward the end of the 19th century. They were the oldest manuscripts discovered to date and Wescott and Hort used them as the basis for their Greek NT. They differed from one another considerably and differed from the majority even more.

Advocates of the TR question this late finding, wondering why, considering God has promised to preserve His Word, he would wait 1800 years after its writing before allowing us to discover the most accurate translations. Many translations have been derived from Erasmus' Greek NT and it is obvious that the church flourished under versions such as the KJV or the Geneva etc.

In regard to the words Lord Jesus, one of the debates of textual criticism is whether or not to prefer the longer or shorter reading. Some prefer the longer reading, believing that over time it would be more likely that words would be ommitted rather than added. Others prefer the shorter reading, adding that scribes may have been tempted to add words of clarification as a means of combatting heresy.

For example, the TR contains the passage that is translated: " For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." The words conveying the naming of the Persons of the Trinity occur only in a very few very late manuscripts. All but a very few TR textual crictics believe the words are most likely spurious, added by a scribe as a combat against heresy. The KJV and the NKJV contain the phrase, but most newer translation do not.

There are other arguments cited as well.

Bob


----------



## MW

I don't think the statement about reading pamphlets is within the spirit of Christian discussion. Fideism is involved on all sides of this issue. The very idea of counting texts, or trusting to older texts, contains assumptions which require to be tested.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> I don't think the statement about reading pamphlets is within the spirit of Christian discussion. Fideism is involved on all sides of this issue. The very idea of counting texts, or trusting to older texts, contains assumptions which require to be tested.


----------



## Peter

The assumption is always that scribes added to the texts. Assuming they are honest, wouldn't it be more likely they accidentally missed something then accidentally put something in. Or if they are frauds, shouldn't Christians assume that orthodox Christians would be pious enough not to lie and to corrupt God's word and that heretics would be the ones to corrupt the texts. Especially since most of the sources of the CT came from the East, esp Alexandria where Christological errors flourished most notably Arianism.


----------



## MW

Peter, good questions. I would answer in the affirmative. Which is why I hold to the so-called conflated traditional text.


----------



## JasonGoodwin

I don't know if this will help, but there's been some argument out there that Westcott and Hort were involved with a spiritist/theosophist name Madame Blavatsky. There was a book put out by Chick that makes this accusation. I'm not sure to trust this, considering that Jack Chick has a habit of going way over the top on his charges against whom he disagrees with.

BTW, I hope that by me providing this information, we don't take this off on a wild and wacky tangent.


----------



## bob

If I offended anyone by my remark: "The majority of KJV only people believe that the Wescott and Hort texts are erroneous because they read a pamphlet from the pamphlet rack at church that said that it was.", I apolgize. It was not my intent to slight anybody by it. 

I grew up within the context of a KJV only church and I have learned that many of the people that I have discussed these things have no knowledge of the issues except for the various KJV only publications they have been given by their pastors. In many cases, such selective training has been the only training that their pastors have received on the issue. Perhaps I should not have identified such a class as simply "the majority", but rather prefaced this majority as describing those within my limited experience.

When I am asked to either defend my view of why I use other versions in addition to the KJV or am asked my opinion on the subject, the first thing I try to do is to determine if I speaking with someone who is interested in discussing the points of textual criticism or whether I am speaking with one whom Doug Wilson described as a "glassy eyed King James defender" who are convinced that any translation besides the KJV is a "perversion."

I appreciate the rebuke and acknowledge that our speech should always be with grace. I am always grateful for those who are willing to judge the tenor of a response and to issue a word of rebuke. In this case, I think you may have misjudged my intent. But I do apologize if I offended you. It was not my desire to.

In Christ,

Bob

[Edited on 6-30-2006 by bob]

[Edited on 6-30-2006 by bob]

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JM

It's consistent to view modern translations that use the eclectic (meaning: selecting or employing individual elements from a variety of sources) text and the eclectic text method as invalid along with dynamic (meaning: continuous change, activity, or progress) equivalence (meaning: the state or condition of being equivalent; equality) which offer a 'meaning' as opposed to a translation. 

The word itself is miss leading, dynamic means always moving/shifting and equivalence means the same. How can something be both?

For enjoyment only! 

Quote:

Picture this:

Elder Dim Whit, "œWelcome everybody to the Truth of Truth Ministry´s weekly Bible study. Thanks for being here. I´m stoked. Our passage to study tonight is John 11:35 Jesus wept. Let´s see what we can learn from this passage. Who wants to go first?"

Bob, "œWell, my New English Common Vernacular version doesn´t read Jesus wept but that "œJesus groaned."

Mary, "œInteresting, you know the Greek word there for wept is "˜awahuu´ "“ I got this from Nestle."

Bill, "œWow, profound!"

Bob, "œBut my version, The "œNewest English Super Common Version" says grunt."

Jack, "œYou mean Jesus grunted?!?!"

Mike: "œMy new "œAuthentic Expository Rendition" matches Vaticanus! And didn´t they find this great manuscript in trash can in the Vatican library?

AVBunyan: "œYes, they did "“ maybe they should have left it there."

Harry, "œI have a Greek lexicon from the 4th century Syrian that says the word for wept is really, "˜awahooie´ which makes a major difference in the phrasing! Wow, I get so excited when I use the Greek "“ makes me feel, well, just enlightened like an angel of light!"

Elder Dim Whit, "œI can see this is going to be a very uplifting night. Nothing like some real dynamic equivalent renderings using the aros tense of the subjective superlative!"

Bill, "œHarry, where did you learn Greek?"

Harry, "œI don´t really know Greek I just read it in Zodiates book, "œHow to Master Greek in 30 Days."

Martha, "œWell, I have a Greek lexicon from the 14th Century revision of the Lollard #3 and the word wept can also be translated moaned."

Martha, "œYou have to understand the trials and tribulations for the times for without this information you can´t enter into the emotional congatative condiveness of the sureality."

AV, "œWhat am I missing here "“ we are only talking about two words."

Harry, "œHush, AV, you´ve got a bad attitude! What about all those poor people before 1611?"

Elder Dim Whit, "œHush, AV you are not exhibiting the sweet spirit of the Christ here. Also, what about all those people in other countries who can´t even speak English?
Now let´s get back to our Bible study. Who has some more nuggets on, Jesus wept?"

Mr. Brilliant, "œMy new updated "˜Antioch Gratulative Retention Bible´ speaks of the word wept being in the past tense conjegative thus meaning that Jesus was weeping before he ever got there. This really touched my heart."

Mary, "œOh, I feel my life is now completely changed based upon that nugget "“ thanks Mr. Brilliant."

Mr. Brilliant, "œBy the way my new version is special for the translators of this great work translated it so there are no words with less than 9 letters long so as to bring out the most demonstrative and subjectivelatuative meaning of the words thus enabling me to get all that can be gotten from the most complicated renderings thus making me even more brilliant in the eyes of unenlightened believers."

Harry, "œI still think we need to examine the different 3rd century renditions of the Greek word "˜awahooe´ so we can see how other Greek writers used the word so we can determine the most reliable and effective use of the word for the most authentic rendering of the verse thus pulling from it all the vast riches of this profound word "˜awahooe´.

AV, "œBut how do you decide who is right?"

Mike, "œAV, you are so narrow-minded! How can you read a Bible with Easter in it anyway?"

Nancy, "œHow do we even know John 11:35 was really in the originals?"

Neal, "œI found a scholar who read of a professor who talked with his gardener who knew an archeologists who was able to gaze upon the famous fragment P734075439.479 1/2 from the collection over in Dead Sea Visitor´s Center, oh I mean the "˜Dead Sea Museum of Ancient Artifacts´ and he says it is there."

Nancy, "œWow, could the archeologists read Greek?"

Neal, "œNo, but the janitor could and he told him that P734075439.479 1/2 contained the verse as it stands in many of the modern versions."

Elder Dim Whit, "œWell, that is great "“ I think we can call this Bible study a great success. Let´s meet next week so we can have some time to digest these great truths. Then we will be prepared to really dig into John 11:35 verse using all the modern tools and resources available."

Mary, "œYou are not coming next week are you AV?"

AV, "œNo, I think I´ll just stay home and watch some Captain Kangaroo reruns, thank you for asking and for being so thoughtful."

[Edited on 7-1-2006 by Hard Knox]

_______________________

Here's an interesting link: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NIVapos.html

[Edited on 7-1-2006 by Hard Knox]


----------



## Pilgrim

> _______________________
> 
> Here's an interesting link: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NIVapos.html
> 
> [Edited on 7-1-2006 by Hard Knox]



"The King James Bible is ALWAYS right."

"...the apostates Westcott and Hort..."

No thanks. There are compelling defenses of the Byzantine text, TR, Ecclesiastical Text, etc. out there but this ain't one of them.


----------



## street preacher

Why do the newer translations in Isaiah 14 call Lucifer the morning star or day star? That is blasphamous.


----------



## bob

Steve,

The King James and New King Jame translate the phrase "son of the morning". The phrase refers to the morning star that goes before the sun. It is most likely a reference to Venus.

Interestingly, some commentators, often surmised that the reference was a metaphor used to described a Babylonian king, either Nebuchadnezzar or Belteshazzar, not referring to Satan at all.

The word Lucifer actually was a Latin word that means "Morning Star". It was often used to referred to kings and dignarities. Jerome, when compiling the Scriptures into what was named the Vulgate, took the Hebrew term and translated the word as Lucifer.

I don't believe there is any sinister design in the modern translation's usage of the phrase.

Bob


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

It is noteworthy how few people are familiar with the works which examine the alleged “most reliable and early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses” that the Critical Text (CT) is based upon, which latter derives in the main from the Westcott and Hort (W&H) Greek text of 1881.

The quote above is from the margin note found in the NIV, and meant to indicate the spuriousness of Mark 16:9-20. The margin notes in the NASB and ESV are similar and to the same effect, the CT being the Greek they are also based upon.

The primary, and almost _exclusive_ “ancient witnesses” that omit these 12 verses are codices _Vaticanus_ (B) and _Sinaiticus_ (a) or _aleph_, after the first Hebrew letter, both of Alexandrian origin. Without looking at their origins in detail at this time, they were very likely Egyptian manuscripts modified by Origen, or at least accepted by him, and made into the official NT text by Eusebius of Caesarea (265-339) when Constantine requested 50 Bibles of him, due to the scarcity of Scripture after the destruction of churches, Bibles, and believers in the reign of Diocletian and his 10 years of horrific persecution (302-312). The fierce conflict in the days of Eusebius between the orthodox Christians and the Arians and Sabellians led to the manuscripts being tampered with for doctrinal reasons, as has been documented.

More to the point for the purposes of this thread is how these two manuscripts were resurrected from obscurity into places of prominence in the 19th century, and what the characters of each are.

Herman C. Hoskier was a textual scholar of the Greek New Testament who minutely examined and then opposed Westcott and Hort’s principal texts, _Vaticanus_ and _Sinaiticus_ in a two-volume study. The first is titled, _Codex B And Its Allies: A Study and an Indictment_; the second volume, which we will quote from here, is titled, _Codex B And Its Allies, Part II: Chiefly concerning a, but covering three thousand differences between and a and B in the Four Gospels, with the evidence supporting each side, including the new manuscript evidence collected by VON SODEN, and the collateral readings of other important authorities_.(1) Hoskier states,

In the light of the following huge lists let us never be told in the future that either a or B represents any form of “Neutral” text…

Our little study [after the examination of B in Volume I] would be quite incomplete without a further account of the idiosyncrasies of a. This is best shown by exhibiting the principal places where a and B differ, which, in number, far exceed what anyone might suppose who does not go deeply into the comparative study of the two documents. As a matter of fact the “shorter” text of the two is found in a …

I have tabulated the major part of these differences between a and B in the Gospels and given the supporting authorities on each side. They amount to—

Matt. . . . 656+
Mark . . . 567+
Luke . . . 791+
John . . . 1022+
Total . . . 3036+ (2)​
Hoskier’s study continues on for 381 pages of documentation (412 including a Scriptural index), if anyone is interested in pursuing a comparative examination of a and B, the foundation of W&H’s critical text.
----------
(1) _Codex B And Its Allies_, by Herman C. Hoskier (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1914).
(2) Ibid., Vol. II, page 1.
-----------

In a courtroom when two witnesses testifying to the same matter disagree sharply with one another, they cannot be called “reliable” witnesses, but rather they impugn one another’s testimony. And when such _un_reliable witnesses are scrutinized in the light of a virtual multitude of other witnesses who disagree with the two while agreeing with one another, the evidence becomes preponderant in favor of the majority. Mere “age” of a manuscript may easily be offset by other more weighty factors. It is a given regarding the condition of a manuscript that those exhibiting the least wear have been used the least; often it is because they have been set aside as of inferior quality. In my own library the books that are in the worst shape, and which sometimes have to be replaced, are those I use the most. Those in the best shape I use the least.

a was discovered by Tischendorf at St. Catharine’s Greek Orthodox Monastery on Mt. Sinai in 1844. _Vaticanus_ has been in the Vatican Library at least since 1481, when it was catalogued. Those with some historical knowledge will remember that these were the years of the Inquisition in Spain during the reign of Pope Sixtus IV (1471-1484). In 1481 some 2,000 believers dissenting with Rome were burned alive, with multitudes of others tortured (M’Crie, _History of the Reformation in Spain_, p. 104). When Pope Innocent VIII (1484-1492) sat in the royal “Throne of Peter,” he followed in the vein of his namesake Innocent III and commenced anew a persecution against the peaceful Waldensian Christians in the northern Italian Alps, commanding their destruction “like venomous snakes” if they would not repent and turn to Rome. (Wylie, _History of the Waldenses_, pp. 27-29) Bloodbaths followed against these harmless mountain peoples, who had their own Scriptures from ancient times, and worshipped in Biblical simplicity and order.

It perplexes many people that the Lord of these _many hundreds of thousands of Bible-believing saints who were tortured with unimaginable barbarity and slaughtered like dogs by the Roman Catholic “church” for centuries (it is no exaggeration to say for over a millennium) should have kept His choicest preserved manuscript in the safekeeping of the Library of the apostate murderers, designating it by their own ignominious name:_ Vaticanus. But it well suited W&H, who loved Rome, and despised the “evangelicals” of their own day, _and_ the Traditional Text they used to preach with power.

As concerns Mark 16:9-20, it is odd that it is almost exclusively these two MSS. that omit the verses, which almost all other uncials, miniscules, and lectionaries retain. What gives these two MSS. such weight over all others? W&H developed a theory to support their prized MSS., but it has been demonstrated to be devoid of any historical attestation _whatsoever_. It is mere conjecture, which I am asked to assent to, and to ignore voluminous evidences – both historical and textual – to the contrary.

Nor would I allow either of these two men, Westcott or Hort, despite their ecclesiastical “attainments,” to preach or teach in the church I serve, seeing as they were heretics and reprobates, both in belief and in conduct, which assertions are documented. I find there is much secular attestation, beside the testimony of their sons in their respective _unabridged_ biographies of their fathers, to their spiritualism.

In a book, a former president of The Society For Psychical Research acknowledged its origins in “The Cambridge ‘Ghost Society’” formed by Westcott and Hort:

Lightfoot, Westcott and Hort were among its members…Lightfoot and Westcott both became bishops, and Hort Professor of Divinity. The S.P.R. has hardly lived up to the standard of ecclesiastical eminence set by the parent society. (_The Society For Psychical Research: An Outline Of Its History, by W.H. Salter (President, 1947-8), (London, Society For Psychical Research, 1948), pages 6, 7.)_​_

I could go on with documentation of their unbelief in the historicity of the opening chapters of Genesis (and affirming solidarity with Charles Darwin and his theory), and other evidences of their unregenerate state. (To deny the historicity of Genesis, is to deny the Fall, the sinful condition of the human race, the need for an atoning sacrifice, etc etc.) That they fiercely demanded the presence of a notorious Unitarian on their revision committee , Dr. Vance Smith (who later published, gloatingly, of the textual damage done regarding the deity of Jesus Christ in the revision), indicating they considered him a brother Christian nonetheless, says something about their hearts.

Does it not make sense what was happening? Unregenerate men had infiltrated the church, and not only the church, but the inner precincts of scholarship and textual reproduction. The enemy had taken the inner stronghold, and put unholy hands on the written Word of God, to alter it.

I know I have not stuck strictly to the question at hand, but what has happened to the Biblical text is a phenomenon of many dimensions, and I wanted to cover more than one area, even if only with broad strokes.

I am working on a paper, perhaps 60 pages long, rendering these things in detail, thoroughly researched and documented. It is available in its present rough draft in pdf format (so as to keep the integrity of the Hebrew and Greek fonts, which not all Word documents will, I have learned), if anyone is interested. In return, I would appreciate any comments and criticisms you might have. I do affirm the authenticity of 1 John 5:7, sort of as the final fruition of all the preceding historical and textual detective-work.

For sort of an overview of these matters (and I am in accord with him on much of his historical views and research) I recommend David Cloud’s Examining “The King James Only Controversy” (by James White), which entire book of Cloud’s is available online, and quite well done. Perhaps needless to say, I am a vigorous and relentless opponent of Cloud’s anti-Calvinist views, but that is a different battle, and I deem it secondary to the defense of Scripture, although it must indeed be fought!

Steve_

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pilgrim

> _Originally posted by street preacher_
> Why do the newer translations in Isaiah 14 call Lucifer the morning star or day star? That is blasphamous.



Because that is the literal translation of the passage, and it is even the margin in the KJV. The term lucifer comes from the Vulgate. See here and here. The NKJV margin says "Lit. Day Star". 

The note here at the Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible says that "The longstanding interpretation that this passage refers to the fall of Satan is incorrect. The context clearly indicates that Isaiah was speaking of the king of Assyria. Compare the similar description of the king of Tyre in Ezekiel 28." 

But I guess if it says Lucifer in the KJV it HAS to be correct, right? Correct the Hebrew with the English? 

[Edited on 7-1-2006 by Pilgrim]


----------



## JM

Thinking out loud: I wonder if the rerelease of an updated Geneva Bible will affect KJVOism within the Reformed camp.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Probably just affect GenevaBibleOnlyism.


----------



## JM

Was the Geneva a translation from the TR family?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by Hard Knox_
> Was the Geneva a translation from the TR family?



Yes.



> The Tyndale New Testament (1526-1530) was the first English translation to use the TR. Matthew's Bible (1537) simply used Tyndale's New Testament. The five 'revisions' mentioned may include those listed below, all of which were based on the Textus Receptus and all were influenced by Tyndale:
> 
> 1. Coverdale Bible (1535) / The Great Bible (1539) (both Bibles done by Coverdale)
> 2. Geneva Bible (the Bible of the Pilgrims) (1557-1560)
> 3. Bishop's Bible (1568)
> 4. King James Version (a.k.a., Authorized Version; original version, 1611; Dr. Benjamin Blayney's final revision, 1769)
> 5. New King James Version (1982)



Plus, there is the Modern King James Version and the 21st Century King James Version.

[Edited on 7-2-2006 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## JM

> Plus, there is the Modern King James Version and the 21st Century King James Version.



Good point.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Getting back to the original question of this thread:

In the Critical text (the Westcott & Hort manuscripts) there is the omission of “God” in 1 Timothy 3:16. Let’s look more closely at that text. Burgon, responding to the margin note in the original 1881 Revision which says “The word _God_, in place of _He who_, rests on no sufficient ancient evidence”, replies (we quote from the summation of his 76-page dissertation of proofs to the contrary):

Behold then the provision which THE AUTHOR of Scripture has made for the effectual conservation in its integrity of this portion of His written Word! Upwards of eighteen hundred years have run their course since the HOLY GHOST by His servant, Paul, rehearsed the ‘mystery of Godliness;’ declaring _this_ to be the great foundation-fact,—namely, that ‘GOD WAS MANIFESTED IN THE FLESH.’ And lo, out of _two hundred and fifty-four_ [cursive] copies of S. Paul’s Epistles no less than _two hundred and fifty-two_ are discovered to have preserved that expression. Such ‘Consent’ amounts to _Unanimity;_ and, (as I explained at pp. 454-5,) unanimity in this subject matter, is conclusive.

The copies of which we speak, (you are requested to observe,) were produced in every part of ancient Christendom,—being derived in every instance from copies older than themselves; which again were transcripts of copies older still. They have since found their way, without design or contrivance, into the libraries of every country of Europe,—where, for hundreds of years they have been jealously guarded. And,—(I repeat the question already hazarded at pp. 445-6, and now respectfully propose it to _you_, my lord Bishop; requesting you at your convenience to favor me publicly with an answer)—For what conceivable reason can this multitude of witnesses be supposed to have entered into a wicked conspiracy to deceive mankind?

True, that no miracle has guarded the sacred Text in this, or in any other place. On the other hand, for the last 150 years, Unbelief has been carping resolutely at this grand proclamation of the Divinity of Christ,—in order to prove that not this, but some other thing, it must have been, which the Apostle wrote. And yet (as I have fully shown) the result of all the evidence procurable is to establish that the Apostle must be held to have written no other thing but _this_…

The numerical result of our entire enquiry, proves therefore to be briefly this:

In 1 TIMOTHY 3:16 the reading [writing English for the Greek] _God manifest in the flesh_, is witnessed to by 289 manuscripts:—by 3 VERSIONS:—by upwards of 20 Greek FATHERS [all of which he has just listed in detail]…

The reading _who_ (…in place of God) is countenanced by 6 MANUSCRIPTS in all (a, Paul 17, 73: Apost. 12, 85, 86):—by _only one_ VERSION for certain (viz. the Gothic):—_not for certain by a single Greek_ FATHER. (1)​ 
In short, the overwhelming testimony of Antiquity says that the Fathers, the Lectionaries, and the manuscripts were familiar with the very reading we ourselves have preserved in the Traditional Text. The fractional aberrant readings proceeding from their source in a’s Alexandria or Caesarea, where the Deity of Jesus Christ was violently and wickedly denied, are virtually buried by the contradictory evidence of the true reading widely spread throughout the ancient Christian world.

Burgon, Commenting on the two major Alexandrian manuscripts,

We assert that, so manifest are the disfigurements jointly and exclusively exhibited by codices B & a [at which point he gives a long list of examples in the footnote], that instead of accepting these codices as two ‘independent’ Witnesses to the inspired Original, we are constrained to regard them as little more than a single reproduction of one and the same scandalously corrupt and (_comparatively_) late Copy…

The result is, that codex a, (which evidently has gone through much more adventures and fallen into worse company than his rival) has been corrupted to a far graver extent than codex B, and is even more untrustworthy. Thus, whereas (in the Gospels alone) B has 589 Readings _quite peculiar to itself_, affecting 858 words,— a has 1460 such readings, affecting 2640 words.

One _solid fact_ like the preceding, (let it be pointed out in passing,) is more helpful by far to one who would form a correct estimate of the value of a Codex, than any number of such ‘reckless and unverified assertions,’ not to say peremptory and baseless decrees, as abound in the highly imaginative pages of Drs. Westcott and Hort. (2)​
Although it has been asserted by some that the W&H manuscripts are characterized by “*lack* of omissions,” the facts are glaringly contrary:

…Mutilation has been practiced throughout. By codex B (collated [i.e., minutely compared] with the Traditional Text), no less than 2877 words have been excised from the Gospels alone: by codex a,—3455 words: by codex D,—3704 words. (3)​-----------

(1) _The Revision Revised_, Burgon, pages 494, 495, 496.
(2) Ibid., pages 317, 318, 319.
(3) Ibid., page 75.


----------



## CDM

> _Originally posted by Jerusalem Blade_
> Getting back to the original question of this thread:
> 
> In the Critical text (the Westcott & Hort manuscripts) there is the omission of "œGod" in 1 Timothy 3:16. Let´s look more closely at that text. Burgon, responding to the margin note in the original 1881 Revision which says "œThe word _God_, in place of _He who_, rests on no sufficient ancient evidence", replies (we quote from the summation of his 76-page dissertation of proofs to the contrary):
> 
> <blockquote>Behold then the provision which THE AUTHOR of Scripture has made for the effectual conservation in its integrity of this portion of His written Word! Upwards of eighteen hundred years have run their course since the HOLY GHOST by His servant, Paul, rehearsed the "˜mystery of Godliness;´ declaring _this_ to be the great foundation-fact,"”namely, that "˜GOD WAS MANIFESTED IN THE FLESH.´ And lo, out of _two hundred and fifty-four_ [cursive] copies of S. Paul´s Epistles no less than _two hundred and fifty-two_ are discovered to have preserved that expression. Such "˜Consent´ amounts to _Unanimity_; and, (as I explained at pp. 454-5,) unanimity in this subject matter, is conclusive.
> 
> The copies of which we speak, (you are requested to observe,) were produced in every part of ancient Christendom,"”being derived in every instance from copies older than themselves; which again were transcripts of copies older still. They have since found their way, without design or contrivance, into the libraries of every country of Europe,"”where, for hundreds of years they have been jealously guarded. And,"”(I repeat the question already hazarded at pp. 445-6, and now respectfully propose it to _you_, my lord Bishop; requesting you at your convenience to favor me publicly with an answer)"”For what conceivable reason can this multitude of witnesses be supposed to have entered into a wicked conspiracy to deceive mankind?
> 
> True, that no miracle has guarded the sacred Text in this, or in any other place. On the other hand, for the last 150 years, Unbelief has been carping resolutely at this grand proclamation of the Divinity of Christ,"”in order to prove that not this, but some other thing, it must have been, which the Apostle wrote. And yet (as I have fully shown) the result of all the evidence procurable is to establish that the Apostle must be held to have written no other thing but _this_"¦
> 
> The numerical result of our entire enquiry, proves therefore to be briefly this:
> 
> In 1 TIMOTHY 3:16 the reading [writing English for the Greek] _God manifest in the flesh_, is witnessed to by 289 manuscripts:"”by 3 VERSIONS:"”by upwards of 20 Greek FATHERS [all of which he has just listed in detail]"¦
> 
> The reading _who_ ("¦in place of God) is countenanced by 6 MANUSCRIPTS in all (aleph, Paul 17, 73: Apost. 12, 85, 86):"”by _only one_ VERSION for certain (viz. the Gothic):"”_not for certain by a single Greek_ FATHER. (1)</blockquote>
> 
> In short, the overwhelming testimony of Antiquity says that the Fathers, the Lectionaries, and the manuscripts were familiar with the very reading we ourselves have preserved in the Traditional Text. The fractional aberrant readings proceeding from their source in aleph´s Alexandria or Caesarea, where the Deity of Jesus Christ was violently and wickedly denied, are virtually buried by the contradictory evidence of the true reading widely spread throughout the ancient Christian world.
> 
> Burgon, Commenting on the two major Alexandrian manuscripts,
> 
> <blockquote>We assert that, so manifest are the disfigurements jointly and _exclusively_ exhibited by codices B & aleph [at which point he gives a long list of examples in the footnote], that instead of accepting these codices as two "˜independent´ Witnesses to the inspired Original, we are constrained to regard them as little more than a single reproduction of one and the same scandalously corrupt and (_comparatively_) late Copy"¦
> 
> The result is, that codex aleph, (which evidently has gone through much more adventures and fallen into worse company than his rival) has been corrupted to a far graver extent than codex B, and is even more untrustworthy. Thus, whereas (in the Gospels alone) B has 589 Readings _quite peculiar to itself_, affecting 858 words,"” aleph has 1460 such readings, affecting 2640 words.
> 
> One _solid fact_ like the preceding, (let it be pointed out in passing,) is more helpful by far to one who would form a correct estimate of the value of a Codex, than any number of such "˜reckless and unverified assertions,´ not to say peremptory and baseless decrees, as abound in the highly imaginative pages of Drs. Westcott and Hort. (2)</blockquote>
> 
> Although it has been asserted by some that the W&H manuscripts are characterized by "œ*lack* of omissions," the facts are glaringly contrary:
> 
> <blockquote>"¦Mutilation has been practiced throughout. By codex B (collated [i.e., minutely compared] with the Traditional Text), no less than 2877 words have been excised from the Gospels alone: by codex aleph,"”3455 words: by codex D,"”3704 words. (3)</blockquote>
> 
> (1) _The Revision Revised_, John Burgon, pages 494, 495, 496.
> (2) Ibid., pages 317, 318, 319.
> (3) Ibid., page 75.



Thank you very much for this information. I am learning from this discussion where to go to study.



> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Hard Knox_
> Was the Geneva a translation from the TR family?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Tyndale New Testament (1526-1530) was the first English translation to use the TR. Matthew's Bible (1537) simply used Tyndale's New Testament. The five 'revisions' mentioned may include those listed below, all of which were based on the Textus Receptus and all were influenced by Tyndale:
> 
> 1. Coverdale Bible (1535) / The Great Bible (1539) (both Bibles done by Coverdale)
> 2. Geneva Bible (the Bible of the Pilgrims) (1557-1560)
> 3. Bishop's Bible (1568)
> 4. King James Version (a.k.a., Authorized Version; original version, 1611; Dr. Benjamin Blayney's final revision, 1769)
> 5. New King James Version (1982)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Plus, there is the Modern King James Version and the 21st Century King James Version.
> 
> [Edited on 7-2-2006 by VirginiaHuguenot]
Click to expand...


Recently, these last few Lord's Day's, I've been reading the KJV during family worship. I was having to stop several times to explain the "funny" language. Like "concupiscence" to name just one. 

Would the KJV21 be a good alternative? Or the Modern KJV? I'd be curious to know what the "glassy-eyed King James defenders" have to say about these translations?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

> _Originally posted by mangum_
> Recently, these last few Lord's Day's, I've been reading the KJV during family worship. I was having to stop several times to explain the "funny" language. Like "concupiscence" to name just one.
> 
> Would the KJV21 be a good alternative? Or the Modern KJV? I'd be curious to know what the "glassy-eyed King James defenders" have to say about these translations?


No glassy eyes here (see our church's stance on the AV in the FPCR Distinctives series, here), and I have no opinion to give on those translations. I will say that while I think we should be concerned about antiquated terminology, in the instance above I would say pull out a dictionary. I do not think every hard or unfamiliar word is one that has passed out of usage and needs to be replaced in translations of the Word.


----------



## Pilgrim

"Concupiscence is among our choicest words to be recovered." See here


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

The discussion below I have excerpted from my booklet-in-progress, _To Break A Sword_. In this section I look at the Theory behind Westcott & Hort’s favoring the codices B and Aleph, and their basis for disdaining the majority Traditional Text. I have availed myself of the labors and wisdom of others which the Lord granted them. If in my bringing up the characters and documented motives of these two men, someone says, but this is _argumentum ad hominem_ (criticism of an opponent’s character or motives, rather than of the person’s argument or beliefs), please note that a person’s character and motives will certainly bear on their spiritual views, and hence on their doctrines and related textual matters. As the Lord Jesus said, “…a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.” (Matthew 7:17, 18)

In a letter to Westcott, in April of 1861, while they were unofficially (1) working on their revision of the Greek text, Hort wrote,

Also—but this may be cowardice—I have a sort of craving that our text should be cast upon the world before we deal with matters likely to brand us with suspicion. I mean, a text, issued by men already known for what will undoubtedly be treated as dangerous heresy, will have great difficulties in finding its way to regions which it might otherwise hope to reach, and whence it would not easily be banished by subsequent alarms. (2)​
Hort was worldly-wise in this, for it was not until dogged research by scholars in the 20th century unearthed their “dangerous heresy” (3) (though “damnable” be a more apt description) in _many_ areas, that we have learned things about them their contemporaries were unaware of. In a letter to Bishop Lightfoot in May of 1860, concerning a proposed commentary they would write with Westcott on the New Testament, Hort said,

Depend on it, whatever either you or I may say in an extended commentary, if only we speak our mind, we shall not be able to avoid giving grave offence to…the miscalled orthodoxy of the day. (4)​
If one says, “What does it matter the character or beliefs of these men provided they were competent in their field?”, I say it matters much. Once I (unwittingly) had an unbeliever translate a Gospel teaching from English into Arabic, and he butchered it, because he did not comprehend what the Spirit of Christ was saying in the Scripture (1 Corinthians 2:14; Romans 8:7). Worldly competence is far removed from spiritual competence.

These two men – even in their early twenties, before they were accomplished Greek classicists (note that I say, “classicists,” and not believing scholars) – had an antagonism to the Bible of the Evangelicals similar to those unbelieving intellectuals of our day who resent the authority behind the claims of the Gospel of Jesus Christ when it is preached in arresting power, and in its integrity. Pleasant and aesthetic church services, soothing to the religious temperament, are acceptable, but not soul-convicting Spirit-empowered Gospel preaching! As we have shown by a few representative quotes, early in their lives they decided to pit themselves against the Bible of the Evangelicals, and labored almost thirty years preparing their substitute Greek text. How did they manage to overturn the Traditional Text, and curry the favor of the scholarly community (or a good part of it)? We will look at that now.

Quoting from Dr. Alfred Martin’s dissertation, “A Critical Examination of the Westcott-Hort Textual Theory”:

The Westcott-Hort theory holds the field in the opinions of so many people because it disposes of ninety-five percent of the documentary evidence in such a clever way that they do not perceive the loss of it. “Good riddance,” they say to all manuscripts, versions, and Fathers except a little handful (a handful, incidentally, which do not agree among themselves).

In an earlier chapter the Westcott and Hort theory was compared to a temple, the two chief columns of which were the “Syrian recensions” and the “Neutral Text.” Certainly enough has been said to show that these columns were in reality made of air. Scarcely any scholar can be found today, even among those most favorable to Westcott and Hort, who will vouch for deliberate and authoritative Syrian recensions or who will call their Neutral Text neutral.

Is it possible to believe that a text [the _Textus Receptus_] actually fabricated in the fourth century rapidly became so dominant that practically no copies were made any longer of exemplars which contained the type of text found in B and Aleph, also of the fourth century? This is really asking too much. The subjective character of the evidence adduced by Westcott and Hort permeates their whole theory. (1)​
In other words, W&H contrived a theory to explain away the overwhelming numerical dominance of the Textus Receptus manuscripts. This is the theory: an official church council – in Syrian Antioch, they say – in approximately 250 A.D., headed by a man named Lucian (who was a real “church” leader at that time, but an Arian), gathered the various, differing Greek manuscripts in circulation and combined them into an “official recension” (recension: “a critical revision of a text incorporating the most plausible elements found in varying sources” –_American Heritage Dict._). The trouble with this theory (we will get to the second part, the “Neutral Text,” in a moment) is that it is sheer conjecture, without even the minutest shred of historical – or any other – evidence. It is not even sound inference, as the data does not remotely lead to that conclusion. As with the _theory_ of evolution (which we saw both these men held), it is an interpretation of events and data unsupported by factual evidence. In impartial (i.e., true) science, the evidences for the creation model of origins are overwhelming, and the evidence for the “Big Bang” life-out-of-inorganic-matter (which matter supposedly always existed) is nonexistent upon close examination. Likewise, in the science of textual criticism data – solid facts – are essential in the establishing of a case; unsupported theories, while perhaps clever, are insufficient to make a case. And so it is with W&H’s theory; whenever any significant council was convened or church decision was effected, it is recorded in history. We have many records of various church councils, of various textual productions and (even) mutilations of Scripture by heretics, but there is absolute silence concerning their alleged Antioch council which produced a “Syrian recension.” _They just made it up!_ In order to displace the hated “vile Textus Receptus” (Hort’s phrase, quoted from his son’s biography in an earlier part of this writing) it was necessary that it somehow be discredited.

Burgon comments:

But how does it happen—(let the question be asked without offence)—that a man of good abilities, bred in a university which is supposed to cultivate especially the Science of exact reasoning, should habitually allow himself in such slipshod writing as this? The very _fact_ of a ‘Revision’ of the Syriac has all to be proved; and until it has been _demonstrated_, cannot of course be reasoned upon as a fact. Instead of demonstration, we find ourselves invited (1)—‘_To suppose_’ that such a revision took place: and (2)—‘_To suppose_’ that all our existing Manuscripts [comprising the TR] represent it. But (as we have said) not a shadow of reason is produced why we should be so complaisant as ‘to suppose’ either the one thing or the other. (2)​
It is a sad exercise reading through Burgon’s five volumes of _mountainous_ detailed proofs supporting his critique of Westcott and Hort’s Greek text and their appended volume regarding their operating theory, as well as his proofs for the authenticity of the Traditional Text. It is like a skilled attorney defending a virtuous and godly woman whom he loved against well-rehearsed and skilled false testimony before a jury disposed to receive sensational hearsay accounts over established and irrefutable facts provided by reliable witnesses. The outrage! (but held in check), the sadness, the righteous anger! (also held in rein), the frustration! Burgon marshals the proofs, but they are dismissed with scorn! Or ignored. But _we_ may benefit, that our sword might be held with confidence. And that _is_ the issue for us: that we be able to hold and wield our sword in behalf of our King, with His word proclaimed throughout the territory of the enemy, the devil, that the captives be set loose.

Burgon continues:

Now, instead of insisting that this entire Theory is made up of a series of purely gratuitous assumptions,—destitute alike of attestation and of probability: and that, as a mere effort of the Imagination, it is entitled to no manner of consideration or respect at our hands:—instead of dealing _thus_ with what precedes, we propose to be most kind and accommodating to Dr. Hort. We proceed _to accept his Theory in its entirety_. We will, with the Reader’s permission, assume that all he tells us is historically true: is an authentic narrative of what actually did take place. We shall in the end invite the same Reader to recognize the inevitable consequences of our admission: to which we shall inexorably pin the learned Editors—bind them hand and foot;—of course reserving for ourselves the right of disallowing _for ourselves_ as much of the matter as we please.

Somewhere between A.D. 250 and 350 therefore,—(‘it is impossible to say with confidence’ [-Hort, _Introduction-Appendix_, p. 137] what was the actual date, but these Editors incline to the latter half of the 3rd century, i.e., _circa_ A.D. 275);—we are to believe that the Ecclesiastical heads of the four great Patriarchates of Eastern Christendom,—Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople,—had become so troubled at witnessing the prevalence of depraved copies of Holy Scripture in their respective churches, that they resolved by common consent on achieving an authoritative Revision which should henceforth become the standard Text of all the Patriarchates of the East…

We venture to remark in passing that Textual matters must have everywhere reached a very alarming pass indeed as to render intelligible the resort to so extraordinary a step as a representative Conference of the ‘leading Personages or Sees’ [Hort, p. 134] of Eastern Christendom. The inference is at least inevitable, that men in high place at that time deemed themselves competent to grapple with the problem. Enough was known about the character and the sources of these corrupt Texts to make it certain that they would be recognizable when produced; and that, when condemned by authority, they would no longer be propagated, and in the end would cease to molest the Church. Thus much, at all events, is legitimately to be inferred from the hypothesis.

Behold then from every principal Diocese of ancient Christendom, and in the Church’s palmiest [most excellent, prosperous] days, the most famous of the ante-Nicene Fathers repair to Antioch. They go up by authority, and are attended by skilled Ecclesiastics of the highest theological attainment. Bearers are they perforce of a vast number of Copies of the Scriptures: and (by the hypothesis) _the latest possible dates_ of any of these Copies must range between A.D. 250 and 350. But the delegates of so many ancient Sees will have been supremely careful, before starting on so important and solemn an errand, to make diligent search for the oldest Copies anywhere discoverable: and when they reach the scene of their deliberations, we may be certain that they are able to appeal to not a few codices _written within a hundred years of the_ date of the _inspired Autographs_ themselves [sic]. Copies of the Scriptures authenticated as having belonged to the most famous of their predecessors,—and held by them in high repute for the presumed purity of their Texts—will have been freely produced: while, in select receptacles, will have been stowed away—for purposes of comparison and avoidance—specimens of those dreaded Texts whose existence has been the sole cause why (by the hypothesis) this extraordinary concourse of learned Ecclesiastics has taken place.

After solemnly invoking the Divine blessing, these men address themselves assiduously to their task; and (by the hypothesis) they proceed to condemn every codex which exhibits a ‘strictly Western,’ or a ‘strictly Alexandrian,’ or a ‘strictly Neutral’ type. *In plain English, if codices B, Aleph, and D had been before them, they would have unceremoniously rejected all three*, but then, (by the hypothesis) neither of the two first-named had yet come into being: while 200 years at least must roll out before Cod. D would see the light. *In the meantime, the immediate ancestors of B Aleph and D will perforce have come under judicial Scrutiny; and, (by the hypothesis,) they will have been scornfully rejected by the general consent of the Judges.* [bold emphases added]

Pass an interval—(are we to suppose of fifty years?)—and the work referred to is ‘_subjected to a second authoritative Revision._’ _Again_, therefore, behold the piety and learning of the four great Patriarchates of the East, formally represented at Antioch! The Church is now in her palmiest days. Some of the greatest men belong to the period of which we are now speaking. Eusebius (A.D. 308-340) is in his glory. One whole generation has come and gone since the last Textual Conference was held, at Antioch. Yet no inclination is manifested to reverse the decrees of the earlier Conference. This second Recension of the Text of Scripture does but ‘carry out more completely the purposes of the first;’ and ‘the final process was apparently completed by A.D. 350’ [Hort, p. 350].—So far the Cambridge Professor.

But one important fact implied by this august deliberation concerning the text of Scripture has been conveniently passed over by Dr. Hort in profound silence. We take leave to repair his omission by inviting the Reader’s particular attention to it.

We request him to note that, _by the hypothesis_, there will have been submitted to the scrutiny of these many ancient Ecclesiastics _not a few codices of exactly the same type as codices_ B _and_ Aleph: especially as codex B. We are able even to specify with precision certain features which the codices in question will have all concurred in exhibiting. Thus,—

(1) From S. Mark’s Gospel, those depraved copies will have omitted THE LAST TWELVE VERSES (16:9-20).
(2) From S. Luke’s Gospel the same corrupt copies will have omitted our SAVIOR’S AGONY IN THE GARDEN (22:43, 44).
(3) HIS PRAYER ON BEHALF OF HIS MURDERERS (23:34), will have also been away.
(4) The INSCRIPTION ON THE CROSS, in GREEK, LATIN, AND HEBREW (23:38), will have been partly, misrepresented,—partly, away.
(5) And there will have been no account discoverable of S. Peter’S VISIT TO THE SEPULCHRE (24:12).
(6) Absent will have been also the record of our LORD’S ASCENTION INTO HEAVEN (_ibid_. 51).
(7) Also, from S. John’s Gospel, the codices in question will have omitted the incident of THE TROUBLING OF THE POOL AT BETHESDA (5:3, 4).​
Now, we request that it may be clearly noted that, _according to Dr. Hort_, against every copy of the Gospels so maimed and mutilated, (i.e. against every copy of the Gospels of the same type as codices B and Aleph,)—the many illustrious Bishops who (_still_ according to Dr. Hort,) assembled at Antioch, first in A.D. 250 and then in A.D. 350,—by common consent set a mark of _condemnation_. We are assured that these famous men,—those Fathers of the Church,—were emphatic in their sanction, instead, of codices of the type of Cod. A,—in which all these seven omitted passages (and many hundreds besides) are duly found in their proper places.

When, therefore, at the end of a thousand and half a thousand years, Dr. Hort (guided by his inner consciousness, and depending on an intellectual illumination of which he is able to give no intelligible account) proposes to reverse the deliberate sentence of Antiquity,—his position strikes us as bordering on the ludicrous. Considering the seven places above referred to, which the assembled Fathers pronounce to be genuine Scripture, and declare to be worthy of all acceptation,—Dr. Hort expresses himself in terms which—could they have been heard at Antioch—must, it is thought, have brought down upon his head tokens of displeasure which might have even proved inconvenient…

It is plain therefore that Dr. Hort is in direct antagonism with the collective mind of Patristic Antiquity. _Why_, when it suits him, he should appeal to the same Ancients for support,—we fail to understand. ‘If Baal be GOD, then _follow him!_’ Dr. Hort has his codex B and his codex Aleph to guide him. He informs us [Hort, p. 276] that ‘the fullest consideration does but increase the conviction that the _preeminent relative purity_’ of those two codices ‘is approximately _absolute,—a true approximate reproduction of the Text of the Autographs._’ On the other hand, he has discovered that the Received Text is virtually the production of the Fathers of the Nicene Age (A.D. 250—A.D. 350),—exhibits a Text fabricated throughout by the united efforts of those well-intentioned but thoroughly misguided men. What is it to _him_, henceforth, how Athanasius, or Didymus, or Cyril exhibits a place?

Yes, we repeat it,—Dr. Hort is in direct antagonism with the Fathers of the 3rd and the 4th Century. His own fantastic hypothesis of a ‘Syrian Text,’—the solemn expression of the collective wisdom and deliberate judgment of the Fathers of the Nicene Age (A.D. 250—A.D. 350),—is the best answer which can by possibility be invented to his own pages,—is, in our account, the one sufficient and conclusive refutation of his own Text. (3)​
In this above illustration of the saying, “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit” (Proverbs 26:5), Burgon, knowing what the reality would be if Hort’s hypothesis were actual fact, turns it against him:

For ourselves, having said so much on this subject, it is fair that we should add,—We devoutly wish that Dr. Hort’s hypothesis of an authoritative and deliberate Recension of the Text of the New Testament achieved at Antioch first, about A.D. 250, and next, about A.D. 350, were indeed an historical fact. We desire no firmer basis on which to rest our confidence in the Traditional Text than the deliberate verdict of Antiquity,—the ascertained sanction of the collective Church, in the Nicene Age. The _Latin_ ‘Vulgate’ [A.D. 385] is the work of a single man—Jerome. The _Syriac_ ‘Vulgate’ [A.D. 616] was also the work of a single man—Thomas of Harkel. But this _Greek_ ‘Vulgate’ was (by the hypothesis) the product of the Church Catholic, [A.D. 250—A.D. 350,] in her corporate capacity. Not only should we hail such a monument of the collective piety and learning of the Church in her best days with unmingled reverence and joy, were it introduced to our notice; but we should insist that no important deviation from such a _‘Textus Receptus’_ as that would deserve to be listened to. In other words, if Dr. Hort’s theory about the origin of the _Textus Receptus_ have _any foundation at all_ in fact, it is ‘all up’ with Dr. Hort. He is absolutely _nowhere_. He has most ingeniously placed himself on the horns of a fatal dilemma.

For,—(let it be carefully noted,)—the entire discussion becomes, in this way, brought (so to speak) within the compass of a nutshell. To state the case briefly,—We are invited to make our election between the Fathers of the Church, A.D. 250 and A.D. 350,—and Dr. Hort, A.D. 1881. The issue is really reduced to _that_. The general question of THE TEXT OF SCRIPTURE being the matter at stake; (not any particular passage, remember, but _the Text of Scripture as a whole_)—and the _conflicting parties_ being but _two_;—_Which_ are we to believe? _the consentient Voice of Antiquity_,—or the solitary modern Professor? Shall we accept the august Testimony of the whole body of the Fathers? or shall we prefer to be guided by the self-evolved imaginations of one who confessedly has nothing to offer but conjecture? The question before us is reduced to that single issue. But in fact the alternative admits of being yet more concisely stated. We are invited to make our election between FACT and—FICTION…All this, of course, on the supposition that there is _any truth at all_ in Dr. Hort’s ‘New Textual Theory.’

Apart however from the gross intrinsic improbability of the supposed Recension,—the utter absence of one particle of evidence, traditional or otherwise, that it ever did take place, must be held to be fatal to the hypothesis that it _did_. It is simply incredible that an incident of such magnitude and interest would leave no trace of itself in history. (4)​
As stated earlier, the _Textus Receptus_ (TR) – the majority text comprising 90 to 95 percent of all the Greek manuscripts – did not happen because of a supposed official church decision and edict (although one might wish, as did Burgon, it had happened that way), but because the Lord worked through the priesthood of believers cleaving to – and faithfully reproducing – the text He supported through the collective wisdom imparted by Him, and also His faithfully providing the best texts to the right hands just when they were needed, and in particular this was the case in the years leading up to the production of the King James Bible in 1611.

-----------

(1) [for they did not receive their official appointment to revise the New Testament – not the Greek text, but make minor revisions in the English text – until 1871]
(2) _Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort_, by his son, Arthur Fenton Hort (Macmillan, London, 1896) Reprint by the Bible for Today. Vol. I, page 445.
(3) 2 Peter 2:1 more accurately classifies theirs as “damnable heresies” – there being a distinction between the two types.
(4) Ibid., page 421.
(5) _Which Bible?_ by David Otis Fuller, ed. (MI: Institute for Biblical Textual Studies, 1990), “A Critical Examination of the Westcott-Hort Theory,” by Dr. Alfred Martin, p. 171 (later Dr. Martin became Vice President of Moody Bible Institute in Chicago).
(6) _The Revision Revised_, by John William Burgon (London: 1881), reprinted by A.G. Hobbs Publications (TX: 1991), page 276.
(7) Ibid., pages 277, 278—282, 283, 284
(8) Ibid., pages 292, 293.


----------



## bob

The majority of our church members utilize the KJV or the NKJV version of the Bible. I use the NKJV for all of my teaching and preaching in the church. I study from both versions so that I am cognizant of any variances between the two texts. 

I have no issues at all with the KJV. It is a fine translation and a very accurate one at that. I grew up with the KJV and still have a high regard for its quality. I also believe there is a certain beauty to be found in its prose.

In comparing the two translations (KJV and NKJV) each week, it becomes apparent to me that considering our modern vernacular, the NKJV is a superior translation. Only rarely do I find that I prefer the KJV rendering over the NKJV. The issues are not so much a matter of accuracy as they are the accommodation of the evolution of the words defined in the English language. 

I would think that one of the primary purposes of a translation is to achieve an accurate rendering in the present day vernacular. When Luther translated the Scriptures into German, it was his desire that even the plough boy could understand its meaning.

In the rural region in which I live, I have known numerous people who genuinely have a difficult time reading and understanding the King James Version. Some did not grow with the KJV and are unfamiliar with some of the terms that I can immediately translate in my mind as I read. I used to preach out of the KJV, but found I had to spend a good deal of time expositing various words that needed clarification merely because of the shifting definitions of the English language.

I suppose we could insist that folks carry around a dictionary and a grammar to help them understand archaic nouns and verb tenses that they may not have had the benefit to be exposed to, but such requirements seem to begin to argue against the superiority of a translation.

Bob


----------



## CDM

> _Originally posted by Jerusalem Blade_
> The discussion below I have excerpted from my booklet-in-progress, _To Break A Sword_. In this section I look at the Theory behind Westcott & Hort´s favoring the codices B and Aleph, and their basis for disdaining the majority Traditional Text. I have availed myself of the labors and wisdom of others which the Lord granted them. If in my bringing up the characters and documented motives of these two men, someone says, but this is _argumentum ad hominem_ (criticism of an opponent´s character or motives, rather than of the person´s argument or beliefs), please note that a person´s character and motives will certainly bear on their spiritual views, and hence on their doctrines and related textual matters. As the Lord Jesus said, "œ"¦a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." (Matthew 7:17, 18)
> 
> In a letter to Westcott, in April of 1861, while they were unofficially (1) working on their revision of the Greek text, Hort wrote,
> 
> <blockquote>Also"”but this may be cowardice"”I have a sort of craving that our text should be cast upon the world before we deal with matters likely to brand us with suspicion. I mean, a text, issued by men already known for what will undoubtedly be treated as dangerous heresy, will have great difficulties in finding its way to regions which it might otherwise hope to reach, and whence it would not easily be banished by subsequent alarms. (2)</blockquote>
> 
> Hort was worldly-wise in this, for it was not until dogged research by scholars in the 20th century unearthed their "œdangerous heresy" (3) (though "œdamnable" be a more apt description) in _many_ areas, that we have learned things about them their contemporaries were unaware of. In a letter to Bishop Lightfoot in May of 1860, concerning a proposed commentary they would write with Westcott on the New Testament, Hort said,
> 
> <blockquote>Depend on it, whatever either you or I may say in an extended commentary, if only we speak our mind, we shall not be able to avoid giving grave offence to"¦the miscalled orthodoxy of the day. (4)</blockquote>
> 
> If one says, "œWhat does it matter the character or beliefs of these men provided they were competent in their field?", I say it matters much. Once I (unwittingly) had an unbeliever translate a Gospel teaching from English into Arabic, and he butchered it, because he did not comprehend what the Spirit of Christ was saying in the Scripture (1 Corinthians 2:14; Romans 8:7). Worldly competence is far removed from spiritual competence.
> 
> These two men "“ even in their early twenties, before they were accomplished Greek classicists (note that I say, "œclassicists," and not believing scholars) "“ had an antagonism to the Bible of the Evangelicals similar to those unbelieving intellectuals of our day who resent the authority behind the claims of the Gospel of Jesus Christ when it is preached in arresting power, and in its integrity. Pleasant and aesthetic church services, soothing to the religious temperament, are acceptable, but not soul-convicting Spirit-empowered Gospel preaching! As we have shown by a few representative quotes, early in their lives they decided to pit themselves against the Bible of the Evangelicals, and labored almost thirty years preparing their substitute Greek text. How did they manage to overturn the Traditional Text, and curry the favor of the scholarly community (or a good part of it)? We will look at that now.
> 
> Quoting from Dr. Alfred Martin´s dissertation, "œA Critical Examination of the Westcott-Hort Textual Theory":
> 
> <blockquote>The Westcott-Hort theory holds the field in the opinions of so many people because it disposes of ninety-five percent of the documentary evidence in such a clever way that they do not perceive the loss of it. "œGood riddance," they say to all manuscripts, versions, and Fathers except a little handful (a handful, incidentally, which do not agree among themselves).
> 
> In an earlier chapter the Westcott and Hort theory was compared to a temple, the two chief columns of which were the "œSyrian recensions" and the "œNeutral Text." Certainly enough has been said to show that these columns were in reality made of air. Scarcely any scholar can be found today, even among those most favorable to Westcott and Hort, who will vouch for deliberate and authoritative Syrian recensions or who will call their Neutral Text neutral.
> 
> Is it possible to believe that a text [the _Textus Receptus_] actually fabricated in the fourth century rapidly became so dominant that practically no copies were made any longer of exemplars which contained the type of text found in B and Aleph, also of the fourth century? This is really asking too much. The subjective character of the evidence adduced by Westcott and Hort permeates their whole theory. (5)</blockquote>
> 
> In other words, W&H contrived a theory to explain away the overwhelming numerical dominance of the Textus Receptus manuscripts. This is the theory: an official church council "“ in Syrian Antioch, they say "“ in approximately 250 A.D., headed by a man named Lucian (who was a real church leader at that time), gathered the various, differing Greek manuscripts in circulation and combined them into an "œofficial recension" (recension: "œa critical revision of a text incorporating the most plausible elements found in varying sources" "“_American Heritage Dict._). The trouble with this theory (we will get to the second part, the "œNeutral Text," in a moment) is that it is sheer conjecture, without even the minutest shred of historical "“ or any other "“ evidence. It is not even sound inference, as the data does not remotely lead to that conclusion. As with the _theory_ of evolution (which we saw both these men held), it is an interpretation of events and data unsupported by factual evidence. In impartial (i.e., true) science, the evidences for the creation model of origins are overwhelming, and the evidence for the "œBig Bang" life-out-of-inorganic-matter (which matter supposedly always existed) is nonexistent upon close examination. Likewise, in the science of textual criticism data "“ solid facts "“ are essential in the establishing of a case; unsupported theories, while perhaps clever, are insufficient to make a case. And so it is with W&H´s theory; whenever any significant council was convened or church decision was effected, it is recorded in history. We have many records of various church councils, of various textual productions and (even) mutilations of Scripture by heretics, but there is absolute silence concerning their alleged Antioch council which produced a "œSyrian recension." _They just made it up!_ In order to displace the hated "œvile Textus Receptus" (Hort´s phrase, quoted from his son´s biography in an earlier part of this writing) it was necessary that it somehow be discredited.
> 
> Burgon comments:
> 
> <blockquote>But how does it happen"”(let the question be asked without offence)"”that a man of good abilities, bred in a university which is supposed to cultivate especially the Science of exact reasoning, should habitually allow himself in such slipshod writing as this? The very _fact_ of a "˜Revision´ of the Syriac has all to be proved; and until it has been _demonstrated_, cannot of course be reasoned upon as a fact. Instead of demonstration, we find ourselves invited (1)"”"˜_To suppose_´ that such a revision took place: and (2)"”"˜_To suppose_´ that all our existing Manuscripts [comprising the TR] represent it. But (as we have said) not a shadow of reason is produced why we should be so complaisant as "˜to suppose´ either the one thing or the other. (6)</blockquote>
> 
> It is a sad exercise reading through Burgon´s five volumes of _mountainous_ detailed proofs supporting his critique of Westcott and Hort´s Greek text and their appended volume regarding their operating theory, as well as his proofs for the authenticity of the Traditional Text. It is like a skilled attorney defending a virtuous and godly woman whom he loved against well-rehearsed and skilled false testimony before a jury disposed to receive sensational hearsay accounts over established and irrefutable facts provided by reliable witnesses. The outrage! (but held in check), the sadness, the righteous anger! (also held in rein), the frustration! Burgon marshals the proofs, but they are dismissed with scorn! Or ignored. But _we_ may benefit, that our sword might be held with confidence. And that _is_ the issue for us: that we be able to hold and wield our sword in behalf of our King, with His word proclaimed through the territory of the enemy, the devil, that the captives be set loose.
> 
> Burgon continues:
> 
> <blockquote>Now, instead of insisting that this entire Theory is made up of a series of purely gratuitous assumptions,"”destitute alike of attestation and of probability: and that, as a mere effort of the Imagination, it is entitled to no manner of consideration or respect at our hands:"”instead of dealing _thus_ with what precedes, we propose to be most kind and accommodating to Dr. Hort. We proceed _to accept his Theory in its entirety_. We will, with the Reader´s permission, assume that all he tells us is historically true: is an authentic narrative of what actually did take place. We shall in the end invite the same Reader to recognize the inevitable consequences of our admission: to which we shall inexorably pin the learned Editors"”bind them hand and foot;"”of course reserving for ourselves the right of disallowing _for ourselves_ as much of the matter as we please.
> 
> Somewhere between A.D. 250 and 350 therefore,"”("˜it is impossible to say with confidence´ [-Hort, _Introduction-Appendix_, p. 137] what was the actual date, but these Editors incline to the latter half of the 3rd century, i.e., _circa_ A.D. 275);"”we are to believe that the Ecclesiastical heads of the four great Patriarchates of Eastern Christendom,"”Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople,"”had become so troubled at witnessing the prevalence of depraved copies of Holy Scripture in their respective churches, that they resolved by common consent on achieving an authoritative Revision which should henceforth become the standard Text of all the Patriarchates of the East"¦
> 
> We venture to remark in passing that Textual matters must have everywhere reached a very alarming pass indeed as to render intelligible the resort to so extraordinary a step as a representative Conference of the "˜leading Personages or Sees´ [Hort, p. 134] of Eastern Christendom. The inference is at least inevitable, that men in high place at that time deemed themselves competent to grapple with the problem. Enough was known about the character and the sources of these corrupt Texts to make it certain that they would be recognizable when produced; and that, when condemned by authority, they would no longer be propagated, and in the end would cease to molest the Church. Thus much, at all events, is legitimately to be inferred from the hypothesis.
> 
> Behold then from every principal Diocese of ancient Christendom, and in the Church´s palmiest [most excellent, prosperous] days, the most famous of the ante-Nicene Fathers repair to Antioch. They go up by authority, and are attended by skilled Ecclesiastics of the highest theological attainment. Bearers are they perforce of a vast number of Copies of the Scriptures: and (by the hypothesis) _the latest possible dates_ of any of these Copies must range between A.D. 250 and 350. But the delegates of so many ancient Sees will have been supremely careful, before starting on so important and solemn an errand, to make diligent search for the oldest Copies anywhere discoverable: and when they reach the scene of their deliberations, we may be certain that they are able to appeal to not a few codices _written within a hundred years of the_ date of the _inspired Autographs_ themselves [sic]. Copies of the Scriptures authenticated as having belonged to the most famous of their predecessors,"”and held by them in high repute for the presumed purity of their Texts"”will have been freely produced: while, in select receptacles, will have been stowed away"”for purposes of comparison and avoidance"”specimens of those dreaded Texts whose existence has been the sole cause why (by the hypothesis) this extraordinary concourse of learned Ecclesiastics has taken place.
> 
> After solemnly invoking the Divine blessing, these men address themselves assiduously to their task; and (by the hypothesis) they proceed to condemn every codex which exhibits a "˜strictly Western,´ or a "˜strictly Alexandrian,´ or a "˜strictly Neutral´ type. *In plain English, if codices B, Aleph, and D had been before them, they would have unceremoniously rejected all three*, but then, (by the hypothesis) neither of the two first-named had yet come into being: while 200 years at least must roll out before Cod. D would see the light. *In the meantime, the immediate ancestors of B Aleph and D will perforce have come under judicial Scrutiny; and, (by the hypothesis,) they will have been scornfully rejected by the general consent of the Judges.* [bold emphases added]
> 
> Pass an interval"”(are we to suppose of fifty years?)"”and the work referred to is "˜_subjected to a second authoritative Revision._´ _Again_, therefore, behold the piety and learning of the four great Patriarchates of the East, formally represented at Antioch! The Church is now in her palmiest days. Some of the greatest men belong to the period of which we are now speaking. Eusebius (A.D. 308-340) is in his glory. One whole generation has come and gone since the last Textual Conference was held, at Antioch. Yet no inclination is manifested to reverse the decrees of the earlier Conference. This second Recension of the Text of Scripture does but "˜carry out more completely the purposes of the first;´ and "˜the final process was apparently completed by A.D. 350´ [Hort, p. 350]."”So far the Cambridge Professor.
> 
> But one important fact implied by this august deliberation concerning the text of Scripture has been conveniently passed over by Dr. Hort in profound silence. We take leave to repair his omission by inviting the Reader´s particular attention to it.
> 
> We request him to note that, _by the hypothesis_, there will have been submitted to the scrutiny of these many ancient Ecclesiastics _not a few codices of exactly the same type as codices_ B _and_ Aleph: especially as codex B. We are able even to specify with precision certain features which the codices in question will have all concurred in exhibiting. Thus,"”
> 
> <blockquote>(1) From S. Mark´s Gospel, those depraved copies will have omitted THE LAST TWELVE VERSES (16:9-20).
> (2) From S. Luke´s Gospel the same corrupt copies will have omitted our SAVIOR´S AGONY IN THE GARDEN (22:43, 44).
> (3) HIS PRAYER ON BEHALF OF HIS MURDERERS (23:34), will have also been away.
> (4) The INSCRIPTION ON THE CROSS, in GREEK, LATIN, AND HEBREW (23:38), will have been partly, misrepresented,"”partly, away.
> (5) And there will have been no account discoverable of S. Peter´S VISIT TO THE SEPULCHRE (24:12).
> (6) Absent will have been also the record of our LORD´S ASCENTION INTO HEAVEN (_ibid_. 51).
> (7) Also, from S. John´s Gospel, the codices in question will have omitted the incident of THE TROUBLING OF THE POOL AT BETHESDA (5:3, 4).</blockquote>
> 
> Now, we request that it may be clearly noted that, _according to Dr. Hort_, against every copy of the Gospels so maimed and mutilated, (i.e. against every copy of the Gospels of the same type as codices B and Aleph,)"”the many illustrious Bishops who (_still_ according to Dr. Hort,) assembled at Antioch, first in A.D. 250 and then in A.D. 350,"”by common consent set a mark of _condemnation_. We are assured that these famous men,"”those Fathers of the Church,"”were emphatic in their sanction, instead, of codices of the type of Cod. A,"”in which all these seven omitted passages (and many hundreds besides) are duly found in their proper places.
> 
> When, therefore, at the end of a thousand and half a thousand years, Dr. Hort (guided by his inner consciousness, and depending on an intellectual illumination of which he is able to give no intelligible account) proposes to reverse the deliberate sentence of Antiquity,"”his position strikes us as bordering on the ludicrous. Considering the seven places above referred to, which the assembled Fathers pronounce to be genuine Scripture, and declare to be worthy of all acceptation,"”Dr. Hort expresses himself in terms which"”could they have been heard at Antioch"”must, it is thought, have brought down upon his head tokens of displeasure which might have even proved inconvenient"¦
> 
> It is plain therefore that Dr. Hort is in direct antagonism with the collective mind of Patristic Antiquity. _Why_, when it suits him, he should appeal to the same Ancients for support,"”we fail to understand. "˜If Baal be GOD, then _follow him!_´ Dr. Hort has his codex B and his codex Aleph to guide him. He informs us [Hort, p. 276] that "˜the fullest consideration does but increase the conviction that the _preeminent relative purity_´ of those two codices "˜is approximately _absolute,"”a true approximate reproduction of the Text of the Autographs._´ On the other hand, he has discovered that the Received Text is virtually the production of the Fathers of the Nicene Age (A.D. 250"”A.D. 350),"”exhibits a Text fabricated throughout by the united efforts of those well-intentioned but thoroughly misguided men. What is it to _him_, henceforth, how Athanasius, or Didymus, or Cyril exhibits a place?
> 
> Yes, we repeat it,"”Dr. Hort is in direct antagonism with the Fathers of the 3rd and the 4th Century. His own fantastic hypothesis of a "˜Syrian Text,´"”the solemn expression of the collective wisdom and deliberate judgment of the Fathers of the Nicene Age (A.D. 250"”A.D. 350),"”is the best answer which can by possibility be invented to his own pages,"”is, in our account, the one sufficient and conclusive refutation of his own Text. (7)</blockquote>
> 
> In this above illustration of the saying, "œAnswer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit" (Proverbs 26:5), Burgon, knowing what the reality would be if Hort´s hypothesis were actual fact, turns it against him:
> 
> <blockquote>For ourselves, having said so much on this subject, it is fair that we should add,"”We devoutly wish that Dr. Hort´s hypothesis of an authoritative and deliberate Recension of the Text of the New Testament achieved at Antioch first, about A.D. 250, and next, about A.D. 350, were indeed an historical fact. We desire no firmer basis on which to rest our confidence in the Traditional Text than the deliberate verdict of Antiquity,"”the ascertained sanction of the collective Church, in the Nicene Age. The _Latin_ "˜Vulgate´ [A.D. 385] is the work of a single man"”Jerome. The _Syriac_ "˜Vulgate´ [A.D. 616] was also the work of a single man"”Thomas of Harkel. But this _Greek_ "˜Vulgate´ was (by the hypothesis) the product of the Church Catholic, [A.D. 250"”A.D. 350,] in her corporate capacity. Not only should we hail such a monument of the collective piety and learning of the Church in her best days with unmingled reverence and joy, were it introduced to our notice; but we should insist that no important deviation from such a _"˜Textus Receptus´_ as that would deserve to be listened to. In other words, if Dr. Hort´s theory about the origin of the _Textus Receptus_ have _any foundation at all_ in fact, it is "˜all up´ with Dr. Hort. He is absolutely _nowhere_. He has most ingeniously placed himself on the horns of a fatal dilemma.
> 
> For,"”(let it be carefully noted,)"”the entire discussion becomes, in this way, brought (so to speak) within the compass of a nutshell. To state the case briefly,"”We are invited to make our election between the Fathers of the Church, A.D. 250 and A.D. 350,"”and Dr. Hort, A.D. 1881. The issue is really reduced to _that_. The general question of THE TEXT OF SCRIPTURE being the matter at stake; (not any particular passage, remember, but _the Text of Scripture as a whole_)"”and the _conflicting parties_ being but _two_;"”_Which_ are we to believe? _the consentient Voice of Antiquity_,"”or the solitary modern Professor? Shall we accept the august Testimony of the whole body of the Fathers? or shall we prefer to be guided by the self-evolved imaginations of one who confessedly has nothing to offer but conjecture? The question before us is reduced to that single issue. But in fact the alternative admits of being yet more concisely stated. We are invited to make our election between FACT and"”FICTION"¦All this, of course, on the supposition that there is _any truth at all_ in Dr. Hort´s "˜New Textual Theory.´
> 
> Apart however from the gross intrinsic improbability of the supposed Recension,"”the utter absence of one particle of evidence, traditional or otherwise, that it ever did take place, must be held to be fatal to the hypothesis that it _did_. It is simply incredible that an incident of such magnitude and interest would leave no trace of itself in history. (8)</blockquote>
> 
> As stated earlier, the _Textus Receptus_ (TR) "“ the majority text comprising 90 to 95 percent of all the Greek manuscripts "“ did not happen because of a supposed official church decision and edict (although one might wish, as did Burgon, it had happened that way), but because the Lord worked through the priesthood of believers cleaving to "“ and faithfully reproducing "“ the text He supported through the collective wisdom imparted by Him, and also His faithfully providing the best texts to the right hands just when they were needed, and in particular this was the case in the years leading up to the production of the King James Bible in 1611.
> 
> -----------
> 
> (1) [for they did not receive their official appointment to revise the New Testament "“ not the Greek text, but make minor revisions in the English text "“ until 1871]
> (2) _Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort_, by his son, Arthur Fenton Hort (Macmillan, London, 1896) Reprint by the Bible for Today. Vol. I, page 445.
> (3) 2 Peter 2:1 more accurately classifies theirs as "œdamnable heresies" "“ there being a distinction between the two types.
> (4) Ibid., page 421.
> (5) _Which Bible?_ by David Otis Fuller, ed. (MI: Institute for Biblical Textual Studies, 1990), "œA Critical Examination of the Westcott-Hort Theory," by Dr. Alfred Martin, p. 171 (later Dr. Martin became Vice President of Moody Bible Institute in Chicago).
> (6) _The Revision Revised_, by John William Burgon (London: 1881), reprinted by A.G. Hobbs Publications (TX: 1991), page 276.
> (7) Ibid., pages 277, 278"”282, 283, 284
> (8) Ibid., pages 292, 293.
> -----------



Fantastic post! Very enlightening, thank you. I am interested in the booklet you mentioned. How do I get a copy? Any more resources like this post or books/articles would be most appreciated. 

Another question: why do KJV only people not like the NKJV? Doesn't the NKJV use the TR or Received Text? Are these two translations the only ones that utilize the TR manuscripts?


----------



## Pilgrim

> _Originally posted by mangum_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jerusalem Blade_
> Getting back to the original question of this thread:
> 
> In the Critical text (the Westcott & Hort manuscripts) there is the omission of "œGod" in 1 Timothy 3:16. Let´s look more closely at that text. Burgon, responding to the margin note in the original 1881 Revision which says "œThe word _God_, in place of _He who_, rests on no sufficient ancient evidence", replies (we quote from the summation of his 76-page dissertation of proofs to the contrary):
> 
> <blockquote>Behold then the provision which THE AUTHOR of Scripture has made for the effectual conservation in its integrity of this portion of His written Word! Upwards of eighteen hundred years have run their course since the HOLY GHOST by His servant, Paul, rehearsed the "˜mystery of Godliness;´ declaring _this_ to be the great foundation-fact,"”namely, that "˜GOD WAS MANIFESTED IN THE FLESH.´ And lo, out of _two hundred and fifty-four_ [cursive] copies of S. Paul´s Epistles no less than _two hundred and fifty-two_ are discovered to have preserved that expression. Such "˜Consent´ amounts to _Unanimity_; and, (as I explained at pp. 454-5,) unanimity in this subject matter, is conclusive.
> 
> The copies of which we speak, (you are requested to observe,) were produced in every part of ancient Christendom,"”being derived in every instance from copies older than themselves; which again were transcripts of copies older still. They have since found their way, without design or contrivance, into the libraries of every country of Europe,"”where, for hundreds of years they have been jealously guarded. And,"”(I repeat the question already hazarded at pp. 445-6, and now respectfully propose it to _you_, my lord Bishop; requesting you at your convenience to favor me publicly with an answer)"”For what conceivable reason can this multitude of witnesses be supposed to have entered into a wicked conspiracy to deceive mankind?
> 
> True, that no miracle has guarded the sacred Text in this, or in any other place. On the other hand, for the last 150 years, Unbelief has been carping resolutely at this grand proclamation of the Divinity of Christ,"”in order to prove that not this, but some other thing, it must have been, which the Apostle wrote. And yet (as I have fully shown) the result of all the evidence procurable is to establish that the Apostle must be held to have written no other thing but _this_"¦
> 
> The numerical result of our entire enquiry, proves therefore to be briefly this:
> 
> In 1 TIMOTHY 3:16 the reading [writing English for the Greek] _God manifest in the flesh_, is witnessed to by 289 manuscripts:"”by 3 VERSIONS:"”by upwards of 20 Greek FATHERS [all of which he has just listed in detail]"¦
> 
> The reading _who_ ("¦in place of God) is countenanced by 6 MANUSCRIPTS in all (aleph, Paul 17, 73: Apost. 12, 85, 86):"”by _only one_ VERSION for certain (viz. the Gothic):"”_not for certain by a single Greek_ FATHER. (1)</blockquote>
> 
> In short, the overwhelming testimony of Antiquity says that the Fathers, the Lectionaries, and the manuscripts were familiar with the very reading we ourselves have preserved in the Traditional Text. The fractional aberrant readings proceeding from their source in aleph´s Alexandria or Caesarea, where the Deity of Jesus Christ was violently and wickedly denied, are virtually buried by the contradictory evidence of the true reading widely spread throughout the ancient Christian world.
> 
> Burgon, Commenting on the two major Alexandrian manuscripts,
> 
> <blockquote>We assert that, so manifest are the disfigurements jointly and _exclusively_ exhibited by codices B & aleph [at which point he gives a long list of examples in the footnote], that instead of accepting these codices as two "˜independent´ Witnesses to the inspired Original, we are constrained to regard them as little more than a single reproduction of one and the same scandalously corrupt and (_comparatively_) late Copy"¦
> 
> The result is, that codex aleph, (which evidently has gone through much more adventures and fallen into worse company than his rival) has been corrupted to a far graver extent than codex B, and is even more untrustworthy. Thus, whereas (in the Gospels alone) B has 589 Readings _quite peculiar to itself_, affecting 858 words,"” aleph has 1460 such readings, affecting 2640 words.
> 
> One _solid fact_ like the preceding, (let it be pointed out in passing,) is more helpful by far to one who would form a correct estimate of the value of a Codex, than any number of such "˜reckless and unverified assertions,´ not to say peremptory and baseless decrees, as abound in the highly imaginative pages of Drs. Westcott and Hort. (2)</blockquote>
> 
> Although it has been asserted by some that the W&H manuscripts are characterized by "œ*lack* of omissions," the facts are glaringly contrary:
> 
> <blockquote>"¦Mutilation has been practiced throughout. By codex B (collated [i.e., minutely compared] with the Traditional Text), no less than 2877 words have been excised from the Gospels alone: by codex aleph,"”3455 words: by codex D,"”3704 words. (3)</blockquote>
> 
> (1) _The Revision Revised_, John Burgon, pages 494, 495, 496.
> (2) Ibid., pages 317, 318, 319.
> (3) Ibid., page 75.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you very much for this information. I am learning from this discussion where to go to study.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Hard Knox_
> Was the Geneva a translation from the TR family?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Tyndale New Testament (1526-1530) was the first English translation to use the TR. Matthew's Bible (1537) simply used Tyndale's New Testament. The five 'revisions' mentioned may include those listed below, all of which were based on the Textus Receptus and all were influenced by Tyndale:
> 
> 1. Coverdale Bible (1535) / The Great Bible (1539) (both Bibles done by Coverdale)
> 2. Geneva Bible (the Bible of the Pilgrims) (1557-1560)
> 3. Bishop's Bible (1568)
> 4. King James Version (a.k.a., Authorized Version; original version, 1611; Dr. Benjamin Blayney's final revision, 1769)
> 5. New King James Version (1982)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Plus, there is the Modern King James Version and the 21st Century King James Version.
> 
> [Edited on 7-2-2006 by VirginiaHuguenot]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Recently, these last few Lord's Day's, I've been reading the KJV during family worship. I was having to stop several times to explain the "funny" language. Like "concupiscence" to name just one.
> 
> Would the KJV21 be a good alternative? Or the Modern KJV? I'd be curious to know what the "glassy-eyed King James defenders" have to say about these translations?
Click to expand...


I am not a "glassy-eyed AV defender" but I will say that the MKJV is more "modern" than the KJV21, which seems to be a half-measure when it comes to updating the language of the KJV. (Jay P. Green, translator of the MKJV also produced the LITV, a very literal translation also based on the TR). The MKJV is somewhat similar to the NKJV, but the "glassy eyed KJV defenders" will denounce the NKJV because of the CT variants in the margin (whereby someone might be led astray...), and many will also note some other deviation from the KJV in the NKJV text to argue that the NKJV is part of a vast conspiracy, etc. 

See this page from a Majority Text advocate who favors the NKJV for general use has some good information on the MKJV and LITV, both of which he recommends. He also comments on the KJ21. 

Also, while the TR and the Majority Text are very similar in most places, they are not exactly the same, as if I'm not mistaken, there are renderings in the TR that aren't found in any manuscript and others where Erasmus imported text directly from the Latin Vulgate, as with parts of Revelation, where he did not have a complete Greek manuscript of the book to work with. The NKJV also notes differences between the TR and MT in the margin.


----------



## Pilgrim

WRT to the Lucianic recension that W&H alleged, see below quotes from Jerome (translator of the Vulgate) that appear to suggest that Lucian was responsible for a recension. But I don't know how this belief is widely held today even by CT or eclectic scholars. Perhaps Dr. White could weigh in here? I can find no mention of such a recension in his book. But you can find it in this response by the Lockman Foundation (producers of the NASB) to Riplinger's "New Age Bible Versions": 



> The Byzantine Text had its beginnings in Syria when a Bible scholar named Lucian who had studied at a famous theological school in Antioch revised the Greek Old and New Testaments from a collection of manuscripts available to him. That is, rather than copying one original manuscript, Lucian (perhaps with help from others) seems to have consulted several different manuscripts in the process of compiling a new one. This was probably done early in the fourth century (Lucian was martyred in 312). From there the manuscript was taken to Constantinople, where it was widely distributed throughout the Byzantine empire (thus the name "Byzantine" text). As time went on, thousands of copies were made and in fact 90 percent of the Greek New Testament manuscripts existing today are of this type. Almost all of them were produced after the sixth century within the Byzantine Empire, since by this time Greek was scarcely understood outside the Empire and Moslem conquests had greatly reduced the numbers of Christians beyond the Empire as well.
> 
> It is sometimes asked what evidence there really is that Lucian did such a revision. The most important direct evidence comes from the fourth-century church father Jerome, who makes several remarks about Lucian in his own works. In his Preface to the Four Gospels, Jerome criticizes Lucian and another scholar, Hesychius, for editing the Scripture. Later, in his preface to the books of Chronicles, Jerome remarks that from Constantinople to Antioch the Greek Old Testament of Lucian meets with approval. In another work written shortly after 392, Jerome praises Lucian and comments that Lucian worked so hard in the study of the Scriptures that even at that time some copies of the Scriptures still bear his name. In a letter written about 11 years later, Jerome tells two Bible students that there is one edition "...which Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, and all Greek commentators call koine--i.e. common--and widespread, and is now called 'Lucianic' by most people." http://www.kjvonly.org/other/riplinger_lockman.htm



[Edited on 7-3-2006 by Pilgrim]


----------



## CDM

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> WRT to the Lucianic recension that W&H alleged, see below quotes from Jerome (translator of the Vulgate) that appear to suggest that Lucian was responsible for a recension. But I don't know how this belief is widely held today even by CT or eclectic scholars. Perhaps Dr. White could weigh in here? I can find no mention of such a recension in his book. But you can find it in this response by the Lockman Foundation (producers of the NASB) to Riplinger's "New Age Bible Versions":
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Byzantine Text had its beginnings in Syria when a Bible scholar named Lucian who had studied at a famous theological school in Antioch revised the Greek Old and New Testaments from a collection of manuscripts available to him. That is, rather than copying one original manuscript, Lucian (perhaps with help from others) seems to have consulted several different manuscripts in the process of compiling a new one. This was probably done early in the fourth century (Lucian was martyred in 312). From there the manuscript was taken to Constantinople, where it was widely distributed throughout the Byzantine empire (thus the name "Byzantine" text). As time went on, thousands of copies were made and in fact 90 percent of the Greek New Testament manuscripts existing today are of this type. Almost all of them were produced after the sixth century within the Byzantine Empire, since by this time Greek was scarcely understood outside the Empire and Moslem conquests had greatly reduced the numbers of Christians beyond the Empire as well.
> 
> It is sometimes asked what evidence there really is that Lucian did such a revision. The most important direct evidence comes from the fourth-century church father Jerome, who makes several remarks about Lucian in his own works. In his Preface to the Four Gospels, Jerome criticizes Lucian and another scholar, Hesychius, for editing the Scripture. Later, in his preface to the books of Chronicles, Jerome remarks that from Constantinople to Antioch the Greek Old Testament of Lucian meets with approval. In another work written shortly after 392, Jerome praises Lucian and comments that Lucian worked so hard in the study of the Scriptures that even at that time some copies of the Scriptures still bear his name. In a letter written about 11 years later, Jerome tells two Bible students that there is one edition "...which Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, and all Greek commentators call koine--i.e. common--and widespread, and is now called 'Lucianic' by most people." http://www.kjvonly.org/other/riplinger_lockman.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Edited on 7-3-2006 by Pilgrim]
Click to expand...


After reading the Lockman article, it appears they believe the CT is superior due to its earlier dating and many copies that agree with one another. 

I still am unsure of why KJV only people believe the earlier manuscripts (CT) are perverse and the later TR is pure and superior. Is the main argument that there are more copies of the TR?


----------



## Pilgrim

> _Originally posted by mangum_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> WRT to the Lucianic recension that W&H alleged, see below quotes from Jerome (translator of the Vulgate) that appear to suggest that Lucian was responsible for a recension. But I don't know how this belief is widely held today even by CT or eclectic scholars. Perhaps Dr. White could weigh in here? I can find no mention of such a recension in his book. But you can find it in this response by the Lockman Foundation (producers of the NASB) to Riplinger's "New Age Bible Versions":
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Byzantine Text had its beginnings in Syria when a Bible scholar named Lucian who had studied at a famous theological school in Antioch revised the Greek Old and New Testaments from a collection of manuscripts available to him. That is, rather than copying one original manuscript, Lucian (perhaps with help from others) seems to have consulted several different manuscripts in the process of compiling a new one. This was probably done early in the fourth century (Lucian was martyred in 312). From there the manuscript was taken to Constantinople, where it was widely distributed throughout the Byzantine empire (thus the name "Byzantine" text). As time went on, thousands of copies were made and in fact 90 percent of the Greek New Testament manuscripts existing today are of this type. Almost all of them were produced after the sixth century within the Byzantine Empire, since by this time Greek was scarcely understood outside the Empire and Moslem conquests had greatly reduced the numbers of Christians beyond the Empire as well.
> 
> It is sometimes asked what evidence there really is that Lucian did such a revision. The most important direct evidence comes from the fourth-century church father Jerome, who makes several remarks about Lucian in his own works. In his Preface to the Four Gospels, Jerome criticizes Lucian and another scholar, Hesychius, for editing the Scripture. Later, in his preface to the books of Chronicles, Jerome remarks that from Constantinople to Antioch the Greek Old Testament of Lucian meets with approval. In another work written shortly after 392, Jerome praises Lucian and comments that Lucian worked so hard in the study of the Scriptures that even at that time some copies of the Scriptures still bear his name. In a letter written about 11 years later, Jerome tells two Bible students that there is one edition "...which Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, and all Greek commentators call koine--i.e. common--and widespread, and is now called 'Lucianic' by most people." http://www.kjvonly.org/other/riplinger_lockman.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Edited on 7-3-2006 by Pilgrim]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After reading the Lockman article, it appears they believe the CT is superior due to its earlier dating and many copies that agree with one another.
> 
> I still am unsure of why KJV only people believe the earlier manuscripts (CT) are perverse and the later TR is pure and superior. Is the main argument that there are more copies of the TR?
Click to expand...


TR and Majority (Byzantine) Text advocates say that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus often disagree with each other. As Rev. Winzer noted earlier, what side you come down on largely depends on certain assumptions that need to be tested. And after several years of studying this as a layman I'm still basically on the fence. (If I was fully satisfied by the CT/eclectic arguments I wouldn't be on the fence, and ad hominem arguments and continuing to disseminate false information by many KJVO/TR advocates isn't helpful either). 

I think you can say that the main argument of the TR as well as MT advocates is that the church used the Byzantine texts for centuries. The idea of providential preservation comes into play as well, especially for TR advocates. These arguments hold some weight for me. I have not been convinced that the older texts are heretical or gnostic. 

Bible Researcher is an excellent site by a Reformed believer that has tons of information. He is a CT advocate, but has a lot of differing opinions represented and linked there as well. He also has a Yahoo group, and I've posted a message looking to get some answers on the alleged Lucianic recension.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

RE this quote from the Lockman Foundation link re the "Lucianic" edition:

It is sometimes asked what evidence there really is that Lucian did such a revision. The most important direct evidence comes from the fourth-century church father Jerome, who makes several remarks about Lucian in his own works. In his Preface to the Four Gospels, Jerome criticizes Lucian and another scholar, Hesychius, for editing the Scripture. Later, in his preface to the books of Chronicles, Jerome remarks that from Constantinople to Antioch the Greek Old Testament of Lucian meets with approval. In another work written shortly after 392, Jerome praises Lucian and comments that Lucian worked so hard in the study of the Scriptures that even at that time some copies of the Scriptures still bear his name. In a letter written about 11 years later, Jerome tells two Bible students that there is one edition "...which Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, and all Greek commentators call koine--i.e. common--and widespread, and is now called 'Lucianic' by most people."​
I will study a little more on what Jerome was referring to, but this certainly does not qualify as an official recension imposed upon the entire church, as Hort alleges. To have Jerome say, there is one edition "...which Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, and all Greek commentators call koine--i.e. common--and widespread, and is now called 'Lucianic' by most people", linking this supposed koine MS to Origen and Eusebius is to confuse two different kinds of texts with one another. Origen was gone by the time of Eusebius, and the text these two produced (E. inheriting Origen's MSS. and library in Caesarea), and which did indeed become the official text promoted by Constantine when he ordered of Eusebius 50 high-quality (i.e., the vellum sheets) Bibles was to all intents and purposes the CT we have today, and widely diverged from the genuine koine MSS, which were written on papyrus and did not last as long, this being the favorite and the standard of the poorer common people. What came from Origen and Eusebius suffered from much editing. Tischendorf surmised that his Aleph MS. was very likely one of the Fifty!

Some of the important factors to consider are the great doctrinal battles that raged in the time of Eusebius, particularly the Arians and the Sabellians against the orthodox. It is these very texts that one finds affected.

How many people realize that for _50 years_, from approximately 335 to 385, both the Patriarchs of the Eastern Church and the rulers of the Byzantine Empire were strongly Arian, and enforced this theology by sword and pain? The Latin churches of North Africa were little touched by what went on in the Greek regions. They universally retained doctrinal readings in their Bibles that were removed from the Greek. What do you think would happen if the JWs controlled the churches, and the Unitarian-Universalists the government for 50 years -- they working together to "correct" the Bibles of their land?

I prize my MKJV Greek-English Interlinear coded with Strong's numbers. It is a very useful tool. I don't mind the comparative margin notes in my NKJV, though I don't like some of the prefatory remarks in my edition. I find the margin notes useful. There are a few readings in the NKJV that are seriously deficient. Though I have recommended that version be used over the NIV for a school I have taught at in Africa (realizing that suggesting the KJV would not be accepted). I read with an NIV at hand, and also an ESV, NASB, NKJV, MKJV, as well as many other translations. I know this will get me in trouble with some people, but there are even two NIV readings I've put in my KJV margins, I like them so much. One can't please all the people all the time. What is primary is that one pleases our King.

You CT folks, how do you explain to young believers the margin notes in your ESVs or NASBs which say so many verses and words are not in the best MSS? The clear impression given is that you do not have a settled text for your Bibles. They see there is a war over the manuscripts. It will not suffice merely to put down the KJV people, one must answer the difficult questions. One must show a Bible that is reliable. After studying this for over thirty years, I am convinced that the King James Bible is sound, being based on sound Hebrew and Greek texts. My primary defense is of those texts. I realize that the King James English is not easy for some. I know this all the more because so far most of the people I preach for and teach do not have English as their first language. I will "modernize" the language as I read it. As a poet and writer I know how important communication is. But I cannot sacrifice accuracy of language for ease; so I explain and make clear. I will not "dumb it down", but will try to get the Biblical meaning across.

I am sorry that some TR/KJV defenders have mean spirits. There are some in that camp that model this sort of belligerence, and others pick it up. There are some of us with more irenic spirits, who love sound scholarship, and who love the brethren even when they differ, even in serious matters.

My wife uses the NIV, and I don't "lord it over her" in such matters. She has her liberty of conscience. I am proud and pleased she is a godly woman who deeply loves the word of God.

I will try to interact with you folks and answer questions, but in the morning I am going to another city for a couple of weeks, and it may take some time to get my internet connection going again. So if you haven't heard from me for a couple of days, please don't think I've run away!

In the heart of our Savior,

Steve


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by mangum_
> Fantastic post! Very enlightening, thank you. I am interested in the booklet you mentioned. How do I get a copy? Any more resources like this post or books/articles would be most appreciated.
> 
> Another question: why do KJV only people not like the NKJV? Doesn't the NKJV use the TR or Received Text? Are these two translations the only ones that utilize the TR manuscripts?



See this thread for some discussion of the merits of the KJV v. NKJV, and the Trinitarian Bible Society's critique of the latter.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by mangum_
> Recently, these last few Lord's Day's, I've been reading the KJV during family worship. I was having to stop several times to explain the "funny" language. Like "concupiscence" to name just one.
> 
> Would the KJV21 be a good alternative? Or the Modern KJV? I'd be curious to know what the "glassy-eyed King James defenders" have to say about these translations?



Speaking personally, and not as a "glassy-eyed King James defender," I prefer to use the KJV in private and family worship, although I would not knock someone else's preference to use a modernized KJV. Besides the theological and textual reasons which lead me to use only those Bibles which utilize the Majority Text (the 1599 Geneva Bible is a close second for me), and besides the fact that I prefer to utilize the Bible version employed by the Westminster Assembly in the framing of the Confession and Catechisms (as has been pointed out recently, the ESV, for example, excludes the conclusion to the Lord's Prayer found in Matt. 6.13, although there is a footnote reference, which has a direct bearing on WLC 196), I have stated my reasons for teaching my children from the KJV previously in this thread:



> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Reed_
> People -
> for hundreds of years childeren were reared on the Geneva or King James translations -- let's remain true to our heritage. Let's not water down our children's education. Our kids will only become stronger if we discipline them on challenging literature.
> 
> The more you read King James and old style English literature (especially Puritan writing) the easier it eventually becomes to understand... you just have to be patient.
> 
> While I realize the King James isn't the preferred translation, kids should be able to read it and understand it --- and they'll only be able to do this if they are hearing it and reading it. Yes, Bible study, memorization -- use the version your pastor is using -- but for learning the beauty of the English language, exposing kids to the King James is a good idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am reminded of the words of the Westminster Assembly in their introduction to the Shorter Catechism, which is challenging for most of today's adults, but was intended for those of "weaker capacity." While adhering the principle that the Scriptures should be available to all in vulgar tongues, we ought nevertheless to keep the bar of Biblical literacy high (for children and adults). There is no finer English language translation than the King James version (speaking as someone who is not KJVO), which was written in an elevated style designed to be read from the pulpit, consistent with this principle and consistent with the Scriptures themselves.
> 
> George Bernard Shaw had this to say of the King James version:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The translation was extraordinarily well done because to the translators what they were translating was not merely a curious collection of ancient books written by different authors in different stages of culture, but the word of God divinely revealed through His chosen and expressly inspired scribes. In this conviction they carried out their work with boundless reverence and care and achieved a beautifully artistic result...they made a translation so magnificent that to this day the common human Britisher or citizen of the United States of North America accepts and worships it as a single book by a single author, the book being the Book of Books and the author being God.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


[Edited on 7-3-2006 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## Pilgrim

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by mangum_
> Fantastic post! Very enlightening, thank you. I am interested in the booklet you mentioned. How do I get a copy? Any more resources like this post or books/articles would be most appreciated.
> 
> Another question: why do KJV only people not like the NKJV? Doesn't the NKJV use the TR or Received Text? Are these two translations the only ones that utilize the TR manuscripts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See this thread for some discussion of the merits of the KJV v. NKJV, and the Trinitarian Bible Society's critique of the latter.
Click to expand...


Andrew, do you know if the TBS critique of the NKJV is still available online? I read it a couple of years ago but cannot find it now.


----------



## Pilgrim

The OPC is far from KJVO and I'd think few OPC pastors preach from the KJV. But in their recently published version of the Confession and Catechisms, the proof texts included are printed in the KJV since that is what the Westminster Assembly used and the language of the KJV is at times reflected in the standards. I'll also add that I find the texts being printed instead of just the citations to be very helpful.


----------



## Pilgrim

Steve, I thank you for your irenic tone throughout this discussion. In your opinion what renderings in the NKJV are seriously deficient? 

One helpful change in the 1995 revision of the NASB is a softening of the tone in some places toward asserting the "better manuscripts", etc. in the marginal notes.


----------



## fredtgreco

This is a very good and helpful discussion.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by mangum_
> Fantastic post! Very enlightening, thank you. I am interested in the booklet you mentioned. How do I get a copy? Any more resources like this post or books/articles would be most appreciated.
> 
> Another question: why do KJV only people not like the NKJV? Doesn't the NKJV use the TR or Received Text? Are these two translations the only ones that utilize the TR manuscripts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See this thread for some discussion of the merits of the KJV v. NKJV, and the Trinitarian Bible Society's critique of the latter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Andrew, do you know if the TBS critique of the NKJV is still available online? I read it a couple of years ago but cannot find it now.
Click to expand...


I wish it was but I think not. I noted in that thread how it can be obtained though:



> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> The Trinitarian Bible Society has a good balanced critique of the NKJV called _What today's Christian needs to know about the New King James Version_. It avoids unnecessary hyperoble while highlighting areas of concern.
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew,
> You don't happen to have a link, do you? I can't seem to find it.
> Thanks,
> Bob
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not available in electronic form on their website, but you can order it for 60 cents. It's under the section called "other publications"/"articles"/"modern version reviews".
Click to expand...


----------



## Pilgrim

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by mangum_
> Fantastic post! Very enlightening, thank you. I am interested in the booklet you mentioned. How do I get a copy? Any more resources like this post or books/articles would be most appreciated.
> 
> Another question: why do KJV only people not like the NKJV? Doesn't the NKJV use the TR or Received Text? Are these two translations the only ones that utilize the TR manuscripts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See this thread for some discussion of the merits of the KJV v. NKJV, and the Trinitarian Bible Society's critique of the latter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Andrew, do you know if the TBS critique of the NKJV is still available online? I read it a couple of years ago but cannot find it now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wish it was but I think not. I noted in that thread how it can be obtained though:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> The Trinitarian Bible Society has a good balanced critique of the NKJV called _What today's Christian needs to know about the New King James Version_. It avoids unnecessary hyperoble while highlighting areas of concern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Andrew,
> You don't happen to have a link, do you? I can't seem to find it.
> Thanks,
> Bob
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not available in electronic form on their website, but you can order it for 60 cents. It's under the section called "other publications"/"articles"/"modern version reviews".
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


From what I recall, they sort of gave it a mixed review. Didn't say it was terrible, but they had some concerns. 

Am I correct in thinking that the TBS still mainly recommends the AV but doesn't think that it couldn't be updated and/or improved upon?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> From what I recall, they sort of gave it a mixed review. Didn't say it was terrible, but they had some concerns.
> 
> Am I correct in thinking that the TBS still mainly recommends the AV but doesn't think that it couldn't be updated and/or improved upon?



Yep, that is a good summary, as I recall (I don't have the tract I referred to earlier handy but I am looking at _The Holy Bible New King James Version_, TBS article no. 71 currently). They don't object, for example, to the principle of revising the KJV as was done in 1629, 1638, 1762 and 1769, and they are not opposed to the NKJV's replacement of archaic words. But they object to a number of renderings which they think go beyond such a revision and affect theological and textual precision.


----------



## MW

It is helpful to distinguish the ecclesiastical or traditional text which underlies the AV from the majority text which underlies the NKJV.


----------



## Pilgrim

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> It is helpful to distinguish the ecclesiastical or traditional text which underlies the AV from the majority text which underlies the NKJV.



While the NKJV is usually the version of choice for Majority Text (MT) advocates, the NKJV New Testament it is actually based on the Textus Receptus (traditional text), not the MT. However some TR/KJV advocates question some specific renderings and I think that was a major part of the TBS criticism, that the revision of the AV at times went too far. Perhaps the most common objection from traditional text advocates is the NKJV's textual footnotes that make note of Critical text and Majority text variants. 

There is no major translation that is based on the Majority Text of either Farstad-Hodges or Pierpont-Robinson. The Holman Christian Standard Bible was originally under the oversight of Dr. Farstad, but shortly before his death he sold the rights to Holman, who subsequently changed the textual basis to the CT. 

From the NKJV Preface: 



> In light of these facts, and also because the New King James Version is the fifth revision of a historic document translated from specific Greek texts, the editors decided to retain the traditional text in the body of the New Testament and to indicate major Critical and Majority Text variant readings in the footnotes. Although these variations are duly indicated in the footnotes of the present edition, it is most important to emphasize that fully eighty-five percent of the New Testament text is the same in the Textus Receptus, the Alexandrian Text, and the Majority Text.



On the textual notes: 



> Where significant variations occur in the New Testament Greek manuscripts, textual notes are classified as follows:
> 
> 1. NU-Text. These variations from the traditional text generally represent the Alexandrian or Egyptian type of text described previously in "The New Testament Text." They are found in the Critical Text published in the twenty-sixth edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (N) and in the United Bible Societies´ third edition (U), hence the acronym, "NU-Text."
> 
> 2. M-Text. This symbol indicates points of variation in the Majority Text from the traditional text, as also previously discussed in "The New Testament Text." It should be noted that M stands for whatever reading is printed in the published Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, whether supported by overwhelming, strong, or only a divided majority textual tradition.



[Edited on 7-4-2006 by Pilgrim]


----------



## MW

I wouldn't take their word for it.

1. It is not a fifth revision of the AV so far as translation is concerned.

2. I have found multiple places where the Majority Text is chosen over the Textus Receptus in the body of the work itself. One recent example I came across is 2 Pet. 1:1, which I will provide as an example as it is still fresh in memory.

NIV: of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.
NKJV: of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.
AV: of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.

This is not merely a translation option, although the choice to go with the NIV over the AV in many cases demonstrates it is not a revision of the AV. This is a choice to translate a different Greek text.


----------



## Pilgrim

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> I wouldn't take their word for it.
> 
> 1. It is not a fifth revision of the AV so far as translation is concerned.
> 
> 2. I have found multiple places where the Majority Text is chosen over the Textus Receptus in the body of the work itself. One recent example I came across is 2 Pet. 1:1, which I will provide as an example as it is still fresh in memory.
> 
> NIV: of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.
> NKJV: of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.
> AV: of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.
> 
> This is not merely a translation option, although the choice to go with the NIV over the AV in many cases demonstrates it is not a revision of the AV. This is a choice to translate a different Greek text.



Many if not most people on both sides would probably agree that the NKJV really isn't a "fifth revision" as is claimed. 

But 2 Pet. 1:1 does not seem to be a textual variant. The question is, why did the AV translators render it the way they did since other traditional text versions render it the way the NKJV and (horror of horrors!) the NIV do: 

1611 KJV:



> Simon Peter, a seruant & an Apostle of Iesus Christ, to them that haue obtained like precious Faith with vs, through the righteousnes of God, and our Sauiour Iesus Christ



The 1769 AV that I have has this as a marginal note at 2 Pet. 1:1



> Gk. _of our God and Saviour_



Geneva Bible (1567):



> Simon Peter a seruant and an Apostle of Iesus Christ, to you which haue obteined like precious faith with vs by the righteousnesse * of our God and Sauiour Iesus Christ*:



Bishop's Bible (1568)



> Simon Peter, a seruaunt and an Apostle of Iesus Christe, to them which haue obteined lyke precious faith with vs, thorowe the ryghteousnes *of our god and sauiour Iesus Christe*:



Coverdale (1535)



> Symon Peter a seruaut and an Apostle of Iesus Christ.Vnto the which haue optayned like faith with vs in the righteousnes that commeth *of oure God, and Sauioure Iesus Christ.*



Tyndale 1526



> Simon Peter a seruaunt and an Apostle of Iesus Christ to them which have obtayned lyke precious fayth with vs in the rightewesnes that commeth *of oure God and savioure Iesus Christ.*



[Edited on 7-4-2006 by Pilgrim]

[Edited on 7-4-2006 by Pilgrim]


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Matthew,
Perhaps you can share some of your labors with that verse.
The NIV and NKJV renderings are the marginal AV: _Gr. "of our God and Saviour"_. I could be misreading this, but for some reason (and perhaps not strictly textual) the AV seems to have gone for "the righteousness of God," as a single phrase, instead of following, say, Granville-Sharpe. How do you read this and the later choices? Improvement or not?


----------



## MW

Not having consulted the other reformation versions I am happy to concede that the NKJV rendering is not a textual variant in this instance.

I should point out that I personally have no difficulties with variants, holding closer to Dabney's view. My difficulty is solely with the claim made by the NKJV.

Also, personally, I don't mind either rendering, although AV is more properly king's English. If the whole phrase is to be taken together "our" should stand with the second noun not the first.

At any rate, don't trust the claim of the NKJV preface.

Does Sharp rule still rule? I would have thought the stylistic variationists would have won the day by now?


----------



## fredtgreco

As far as can be seen, the texts are identical:

 Ï„Î¿á¿¦ Î¸ÎµÎ¿á¿¦ á¼¡Î¼á¿¶Î½ ÎºÎ±á½¶ ÏƒÏ‰Ï„á¿†ÏÎ¿Ï‚ á¼¸Î·ÏƒÎ¿á¿¦ Î§ÏÎ¹ÏƒÏ„Î¿á¿¦

[Edited on 7/4/2006 by fredtgreco]


----------



## MW

Don't ask me the whys or wherefores, but my TBS Greek Testament prints hemon after theou and soteros. However, just having looked it up in the online Bible it apprently isn't in the Byz or TR. My leaning would be towards the TBS, but can't explain why there is a variation here.


----------



## larryjf

I find the same thing as armourbearer in Scrivener's TR (which is what TBS uses).

Which reminds me that i still don't know which TR the NKJV uses in their translation.


----------



## Pilgrim

No mention is made in the NKJV preface of what TR they used, but according to a few things I've been able to turn up on the internet it seems they used Scrivener's 1894 TR.


----------



## MW

After realising that Online Bible's TR and BYZ differed from my TBS, I can see that my earlier comment about the NKJV using a different text can now be reduced to the fact that there are different Texti Recepti.

So I retract my earlier statement.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by larryjf_
> I find the same thing as armourbearer in Scrivener's TR (which is what TBS uses).
> 
> Which reminds me that i still don't know which TR the NKJV uses in their translation.



Here is the Scriviner's:

 Ï„Î¿á¿¦ Î˜ÎµÎ¿á¿¦ á¼¡Î¼á¿¶Î½ ÎºÎ±á½¶ ÏƒÏ‰Ï„á¿†ÏÎ¿Ï‚ á¼¡Î¼á¿¶Î½ á¼¸Î·Ïƒ¿á¿¦ Î§ÏÎ¹ÏƒÏ„Î¿á¿¦


----------



## MW

I went to the Online Bible download page, and it claims that its TR is Scrivener's 1894. So I am assuming that the TR itself is pure, but the digital version is incorrect. In which case, there is a genuine discrepancy between the TR (true) and Byz Majority Text at 2 Pet. 1:1.

The AV is undoubtedly using TR, which only has hemon qualifying soteros (presuming they opted to only qualify the second noun in translation because that identifies the two nouns as one). All other versions (including some reformation versions) appear to be following the Majority reading, which only has hemon qualifying theou.

Thoughts?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

I noticed the differences in English versions of 2 Peter 1:1 a couple of weeks ago when I preached on the passage, and my interest was piqued as I followed this discussion. Although I am away from my library, I was briefly in my home city yesterday and picked up some books. Here is what I have discovered:

_The Englishman's Greek New Testament_, which uses the Greek Text of Stephens 1550, omits ἡμῶν as a qualifier of σωτῆρος, while noting in the apparatus that Elzevir's Greek Text of 1624 has it.

The Trinitarian Bible Society's edition containing F.H.A. Scrivener's edition of "The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the text followed in the Authorized Version" (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1894 and 1902) contains the full τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. In the Preface this TBS edition says, 

The editions of Beza, particularly that of 1598, and the last two editions of Stephens, were the chief sources used for the Authorized Version of 1611.

The Elzevir partners, Bonaventure and Abraham, published editions of the Greek text at Leyden in 1624, 1633, and 1641, following Beza's 1565 edition, with a few changes from his later revisions. The preface to the 1633 Elzevir edition gave a name to this form of the text, which underlies the English Authorized Version, the Dutch Statenvertaling of 1637, and all of the Protestant versions of the period of the Reformation--"Textum ergo habes,, nunc ab omnibus receptum..." The Elzevir text became known throughout Europe as the _Textus Receptus_ or _Received Text_, and in course of time these titles came to be associated in England with the Stephens text of 1550.

The editions of Stephens, Beza and the Elzevirs all present substantially the same text, and the variations are not of great significance and rarely affect the sense. The present edition of the _Textus Receptus_ underlying the English Authorized Version follows the text of Beza's 1598 edition as the primary authority, and corresponds with [Scrivener's of 1894 and 1902].​
In Scrivener’s book, _The Authorized Edition Of The English Bible (1611), Its Subsequent Reprints And Modern Representatives_ (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1910), in “Appendix E. _The Greek text adopted by the Translators of the Authorized Version of the New Testament_, Section II. Passages wherein the text of the Authorized Version agrees with Beza 1589 and 1598) against Stephen (1550),” as regards 2 Peter 1:1, he notes, “Beza 1565—98 adds ἡμῶν after σωτῆρος.”

Thus it is evident that the Greek text adopted by the 1611 translators in this instance was that of Beza’s, which the Elzevir edition of 1624 conforms to. In England (so says the Introduction of _The Englishman's Greek New Testament_) “the Greek Text of Stephens 1550…is the common text in this country…”, even though the final text of the 1611 was a text refined by Beza (at points) and accepted as true by the translators.

There are many interesting studies regarding just these sorts of issues reprinted by the Fundamentalist Baptists, and available from Dr. D.A. Waite’s The Bible for Today ministries.

---------


On another matter I saw in this thread, regarding Isaiah 14:12 and the Lucifer/morning star/son of the morning controversy, I found none of my commentators affirming Lucifer in the translation from the Hebrew, although I came across this interesting remark from Herman Hoeksema in His commentary on Revelation, Behold He Cometh (I give the online book here, as I don’t have the hardcopy with me: http://spindleworks.com/library/hoeksma/intro.htm), when he deals with Revelation 12:

What may be meant by his drawing of the stars of heaven with his tail?

This seems to be plain in itself. The stars in this connection must, of course, not be taken in the literal sense, no more than the entire portion. In this connection the inference is plain that they indicate the fellow angels of the devil. In Job the angels are called the morning-stars. And indeed this application is very appropriate for these spiritual inhabitants of the sphere of eternal light. And the devil himself has been such a morning-star, - perhaps, as we have said before, the greatest and most glorious among them all. And although the passage in Isaiah 14:12 cannot literally be applied to Satan, yet the language in which this metaphor against the king of Babylon is used, is such that the latter is evidently a type of the devil. And therefore also the devil may fittingly be called Lucifer, the day or morning-star. This morning-star, as we know, rebelled against God. Almighty. But he was not alone. He instigated a general rebellion in the heaven of heavens. He seduced others of his fellow angels to rise with him and exalt themselves against the Most High. And it is this feature that is pictured of the devil most probably in the fourth verse of this chapter. He dragged the third part, that is, in this sense, a great many, yet not a majority, of his fellow angels with him in his fall from heaven. And they together with him were cast down from their exalted place.​
Hoeksema, as well as the PRC today, adheres to the King James Bible, and they have a number of writings on it. If anyone wants to dispute using HH (and the PRC) due to his and their stand on “common grace” and the “well-meant offer,” well that’s a different issue, and I’m not familiar with the theology boards here to know if that’s been discussed (how could it not be?).

----------

One last thing for the moment. In a March 12 post of Dr. White’s on his own site (responding to people here at PB) he said, regarding earlier defenders of the Comma, “the consistent application of their arguments would demand the utter overthrow of the TR as a Greek text of the New Testament. As I pointed out in my comments in The King James Only Controversy [KJOC], there are all sorts of readings with similar manuscript support to the Comma that would, by logical necessity, have to be inserted into the TR.” As I don’t have a copy of his KJOC in this foreign land, would someone please tell me in brief what he is referring to here? Thanks.

Steve


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Steve,
To answer your last question (very briefly, and I am no text expert either):

J. White is basically saying that it appears to him that in the matter of the _Comma,_ the TR defenders that he has interacted with seem to "want to have it both ways." They want to use one methodology to defend the retention of the _Comma,_ but not consistently apply the same methodology when it comes to various other places where the text of the NT could be "similarly expanded" using the same standard of textual support used to defend the _Comma._



On another issue:

I want to suggest that one of the reasons why there are these differences in the "TR"---whether that be TBS', or Scrivner's, etc., is that these are "reverse texts". The AV comes out of the work of scholars who used such texts as they had access to--Erasmus' critical editions, Beza's work, various manuscripts (older or newer) to which they had access. They themselves had sometimes to make textual decisions based on variants they encountered. What we have in these "TR" texts is the reverse-engineered text, in Greek, of what later editors thought the "choices" of the translators were.

Now take a passage like 2 Pet. 1:1. You can translate the whole back into Greek. But you can do that *at least* a couple different ways, legitimately (doubled hamon, Granville-Sharpe rule, etc.). Then, you can compare the final to extant Greek manuscripts, or to mss/editions that the AV authors had access to (that we know of). Now, you may find one or more Greek witnesses that compare to one or more of the possibilities you came up with. _It is a matter of careful, measured, cautious, but still partial *conjecture* as to what the choice of the original translator was, and why it was chosen._

And then, there is the possibility that given the option chosen, the same Greek text could have been translated (again, legitimately) a couple different ways into English. This, in turn, might affect how that reverse-translation comes out. The easiest way to demonstrate this inexactitude problem is to use a computer translating program. Take a complex English sentence. Run it through the program and it spits out, say, Chinese. Reverse it, and see what you end up with. Probably not exactly the same. Why not? Because of the variables. Now multiply that by the complexity of the NT text, and the underlying variants (even the comparatively few from the MT/Byz tradition).

The bottom line is: "the text underlying the AV" will itself ever be a matter of debate, however limited, because there was no such thing as the Schrivner, or the TBS version, etc. before the AV came into existence. Only various critical editions and compilations, along with a manuscript "library" (scattered over Europe's scholar's desks--in universities, monasteries, and pastor's studies).


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

I saw someone ask what is the difference between the TR and the Majority Text (MT).

The only thorough book on this I know of is Jack Moorman's, _When the KJV Departs from the "Majority" Text: A New Twist in the Continuing Attack on the Authorized Version_, available from Bible For Today. Moorman interacts with the work of Hermann von Soden, and his influence on the formation of the modern MT editions. (An excerpt from this book on David Cloud's site: http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/jackmoorman.htm):


We would make mention of one more of Jack Moorman’s books: When the KJV Departs from the "Majority" Text: A New Twist in the Continuing Attack on the Authorized Version. Consider some excerpts from this extremely important book:

Until recently the defense of the King James Version was a one-on-one debate with the Critical Text (Nestle-Aland, UBS, etc.). Much has been written. In recent days new arguments for and against have been raised. But the issue is still the same— the vast majority of MSS on the KJV side versus a few old ones for the critical texts and modern versions.

Now a new element has been introduced (though certain aspects of it have long been recognized), with the publication of ‘The Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text’ (1982), published by Thomas Nelson, under the editorship of Zane Hodges and A.L. Farstad.

The Majority Text Edition concludes that the Greek text of our Authorised Version is represented by minority MS support in over 1800 readings and therefore is defective in these places. Thus our opponents (Critical Text, Modern Versions) say the AV New Testament is wrong in 5,300 places, and now our friends say it’s off in 1,800.

Zane Hodges has been a good ally. Several of the consulting editors, Harry Sturz, Jakob Van Bruggen, Alfred Martin, and Wilbur Pickering have contributed strongly to the defense of the Traditional Text. But, with this production they have left us with a ‘tentative’ Bible.

This is plainly stated on the jacket (second edition): ‘Scholarly discipline permeates the editor’s logic and conclusions; yet Hodges and Farstad make no claim that this text in all its particulars is the exact form of the originals.’ On page x we are told: ‘The editors do not imagine that the text of this edition represents in all particulars the exact form of the originals ... It should therefore be kept in mind that the present work ... is both preliminary and provisional.

WE ARE BOUND TO ASK, IF THIS ISN’T [THE PRESERVED WORD OF GOD], IF THE AV-RECEIVED TEXT ISN’T, IF THE CRITICAL TEXT ISN’T; WHERE MUST WE GO TO GET A BIBLE TODAY? IF AFTER THESE CENTURIES WE STILL HAVE ONLY A PROVISIONAL, PRELIMINARY, TENTATIVE BIBLE, WHAT ARE WE TO DO?

Three major errors of judgment have led to this ‘provisional’ edition:

1. The editors do not want to be seen relying upon God’s preservation of the text. 2. They have resorted to a source which cites only a minority of the evidence. 3. They have followed the wrong stream of MSS in the Book of Revelation.

Scrivener and Hoskier in an earlier generation, and Hodges, Pickering with others in our day have made an immeasurable contribution in defending the Received Text against the Hortian theories. They have provided us with a great store of factual material ... But sadly in Hoskier, Scrivener, and the editors of the Majority Text Edition, little or no reference is made to God’s promises of preserving Scripture. In fact, Hodges and Farstad make absolutely no mention of it. Thus, the foundation for textual research has been taken away.

Wilbur Pickering is listed as one of the consulting editors. His book The Identity of the New Testament Text has done a great deal to clarify and cause a rethink concerning Westcott and Hort. He is careful to state that he believes in preservation, yet in the presentation of his material he says: ‘I have deliberately avoided introducing any arguments based upon inspiration and preservation in the preceding discussion in the hope that I may not be misrepresented by critics in the same way that Burgon has been’ (p. 153).

But if the critics misrepresent us because we present Biblical truth, and if they become uncomfortable with this, what does it matter? Who are we trying to please, God or man? Must we participate in their neutrality and unbelief in order to gain a hearing from them? Must we yield to peer pressure? Must we put our good friends ahead of our good Bible?

WHEN AN INQUIRER INTO THE TEXT OF SCRIPTURE (EVEN A DEFENDER OF THE RECEIVED TEXT) TAKES THIS NEUTRAL APPROACH IN ACCESSING THE EVIDENCE, IT WILL INEVITABLY LEAD DOWN THIS DEAD-END STREET OF HAVING ONLY A TENTATIVE BIBLE.

Notice the disturbing kind of statement Pickering is prepared to make: ‘We do not at this moment have the precise wording of the original text’ (The Identity of the New Testament Text p. 153). ‘When all this evidence is in I believe the Textus Receptus will be found to differ from the original in something over a thousand places’ (pp. 232,33). ‘Most seriously misleading is the representation that I am calling for a return to the Textus Receptus ... While men like Brown, Fuller and Hills do call for a return to the TR as such, Hodges and I do not. We are advocating what Kurt Aland has called the majority text (‘Queen Anne ... and All That’: A Response, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, June 1978, p. 165).

Also listed as a consulting editor to the Majority Text Edition is Harry A. Sturz. ... Sturz presents a number of other not-so-well-known areas of evidence for the Byzantine text. We owe him a great debt for his research. However, when he seeks to deny the theological/supernatural arguments for the preservation of the text he becomes unmoored.

You may be forgiven if you have difficulty understanding the following statement, or think it to be contradictory: ‘It should be pointed out that providential preservation is not a necessary consequence of inspiration. Preservation of the Word of God is promised in Scripture, and inspiration and preservation are related doctrines, but they are distinct from each other, and there is a danger of making one the necessary corollary of the other. The Scriptures do not do this. God, having given the perfect revelation by verbal inspiration, was under no special or logical obligation to see that man did not corrupt it’ (emphasis added) (The Byzantine Text, p. 38).

Coming now to Zane Hodges: In seeking to deny the charge that he might be leaning a little toward a theological/supernatural stance in textual matters, he gives the following lame reply when questioned about his contribution to the excellent book Which Bible?. ‘Finally, Fee ... seems to wish to continue to tag me with a theological slant that I have explicitly disavowed. The fact that I allowed an article of mine to be reprinted in a volume all of whose perspectives I did not share should not be used against me’ (‘Modern Textual Criticism and the Majority Text: A Surrejoinder,’ Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, June 1978, p. 163).

What a refreshing contrast it is to see the following appraisal of Edward Hills’ position: ‘He integrated the theological perspective with the discipline of New Testament text criticism. This is a taboo that recent Majority Text advocates have attempted not to transgress, preferring to work from within a purely scientific framework’ (King James Version Defended, p. vi).

So in order to gain a little respectability (the leading and liberal textual critic George Kilpatrick writes a commendation on the jacket), Hodges, Farstad and friends find themselves firmly in a textual half-way house (Jack Moorman, When the KJV Departs from the "Majority" Text: A New Twist in the Continuing Attack on the Authorized Version).​
In this large work (153 pages, 8.5X11-inch format) Jack Moorman demonstrates the following: (1) the Hodges-Farstad Majority Text is established upon an insufficient and faulty foundation (the Von Soden apparatus and the 046 MSS of Revelation); therefore, their conclusion that in 1,800 places the Authorized New Testament lacks majority text support is in error. "These two factors account for the vast majority of readings which they would like to alter in the Received Text." (2) Even most of the remaining passages which do seem to have only a minority of MS support, "nevertheless [have] quite substantial support." Moorman presents this support in 87 pages of listings. (3) Even the verse which has supposedly has less manuscript support than any other in the Authorized Version (1 John 5:7) has a wide variety of support and is inspired Scripture. Moorman gives an overview of the internal and external evidence for this important verse.​
--------

Steve

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MW

Steve,

Thankyou for your posts. Very helpful.

Are you with MERF?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello Matthew,

Thanks for your encouragement. This moment I am at the John Calvin Centre in Larnaca, which is where MERF (Middle East Reformed Fellowship) has its headquarters, under the leadership of Pastor Victor Atallah and others on the Board of Directors. 

Technically, I am not "with MERF," although I am at their disposal, and in accord with their aims. You may be familiar with them, but let me say they do a tremendous amount of good in supporting the Reformed witness in the Arabic-speaking world and in Africa. "On the ground" that includes supporting churches and personnel under heavy fire. I have to be discrete in what I say publicly here.

The facilites here at JCC include lodging where up to 50 may sleep and eat, while seminars and workshops are held for the teaching of Biblical/Reformed doctrine and practice, from Sunday School training, to youth leaders, to advanced training for pastors and other Christian leaders. Often the teachers come here from pulpits and schools world-wide. And the attendees from different language groups, including Farsi.

In Africa, two five-month training sessions a year are held for building up the church there in their Reformed witness and life, at a MERF compound in Kenya (most of the pastors, elders, teachers, evangelists, etc. are from the Sudan, though some are from Kenya, Uganda, Ethiopia, etc.) For me, meeting some of the men we trained there, was a remarkable experience. The church in Southern Sudan has known much suffering.

Needless to say, the views I present re Scripture are my own, and not to be attributed to MERF or its personnel, though some may be in agreement with me.

Steve


----------



## MW

We keep MERF in prayer and contribute as we are able. I met Victor Attalah once in the mid 90s while he was visiting down under. They are doing a tremendous work. May God bless you and make you fruitful in that corner of His vineyard!


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Thanks Matthew.

Some of you have asked for a copy of the piece I am in the process of finishing up on these textual matters. I attach it here.

There is a list of recommended books and websites at the end, before the endnotes. I may likely add to these.

Please note that I will be adding some more material, but not much, to what is written. I would like to interact a little with what James White has written on 1 John 5:7, as I indicated a couple of posts back. I need info from his book on the KJO Conroversy. Perhaps I can find a copy in the JCC library here!

Please don't anyone be disturbed (I ask) that I view the fundamentalist Baptists -- who are staunch opponents as regards the Doctrines of Grace -- with such favor and respect. Granted, some of them are "tough guys," such as Dr. William Grady, in this fray for the integrity of Scripture, but then so was Anglican John Burgon of the 19th century, for what was/is at issue is the molestation of the Word of their God, and they would not have it. Grady might be tough, but he is not mean. The war he wages (and I with him) is for the highest stakes. I will be honored to walk the streets of the Kingdom with him and his fellow FBs.

If the Lord grant we will contend over those issues where we differ, for the sake of the integrity of the Gospel, but, as I said, that is another battle.


----------



## fredtgreco

Steve,

You might want to look at your previous post a couple of posts back. I have put in codes that show the unicode Greek much better. You may want to use them for ease of reading in later posts.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Bruce,

Somehow I missed your post on 7/6. Thank you for responding.

You answered my query re JW´s remark on 1 Jn 5:7 thus:

<blockquote>J. White is basically saying that it appears to him that in the matter of the _Comma_ , the TR defenders that he has interacted with seem to "want to have it both ways." They want to use one methodology to defend the retention of the _Comma_, but not consistently apply the same methodology when it comes to various other places where the text of the NT could be "similarly expanded" using the same standard of textual support used to defend the _Comma_.</blockquote>

I appreciate that. Now what I would specifically like to know is if he gave any examples of how this "œmethodology" could be used in "œvarious other places" and thus "œoverthrow the"¦TR".

This is what Dr. White stated:

<blockquote>"œthe consistent application of their [i.e., 1 Jn 5:7 supporters] arguments would demand the utter overthrow of the TR as a Greek text of the New Testament. As I pointed out in my comments in The King James Only Controversy, there are all sorts of readings with similar manuscript support to the Comma that would, by logical necessity, have to be inserted into the TR."</blockquote>

My questions are, 1) did he say precisely what the "œmethodology" was, and 2) did he give specific examples of other "œreadings with similar manuscript support"? And 3), did he give an idea of what this "œlogical necessity"entailed? I may end up having to write and ask him myself, but since he´s already written of it, I´d prefer to learn from that.

I am wondering if the methodology he is thinking of is other than my own, as per my approach in _To Break A Sword_ (TBAS)? I will be happy to interact with him, and that irenically, as I hold him in high esteem. But note, I am not a professional debater; I do my debating in print, after studying to answer.

One of a few things I want to do as far as revising TBAS is deal with the 1 John 5:7 section a little more thoroughly, after studying the various materials I have accumulated. I would like it to be impervious to assault, if that is at all possible, or at least be so persuasive and reasonable that many people will be able to trust the reading.

----------

Regarding the text underlying the TR, and our discussion of it specifically as pertains to 2 Peter 1:1, you said,

<blockquote>The bottom line is: "the text underlying the AV" will itself ever be a matter of debate, however limited, because there was no such thing as the Scrivener, or the TBS version, etc. before the AV came into existence. Only various critical editions and compilations, along with a manuscript "library" (scattered over Europe's scholar's desks--in universities, monasteries, and pastor's studies).</blockquote>

I believe you are correct in this. The 1611 translators used a number of Greek (and no doubt Latin) manuscripts, choosing from the best of them, and the best readings according to their combined judgment, to render the New Testament in English. An interesting study on the spiritual and academic qualifications of the translators is, _Translators Revived: Biographical Notes Of The KJV Bible Translators_, by Alexander McClure (available at BFT). These were extraordinary men, and I do not believe we have their equal today.

I do not believe a second work of inspiration was given by God in the production of the AV 1611 (as some erroneously do), though I do believe He was working providentially in making available the right MSS. for them to use, and in the quality of the men doing the work, and He guided them (did they not have His Spirit?), though certainly not on a par with the writing of the Scriptures. I trust that He kept His promise to keep His Word intact.

What we have in the TBS´s _Textus Receptus_, being a reprint of Scrivener´s Greek text, was a reconstruction of the text in retrospect (I think this is what you mean when you say "œbackward engineered") using the English AV as the guide. And yes, we can now look upon the various MSS´s readings to try to discern which they used where.

Steve


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Fred,

Thanks for "œupgrading" my Greek font. Actually, I had used your earlier posting to copy them from, as my Hebrew font did not carry over into a post and I thought my Greek might not as well, and I was in a hurry. I´m using an iBook G4 running Tiger 10.4.7, and I think I´m using Unicode. Are you saying that in the BB Code there is now a code for rending the Greek better?

On a different matter, in TBAS, on page 54, there is a list of recommended books (& websites) for the study of the textual business. I maintain that one does not need to be fluent in the original languages (I am not, though I have the lexical tools to do thorough research of words and phrases) to be conversant in these matters. As there are Greek experts who differ in these things, clearly that knowledge is not the deciding factor, though it may be helpful in discerning the gravity of the violence done to the grammar and sense of 1 John 5:7, 8, as well as in other places where excisions have been perpetrated. What is crucial is to get a grasp of the history both of the manuscripts and the people involved with them, and times in which they were written or passed through. There are many "œfingerprints" that editors and transcribers have left on the documents, and which tell us important things. The various early versions, lectionaries, and writings of the early fathers are also of great importance.

If there is someone here that knows MS Word better than I do, and can tell me how to change over from endnotes to footnotes (on each page), I would be grateful, as that would make reading the pdf file easier.

Steve


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Jerusalem Blade_
> Fred,
> 
> Thanks for "œupgrading" my Greek font. Actually, I had used your earlier posting to copy them from, as my Hebrew font did not carry over into a post and I thought my Greek might not as well, and I was in a hurry. I´m using an iBook G4 running Tiger 10.4.7, and I think I´m using Unicode. Are you saying that in the BB Code there is now a code for rending the Greek better?



Yes. Unicode works better in certain fonts. I put in BBCode tags for one of the better Greek unicode fonts (GentiumAlt) and tags to increase the size of the Greek text. After experimenting for some time previously, I found this to be the best combination.

You may or may not be using Unicode. You need to see if you have a Greek keyboard selector (perhaps in language settings). You could also use the Logos Greek and/or Hebrew keyboards. That is what I use. You can go here and find out all you need to about it:

http://logos.com/support/lbs/fonts


----------



## turmeric

All I knowe is I gotte the new reprint of the olde King Jimmy 1611 compleat with eccentric spellinges today.


----------



## Maestroh

*KJV and Westcott-Hort*

Hello everyone. My first 'meaningful' post as the original one was a welcome to the board and who I am.

I hope not to overgeneralize - so I apologize in advance. The question in the original post is this: "Why do KJV Only types believe the Westcott and Hort manuscripts are bad?"

Before one can answer this question, however, one must decide what exactly constitues KJV Only. White did a decent job in "KJVO Controversy" of listing five different levels of 'KJVO,' but I assume we are only preoccupied with a couple of those:

1) Those who hold to Ruckmanism (correct the Greek with the English)
and
2) KJV is the inspired Word of God (and to a lesser extent)
3) The TR is the superior textual basis.

Most laymen do not really have the first inkling of how we got the Bible - at least from my own observations. Some seem to think it fell in one piece from Heaven. And it is this ignorance upon which I believe the KJV Only movement thrives. That and the following twin truth: most Protestants ESPECIALLY THOSE BORN BEFORE the 1970s used the KJV first.

This makes it easy to list a comparison graph that shows where the NIV or NASV (or whatever version) 'deletes' certain verses. It is an easy sell because if the KJV is 'older' and the newer versions are 'missing verses,' it seems to be an open and shut case.

Those who have a little more knowledge in my view START with the KJV - and then build their case going back from there. Keep in mind that I am NOT talking about Majority Text advocates such as Wilbur Pickering, Maurice Robinson, or Arthur Farstad and Zane Hodges. There IS a subtle but distinct difference in the MT and the TR - counted at over 1,800 differences. Make no mistake, this is NOT a problem if one does not hold the KJV as the 'be all and end all' of Bible translations. But back to the KJV Only defenders - and I'm thinking primarily of people like David Cloud, D.A. Waite, and David Otis Fuller (they claim Burgon, who hardly qualifies as he made 150 changes in the first 14 chapters of Matthew - dismissed as 'Burgon thought the TR needed a little modification' by the Waite-Cloud-Fuller types).

In essence, THIS is a summary of what I call the pastoral KJV Only position (not to be confused with what I call the scholarly KJV Only position such as Letis):

1) The TR is the best Greek text because it underlies the KJV.
2) If the TR and KJV come into conflict (and they do btw), the KJV is the 'final authority'
3) Those old manuscripts are 'bad' - and the only reason we have them now is because they were not used but were set aside.
4) The 'majority' of manuscripts underlie the KJV (incidentally, this argument is not even true; the TR is a stream within the larger river of the TR - sort of like the Sargasso Sea is a small portion of the Atlantic Ocean) - Erasmus used somewhere between five and eleven manuscripts (I found one source that listed eleven total - but I forget it off the top of my head).
5) THIS ONE IS CRITICAL: the reason there are no 'early manuscripts' underlying the KJV is because they were all used and wore out from constant use by Christians.
6) Westcott and Hort were 'heretics' who denied verbal inspiration - and God would not use heretics to 'restore' His Word.

Note: the scholarly position of people like Letis, Robinson, and Pickering would not place as much emphasis on points three and six as the KJV Only popular defenders do.

So why do they believe the manuscripts are bad? Those reasons can be summarized as followed (again applying this argument only to the Cloud-Waite-Fuller crowd)

1. Westcot and Hort were heretics and God would not use heretics to preserve or restore His Word (funnily enough, they drape Desiderius Erasmus in fundamentalist Baptist garb and try to minimize his allegiance to Rome - and didn't Caiaphas the high priest prophesy correctly about Jesus while Peter denied Him?)
2. Not only must a Bible be PRESERVED - it must ALSO be PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE since a preserved non-accessible Bible is meaningless. Although they write books arguing a doctrine of preservation, it would be better to call their doctrine the doctrine of mandated public accessibility - since even THEY admit the Bible was 'restored' (see Hills, "KJV Defended" online at the following link: http://www.Jesus-is-lord.com/kjvdcha8.htm ) 


Note Hills' words under 2f: In the Textus Receptus *God corrected the few mistakes of any consequence* which yet remained in the Traditional New Testament text of the majority of the Greek manuscripts.

One is inclined to wonder why it was okay for the Bible to have what by Hills' own words are MISTAKES in it - and in the same breath claim that we have always had a 'preserved Bible.'

3. It is a psychological insecurity that desperately needs CERTAINTY. Therefore - since the human mind cannot comprehend it - those manuscripts that do NOT underly the KJV? They're bad. Period. End of discussion.

Regarding Burgon's allegation of recension of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, I find it interesting that in the same breath he argues they're doctored repeatedly. Recensions tend to be proven by SAME READINGS NOT different ones.

And one final point: There are something like ten correctors that have had their hands on Aleph (Codex Sinaiticus). How can anyone possibly argue rationally that the codex wasn't used when at least ten different hands have worked on it to bring it in line with other manuscripts? It sounds to me a lot like trying to have one's cake and eat it, too.

I'm sorry for my verbosity. I enjoy discussing this issue. Incidentally, my own textual position? I do not have one yet!!! But I've done a lot of reading and am open to God's leading.

God bless those of you who take time to read this and respond.

Maestroh Bill


----------



## Maestroh

*Dear Brother Steve*



> _Originally posted by street preacher_
> Why do the newer translations in Isaiah 14 call Lucifer the morning star or day star? That is blasphamous.



Sir,

It is NOT blasphemous if it is the correct rendering.

I think this type of argument is poor. It implies that Satan is the same 'morning star' as Jesus Christ. I agree with you that such would be blasphemous, but the reading of Isaiah 14 must be taken BASED ON WHAT IT SAYS - not on what our theological understanding of the passage must be.

Consider the following teaching from the KJV:

Revelation 5:5

And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the *Lion* of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.

This, of course, refers to Jesus.

I Peter 5:8

Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring *lion*, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

Note that in the first, it refers to Jesus; in the second the devil. Is it not blasphemous of the KJV to do this?

Of course not. They are rendering it as accurately as they know how to do.

Maestroh


----------



## Maestroh

*Doug Kutilek On Isaiah 14*

Brother Steve,

Here is an article addressing what you mentioned:


http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_notes_on_lucifer.htm


Just a brief word:

In Isaiah 14:12, the word translated "œO Lucifer" in the KJV (but with the notable variant translation in the margin of the original 1611 KJV of "œO day-star", an English word which Webster´s Third New International Dictionary says means, first of all, "œmorning star") is the Hebrew word, unique in the Hebrew Bible, heylel, written with the consonants HYLL (he-yod-lamed-lamed) and pronounced so as to rhyme with the English "œpay scale" [limits of a technical kind prevent us from presenting the precise pronunciation of this word in the IPA (International Phonetic Alphabet)]. 

God bless,

Maestroh


----------



## MW

> _Originally posted by Maestroh_
> Most laymen do not really have the first inkling of how we got the Bible - at least from my own observations. Some seem to think it fell in one piece from Heaven. And it is this ignorance upon which I believe the KJV Only movement thrives. That and the following twin truth: most Protestants ESPECIALLY THOSE BORN BEFORE the 1970s used the KJV first.



An interesting observation. Here are two important questions. As these majority of laymen have nothing other than their AV to direct them how to glorify and enjoy God, who am I to unsettle their faith in it? Since faith settles itself on the divine authority of the Scriptures, is it erroneous to suppose that the Bible dropped out of heaven?

Thankyou for putting the debate about texts and translations in proper perspective. It is academic. Now it is true that academia has overrun the church as a result of society giving first place to education as the means of salvation, but I fail to see any authority given to academia in the Bible -- not in my AV, nor any other translation, nor in the TR, nor any other textual tradition. Which begs the question: from whose authority do ministers derive the right to unsettle people's faith in the Word of God by raising questions of academic interest?

For what it's worth, I have been trained in a theological college and was not raised with the AV. I believe the church is one, holy, catholic and apostolic. Hence I believe the church should hold in its hand one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Bible. How can we expect to arrive at unity of the faith, and all speak the same things, when we do not share the same supreme standard of truth? There is something to be said about that quaint nineteenth century phrase, "the common English Bible."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pilgrim

From the Trinitarian Bible Society website: 



> *How many editions of the Textus Receptus are there?*
> 
> There were approximately thirty distinct editions of the Textus Receptus made over the years. Each differs slightly from the others. There have been over 500 printings.
> 
> *Are the variations between the editions of the Textus Receptus significant?*
> 
> No. These variations include spelling, accents and breathing marks, word order and other minor kinds of differences. As it is stated in the preface to the Trinitarian Bible Society edition of the Textus Receptus, "The editions of Stephens, Beza and the Elzevirs all present substantially the same text, and the variations are not of great significance and rarely affect the sense".
> 
> *Which edition of the Textus Receptus does the Trinitarian Bible Society print?*
> 
> In the latter part of the 19th century, F. H. A. Scrivener produced an edition of the Greek New Testament which reflects the Textus Receptus underlying the English Authorised Version. This edition, published posthumously in 1894, is currently published by the Society.
> 
> *How does the Scrivener edition differ from the other editions of the Textus Receptus?*
> 
> F. H. A. Scrivener (1813-1891) attempted to reproduce as exactly as possible the Greek text which underlies the Authorised Version of 1611. However, the AV was not translated from any one printed edition of the Greek text. The AV translators relied heavily upon the work of William Tyndale and other editions of the English Bible. Thus there were places in which it is unclear what the Greek basis of the New Testament was. Scrivener in his reconstructed and edited text used as his starting point the Beza edition of 1598, identifying the places where the English text had different readings from the Greek. He examined eighteen editions of the Textus Receptus to find the correct Greek rendering, and made the changes to his Greek text. When he finished he had produced an edition of the Greek New Testament which more closely underlies the text of the AV than any one edition of the Textus Receptus.



[Edited on 7-10-2006 by Pilgrim]


----------



## Maestroh

*Yes, Sir*



> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Maestroh_
> Most laymen do not really have the first inkling of how we got the Bible - at least from my own observations. Some seem to think it fell in one piece from Heaven. And it is this ignorance upon which I believe the KJV Only movement thrives. That and the following twin truth: most Protestants ESPECIALLY THOSE BORN BEFORE the 1970s used the KJV first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An interesting observation. Here are two important questions. As these majority of laymen have nothing other than their AV to direct them how to glorify and enjoy God, who am I to unsettle their faith in it? Since faith settles itself on the divine authority of the Scriptures, is it erroneous to suppose that the Bible dropped out of heaven?
> 
> Thankyou for putting the debate about texts and translations in proper perspective. It is academic. Now it is true that academia has overrun the church as a result of society giving first place to education as the means of salvation, but I fail to see any authority given to academia in the Bible -- not in my AV, nor any other translation, nor in the TR, nor any other textual tradition. Which begs the question: from whose authority do ministers derive the right to unsettle people's faith in the Word of God by raising questions of academic interest?
> 
> For what it's worth, I have been trained in a theological college and was not raised with the AV. I believe the church is one, holy, catholic and apostolic. Hence I believe the church should hold in its hand one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Bible. How can we expect to arrive at unity of the faith, and all speak the same things, when we do not share the same supreme standard of truth? There is something to be said about that quaint nineteenth century phrase, "the common English Bible."
Click to expand...


You make valid points.

But is not the opposite also true?

Is it not wrong for those who hold to AV superiority to displace people's faith in THEIR Bible translations as well? Particularly in light of the fact that the AV IS NOT the original text itself.

I concur with your assessment; it is an ACADEMIC issue NOT a DOCTRINAL issue. Yet I do not find it to necessarily be so that 'academia' somehow has a say in one's salvation.

I do not get on anyone's case for using the KJV; I expect the same respect in return in regards to my NASB. Yet you said something else that did catch my eye:

You wrote, "Since faith settles itself on the divine authority of the Scriptures, is it erroneous to suppose that the Bible dropped out of heaven?"

I'm assuming this question to be hypothetical as opposed as a real attempt at argumentation. Faith is fine and good AS LONG AS FAITH IS IN SOMETHING GOD REVEALED FOR US TO HAVE FAITH IN. It is one thing to say, "I have faith God has saved me."

It is another to say, "I have faith that God will let me walk on water because He let Peter do so." One is promised; the other is a conjecture.

FAITH MUST BE BASED AND GROUNDED ON EVIDENCE!!!

We have faith in the resurrected Lord; but that faith is based on EVIDENCE: a) eyewitness testimony of people who were willing to die for their beliefs; and b) the lack of a dead body to disprove the Resurrection.

Faith can only be in what God promised; and nowhere did God promise to preserve His word among a group of manuscripts, or one particular translation, or on one continent regardless of which side of the issue people are on. He told us He WOULD; all attempts at HOW are human rationale.

Hence, how does one explain to a Mormon that their translation is not true since they hold the same position 'by faith?' 

Thank you for your kindness, and I hope my reply was diplomatic.

Maestroh


----------



## MW

> _Originally posted by Maestroh_
> Is it not wrong for those who hold to AV superiority to displace people's faith in THEIR Bible translations as well? Particularly in light of the fact that the AV IS NOT the original text itself.



I wouldn't displace people's faith in other versions except where I think it has led them into error. But as soon as you mention THEIR Bible, individualism has emerged, which is as contrary to the Bible as the devil to God. The AV has served as the common English Bible for centuries. I am not averse to other versions per se, as I agree in principle with Augustine's remark about the benefits of multiplicity. I disagree with the push to rid our world of a common English Bible. Let there be an advance in biblical translation, but unless the translation is commonly received by all, there is only regression not progression.



> I concur with your assessment; it is an ACADEMIC issue NOT a DOCTRINAL issue. Yet I do not find it to necessarily be so that 'academia' somehow has a say in one's salvation.



Look at the churches. See that the ministers are always the ones advancing new ideas. Where do they learn them? Academic institutions. Where did they learn them? Well, if Francis Schaefer was right, the academies are simply coming in on the back end of a cultural/philosophical change. But by the time the change has been introduced into the churches the culture is already moving in a new direction. Why play catch up? The biblical principle is to be patient, preach the Word in season and out of season, then when the culture has gone full circle (which it will), we will be there waiting to catch them in the traditional gospel net.



> I'm assuming this question to be hypothetical as opposed as a real attempt at argumentation. Faith is fine and good AS LONG AS FAITH IS IN SOMETHING GOD REVEALED FOR US TO HAVE FAITH IN. It is one thing to say, "I have faith God has saved me."



And therein lies the problem raised by academia. Their reliance upon empirical evidence is UNSURE. They might amass more evidence tomorrow and reverse the findings of today. Being unsure, faith cannot be placed in their findings. The Word of the Lord abides for ever. It is settled in the heavens.

Even if there were some readings in the traditional text which aren't genuine (notice the contrary to fact condition), they could still be received because believers have historically judged that there is nothing in them that is against the analogy of faith.



> FAITH MUST BE BASED AND GROUNDED ON EVIDENCE!!!



No, faith IS THE EVIDENCE, Heb. 11:1 Sight depends upon evidence.



> We have faith in the resurrected Lord; but that faith is based on EVIDENCE: a) eyewitness testimony of people who were willing to die for their beliefs; and b) the lack of a dead body to disprove the Resurrection.



That testimony is only as good as the witnesses. Where is the witness? In Scripture. Where is the persuasion that rests in the witness? It is by the Spirit in the heart of a man. Larger Catechism, answer 4.



> Hence, how does one explain to a Mormon that their translation is not true since they hold the same position 'by faith?'



And here we come to the biblical model of evidence: what does their faith in translation produce so far as fruits of righteousness are concerned?

I hope my response is equally respectful.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I almost hate to interject off the specific topic, but I have to reply to the statements concerning the nature of faith.

Maestroh,
How exactly are you defining "evidence"? Because, in a very real sense, faith or belief (syn.), in biblical parlance, is decidedly apart from what _ordinarily_ passes for evidence.

As for the resurrection, we must believe in it (regardless of how we evaluate the "eyewitness testimony") because it is a fundamental component of the gospel--which alone is of any saving value. Thus it is included in the gospel synopsis of I Cor. 15:3-4. It is to be believed (credited) on account of the fact that it was foretold _in the Scriptures._

That he appeared (vv. 5-8) to over 500 witnesses post-resurrection--including Paul long after he had left this world--is useful information, but only one of them in this place bears his witness. Rather, I believe the same testimony that promised his coming, and now witnesses to his having come (and promises a second coming)--the Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture.

I'm not saying ours isn't a reasonable faith, for it certainly is. And there is plenty of "evidence" out there for the sifting if one goes looking for it _and knows what they are looking for_. However, if we start insisting that faith be "grounded on evidence" (and it sounds to me as if the evidence to which you refer may be significantly beyond Scripture), then we are establishing criteria equal to or more fundamental than the Word of God. Our faith, in that case, is really in the evidence that we've decided is sufficient to stand in. True faith must be grounded in God himself, and in his Word.

What do you do when God says: "Just believe me. I'm not going to give you any more "reason" to trust me than that. I said so. Now you are obligated to believe me. On my 'say-so'. Because I am God" ?


----------



## LadyFlynt

Bill, my husband (streetpreacher) was not makine an arguement...he was asking a basic and honest question.


----------



## Maestroh

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> I almost hate to interject off the specific topic, but I have to reply to the statements concerning the nature of faith.
> 
> Maestroh,
> How exactly are you defining "evidence"? Because, in a very real sense, faith or belief (syn.), in biblical parlance, is decidedly apart from what _ordinarily_ passes for evidence.
> 
> As for the resurrection, we must believe in it (regardless of how we evaluate the "eyewitness testimony") because it is a fundamental component of the gospel--which alone is of any saving value. Thus it is included in the gospel synopsis of I Cor. 15:3-4. It is to be believed (credited) on account of the fact that it was foretold _in the Scriptures._
> 
> That he appeared (vv. 5-8) to over 500 witnesses post-resurrection--including Paul long after he had left this world--is useful information, but only one of them in this place bears his witness. Rather, I believe the same testimony that promised his coming, and now witnesses to his having come (and promises a second coming)--the Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture.
> 
> I'm not saying ours isn't a reasonable faith, for it certainly is. And there is plenty of "evidence" out there for the sifting if one goes looking for it _and knows what they are looking for_. However, if we start insisting that faith be "grounded on evidence" (and it sounds to me as if the evidence to which you refer may be significantly beyond Scripture), then we are establishing criteria equal to or more fundamental than the Word of God. Our faith, in that case, is really in the evidence that we've decided is sufficient to stand in. True faith must be grounded in God himself, and in his Word.
> 
> What do you do when God says: "Just believe me. I'm not going to give you any more "reason" to trust me than that. I said so. Now you are obligated to believe me. On my 'say-so'. Because I am God" ?



Brother Bruce,

I understand what you are saying so let me elaborate on what I mean.

Our faith is not a 'blind faith' in the sense that we just believe any old thing we're told is true. Such, in fact, is the opening for belief in false ideas and teachings.

God DOES give us a CERTAIN AMOUNT of evidence that points towards Him. It certainly does not meet MAN'S standards of what passes for evidence, but there is a certain rationality to it (although I concede things like the Virgin Birth and the bodily Resurrection themselves FROM THE HUMAN STANDPOINT are hardly rational). The rationale is divine not human.

We have faith in God because He commands it; we DO have SOME sight, but we do not have COMPLETE sight for if we did, faith would be completely unnecessary. Jesus didn't just come to earth and say, "Believe me." He ALSO did miracles of nature, of forgiveness, and healing of disease POINTING THE WAY to salvation. In essence, He said, "I am HE," and then PROVED who He was by His works and ultimately by the Resurrection.

SHIFTING GEARS HERE...

Furthermore, even those who argue in favor of the AV ultimately - if cornered - will argue on the basis of the evidence. The last 12 verses of Mark are considered 'genuine' because they're in so many manuscripts. In other words, they argue EVIDENCE. And within the KJV tradition are those who favor the Comma Johanneum (Maynard, Moorman, Cloud, Waite) and those who oppose it (Robinson, Letis, Pickering, Burgon, Scrivener) - and those who 'aren't sure but accept it by faith as genuine (Hills).

The 'faith' argument is fine but let's turn it out around: I have faith God preserved His Word in the (just to use an example) NIV (btw, I do not personally care for the NIV; I use the NKJV at home and the NASB at school). Why can it not be let go at that?

That's when arguments against Westcott and Hort as heretics or the supposed removing of Aleph from a trash bin come to the fore. (This incidentally is what I referred to earlier by talking about a difference in the KJV positions).

Please undersand this: I AM NOT AGAINS THE KJV BIBLE!!!

I have never entered a church and attempted to displace whatever version they were using regardless of what it is/was. I enjoy this particular discussion - and I thank God and the members here for the kindness and diplomacy and grace shown towards me, and I hope to emulate it constantly in return towards all.

I just want our particular discussion to be FACT ORIENTED - and not based on emotion. Regarding the argument that the AV has been used so long...was not the Vulgate used more than twice as long? Was not the Septuagint used for quite awhile?

The same arguments used to keep the KJV now are the same ones that were used to oppose the KJV back in 1611. Personally, I like the old story about the pastor who said, "I don't know which Bible is the best, but I know which one is the worst: the UNREAD one."

Let me finish with this and hopefully make this much clear: we have NOTHING to fear from the truth. As Warfield said in his Shorter Writings - and I'm paraphrasing here - we, as Christians, need to be open to the truths of science, philosophy, psychology, etc - we have NOTHING TO FEAR from honest investigation and ultimately the truth.


God bless you all,

Maestroh


----------



## Maestroh

*I Forgot This Part*

Bruce wrote:


What do you do when God says: "Just believe me. I'm not going to give you any more "reason" to trust me than that. I said so. Now you are obligated to believe me. On my 'say-so'. Because I am God" ? 

Maestroh:

You believe Him.

The problem, however, is that never did He do so in regards to what textual basis one is to use. It seems to me that ANY argument - whether it is the majority of the manuscripts on one side or the older manuscripts on the other - is based on human assumption of how God 'must' have done something.

Fact is that while we would follow what you're talking about in instances where God said it, never did God do so in regards to Bible versions. And this only moves the question back one step:

On what basis is it the KJV? Because it's older?

If that's the reason, the Greek manuscripts underlying the newer versions are older than those under the KJV. So should we not use them?

By the same token, on what basis is it the NIV?

Or any other version for that matter?

Sure there are instances when God said 'believe me,' the most immediate coming to mind being in the Garden of Eden. But while this is a good theological argument, it is not a very good textual argument.

I hold the position that the KJV is the Word of God. I also hold the position that ANY version is the word of God insomuch as it reflects the original writing. That, of course, is where faith comes in since we do not have the originals extant - so perhaps this is what you're talking about.

Thank you for your kind question, Bruce.

Maestroh


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello Bill,

Welcome to the discussion! You said in your first post here,

<blockquote>But back to the KJV Only defenders - and I'm thinking primarily of people like David Cloud, D.A. Waite, and David Otis Fuller *(they claim Burgon, who hardly qualifies as he made 150 changes in the first 14 chapters of Matthew* - dismissed as 'Burgon thought the TR needed a little modification' by the Waite-Cloud-Fuller types). [emphasis mine "“SMR]</blockquote>

What you say about Burgon and his 150 changes in Matthew of the TR, would you please provide some documentation for that?

Bill, when you use phrases like "œWaite-Cloud-Fuller types" or "œ"¦crowd" it tends to stereotype godly, scholarly individuals who are well known for their research and integrity, and sets a disparaging tone which does not facilitate respectful discussion between brothers and sisters within the royal family who might differ. Please do not think that by dismissive remarks as these such scholars "“ and others of their camp, like myself "“ can be marginalized and relegated to the ranks of the not-too-bright. I do realize that there have been those in the KJO camp who might have given you this impression, though I am glad you have stated you are not yet set in a position and are open, and I hope to show you an approach you may respect, if not adhere to. Thanks for your openness!

In the same post you said,

<blockquote>In essence, THIS is a summary of what I call the pastoral KJV Only position (not to be confused with what I call the scholarly KJV Only position such as Letis):

3) Those old manuscripts are 'bad' - and the only reason we have them now is because they were not used but were set aside.
5) THIS ONE IS CRITICAL: the reason there are no 'early manuscripts' underlying the KJV is because they were all used and wore out from constant use by Christians.
6) Westcott and Hort were 'heretics' who denied verbal inspiration - and God would not use heretics to 'restore' His Word.

Note: the scholarly position of people like Letis, Robinson, and Pickering would not place as much emphasis on points three and six as the KJV Only popular defenders do.

So why do they believe the manuscripts are bad? Those reasons can be summarized as followed (again applying this argument only to the Cloud-Waite-Fuller crowd)

1. Westcott and Hort were heretics and God would not use heretics to preserve or restore His Word (funnily enough, they drape Desiderius Erasmus in fundamentalist Baptist garb and try to minimize his allegiance to Rome - and didn't Caiaphas the high priest prophesy correctly about Jesus while Peter denied Him?)
2. Not only must a Bible be PRESERVED - it must ALSO be PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE since a preserved non-accessible Bible is meaningless. Although they write books arguing a doctrine of preservation, it would be better to call their doctrine the doctrine of mandated public accessibility - since even THEY admit the Bible was 'restored' (see Hills, "KJV Defended" online at the following link: http://www.Jesus-is-lord.com/kjvdcha8.htm) 

Note Hills' words under 2f: In the Textus Receptus God corrected the few mistakes of any consequence which yet remained in the Traditional New Testament text of the majority of the Greek manuscripts.</blockquote>

Regarding your point 3) above: The quality of the old MSS [I think primarily of _Vaticanus_ (B) and _Sinaiticus_ (Aleph)] is not per se related to their age; one reason B and Aleph lasted so long is because they were written on vellum, which is far superior to the papyrus of most Greek MSS. One cannot say per se they lasted so long because they were set aside, but it may be an additional factor. Point 5) is just the other side of the coin: it does not mean those worn out quickest were the best; we know the material they were written on was not made to last; one cannot say they were the best _because_ they disappeared quickly from much use, but it may be a factor.

As I said, Bill, perhaps people you have heard have spoken in clichÃ©s (I have heard them myself!), but we are trying not to do so here.

Re your 6) concerning Westcott and Hort (W&H): They are in a different category of textual scribes than Erasmus. There has been some research into the latter, and although he was on the wrong side of the disputes with Luther, particularly on Freedom of the Will (and all that that entails), he had friendships and affinities with evangelical believers, and sometimes worshipped with them, while powerfully resisting and refuting Rome, so it is not fitting to paint him a diehard Roman Catholic. As you brought Dr. Edward F. Hills, a textual scholar of the highest caliber, with a Th.D. in New Testament Textual Criticism from Harvard, into the discussion, please allow me to quote a little from him concerning Erasmus and the principles of providential preservation, and that from a scholarly prespective:


<blockquote>"œ... the Bible is God´s infallibly inspired Word which has been preserved by God´s special providence down through the ages. ... And the providential preservation of the Scriptures did not cease with the invention of printing. For why would God watch over the New Testament text at one time and not at another time, before the invention of printing but not afterward? Hence the formation of the Textus Receptus was God-guided. THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS, THEREFORE, IS A TRUSTWORTHY REPRODUCTION OF THE INFALLIBLY INSPIRED ORIGINAL NEW TESTAMENT TEXT AND IS AUTHORITATIVE. AND SO IS THE KING JAMES VERSION AND ALL OTHER FAITHFUL TRANSLATIONS OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS" (Hills, _Believing Bible Study_, p. 87).

"It was this common faith which guided Erasmus providentially in his task of editing the first printed Greek New Testament (1516). Although he was not himself outstanding as a man of faith, yet in his editing of the New Testament text he was guided by the faith of others. He was desirous of publishing an edition of the New Testament which would be well received and offend no one. Hence in his labors on the New Testament text Erasmus was probably expressing not so much his own views as the views of his contemporaries, views with which he would have become very well acquainted through his correspondence and his travels. In short, as editor of the first printed Greek New Testament, ERASMUS WAS PROVIDENTIALLY CONTROLLED BY THE COMMON FAITH IN THE PROVIDENTIAL PRESERVATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. Luther, Melanchton, Stephanus, Calvin, Beza, and the other scholars of the Reformation Period who labored on the New Testament text were similarly guided by God´s special providence. These scholars had received humanistic training in their youth, and in their notes and comments they sometimes reveal traces of this early education. But in their actual dealings with the biblical text these humanistic tendencies were restrained by the common faith in the providential preservation of Scripture, a faith which they themselves professed along with their followers. Hence in the Reformation Period the textual criticism of the New Testament was different from the textual criticism of any other book. The humanistic methods used on other books were not applied to the New Testament. In their editions of the New Testament Erasmus and his successors were providentially guided by the common faith to adopt the current text, primarily the current Greek text and secondarily the current Latin text. ... THUS THE LOGIC OF FAITH LED TRUE BELIEVERS OF THAT DAY, JUST AS IT LEADS TRUE BELIEVERS TODAY, TO THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS AS THE GOD-GUIDED NEW TESTAMENT TEXT" (Hills, _Believing Bible Study_, p. 63).

"It is customary for naturalistic critics to make the most of human imperfections in the Textus Receptus and to sneer at it as a mean and almost sordid thing. ... BUT THOSE WHO CONCENTRATE IN THIS WAY ON THE HUMAN FACTORS INVOLVED IN THE PRODUCTION OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS ARE UTTERLY UNMINDFUL OF THE PROVIDENCE OF GOD. For in the very next year, in the plan of God, the Reformation was to break out in Wittenberg, and it was important that the Greek New Testament should be published first in one of the future strongholds of Protestantism by a book seller who was eager to place it in the hands of the people and not in Spain, the land of the Inquisition, by the Roman Church, which was intent on keeping the Bible from the people" (Hills, _The King James Version Defended_, p. 203).</blockquote>

Westcott and Hort, on the other hand, had "“ as documentation shows "“ an agenda which was not guided by scholarly concerns, but by unfortunately more "œcarnal" motives proceeding from characters such as would probably keep them from being admitted into your own Vista Ridge Bible Church, nor allow them to even speak to a Sunday School class! And such men as these, forbidden entry into the precincts of our holy fellowships by virtue of their conduct and their doctrines, we allow to have whatever liberty they will with the sacred deposit of Scripture, even to allowing a Unitarian notorious in the London of their day to bring his Christ-denying views to bear upon what will and what will not be allowed in the New Testament pertaining to the deity of our Savior? Such men as these, their biographies and the attestations of their contemporaries and of later historians tell us, are of a class quite removed from Erasmus. I wonder if you have read the previous posts in this thread (I realized it is tediously long!), and, if I may refer you to a more detailed study, to my post above (the 1st on p. 3, if you have 50 posts to a page) and the attached study in pdf, _To Break A Sword_ (TBAS), where I discuss these things in detail and documentation.

I am sorry for the shallow presentation that often accompanies the KJV/TR defense, and I hope to at least not encumber you with more of the same, but, as I do perceive you appreciate a more scholarly approach, to meet with you on ground we both respect and prefer.

Before signing off, I´d like answer a couple more of your points. You said of Dr. Hills,

<blockquote>Note Hills' words under 2f: In the Textus Receptus *God corrected the few mistakes of any consequence* which yet remained in the Traditional New Testament text of the majority of the Greek manuscripts.

One is inclined to wonder why it was okay for the Bible to have what by Hills' own words are MISTAKES in it - and in the same breath claim that we have always had a 'preserved Bible.'</blockquote>

I have addressed such phenomena in TBAS, but to briefly say here: remember when wicked queen Athaliah destroyed all the seed royal in Jerusalem, save only the infant Joash who was secretly rescued by his aunt Jehosheba and hidden away in the house of the LORD six years while the evil queen ruled supreme in Judah during that rather long period of time? Or during the reign of Emperor Diocletian, when his notorious informers, the _traditores_, apostates who came from the ranks of the church and went about sniffing out most copies of the Scriptures and their owners, so that they became exceeding scarce?

Such has been the case with a few portions of Scripture, the devil having hated some in particular and moved men to seek to destroy their testimony, but the Lord overruling him kept them safe in other quarters and later restored them to their rightful places of honor and witness. 

It is quite a study, what happened to the various streams of textual transmission "“ from the missionaries of Syrian Antioch and elsewhere, to the mountainous regions of Italy and France, to Africa, Rome, the Byzantine Empire, etc. The state of the various churches, the great Trinitarian and Christological battles, the various editors and scribes through whose hands the manuscripts passed.

You said,

<blockquote>It is a psychological insecurity that desperately needs CERTAINTY. Therefore - since the human mind cannot comprehend it - those manuscripts that do NOT underlie the KJV? They're bad. Period. End of discussion.</blockquote>

This is an interesting thought. Given the distinctives of Reformed doctrine, that I am justified by the faith graciously given me upon regeneration, by which I am enabled to cleave to my Savior and His word, trusting in the cleansing of His blood, with His perfect righteousness imputed to me, and on top of these, the Father has actually elected me to adoption in His Son, so that I am perfectly accepted in the Beloved, and Jesus has assured me that by the command of the Father I shall never perish, but He shall raise me up at the last day, to reign in glory with Him forever. This is not the sort of stuff that begets "œpsychological insecurity"!

Rather it pertains to epistemology. How do we know what we know? Do we know anything with certainty? We know that God has spoken by His prophets, and by His Son. Some of us carefully study this phenomenon, and the transmission of His words through history, His own words and promises aiding us in this endeavor.

Perhaps you will have a different view of TR/KJV defenders as we proceed in this discussion. My views are a bit more nuanced, perhaps, than those you are used to, or so I hope!

Steve

[Edited on 7-10-2006 by Jerusalem Blade]

[Edited on 7-11-2006 by Jerusalem Blade]


----------



## Pilgrim

Steve,

It is well known that Burgon thought there were many places that needed correcting in the TR. His position was really closer to that of Majority Text advocates, but the TR/KJV Only folks often aren't honest enough to admit it. He attacked W & H but was not KJV Only by any stretch. 

I am glad though to see that you do express some misgivings about Gail Riplinger's work.

[Edited on 7-10-2006 by Pilgrim]


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello Chris,

I have heard that often alleged, though I have not seen it with my own eyes. I have five of his books, and if you can direct me to a particular quote I would look it up. Actually, I have recently read views of his to the contrary; I realize they pertain to what he called the Traditional Text, and not the TR strictly. I believe his was a broad-based defense of the text underlying the common English version as opposed to B, Aleph, and D.

--------

Bill,

I gather you have a copy of James White's _The King James Only Controversy_ at hand. May I ask you for some information from that book, as I can't locate a copy in this country? Thanks!

Steve


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

P.S. I think I've found and downloaded enough info to look into Burgon's supposed remarks, which I will now consider.

Steve

[Edited on 7-11-2006 by Jerusalem Blade]


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

As I am not near my library (I will visit my home city tomorrow, and pick up a copy of Burgon´s _The Revision Revised_), I have had to rely on the internet for research into our present "œJohn Burgon controversy." I looked at Doug Kutilek´s online essay, "œWHAT DID JOHN WILLIAM BURGON REALLY BELIEVE ABOUT THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS AND THE KING JAMES VERSION?", and he makes some interesting points, though there was little documentation for some assertions. When I have my copy of Burgon´s book I will look at some of Kutilek´s quotes in their context. I like to examine the arguments of my opponents, so I may study them and see if there is some truth to what they say, or if they do not have the proper perspective.

[Incidentally, on another topic, I think it profitable to look at the Fundamentalist Baptists´ (FB) reasons for opposing Calvinist "“ i.e., Biblical "“ doctrine so as to understand their views, and how they misperceive ours. I am sure our Lord thoroughly comprehended the doctrines of the Pharisees and Sadducees so as to answer them as economically and devastatingly as He did. Of course we will never speak like Him, but we can strive to approach that conciseness.]

I found an excellent (and brief!) essay on "œThe Textual Position of Dean John William Burgon," by Dr. Thomas Cassidy, which I give the URL for as it is of value in explaining away a lot of confusion regarding what Burgon meant in the statements people love to attribute to his supposed disaffection with the TR: http://www.baptistpillar.com/bd0556.htm This may be the best thing I have come across. 

Another paper on Burgon´s statements regarding the TR from Dr. D.A. Waite, which gives a fuller picture: "œBurgon's Warnings on Revision of the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible": http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/DeanBurgon/dbs0804.htm#start

This is the Dean Burgon Society´s statement regarding their position, and it is reasonable: "œThe Authorized King James Bible has been, and continues to be, the God honored, most accurate, and best English translation of the inspired, inerrant, infallible, and preserved original language words of God."

At Sola Scriptura Ministries <http://thescripturealone.com/Resource.html>, I found this chapter of Dr. Hills´ on our question: _The King James Version Defended_, By Dr. Edward F. Hills; CHAPTER EIGHT, "œTHE TEXTUS RECEPTUS AND THE KING JAMES VERSION": http://thescripturealone.com/Hills-8.html This is an excellent view of the matters we are discussing, i.e., Burgon and the Textus Receptus, and seeing them in perspective. You might use your "œfind" feature to locate the first use of Burgon´s name, and then go to Erasmus, to see what Hills says about them both. (SSM also has info on _The Ancient Text of the New Testament_, By Dr. Jakob van Bruggen, a masterful, scholarly review of the failure of textual criticism in the past century: http://thescripturealone.com/VanBrug.html)

An interesting article, "œHow Dr. Hills Became a KJV Believer," By Dr. E. F. Hills: http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/efhillsa.htm He recalls his days at Yale, and then at Westminster under Stonehouse, and the impact of Warfield´s thought on him. Scholarly reflections.

All of which is to say, if one is prayerful, patient, and diligent one may find treasures of understanding and wisdom to meet the need. Again I assert, those who place their trust in our mighty God´s design and accomplished work in providing us with His word kept intact will not be disappointed.

And let me say again, much respect and appreciation is due our FB brethren for their excellent painstaking historical and textual research as regards the preserved text. Far from the "œbackwoods hillbilly Bible-thumping ignoramuses" who-can´t-think-for-themselves stereotype, these men have carried the ball on the field of top-notch believing scholarship, where many of us Reformed "œbrains" had dropped it!

There is an article, I think by Dr. Waite (it's at home), on Chas. Hodge and B.B. Warfield, documenting their failure in the field of textual criticism, which has had a tremendous impact on the Reformed communions, for the thinking of these giants of the faith is too often taken without critical scrutiny. I've searched for it online but haven't found it.

This contention over "The Canon of Scripture and its Integrity" has raged even since the Reformation, at first between the Reformers and Rome, and then between the post-Reformation orthodox and Rome, as I am learning from Richard A. Muller's _Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics Volume 2, Holy Scripture: The Cognitive Foundation of Theology_ (MI, Baker 1993). It is interesting, the issues that came up in those days, regarding both the Hebrew and the Greek texts, over against the Latin Vulgate of Rome, which latter the papists sought to establish as the superior and definitive Biblical text.

Today the situation between Rome and the Reformed and the texts has changed, especially with their throwing Vaticanus into the arena, as B differs more from the Vulgate than the Vulgate differs from the TR!

Steve

[Edited on 7-11-2006 by Jerusalem Blade]

[Edited on 7-12-2006 by Jerusalem Blade]

[Edited on 7-12-2006 by Jerusalem Blade]

[Edited on 7-12-2006 by Jerusalem Blade]

[Edited on 7-12-2006 by Jerusalem Blade]

[Edited on 7-12-2006 by Jerusalem Blade]

[Edited on 7-12-2006 by Jerusalem Blade]


----------



## MW

Criticism, as it pertains to the TR, seems to be self-defeating. I am content to accept the traditional text, i.e., canonical text, as over against critical excisions of it. I have never really been fussed to know if the odd pronoun changes here and there, and would probably expound both readings if called upon to do so. I even think some of the so-called conflations which Alexandrians accuse the TR of are actually helpful. Even if I thought Luke 24:53 was a combination of readings, my sermon would not be any different; I would first expound one reading, "praising" and then the next, "blessing." The fundamental beauty of the TR is the fact that you are provided with a full text.

I say this with no intent to repudiate modern maintainers of the TR, but I don't think you will find a defender of the traditional text in the 19th century which denied the fact of slight variations. Even Edward Hills, in the 20th century, accepted variations, although he put it down to Erasmus following the Vulgate over the traditional text. I can't remember if that claim has been substantiated or repudiated.


----------



## Pilgrim

> _Originally posted by Jerusalem Blade_
> Hello Chris,
> 
> I have heard that often alleged, though I have not seen it with my own eyes. I have five of his books, and if you can direct me to a particular quote I would look it up. Actually, I have recently read views of his to the contrary; I realize they pertain to what he called the Traditional Text, and not the TR strictly. I believe his was a broad-based defense of the text underlying the common English version as opposed to B, Aleph, and D.
> 
> --------



I think your last sentence is correct. I think Burgon (and perhaps Scrivener as well) and other critics of W & H attacked the W-H theory and the Revised Version but did not claim infallibility for the KJV and TR as do some in our day. 

Here are a couple of articles I turned up with a quick Google search: 

Why Dean Burgon would NOT join the "Dean Burgon Society"

Dean Burgon: The Greatest Enemy of King James Onlyism

[Edited on 7-12-2006 by Pilgrim]


----------



## MW

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> Here are a couple of articles I turned up with a quick Google search:
> 
> Why Dean Burgon would NOT join the "Dean Burgon Society"
> 
> Dean Burgon: The Greatest Enemy of King James Onlyism



I dislike the spirit in which these papers are written. One could as easily write a paper on why Westcott and Hort would not have joined the United Bible Society. Allowance is generally made for development and disagreement within a school of thought.


----------



## Maestroh

Dear Steve,

A couple of things here.

It is late tonight. I am sincerely sorry that it has taken me a day or two to get back to you. I work in a hospital laboratory and JCAHO showed up with a suprise inspection. So please do not think I'm igonring you.

For starters, I don't recall mentioning James White's book. Yes, I do have it. But please do not attempt to marginalize me as if I have read nothing on the subject. White's book is one that must be dealt with on the popular level while some others on both sides of the argument must be dealt with on a more scholarly level. (White concedes as much; he notes that Riplinger's book sold 130,000 copies - and all of the sales of some of those scholars' entire works would not total what Riplinger's one book sold). I have read on the issue and have no settled position at this time.

So let's deal with one of your important questions because I have it hand. You write, "What you say about Burgon and his 150 changes in Matthew of the TR, would you please provide some documentation for that?"

Yes sir.

"The leaders in the advocacy of this system have been Dr. Scrivener in a modified degree, and especially Dean Burgon. First, be it understood, that we do not advocate perfection in the Textus Receptus. We allow here and there it requires revision. In the text left behind by Dean Burgon, about 150 corrections have been suggested by him in St. Matthew's Gospel alone. What we maintain is the TRADITIONAL TEXT. And we trace it back to the earliest ages of which there is any record." (Edward Miller, Introduction, The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels by Dean Burgon, ibid., pg. 5. 

And from a KJV defender, the late Dr. Theodore P. Letis, at this link:

www.truth.sg/resources/TheodoreLetisOnKJVonly.pdf

Notice this on page four of 11 of the PDF file:

"...but to date, perhaps his most important work of all has yet to see the light of day. His A Textual Commentary Upon the Holy Gospels, Largely from the Use of Materials, and Mainly Onthe Text, Left by the late Dean John William Burgon, Part I, St. Mathew, Division I, I-XIV."

Letis further notes that most of these changes were incorporated into the Majority Text of Hodges-Farstad.

You then make the following observation, quoting me and your quote follows:

Before signing off, I´d like answer a couple more of your points. You said of Dr. Hills,

(Maestroh)
Note Hills' words under 2f: In the Textus Receptus God corrected the few mistakes of any consequence which yet remained in the Traditional New Testament text of the majority of the Greek manuscripts.

One is inclined to wonder why it was okay for the Bible to have what by Hills' own words are MISTAKES in it - and in the same breath claim that we have always had a 'preserved Bible.'

(Steve)
I have addressed such phenomena in TBAS, but to briefly say here: remember when wicked queen Athaliah destroyed all the seed royal in Jerusalem, save only the infant Joash who was secretly rescued by his aunt Jehosheba and hidden away in the house of the LORD six years while the evil queen ruled supreme in Judah during that rather long period of time? Or during the reign of Emperor Diocletian, when his notorious informers, the traditores, apostates who came from the ranks of the church and went about sniffing out most copies of the Scriptures and their owners, so that they became exceeding scarce?

Such has been the case with a few portions of Scripture, the devil having hated some in particular and moved men to seek to destroy their testimony, but the Lord overruling him kept them safe in other quarters and later restored them to their rightful places of honor and witness. 

REPLY:

Please understand, brother, that I have no problem with what you're saying. But when you argue from Hills' theological a priori - well, in essence, he is saying, "I believe in the doctrine of preservation of ALL AGES (WCF) - but not until 1611 (or 1516 if you prefer, TR)." In other words, all ages hardly means all ages.

I have no problem with 'restoration.' But one cannot argue restoration on one hand - and then get mad at 'restoration' by Westcott and Hort in terms of the issue of restoration. (One can, I concede, under such circumstances, argue against the THEORY of W/H - and solidly on many grounds, might I add).

But it rings hollow to say the Bible has always been preserved, but it wasn't preserved until 1611. Let me say that those who endorse the Traditional Text (Burgon, Scrivener, Hoskier, Farstad, Robinson, Oats) have a MUCH MORE solid ground on which to stand in regards to preservation. It disgusts me when people call Burgon forth as a witness in favor of 'King James Onlyism' when a simple read of his works proves he was not.

The quotes you reference - I have personally validated ALL of them. They DO accurately represent Burgon's views. I read Waite's book as well - a few of them actually - but Waite even admitted in his 1994 debate with James White (available online) that he was 'speculating' when he claimed 'heretics doctored the manuscripts.' Not once could he name any group (Arians, Ebionites, etc) who actually changed a specific passage.

Probably the better of the 19th century scholars in favor of the TT/MT was FHA Scrivener. But again, he was not KJVO, either. Scrivener pointed out in his "Plain Introduction" that one who thought I John 5:7 was authentic Scripture should have 'no weight' given to such an opinion. Scrivener was still more Burgonian than he was W/H - but he had to deal with the data he had.

I used to attend a FB fellowship. I would have less problem with what you cite if they actually TOLD THE TRUTH - about their opponents and about the KJV. We have NOTHING to fear from pursuit of the truth. But most of those folks are only calling forth Burgon as a supporter because they need 'a big name' to support them despite constantly 'deploring' scholarship.

Make no mistake: scholarship is not the be all and end all of anything. Not all scholarship is equally scholarly. And good men, good Christians, AND good scholars can disagree on some things without division.

But Letis' summation is right regarding the 20th century FBs in favor of the KJV. It is unfortunate, but it IS accurate.

I have rambled. I find your scriptural intellectual give and take stimulating. I hope that I have not said something that offended you or can be perceived as an attack on you personally or your beliefs. If I have done so, I humbly apologize now.

Note: I will interact with you in the godly manner. Please note that if I'm gone for a few days, it doesn't mean I did a 'hit and run." Also, I'm comfortable with who I am in Christ - I'm not one of those who has to have the 'last word' like we're having a 'put down contest' or something.

God bless you and thank you for your writing.

Maestroh Bill Brown


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Matthew,

Out of curiosity, I will check out Luke 24:53 to see what I can find on it. 

I maintain the TR/KJV defense as both a pastoral concern and an apologetic one; the former to assure believers we do have a reliable Scripture worthy of their trust, the latter to defend the Gospel of God at its foundation, which is His word.

Some feel confident to do this with the CT, but I don't, as I showed in TBAS.

---------

Chris,

I think this short paper <http://www.baptistpillar.com/bd0556.htm> by Cassidy sheds much light on Burgon's (and Scrivener's) views on this exact matter of what I would call "a TR in flux" in their day, and why Burgon pressed Scrivener to construct the TR which the TBS now publishes. The loose ends seem to now fit together regarding Burgon's remarks about the TR.

I will look over those links you posted, and remark on them.

I am of the mind that the defense of 1 John 5:7 depends greatly on the matter of the old Latin manuscripts (_not_ Jerome's Vulgate). There is a good bit of data available; people evidently put different spins on it. I am studying this now.

"some misgivings" about GAR's work is an understatement.

Steve


----------



## Maestroh

Just a couple of more points.

You made reference to Westcott and Hort's agenda. Fair enough.

Did not Burgon have an agenda in keeping the last 12 verses of Mark - since he believed in baptismal regeneration?

Whether Westcot or Hort could speak at my church is irrelevant. Burgon could not do so either - nor would he wish to do so given his emphasis on ecclesiastical authority. But that argument is completely irrelevant ON BOTH SIDES.

And which Edward Hills do we believe? The one who turned in his doctoral dissertation in 1946 IN FAVOR of Westcott-Hort; or the one who wrote "The KJV Defended" in 1954? And how did he change his mind THAT fast?

He seems to have made up his mind earlier but was willing to dissemble or misrepresent his views in order to get his doctorate (see Letis, "E.F. Hills Contribution to the Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text" - Letis claims - and no, I don't have it in front of me - but he pointed out that Hills rejected the notion of textual criticism long before he left school and that for Hills it did not exist).

The personal character and theologies of Westcott and Hort are irrelevant - mostly because the manuscripts precede them by at least 1,500 years. It's not like they actually WROTE them.


----------



## MW

Steve,

Please note I am not saying it is a conflation. It is one of W&H's classic examples of conflation, Alexandrine and Western. I don't accept it is. I am just saying that on empirical evidence to date, if it could be shown to be a conflation, I still would not have any problem with preaching on both words, since both have a traditional witness.

Maestroh,

Are you willing to acknowledge that there is a difference between the kind of text criticism going on in the Confessional period, which has given us the classical statement on preservation, and the criticism of the 19th century which excised whole texts? I regard it as a diffeence between texts and readings. It is not simply that the W&H tradition are carrying on textual criticism to a greater degree, but they are engaging in a different kind of criticism.

Blessings!


----------



## CDM

Generally speaking, do the CT defenders believe we have not had a reliable Bible with the KJV? And do the KJV/TR defenders believe the CT is not good because of W/H?

Just trying to clarify my thinking. And to boil it down to both camps suppositions.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Bill,

I certainly do not mean to marginalize you; the reason I mentioned James White´s book is because in your first post in the thread you said, "œWhite did a decent job in "˜KJVO Controversy´ of listing five different levels of "˜KJVO,´ but I assume we are only preoccupied with a couple of those"¦" I have indicated a few times here and elsewhere I desire to know _specifically_ what he was referring to when he stated (on one of our threads or on his own site responding to something here), 

<blockquote> "œthe consistent application of their [i.e., 1 Jn 5:7 supporters] arguments would demand the utter overthrow of the TR as a Greek text of the New Testament. As I pointed out in my comments in The King James Only Controversy, there are all sorts of readings with similar manuscript support to the Comma that would, by logical necessity, have to be inserted into the TR."</blockquote>

It is his "œcomments in The King James Only Controversy" on this I wished to learn of so I might interact with him.

To the contrary, Bill, I see you have read a good deal on the subject. And White also must be dealt with on a scholarly level, to do him justice.

Re your quote of Edward Miller, his remarks in the Introduction to _The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels_ are familiar to me. Twice above I referred folks (via a link) to an article by Dr. Thomas Cassidy dealing precisely with this issue. I realize reading all the links and referrals listed in these posts takes a bit of time, but it is important if we are taking, as you suggest, the scholarly as opposed to the popular approach in this discussion. At the commencement of Cassidy´s address he states,

<blockquote>There is no doubt that Dean Burgon made statements concerning the Textus Receptus, and its need for editing and revision. Edward Miller, writing in the Introduction (Page 5) of Dean Burgon's posthumously published _The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels_ (Published by the Dean Burgon Society, 900 Park Avenue, Collingswood, New Jersey 08108) states, "œFirst, be it understood, that we do not advocate perfection in the Textus Receptus. We allow that here and there it requires revision."

This statement, reiterated elsewhere in Dean Burgon's writings, begs the question, "œDid Dean John William Burgon advocate revising the Textus Receptus, and if so, on what basis?" And, "œWhat Greek Text would Dean Burgon advocate today as the preserved Greek text?"</blockquote>

During the course of this thread we have identified a number of Greek editions of the NT within what has been called the Textus Receptus "œfamily": Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and Elzevir (each of these having more than one edition), all of them similar but with variations. Clearly the translators of the 1611 King James picked and chose from these (and other MSS.) in the rendering of their English version.

Cassidy says of this,

<blockquote>So we must ask ourselves, "œIs the King James Bible based on the Textus Receptus, and if so, which edition?"

The answer is, no. The King James Bible is not based on any single edition of the Textus Receptus, but is based on the Traditional Texts as they have been Providentially preserved down through the ages of church and ecclesiastical history.</blockquote>

He then goes into a discussion of Erasmus, as well as the texts he had access to, topics loaded with much disinformation. (As an aside here, David Cloud´s book, _Myths About The Modern Versions_, has excellent chapters on these topics, Erasmus _and_ the manuscripts available both to the editors and to the translators, loaded with important historical data.) Cassidy continues,

<blockquote>Is the Textus Receptus identical to the Traditional Text?

Here is where the problem arises. No single edition of the Textus Receptus, available at the time of the translating of the King James Bible (1604-1611) is identical to the Traditional Text. Furthermore, no single edition of the Textus Receptus available to Dean Burgon was identical to the Traditional Text which underlies the King James Bible. And this is what produced the problem which Dean Burgon attempted to address. He believed, and rightly so, that no then-existing edition of the Textus Receptus conformed completely with the Traditional Text as embodied in the Byzantine Manuscript tradition. Thus, every Textus Receptus that the good Dean had available for his use was, in his opinion, in need of revision.</blockquote>

Which brings us to Dr. Cassidy´s concluding question:

<blockquote>Is the Traditional Text best represented today by any single "œTextus Receptus?"

At the time of Dean Burgon's sudden death in 1888, no Textus Receptus was identical to the readings of the King James Bible, nor the Traditional or Byzantine Manuscript tradition. The Dean, in response to the need for an unassailable Greek Text in the Byzantine tradition, encouraged his colleague F.H.A. Scrivener, Prebendary of Exeter and Vicar of Hendon, to edit a Greek Text with textual apparatus which would show the textual basis for every word in the King James Bible New Testament. Mr. Scrivener began this work in 1881, largely spurred on by the publication of the Greek Text of the New Testament according to Westcott and Hort.

Scrivener's final edition appeared in 1894, and continues to be published by the Trinitarian Bible Society today as the "œTextus Receptus." In this publication, Scrivener states that he has managed to trace the origin of almost every word of the King James New Testament where it departs from the Textus Receptus (about 190 instances of varying degree if we use Beza's 1598 edition as the base line). Of these 190 instances, Scrivener was able to trace, working from a copy of the Translation Committee's notes found in the private library of the Secretary to the Final Revision Committee, all but about a dozen variants. The official minutes of those historic meetings were apparently destroyed in the London fire of 1629. However, in 1964 Professor Ward Allen found the papers of William Fulman, a 17th century collector, including a handwritten copy of John Bois´s original notes in the Corpus Christi College Library at Oxford University, where they had lain since 1688. These notes have been published by Professor Allen under the title "œTranslating For King James," and are available from Vanderbilt University Press, 1969.

We must note that Burgon called for 150 changes in the Textus Receptus in the Gospel of Matthew alone, while Scrivener made only about 250 changes in the entire New Testament. Does this fact suggest that Burgon would not accept Scriveners text? Perhaps not. Burgon's suggestion of 150 changes in the Gospel of Matthew may have included changes in the chapter and verse structure which was added to the Greek New Testament by Stephens. The anecdote has often been told that Stephens did much of his work while traveling on horse back, and the jolting may have caused more than one slip of the pen! This can be easily demonstrated by looking at Acts chapter 21 and 22. Chapter 21 does not complete the paragraph, or even the sentence! The chapter division comes right in the middle of the sentence which begins in 21:40 and ends in 22:1! Perhaps it was just such chapter and verse divisions which Burgon included in his 150 suggested changes.

We can now see that even though Dean Burgon did call for a revision of the Textus Receptus as it existed in his day, the present Greek Text published by the Trinitarian Bible Society under the name "œTextus Receptus" reflects the revision of the older Greek Texts which went by the same name, and now much more closely follows the manuscript tradition of the Traditional Texts of the Byzantine Manuscript Evidence.

Today, the Dean Burgon Society believes the Textus Receptus, as published by the Trinitarian Bible Society, which is Scrivener's Greek Text of 1894, is the embodiment of the Providentially preserved word of God in Greek. As this Greek Text is the direct result of Dean Burgon's desire to see the Textus Receptus revised to more closely reflect the Traditional Text of the Byzantine Manuscripts, it is my assertion that the Dean, were he alive today, would agree with our position, and deem the Textus Receptus of today to be the authoritative Greek Text.

Which brings us to our concluding point. What about those readings in the King James Bible which depart not only from the majority of Textus Receptus readings, but also from all known Greek manuscript evidence? Where do those readings come from, and how can their authority be confirmed?

The title page to the original King James Version of 1611 contains the following statement: "The Holy Bible, Conteyning the Old Teftament, AND THE NEW: _Newly Tranflated out of the Originall tongues & with the former Tranflations diligently compared and reuifed by his Maiesties speciall Comandment._"

It has been supposed that the reference to the "former translations" meant only the English translations of Tyndale and others. However, I believe, judging from the notes left by the Translation Committees, that this reference also includes the Vernaculars in Latin, Syriac, and the older European language Bibles used by the Waldenses, Vaudois, and other historic New Testament churches.

It is this reliance on the oldest known vernaculars that has made the King James Bible so reliable, and able to meet every test of accuracy. The Old Latin and Old Peshitta were very early translations of the New Testament dating to as early as the mid-second century (about 150 A.D.). It has been noted that readings occur in the King James Bible that are without Greek manuscript support, and I believe those readings can be traced to the earliest known vernaculars, the Old Latin and Old Syriac Peshitta.

Just because there is no Greek manuscript evidence available today does not mean such evidence _never_ existed! The Old Latin and Old Syriac are strong indications that the readings in question are, in fact, authoritative, and being closest to the autographs, best reflect their readings. These vernacular readings are supported by the evidence from the early church Patriarchs, as well as from the Lexionaries, or daily scripture lessons read in the churches. It is unfortunate that the Critical Text proponents have failed to take this telling evidence into consideration, as it constitutes, in my opinion, the _Best Evidence_ for the authority of these readings.

Think about it.</blockquote>

I quoted a good part of Dr. Cassidy´s address as it seemed it was being glossing over just when this information was most needed in our discussion. If anyone thinks this does not tie up the loose ends in our previous talking about the various editions comprising the TR and the KJV, and what amounts to Burgon´s concern for this "œunsettled" Textus Receptus or Traditional Text, please bring forward your objections now.

------------

Bill, I do not have an internet connection at the time I am writing this, so I will have to get the Letis pdf you gave a link to and comment on it shortly.

You said,

<blockquote>Please understand, brother, that I have no problem with what you're saying. But when you argue from Hills' theological a priori - well, in essence, he is saying, "I believe in the doctrine of preservation of ALL AGES (WCF) - but not until 1611 (or 1516 if you prefer, TR)." In other words, all ages hardly means all ages.

I have no problem with 'restoration.' But one cannot argue restoration on one hand - and then get mad at 'restoration' by Westcott and Hort in terms of the issue of restoration. (One can, I concede, under such circumstances, argue against the THEORY of W/H - and solidly on many grounds, might I add).

But it rings hollow to say the Bible has always been preserved, but it wasn't preserved until 1611. Let me say that those who endorse the Traditional Text (Burgon, Scrivener, Hoskier, Farstad, Robinson, Oats) have a MUCH MORE solid ground on which to stand in regards to preservation. It disgusts me when people call Burgon forth as a witness in favor of 'King James Onlyism' when a simple read of his works proves he was not.</blockquote>

Thank you for saying that "œrestoration" may well be part of the preservation process "“ I cannot see it as being any other way! "“ but I do not see how you can then say, "œone cannot argue restoration on one hand - and then get mad at "˜restoration´ by Westcott and Hort [W&H] in terms of the issue of restoration." What W&H did was not restore, but replace, on a massive scale. And their replacing involved omissions of words that numbered in the many thousands.

You say,

<blockquote>But it rings hollow to say the Bible has always been preserved, but it wasn't preserved until 1611.</blockquote>

Is it unfair to say _the readings of the genuine autographs_ have always been preserved "“ have never been lost "“ although a few of them were not restored until the compilation of the settled text by the 1611 translators, even as happened in Old Testament times under Ezra, who brought the text back into its intact form? (I do not equate the 1611 men with the same level of inspiration given Ezra!) This matter of preservation is a nuanced business, and I fear hasty hands have clouded things over, which you rightly object to. Nor can I presume to answer all the question involved in this, though I seek to unearth as much data as I can, even from the writings of the opponents of my position, for much knowledge is to be gained even from them.

I will post this now, download the Letis piece you reference, and will continue later.

Your brother in the Truth,

Steve


----------



## MW

> _Originally posted by mangum_
> Generally speaking, do the CT defenders believe we have not had a reliable Bible with the KJV? And do the KJV/TR defenders believe the CT is not good because of W/H?



W/H were really only the final product of a movement that was being carried on throughout the 19th century. Nolan's "Integrity of the Greek Vulgate" was written to counter liberal criticism early in the century. If my research is correct, the impetus of this text criticial movement was derived from the 18th century Trinitarian/Unitarian debates, especially over the Johannine Comma. So basically the answer would be no, but some TR defenders have used the unorthodox beliefs of W/H to show why they might be inclined to have adopted the text they did.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Bill,

I will have to study more on the contention of Letis that in Burgon´s Commentary on Matthew 1-14 some of his readings support the MT over Scrivener´s 1894 TR; I have the commentary in the library, and will be in my city Sunday to preach and can pick it up then.

I also have Scrivener´s _The Authorized Edition Of The English Bible (1611), Its Subsequent Reprints And Modern Representatives_ (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1910), and I am hoping the apparatus for his 1894 TR is in that volume (I haven´t heard of it being anywhere else).

At this point the best explanation for the data I have seen is, as I have said, Cassidy´s.

I will have to concede the point that Dean Burgon would neither want to join the Dean Burgon Society, nor, were he to want to, would he be allowed, save he changed some of his theological and ecclesiastical views!

I think the late Dr. Letis put many people under the umbrella of a type of Fundamentalism "“ that which has given rise to the stereotype "“ who do not belong there. 

He seems to have some disdain for the uneducated who presume to study things in that domain usually reserved for the academicians, and if they get anything wrong, or take things by faith which appear to be contradicted by facts, he dismisses them with scorn. I am not familiar with his work, and he seems to have a lot on the ball, and I will seek to read as much of him as I can find on the internet (getting books is difficult for me being on a fixed retirement income; sometimes getting a laptop battery or antivirus software has the priority over books "“ though in earlier days I used to say with Erasmus, "œIf I have a little money I get books; if there is anything left over I get food and clothing"). 

I am well aware, there is a kind of "œfundamentalism" which has a spiritual, emotional, and intellectual toxicity about it, but it is unfair to paint all of them with that brush. Some are quite other.

He speaks most unkindly of Jay P. Green Sr. (without mentioning his name) in his remarks on the latter´s book (Volume 1, I gather), _Unholy Hands On The Bible_ (Sovereign Grace Trust). I will have to admit it _is_ true the volume is fraught with typos, though I think he did a fair job in putting a good bit of Burgon´s work in one volume. Green´s remarks in the Introduction _are_ sharp, for he sees damage being done to the sacred deposit of Scripture. Green is not mean-spirited, but he is _spirited_. As Burgon wrote in the Dedication to _The Revision Revised_,

<blockquote>If, therefore, any do complain that I have hit my opponents rather hard"¦when the words of Inspiration are seriously imperilled, as now they are, it is scarcely possible for one who is determined effectually to preserve the Deposit in its integrity, to hit either too straight or too hard. (Pp. vii, viii)</blockquote>

From this quote one may see why people contend so earnestly over this issue.

Bill, you said,

<blockquote>Did not Burgon have an agenda in keeping the last 12 verses of Mark - since he believed in baptismal regeneration?</blockquote>

I don´t think "œHe that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned" gives much support per se to paedobaptism, especially not to "œbaptismal regeneration."

One good thing about these discussions, people are hearing more about Burgon, Hills, etc, and are leaving the CT position, (some at least) seeing it is indefensible, and are moving over to the MT or TT position, which is far better.

Another remark of yours,

<blockquote>Whether Westcott or Hort could speak at my church is irrelevant. Burgon could not do so either - nor would he wish to do so given his emphasis on ecclesiastical authority. But that argument is completely irrelevant ON BOTH SIDES.</blockquote>

But the reasons for the former two not being invited in would be entirely different from the latter. Let it be put it on me: They would not be invited into the church _I_ shepherd, due to flagrant violations of Biblical commandments, and for damnable heresies. Dr. Letis says "œargumentum ad hominem" is unacceptable in these discussions of editing Biblical manuscripts, but I beg to differ. In the secular sphere of research and textual emendation he has a point, but in the precincts of the Temple of the Holy One of Israel such persons are prohibited entry by commandment, much less to put hands upon the Torah.

A person´s character and doctrine has _everything_ to do with his being allowed to touch that which, in former days, the priesthood _only_ had supervision of, and in these last days, _only_ the priesthood of believers have supervision of. Yes, I realize this is the bone of contention between the CT and the TT & TR people.

You said,

<blockquote>And which Edward Hills do we believe? The one who turned in his doctoral dissertation in 1946 IN FAVOR of Westcott-Hort; or the one who wrote "The KJV Defended" in 1954? And how did he change his mind THAT fast?</blockquote>

Would you please provide some documentation "“ or perhaps a link "“ for this assertion? I would like to investigate it.

Lastly, you say,

<blockquote>The personal character and theologies of Westcott and Hort are irrelevant - mostly because the manuscripts precede them by at least 1,500 years. It's not like they actually WROTE them.</blockquote>

Well, it was in their positions as priests and professors of divinity in the Anglican Church they were allowed into the Jerusalem Chamber to work on the Church´s Holy Scripture, and they were under specific stipulations as to what was and was not allowed them in this work. If they secretly betrayed their appointments as overseers in the church by damnable heresy, and violated the injunctions laid upon them as regard the limits of the revision-work entrusted to them, do you think this *lawlessness* in the inner sanctuary of Scriptural emendation "œirrelevant"?

They didn´t just publish a book, they wrought evil upon _the_ Book!

Gotta quit for now. I need to leave this sphere for a couple of days, and live in the sermons I am preaching on Sunday.

Steve


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Matthew,

Thanks for clarifying re Luke 24:53. At any rate, I looked into it. In his _Revision Revised_ Burgon notes the _many_ unwarranted omissions from Luke´s Gospel; after commenting on the removal of "œthe second" Sabbath after the first in Luke 6:1, (p. 73 ff), he notes, 

<blockquote>But indeed, mutilation has been practiced throughout. By codex B (collated with the Traditional Text), no less than 2,877 words have been excised from the four Gospels alone: by codex Aleph,"“3,455 words: by codex D,"“ 3,704 words.

An interesting set of instances of this, as are to be anywhere met with, occurs within the compass of the last three chapters of Luke´s Gospel, from which about 200 words have been either forcibly ejected by our Revisionists, or else served with "˜notice to quit.´ (p. 75 ff)</blockquote>

And he proceeds to list eight of the chief of these, 24:53 being the last. Later in the book, on page 261 ff. (in footnotes) he looks in detail at the attestations pro and con this verse:

<blockquote>Luke´s Gospel ends (xxiv.53) with the record that the Apostles were continually in the temple "˜(a) _praising and_ (b) _blessing God._´ Such is the reading of 13 uncials headed by A and every known cursive: a few copies of the old Lat., the Vulg., Syriac, Ã†thiopic, and Armenian Versions. But it is found that Aleph B C omit clause (a): while D and seven copies of the old Latin omit clause (b).</blockquote>

He has shown the overwhelming evidence for the retention of the cut portions of the verse, and the caprice of W&H, whose primary foundation is the fiction of the "œSyrian Recension" of their main operating theory which finds no support in history. The verse in its entirety belongs.

Steve


----------



## Pilgrim

See Whose Unholy Hands on What? , a largely negative review of Green's reprinting of Burgon's work by MT advocate Maurice Robinson that takes Green to task for altering Burgon's work in numerous places (and leaving the unsuspecting reader unaware of said alteration), among other things. Robinson doesn't view Burgon negatively, but simply Green's work in republishing Burgon in "Unholy Hands on the Bible". 

This page has a lot of resources; most seem to defend the KJV/TR while some are from MT advocates.


----------



## Pilgrim

See also Original Manuscripts, the Majority Text and Translations by W. Gary Crampton and Logical Criticisms of Textual Criticism by Gordon H. Clark. These essays basically present a Majority Text view (which is not the same as strictly TR/KJV) and these essays are more food for thought regarding W-H and modern CT theory.

[Edited on 7-15-2006 by Pilgrim]


----------



## Maestroh

*Dear Brother Steve*

Sorry taking this long. Someone left work and I got scheduled some extra days this week and next. I will try to get in here and interact with you in the next few days. Just know that if I do not, I will be around. I do not want you to think that I'm avoiding you.

Btw, thank you for what has been one of the most edifying discussions on this topic I've ever experienced. And thank you for your compliment regarding being well read on the subject.

Again, not avoiding you - just want to have time to be fair w/you.

God bless,

maestroh bill brown


----------



## Pilgrim

> _Originally posted by mangum_
> Generally speaking, do the CT defenders believe we have not had a reliable Bible with the KJV? And do the KJV/TR defenders believe the CT is not good because of W/H?
> 
> Just trying to clarify my thinking. And to boil it down to both camps suppositions.



Some CT defenders will not recommend use of the KJV or even the NKJV as a primary bible based on the textual issue. I think most CT advocates nowadays follow the "eclectic" approach (as is admitted in the NIV preface) instead of sticking strictly to W-H's views, but they are certainly closer to W-H than they are to a TR or MT position.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Chris,

You´re right, Robinson´s review of Green´s _Unholy Hands"¦etc_ is a fair and scholarly review. (I haven´t had my copy for a while as I traded it 2 or 3 years ago for Hodge´s _Commentary on Romans_, as I collect everything good I can on Romans and I had all the Burgon books in Green´s volume anyway.) I don´t fault Green for his ire at what has been done to the Biblical texts, though Robinson may have a point that his intro might tend to prejudice people´s view of Burgon´s material that follows.

Your referral to John Robbin´s Trinity Foundation site and Crampton´s essay there on the text of the NT <http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=197> I found excellent. I had downloaded much from the Robbin´s site, but hadn´t gotten around to reading that one till now.

Thanks for the good info.

Steve


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Bill (and others),

I have looked over a number of studies I have been referred to on the internet, as well as consulting Scrivener´s, _The Authorized Edition Of The English Bible (1611), Its Subsequent Reprints And Modern Representatives_ (which does have a critical apparatus of sorts for his 1894 TR), parts of his, _A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament_, and Edward Miller´s _A Textual Commentary Upon The Holy Gospels: Part 1. St. Matthew, Division 1. i-xiv_, wherein he utilizes Burgon´s work to emend the Received Text according to the latter´s critical principles.

I have to admit that one cannot rightly take a KJO/1894 TR stand on the work of these three men, for they expressly state against it. I have to retract what I said about Dr. Thomas Cassidy´s essay tying up the loose ends of Burgon´s views in the 1894 TR produced by Scrivener. Scrivener pronounces against it; he produced that edition for reasons other than creating "œa standard of excellence."

The most one can say "“ though it can truly be said "“ these three men are strong advocates for the Majority Text or Traditional Text.

A great little book toward this same end is Van Bruggen´s, <http://www.thescripturealone.com/VanBrug.html>

A stand for the King James and the 1894 TR will have to be made on other ground than the above.

Bill, You said,

<blockquote>And which Edward Hills do we believe? The one who turned in his doctoral dissertation in 1946 IN FAVOR of Westcott-Hort; or the one who wrote "The KJV Defended" in 1954? And how did he change his mind THAT fast?

He seems to have made up his mind earlier but was willing to dissemble or misrepresent his views in order to get his doctorate (see Letis, "E.F. Hills Contribution to the Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text" - Letis claims - and no, I don't have it in front of me - but he pointed out that Hills rejected the notion of textual criticism long before he left school and that for Hills it did not exist).</blockquote>

Now this seems to me to be a genuine case of argumentum ad hominum. R.C. Sproul, in his tape series on "œDeveloping Christian Character," promotes the concept of "œcharity of judgment," which in effect says we ought put the _best_ possible spin on a person´s motives in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary.

I will see if I can find this Letis "œexposÃ©" on the net.

Steve


----------



## MW

> _Originally posted by Jerusalem Blade_
> A great little book toward this same end is Van Bruggen´s, <http://www.thescripturealone.com/VanBrug.html>


----------



## Maestroh

I'm writing from work, so I must be brief.

For starters, I have begun a reply to you (Steve), and I commend your honesty on the subject of what you've found. I believe I stated earlier that I do not have a particular stake on a particular side at this point.

Regarding Hills' and my comments - and your observation (note that I do not say 'accusation') of 'ad hominem' - perhaps it is how I worded the phrase. My point is that Hills at one time held the W-H position and later held a position that, well, abandons scholarship altogether INCLUDING MAJORITY TEXT SCHOLARSHIP - and it is somewhat amusing to me how many people criticize others who go the opposite way. Changing positions on something MAY reflect instability but it also may reflect maturity. 

I've also discovered a number of misrepresentations (to put it charitably) within Hills' own body of work - simply by looking up the footnotes. I'll put that on the board later, but I wouldn't really call Letis' work on Hills an 'expose' as it it more of a biography. Letis was the man who preached Hills' funeral, defended Hills, and was open and honest (scholarly if you will) about putting out information both favorable and unfavorable to Hills.

His Master's thesis, "E.F. Hills' Contribution to the Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text," demonstrates some interesting information regarding Hills. It was presented to Candler School of Theology (Emory University) in 1987. Dallas Seminary has a copy that I've checked out twice. If you'd like, I can refer you (perhaps they can get you a copy of it).

Also, regarding James White's book: What would you like to know? Yes, I have it, enjoyed it, use it for reference.

I concur regarding charity in judgment. I will attempt to embody it better. And I'm sorry for not doing so earlier.

You made another statement on another link that I'd like to address concerning David Cloud. I don't have the quote in front of me but it was something along the lines of somebody saying, "David Cloud is not a reputable source." This statement - by itself - probably constitutes ad hominem. 

Yet I do not consider David Cloud a reliable source on the KJV Only issue but I have REASONS why that I'm willing to state openly and clearly. I will refrain at this time because it is not my ultimate purpose to 'attack' another professing Christian. And the reasons have NOTHING to do with Calvinism or his position on CCM music or anything like that, either.

What I'm saying mostly, though, is that I enjoy the Christian give and take and consideration - iron doth sharpen iron.

We must remember, though, that the textual issue PRECEDES the theological issues; it is NOT determined by them. TEXT determines theology; theology should not be used as the arbiter to determine text.

Thank you, and I will TRY (but not promise) to get back to you later this pm.

Bill


----------



## MW

> _Originally posted by Maestroh_
> We must remember, though, that the textual issue PRECEDES the theological issues; it is NOT determined by them. TEXT determines theology; theology should not be used as the arbiter to determine text.



This is problematic. Theology determines canon. If so, why not text? Why is higher and lower criticism being carried on with two different standards? We receive the text on the same grounds as we receive the canon -- divine authority -- a theological basis.

I do not want to cause any offence, but the idea of theological neutrality in approaching the text of Scripture is a maxim of liberal criticism. Treating the Bible like any other book is what gave rise to 19th century deviations.


----------



## Pilgrim

From Gordon Clark's "Logical Criticisms of Textual Criticism":



> Perhaps the best production for immediate reading is Wilbur N. Pickering´s The Identity of the New Testament Text (Thomas Nelson, 1977). Further references to this excellent book will be made as we proceed. In particular, he contrasts the painstaking procedure of the usually despised Burgon with the sloppy methodology of his detractors. Even the least academic member of the ghetto congregation in East Podunk, Missovania, ought to read some of Pickering´s book.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Bill,

I would be interested to hear what you have to say about Cloud and any alleged inconsistencies you have found in him; that pertains to Hills as well.

To approach textual criticism without the theological doctrine of Providential Preservation of Scripture is to "leave one's faith at the door" of these studies -- it is not appropriate. To say that Hills "abandoned textual criticism" because he used this approach is the reproach of those who use the secular paradigm exclusively.

Yes, there will be differing views of how one holds this doctrine. I suppose this will be the battleground.

Steve


----------



## Maestroh

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Maestroh_
> We must remember, though, that the textual issue PRECEDES the theological issues; it is NOT determined by them. TEXT determines theology; theology should not be used as the arbiter to determine text.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is problematic. Theology determines canon. If so, why not text? Why is higher and lower criticism being carried on with two different standards? We receive the text on the same grounds as we receive the canon -- divine authority -- a theological basis.
> 
> I do not want to cause any offence, but the idea of theological neutrality in approaching the text of Scripture is a maxim of liberal criticism. Treating the Bible like any other book is what gave rise to 19th century deviations.
Click to expand...


Armourbearer,

I'll be interested then to hear how that theology is anything other than manmade presumption. If theology DETERMINES text then it must precede text. If it precedes text then it - by definition - cannot BE DETERMINED BY TEXT.

So what is it other than speculation?

Besides, given the superiority of some passages in the Critical Text - like Acts 4:25, Titus 2:13, and others - how is one going to use theology to determine WHICH one is right?


----------



## Maestroh

> _Originally posted by Jerusalem Blade_
> Bill,
> 
> I would be interested to hear what you have to say about Cloud and any alleged inconsistencies you have found in him; that pertains to Hills as well.
> 
> To approach textual criticism without the theological doctrine of Providential Preservation of Scripture is to "leave one's faith at the door" of these studies -- it is not appropriate. To say that Hills "abandoned textual criticism" because he used this approach is the reproach of those who use the secular paradigm exclusively.
> 
> Yes, there will be differing views of how one holds this doctrine. I suppose this will be the battleground.
> 
> Steve



Steve,

I sent you an email regarding something posted here. However, here's my problem with what you posit: even assuming the existence of a so-called doctrine of providential preservation, can you please explain what exactly that means?

Does it mean we have a BUNCH of manuscripts and all are error free? If so, the situation is bleak when we confront evidence.

Does it mean we have ONE of all of those manuscripts that is error free? And if so, which one?

Is it applied GENERALLY or SPECIFICALLY to a particular textual tradition. If so, which one? And why?

And what verse tells us HOW God preserved his word? It is ironic to me that people get angry at the 'rationalism' of Westcott and Hort - and yet isn't the argument 'the majority of the manuscripts' nothing but human reasoning?

Let's consider - and I may start a new post shortly on this - Hills' own 'textual criticism.' This is found at the following link:

http://www.biblebelievers.com/Hills_KJVD_Chapter4.htm

(My remarks are in parenthesis)

For a believer, then, the only alternative is to follow a consistently Christian method of New Testament textual criticism in which all the principles are derived from the Bible itself and none is borrowed from the textual criticism of other ancient books (Fair enough). In the preceding pages we have striven to present such a consistently Christian New Testament textual criticism, and now we will recapitulate and summarize its principles briefly:

Principle One: The Old Testament text was preserved by the Old Testament priesthood and the scribes and scholars that grouped themselves around that priesthood. *(how this explains textual criticism is beyond me)*

Principle Two: When Christ died upon the cross, the Old Testament priesthood was abolished. In the New Testament dispensation every believer is a priest under Christ the great High Priest. Hence the New Testament text has been preserved by the universal priesthood of believers, by faithful Christians in every walk of life. *(Where does the Bible teach this? It says the Word will be preserved; it does NOT say by whom and how)*

Principle Three: The Traditional Text, found in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts, is the True Text because it represents the God-guided usage of this universal priesthood of believers. *(On what basis? Why if this is all BIBLICAL - as Hills argues - has he not yet provided even one Bible verse showing his principles?)*

Principle Four: The first printed text of the Greek New Testament represents a forward step in the providential preservation of the New Testament. In it the few errors of any consequence occurring in the Traditional Greek Text were corrected by the providence of God operating through the usage of the Latin-speaking Church of Western Europe. In other words, the editors and printers who produced this first printed Greek New Testament text were providentially guided by the usage of the Latin-speaking Church to follow the Latin Vulgate in those few places in which the Latin Church usage rather than the Greek Church usage had preserved the genuine reading. *(The Bible not only says nothing about Guttenberg or the printing press, it is the height of arrogance to basically claim not only that you know HOW God preserved His Word when God Himself never said - but you also know that in SOME CASES the REAL reading is in the 'corrupt' Latin - one is hardly surprised to learn that these passages are, of course, those that made it in Erasmus' TR and the KJV).*

Principle Five: Through the usage of Bible-believing Protestants God placed the stamp of His approval on this first printed text, and it became the Textus Receptus (Received Text). It is the printed form of the Traditional Text found in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts. *(Not only is this not biblical, it is not even true. The TR is a PORTION - about 5-25 manuscripts - of the TT/MT. The Traditional Text differs from the TR in OVER 1,800 PLACES!!! So when they differ, which one is correct?)*

Principle Six: The King James (Authorized) Version is an accurate translation of the Textus Receptus. On it God has placed the stamp of His approval through the long continued usage of English-speaking believers. Hence it should be used and defended today by Bible-believing Christians. *(Could we not just as easily argue that the long use of the Septuagint was proof of God's 'approval?' What about the Latin Vulgate, a Bible that was in use MORE THAN TWICE AS LONG as the KJV has reigned? What about the W/H text? Nowadays, more seminaries (even evangelical and Bible-believing) and Christian colleges use the W/H text as their basis. Doesn't this prove it is 'God's preserved Word?' Using Hills' axions, it certainly does).*

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now understand, I'm not picking on Hills; I'm picking on his ARGUMENTS. They are special pleading and woefully inadequate when one considers that Hills cannot consistently do this and then try to argue the divine truth with a Muslim - who holds the same view of his Koran as Hills does of his KJV.

Again - let me reiterate: I am NOT against the KJV; I am against the notion that it is the 'only' Word of God. And I believe it inaccurate to argue that theology somehow precedes text - since theology is supposed to be DRAWN OUT of the revealed text.

God bless, 

Maestroh


----------



## Maestroh

*And About Wilbur Pickering..*

Two things come to mind as one poster has referenced Wilbur Pickering. Here is what Dr. Maurice Robinson - himself a Majority Text advocate (same text as Pickering - mostly) has posted online about Pickering's work:

"I also want to avoid any connection with the utter mess that Wilbur Pickering made out of various scholarly quotes in his 'Identity of the NT Text' book, where he blatantly took passages out of context, misquoted other passages, and misapplied the lot in a poor attempt to discredit the eclectic position." 

This is found at the following netural website (it has a lot of good links on all areas of text criticism): http://www.bible-researcher.com/majority.html#note5

And so that I'm not looked at as harsh, let's consider Pickering's evaluation - from that same book - of Edward Hills' arguments (whom I posted on the prior post):

*Hill's position is inconsistent and arbitrary, and does not square with the evidence.*

This is found at the following link where you can download Pickering's book: http://www.revisedstandard.net/text/WNP/ap_a.html

It is just past footnote five.

God bless everyone,

Maestroh


----------



## MW

> _Originally posted by Maestroh_
> I'll be interested then to hear how that theology is anything other than manmade presumption. If theology DETERMINES text then it must precede text. If it precedes text then it - by definition - cannot BE DETERMINED BY TEXT.



Revelation preceded inscripturation, WCF 1:1. The process of canonicity builds upon the foundation of Torah.

Most authors that deal with the subject of canon seek to show the organic principle by which the "rule" of faith and life was acknowledged.



> Besides, given the superiority of some passages in the Critical Text - like Acts 4:25, Titus 2:13, and others - how is one going to use theology to determine WHICH one is right?



This misses the point and somewhat begs the question. TR defenders argue for the ecclesiastical text over the criticial text based upon their belief that God preserves His word pure "in all ages."

I find it interesting that you use the word "text." I ask, text of what? If you say, the Word of God, then you have maintained theology determines text.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Bill,

Got your email, though I would prefer we kept this entire discussion open on the boards here. I appreciate you don´t want to seem to be attacking anyone´s character or indulging in argumentum ad hominem, but all information pertaining to these issues is relevant. As it stands, all I can do is allude to what I think are incorrect statements you made privately to me regarding David Cloud.

Okay, he was very tough on the guy regarding Daniel Wallace´s publishing on the internet of "œThe Synoptic Problem," and in his response Wallace shows himself to be a gentlemanly and scholarly Christian. Nonetheless, Wallace´s type of higher-critical approach "“ although it is deemed orthodox (as opposed to heterodox) by the New Evangelicalism "“ offends Cloud´s particular defense of the inspiration of Scripture, and he is in his rights taking it to task, even severely as he did.

Regarding Cloud´s use of Alfred Martin´s PhD thesis on the Hortian Textual Theory, I do not at all find he is misleading, at least not in the quotes you supplied. It is well known Martin is an opponent to the Hortian view, but an advocate of the Majority Text view and not the King James or its TR. Cloud did not imply otherwise. Martin´s oft-quoted brief remarks on the Theory are well known and widely used, being as succinct as they are. They are most pertinent to Cloud´s teachings, as are Burgon´s, though neither hold _fully_ with Cloud´s views.

Cloud´s defense of Fuller indeed involved opposing the claim that Fuller and others were indoctrinated by Benjamin Wilkinson, as per Kutilek´s article on the "œRoots of King James Onlyism" or somesuch. I did find your hostility to Cloud apparent by how you characterized him. This is not dispassionate investigation. I don´t think you like the guy.

But, please, let´s keep it on the boards here, so all may be edified, and if we either of us fail to make our case, it may be manifest.

----------

In a recent post here you mentioned that Dr. Hills made a quick turn-about from embracing the CT view to opposing it:

<blockquote>And which Edward Hills do we believe? The one who turned in his doctoral dissertation in 1946 IN FAVOR of Westcott-Hort; or the one who wrote "The KJV Defended" in 1954? And how did he change his mind THAT fast?

He seems to have made up his mind earlier but was willing to dissemble or misrepresent his views in order to get his doctorate (see Letis, "E.F. Hills Contribution to the Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text" - Letis claims - and no, I don't have it in front of me - but he pointed out that Hills rejected the notion of textual criticism long before he left school and that for Hills it did not exist).</blockquote>

From your sentence structure it is hard to discern whether the allegation of his being "œwilling to dissemble or misrepresent his views in order to get his doctorate" is Letis´ or yours! In either case it is a most reprehensible remark concerning a man who has a sterling reputation even among those who strongly disagree with him.

A brief story about "œquick turn-arounds": When I arrived here in Cyprus in 2002 I was a Zionist in my view of the State of Israel. I was no friend of the Rabbinate there, and was finishing up a book attacking their stance not only concerning the Messiah but Judaism itself, titled, _A Poet Arises In Israel_. I considered them promoting the spiritual genocide of my people according to the flesh, yet I believed that the nation of Israel was the prophetic fulfillment of that people of God to whom the promises of the Old Covenant were given.

One day I was having lunch with a pastor, his wife, and a Dutch couple, when the pastor´s wife said, during the course of some conversation about the Middle East, something to the effect that the Jews did not have the right to the land they occupied. It was only a brief remark, in the form of a question concerning something I had asserted. I had never heard from a Reformed believer such a thing, obviously holding the Jews did _not_ have such a right. The conversation quickly veered off onto another topic, and I couldn´t get it back there, but the remark burned in my mind.

Later that evening, or possibly the next day, I called a missionary couple I was friends with and asked them if they had any books by Christians on such a view. (I had been indoctrinated by my Messianic Jewish associates in the states to the Zionist paradigm; it was all I knew; other views I relegated to Islamic propaganda. Obviously my holding to the Reformed view was neither complete nor well-informed.) My friends gave me three books, _Blood Brothers_, by Elias Chacour, and _Whose Promised Land?_, by Collin Chapman, and I forget the third. Both of these books were like a shock to my system. In _Blood Brothers_ it was like I saw the Jewish-Palestinian conflict through the eyes of Christ, or at least Christ in the heart of a child, which the author was as the story begins. And Chapman´s book, it spoke to my mind where the former had spoken to my heart.

It is four years later now, and I have had to shelve my own book, pending its being rewritten, if I even do finish that.

I will attach a short pdf file to this post with an example of my change of mind.

The point is, in less than four years I had a thorough theological reversal, and have produced much material in the new vein. In _eight_ years "“ the alleged time between Hills´ dissertation and his _KJV Defended_ "“ a productive individual, especially one with multitudinous research notes and files, could both have a change of heart and produce works opposing one´s former views.

Remember what I said about "œcharity of judgment."

-----------

Bill, you have stated a few times that you do not have a particular stake in a particular point of view at this time. May I ask, what is it that "“ in this interim period "“ you do hold to as regards the state of the Biblical text? You are full of many doubtful questions as regards the KJO and the 1894 TR position, which I do respect; but on the positive side, do you believe we have an inerrant Bible which is trustworthy? Or with many of the MT folks, do you believe we _sort_ of have a Biblical text, though it is not now "“ and may never in our lifetimes be "“ settled? 

Did you look at the beginning of my pdf _To Break A Sword_, where I spoke about the dilemma confronting us on the apologetic front?

You pose many sharp questions regarding my (KJV/TR) views of providential preservation (I include those in whose camp I am, such as Cloud and Hills, generally speaking), but have you any of your own that serve you and sustain your faith as you seek full knowledge of the truth?

It is a rather safe place "“ in terms of friendly disputations such as we are having "“ only being the interrogator, and positing nothing as regards your own faith. How are you able to stand in what you presently believe?

You see, for me this is an issue on two fronts, pastoral and apologetic. I want those under my spiritual care to have a sound faith in the Bible. God´s Word is the very foundation of our faith, and of our lives in Christ. This pertains both to our lives in the spiritual realities in God´s Kingdom, and also vis-Ã -vis those our opponents, who deny the validity of said lives, and who assault us with their unbelief.

As I see it, this contest is properly between the KJV/1894 TR holders and the MT holders. The CT position is a dying wolf; you don´t need to kick or beat a dying wolf if it is no longer able to maul you. Those of us in the fray are really in the same family, with not much between us save the issue of faith preceding our view, or our view preceding our faith. I think you have put it in similar terms.

-----------

You remark concerning Hills,

<blockquote>My point is that Hills at one time held the W-H position and later held a position that, well, abandons scholarship altogether INCLUDING MAJORITY TEXT SCHOLARSHIP - and it is somewhat amusing to me how many people criticize others who go the opposite way.</blockquote>

Am I right in understanding you to imply that those of us who put faith before our view of the Bible text "“ superceding even critical issues "“ have "œabandoned scholarship"? Will you not allow us our own appellation of "œbelieving scholarship" or "œfaith-based scholarship"?

You say,

<blockquote>I've also discovered a number of misrepresentations (to put it charitably) within Hills' own body of work - simply by looking up the footnotes. I'll put that on the board later"¦</blockquote>

I await this.

The Lord Jesus said, "œMan shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." This is not a textual issue as the words in Matthew 4:4 are not contested anywhere. His words do give rise to a theological issue: implicit in the saying is that by *every* word of His we live, and such being so He will see to it that we have what we need in order to live.

In Matthew 24:35 our King says, "œHeaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away." May I take this literally? Is there any other way to take it? Is not implicit in this saying that He shall preserve His word in this world and in the next? This is not a textual issue as this also is not a contested verse.

Isaiah 40:8 "“ "œThe grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand forever." What, only in Heaven? And not here where it is that by which man lives?

I could give more, but this is to demonstrate that in some significant areas theology precedes textual issues and may even determine them. The theology exemplified above is that God will preserve that which He has given us to live by, i.e., His word.

In a later post you say,

<blockquote>[H]ere's my problem with what you posit: even assuming the existence of a so-called doctrine of providential preservation, can you please explain what exactly that means?

Does it mean we have a BUNCH of manuscripts and all are error free? If so, the situation is bleak when we confront evidence.

Does it mean we have ONE of all of those manuscripts that is error free? And if so, which one?

Is it applied GENERALLY or SPECIFICALLY to a particular textual tradition. If so, which one? And why?</blockquote>

This is the big question, is it not? And this is, as I have said before, the battleground. I aver that the 1894 TR, as a reconstruction of the various manuscripts and manuscript traditions used by the King James translators, is the text God providentially preserved for us in fulfillment of His promises to keep His word intact for us. And that the King James Bible is the best translation of that text.

You enigmatically say,

<blockquote>And what verse tells us HOW God preserved his word? It is ironic to me that people get angry at the 'rationalism' of Westcott and Hort - and yet isn't the argument 'the majority of the manuscripts' nothing but human reasoning?</blockquote>

Bill, when you say as you do above I wonder if you comprehend the issues between the different camps (the CT/W&H and the KJV/MT). Just so I know we are on the same page in our discussion, can you state in a nutshell what the difference is between the two views you refer to above?

Would you state for me "“ since you say you know it "“ the view a Muslim has regarding the text of the Koran? And compare this with Hills?

And please, what is it you actually believe, even if it be only tentatively? It is one thing to tear down others' views, and another to build something positive of your own. Surely you can state what your faith -- or knowledge -- is as regards the Bible.

Steve

[Edited on 7-20-2006 by Jerusalem Blade]


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Bill,

You question Hills´ textual principles:

<blockquote>Principle One: The Old Testament text was preserved by the Old Testament priesthood and the scribes and scholars that grouped themselves around that priesthood. *(how this explains textual criticism is beyond me)* [all bold emphases yours]</blockquote>

It states that providential preservation (PP) of the text was accomplished through the OT priesthood. PP is an aspect of textual integrity.

You say,

<blockquote>Principle Two: When Christ died upon the cross, the Old Testament priesthood was abolished. In the New Testament dispensation every believer is a priest under Christ the great High Priest. Hence the New Testament text has been preserved by the universal priesthood of believers, by faithful Christians in every walk of life. *(Where does the Bible teach this? It says the Word will be preserved; it does NOT say by whom and how)*</blockquote>

By the common faith of the church, that which the priesthood of believers validated through their usage, we have the essential NT preserved in the majority of manuscripts (the superiority of the _minority_ of manuscripts has been debunked through the overthrow of the Hortian theory), in the Greek church´s Traditional Text, as well as the Bibles used by such groups as the Waldenses in the mountains of Europe (and elsewhere), with important readings retained which were lost in the Greek vulgate (I discussed these in _To Break A Sword_, and Hills also discusses this in chapter 8 of his KJV Defended). But if you have read Hills as you state, you know what his answers are.

If you differ, you tell us "œby whom and how" it has been preserved. Are you only questions with no answers?

As we are talking of Hills´ views here, you would know in the aforementioned chapter he discusses in great detail the progress of the transmission of the preserved text. Is the stumbling block for you that we _assume_ God´s hand actively working all through the process, and attribute to Him the triumph of the Received Text? Yes, it is under siege these days, as is the church herself, with the spirit of antichrist steadily encroaching against her sacred doctrine and practice; but for centuries it has reigned supreme. Will you tell me that Jerome´s Latin Vulgate can make the same claim as it held sway in the Roman Catholic Church for even more centuries? Do you think the book of the blood-thirsty whore (Revelation 17) has equal warrant with the line of Bibles written in the blood of those who defied Rome and gave God´s Word to many peoples in their own languages? Please note, I do not say it has no merit _at all_, only that it bows at the foot of the Queen of Texts.

Bill, I assume you have a working knowledge of church history, as it is clear you are widely read. There have been many dissenters from the State Churches up through the years, who prized their pure manuscripts, simple and common people for the most part. You would know that when Rome slaughtered multitudes in southern Europe, those who did not submit to her doctrine, church government, and her Bible version, she also destroyed their Bibles, as it was not allowed for the common people to read the Bible in those days, in the regions of the whore´s dominance. During the years of the Inquisition this was amplified through the "œHoly Roman Empire" and all of Europe! Pardon my strong language, but I still taste the blood, and smell the burning flesh of the saints! The Bible was outlawed, but the outlaws kept their secret copies. And the Greek church kept her Bible almost pure.


You go on,

<blockquote>Principle Three: The Traditional Text, found in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts, is the True Text because it represents the God-guided usage of this universal priesthood of believers. *(On what basis? Why if this is all BIBLICAL - as Hills argues - has he not yet provided even one Bible verse showing his principles?)*</blockquote>

First, on the basis of its sheer existence! It is a fait accompli! A done thing! And done on the basis of the Bible verses I quoted in the above post.

Oftentimes we do not know how a prophecy or promise will be fulfilled, and only in hindsight can we discern how God worked to keep His promises.

God did not precisely describe the nuclear weapons we have today (some may differ with me), though He may have them used to fulfill prophecies in Scripture.

You say,

<blockquote>Principle Four: The first printed text of the Greek New Testament represents a forward step in the providential preservation of the New Testament. In it the few errors of any consequence occurring in the Traditional Greek Text were corrected by the providence of God operating through the usage of the Latin-speaking Church of Western Europe. In other words, the editors and printers who produced this first printed Greek New Testament text were providentially guided by the usage of the Latin-speaking Church to follow the Latin Vulgate in those few places in which the Latin Church usage rather than the Greek Church usage had preserved the genuine reading. *(The Bible not only says nothing about Guttenberg or the printing press, it is the height of arrogance to basically claim not only that you know HOW God preserved His Word when God Himself never said - but you also know that in SOME CASES the REAL reading is in the 'corrupt' Latin - one is hardly surprised to learn that these passages are, of course, those that made it in Erasmus' TR and the KJV).*</blockquote>

Is it really "œthe height of arrogance" to trust that _what has come to pass_ has come at His decree, and to discern His hand in the gracious providences that have enriched our lives, first and foremost being the final preservation of that text which lived in and was loved in the common faith of His people, as exhibited in the overwhelming majority of the extant Greek (Scripture) manuscripts and manuscript fragments. Yes, some final touches were made from other versions. Hills makes a very good case for how these things were done, nor has he abandoned textual criticism, what he has abandoned is mere secular methodologies in that field, and put his learning to use for the believing church.

I will ask you this, Bill: please give me an alternative as regards how His indisputably promised preservation of His word has been accomplished. What have you to replace what you attempt to tear down? Or is that all you can do?

Steve

[Edited on 7-21-2006 by Jerusalem Blade]

[Edited on 7-21-2006 by Jerusalem Blade]


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Bill,

Continuing to respond to your post. You say,

<blockquote>Principle Five: Through the usage of Bible-believing Protestants God placed the stamp of His approval on this first printed text, and it became the Textus Receptus (Received Text). It is the printed form of the Traditional Text found in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts. *(Not only is this not biblical, it is not even true. The TR is a PORTION - about 5-25 manuscripts - of the TT/MT. The Traditional Text differs from the TR in OVER 1,800 PLACES!!! So when they differ, which one is correct?)*</blockquote>

On what basis do you say it is "œnot biblical"? And what do you mean when you say "œbiblical"? That it was prophesied? That there is a Bible text to support the assertion? This is the faith view, looking after-the-fact at the compilation of the _refined_ "“ by the various editors from Erasmus to Beza and Elzevir "“ Traditional Text. This "œpurified" version of the TT/MT we call the Received Text. How do we know it is purified, and better than the raw MSS in the MT tradition? We believe this because our Lord promised to give us His intact word, and we followed the process up through the ages and the hands of men (it is not as though we are ignorant of the stages of the transmission of the text) to its conclusion. We mix our textual understanding with faith. I realize that gets some people bent out of shape, because it reflects on _their_ view of the state of the text, but we stand firm, and that not ignorantly, but informed by both knowledge and trust.

You continue, Bill:

<blockquote>Principle Six: The King James (Authorized) Version is an accurate translation of the Textus Receptus. On it God has placed the stamp of His approval through the long continued usage of English-speaking believers. Hence it should be used and defended today by Bible-believing Christians. *(Could we not just as easily argue that the long use of the Septuagint was proof of God's 'approval?' What about the Latin Vulgate, a Bible that was in use MORE THAN TWICE AS LONG as the KJV has reigned? What about the W/H text? Nowadays, more seminaries (even evangelical and Bible-believing) and Christian colleges use the W/H text as their basis. Doesn't this prove it is 'God's preserved Word?' Using Hills' axions, it certainly does).*</blockquote>

What do you mean the "œlong use of the Septuagint"? Do you mean its use as the OT of the Greek Orthodox church? Will you include its Apocrypha in that? Do you think the Greek version superior to the original Hebrew? Are you aware of the properties of the Septuagint, its great flaws? Are you just asking this rhetorically, for the sake of argument, or are you _seriously_ suggesting the superior quality of the LXX?

I addressed the matter of the Latin Vulgate above (though it was not the true Vulgate "“ the "œvulgar" or common version of the people "“ which the Old Latin versions were, and which Rome hated and sought to wipe out). Perhaps you should answer my remarks there, concerning this text which the papists sought to impose on dissenting believers by torture and murder. Should we consider the Roman Catholic organization a true church in any sense? I realize godly people differ in this; I think there were many believers in the Roman system (Francis of Assisi for one), _despite_ the system; but the sacramental system of salvation, through the mediation of the priesthood, is diametrically opposed to the doctrines of grace, and worthy of utter condemnation, per the apostle Paul (for one) in Galatians 1:8, 9.

And the version of the tormenters of my brothers and sisters, held out on hands dripping with their very gore, you would even consider this in the same league with the common text they were willing to give their lives for?

"œWhat about the W/H text?" you ask? Are you really serious, Bill? Since you seem to be, let me ask you this basic question: on what textual basis (I am talking evidence, something you think we are lacking and oblivious to!) would you omit the last 12 verses of Mark´s gospel? If you say B and Aleph against almost all other MSS, versions, lectionaries, and fathers, why the immense weight given those two MSS? If you claim the Hortian theory of the "œSyrian recension" and the neutral text, you will have to provide evidence for their historicity, because I will not allow you to posit this view on your (or anyone´s) mere say-so. It must have support.

The argument of long usage must have other foundations as well. There must be corroborating evidences, which Hills (or I) can provide, but the LXX, Jerome´s Vulgate, and the W/H lack such support. And there can be factors that negate the "œlong usage" argument. That B was in the library of the Vatican while the popes drenched Europe with blood, so that the land actually stank, does not speak well in its behalf. The martyrs would scorn such a suggestion! And would die for their faith.

Incidentally, I have argued concerning the Faith and our Scriptures with a Muslim, and was not hindered by inconsistency, for my view is intact.

You said,

<blockquote>And I believe it inaccurate to argue that theology somehow precedes text - since theology is supposed to be DRAWN OUT of the revealed text.</blockquote>

As I said and demonstrated above, almost always the text is not an issue to be opposed by theology, but simply exhibits that doctrine (or theology, if you will) God has given us for life and godliness. There are a few places in the Biblical text where doctrine does determine the text, but that doctrine is invariably based on texts that are not in dispute. The Reformed call this the "œanalogy of faith" or "œanalogy of Scripture," where that which is clear explains that which is not clear.

A question, Bill: what do think of the Reformed confessions which reflect the understanding we have of the Bible? Do you think the Westminster Standards, or the London Confession of 1689, or the Three Forms of Unity in the main accurate in their statements concerning the Faith? The Westminster Confession, for one, has a statement regarding the Scripture, and its preservation.

If you disagree (but you cannot disagree regarding preservation in some respect) with the WCF (or how it is interpreted here), how do you see the providential preservation of Scripture? If you have an alternative view I would be most eager to hear it.

As an aside, Bill, I must say I quite enjoy the spirited give and take of our discussion, and this has been most stimulating to my mind. The things I have had to concede, and have learned, I will incorporate in the paper I am writing on this topic. I appreciate that you have kept me on my toes, and not allowed me to be sloppy in my research or my views. Thank you. 

I hope you are not offended that I am a little sharp sometimes. As iron sharpens iron, I realize that sparks may indeed fly. I take this as swordplay among friends.

Steve


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Bill,

You post saying,

<blockquote>*And About Wilbur Pickering..*

Two things come to mind as one poster has referenced Wilbur Pickering. Here is what Dr. Maurice Robinson - himself a Majority Text advocate (same text as Pickering - mostly) has posted online about Pickering's work:

"I also want to avoid any connection with the utter mess that Wilbur Pickering made out of various scholarly quotes in his 'Identity of the NT Text' book, where he blatantly took passages out of context, misquoted other passages, and misapplied the lot in a poor attempt to discredit the eclectic position." 

This is found at the following netural website (it has a lot of good links on all areas of text criticism): http://www.bible-researcher.com/majority.html#note5

And so that I'm not looked at as harsh, let's consider Pickering's evaluation - from that same book - of Edward Hills' arguments (whom I posted on the prior post):

*Hill's position is inconsistent and arbitrary, and does not square with the evidence.*

This is found at the following link where you can download Pickering's book: http://www.revisedstandard.net/text/WNP/ap_a.html

It is just past footnote five.</blockquote>

Bill, what is this? Is this just for fun? You quote Robinson trashing Pickering, and then Pickering trashing Hills, almost in one breath. Shall we title this, "œHearsay evidence from the "˜experts´," or "œhigher critical pecking order"?

Steve

[Edited on 7-21-2006 by Jerusalem Blade]


----------



## Maestroh

Steve,

Just to let you know, I went right to the end. I'm at work (finishing that 53-hour week - I'm exhausted!!).

Haven't had a chance to read it yet.

Did you get my email? I send you a private message a few nights ago?

Bill


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Some reflections while waiting for Bill to get rested up and caught up:

I am glad and grateful to have exposed my views on the KJB/TR issues and subsequently been shown that some of them are wanting! Is it not better to have peer review (of sorts) and critique before finalizing a statement? In this vein, any of you who have downloaded and read my _To Break A Sword_ (TBAS), or parts of it, and have criticisms or comments, it would be a boon to me (not a bane) to receive them.

I see I incur some liability by my holding with certain Fundamentalist Baptists in this issue of the text (and I am not referring to extremists such as Riplinger and Ruckman). Certainly they do hold some erroneous ideas regarding Burgon and Scrivener and their views of the King James Bible and the 1894 Textus Receptus. Nonetheless they have much of worth in both their historical and textual research, and I will not disassociate from them, but rather take a nuanced stance vis-Ã -vis these folks. Dr. Waite alone, at his Bible for Today ministry, has treasures of reprinted classic, pertinent works on the defense of these texts, and David Cloud and Jack Moorman (to mention only two of many "“ see the bibliography of recommended reading at the end of TBAS) have original works of great value on the subject.

But I find I have been woefully ignorant of Ted Letis and his contribution to the subject. "œWoefully" because all his major works are now out of print and those for sale exorbitantly priced, and I have not benefited from his labors. I am seeking to amend that.

I understand that a version of Letis´ book, _Edward Freer Hills´ Contribution to the Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text_, used to be available in an online format. Any of you friends of his willing to email me that treasure would make me the richer in my own labors following in his steps (though I honestly can´t fit in his shoes!). For to my dismay, a former treasure trove of his works at holywordcafe.com, is no longer available, as the site seems to be shut down.

Perhaps "“ arguably "“ the premiere textual critic of the day is Maurice Robinson, and although he calls himself a "œtrue Burgonian" "“ and according to his definition I believe he is correct "“ he makes it a point _not_ to be guided by the theology of providential preservation but simply by the scientific results of his text-critical approach, which is highly developed. Even so he is a keen and formidable advocate for the MT. There is much to be learned from men such as him. For example, in an internet discussion he says,

<blockquote>"¦_n many instances Burgon is now known to have been wrong due to subsequent discoveries. Example: Burgon thought Origen responsible for creating the Alexandrian text; P75 alone squashes that nonsense. But the KJV-Only crowd (especially Ruckman, Riplinger, and Waite) continues to quote Burgon on that point as if he has "œnever been answered"). Rubbish. Burgon is not infallible, and never was.</blockquote>

I perceive a study to cast much light on that would be Gordon Fee's essay, "œP75, P66, and Origen: The Myth of early Textual Recension in Alexandria," pp. 247-73, in, Studies in the Theory and Method of NT Textual Criticism, E. J. Epp, G. D. Fee (Eerdmans, 1994). 

I really would like to look that essay over, to see what Fee says. One disadvantage of being on an island in the Mediterranean is the scarcity of English-language libraries. Even in rustic Woodstock (NY) they had great librarians and their inter-library loan system could get me almost any book I wanted, and this one would be easy (books I couldn´t get there were the 2-volume biographies each of Westcott and Hort "“ I had to go to Waite to get those).

Samuel Gipp cites E.F. Hills, saying,

<blockquote>Dr. Edward Hills concludes, "œThe best way to explain this situation is to suppose that it represents an intentional neglect of the Traditional Text on the part of those ancient Alexandrian scribes who kept revising the text of Paprus 75 until finally they created the B text." [Hills, Edward, Believing Bible Study, (The Christian Research Press, Des Moines, 1967), p. 166.]

(Online version of) Samuel Gipp's, An Understandable History of the Bible, Chapter 6 <http://samgipp.com/history/Gipp_history_index.html</blockquote>

Note: I can´t find the quote in my 1977 edition of Hill´s book, as the pagination is different. But I´m hunting.

Now if anyone reading this has the book containing Fee´s essay, and would photocopy and mail it to me, in return I would not only pay the costs of copying and postage, but would send you a copy of Dr. Jakob Van Bruggen´s book, The Ancient Text of the New Testament, as a token of my gratitude (I have an extra copy).

As much as I admire skilled text critics such as Robinson and Pickering, I believe Dr. Hills has the Biblical "“ as contrasted with the secular or naturalistic "“ approach. He makes his case for it well in his The King James Version Defended (an online and downloadable version: http://www.Jesus-is-lord.com/kjvdefen.htm). I realize they look down with disdain on this approach, whether it be at Hills´ or Letis´ able hands, or lesser folks, seeing it as ignorant, utterly unscholarly, and without merit.

I don´t agree. The Lord will judge between us. I do not need an expert to tell me what to believe. If I choose to hold to the views of a teacher in this field because his teaching exemplifies what I have already been taught in Scripture, I do no dishonor to the field of textual scholarship. I will not be under the "œtyranny of experts"* as regards my faith, whether it concerns the Person of my Lord, or His word, which is just as supernatural a phenomenon as He Himself is.

*(From J. Gresham Machen´s essay, "œMountains and Why We Love Them" <http://www.opc.org/machen/mountains.html>)

Steve

P.S. I just bid for & won a copy of Letis´ Ecclesiastical Text at eBay; cost: $8.06 + $3.57 shipping (to a friend in NY) = $11.63. The Lord provided._


----------



## larryjf

Steve,

here are some links to Theodore Letis material if you are interested...

http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/Letis.html

http://www.kuyper.org/main/publish/journal/article_67.shtml

The So-called English Standard Version (audio...)
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?currSection=sermonsspeaker&sermonID=41504103537

A New Hearing for the Authorized Version...
http://www.thescripturealone.com/Letis.html

The Ecclesiastical Text: Text Criticism, Biblical Authority and the Popular Mind (Chapter Synopses of the Book)...
http://www.thescripturealone.com/EccText.html


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Larry,

Thank you very much. The only link that doesn't work is: http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/Letis.html

Is it working for you? Please let me know, as I can't get the holywordcafe.com website. I was hoping for someone who had downloaded from there in the past and still has it stored on their computer. But if it _is_ working then it must be a server problem I'm having.

Steve


----------



## Pilgrim

It's working here, Steve.


----------



## CDM

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> It's working here, Steve.



Working for me, too.


----------



## Tallen

> _Originally posted by Jerusalem Blade_But I find I have been woefully ignorant of Ted Letis and his contribution to the subject. "œWoefully" because all his major works are now out of print and those for sale exorbitantly priced, and I have not benefited from his labors. I am seeking to amend that.
> 
> I understand that a version of Letis´ book, _Edward Freer Hills´ Contribution to the Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text_, used to be available in an online format. Any of you friends of his willing to email me that treasure would make me the richer in my own labors following in his steps (though I honestly can´t fit in his shoes!). For to my dismay, a former treasure trove of his works at holywordcafe.com, is no longer available, as the site seems to be shut down.



Steve,

Letis was a personal friend and I had a rich email exchange from him. Perhaps I have an electronic copy of Letis' book which I will be happy to email to you if I do, it is rather short around a hundred or so pages if I remember right. I'll let you know later tonight or tomorrow when I can go through the emails he sent.

Blessings.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Ted,

I would be grateful if you found you had, and sent to me, an electronic copy of _Edward Freer Hills´ Contribution to the Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text_!

Actually, as Chris M. & Chris P. said, the holywordcafe site is _not_ shut down, as I discovered today when I visited a friend with a different ISP and found I could access it. I downloaded all the stuff there I wanted and took it home on a disc.

But that book, Ted, I find is nowhere available even for sale nowadays. I would sure love to see it!

When I saw his _Ecclesiastical Text_ was for sale on eBay for $5 I was determined to get it (it is selling for $100+ on the web), so I stayed up late, saw I had a serious rival bidder, and about 15 seconds before the auction ended posted my bid of as much as I could afford. I ended up having to pay only $8.06 + postage! My old eBay tricks came in handy. I look forward to reading it when it comes, and his stuff I downloaded today.

I think it important to be familiar with the views of such a man, who I gather was at least in the same league as E.F. Hills, for the defense of the KJV & TR, which I am set for. It is also important to me to learn as much as I can about Hills, especially from such a man as Letis. It must have been a great thing to personally know him.

Thanks for anything you can do.

Steve


----------



## Maestroh

Steve,

I'm hoping to be back here and post this weekend. You referenced the Fee article; I happen to have it. It is in the "Studies And Documents," Number 45 (if I recall) published in 1993 by Epp/Fee.

I can copy it and mail it if you'd like.

I appreciate the exchange of information.

Maestroh


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Bill,

I much appreciate the offer. I'll send you my address, and if you send me yours I'll ship the Bruggen book off to you, if you'd care for it (and don't have it -- I realize you must have a lot of TC books). I think the Fee article is important, if only to shed light on Origen and the state of the Alexandrian MSS, and P66 & P75's parts in that.

Re the material of James White in his book, _The King James Only Controversy_ you said you'd be willing to share with me, I desire to know specifically what he was referring to when he stated (on one of our threads or on his own site responding to something here), 

<blockquote>"œthe consistent application of their [i.e., 1 Jn 5:7 supporters] arguments would demand the utter overthrow of the TR as a Greek text of the New Testament. As I pointed out in my comments in The King James Only Controversy, there are all sorts of readings with similar manuscript support to the Comma that would, by logical necessity, have to be inserted into the TR."</blockquote>


It is his "œcomments in The King James Only Controversy" on particular "readings with similar MSS support" I wished to learn of so I might interact with him. I have already found some instances he _may_ be referring to, but wish to hear his examples.

I do not want to be oblivious to the text critical work being done, but rather interact with it, even if I do not approach the data in the same manner others do.

I suppose, Bill, what I hope to do -- specifically with regard to you -- is demonstrate that there is a "believing" approach to the Biblical texts -- as opposed to the naturalistic one -- which is intellectually respectable and warrants trust, although I am under no delusions all will believe, even devout Christians.

Steve


----------



## CDM

Steve,

Is your .pdf document, To Break a Sword complete? I noticed it reads (rough). Do you mean it is unedited?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Chris,

It means that it is subject to revisions and additions, which surely shall be the case after the wealth of new information -- as well as corrections in my views -- resulting from this discussion. I see what is happening here as a "minor league" kind of "peer review," where what I assert is scrutinized and critiqued. To me this is immensely valuable. Especially as I have been living in a foreign land the past four years and have been out of touch with recent publications.

Nonetheless, the core of my position is already in TBAS; there will be some omissions, additions, and revisions, but not to a great extent. I also want to get hold of as much of Letis' work as I can, and have that reflected in the piece. I hope this answers your question.

Steve

[Edited on 7-28-2006 by Jerusalem Blade]


----------



## Tallen

> _Originally posted by Jerusalem Blade_
> Ted,
> 
> I would be grateful if you found you had, and sent to me, an electronic copy of _Edward Freer Hills´ Contribution to the Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text_!
> 
> Actually, as Chris M. & Chris P. said, the holywordcafe site is _not_ shut down, as I discovered today when I visited a friend with a different ISP and found I could access it. I downloaded all the stuff there I wanted and took it home on a disc.
> 
> But that book, Ted, I find is nowhere available even for sale nowadays. I would sure love to see it!
> 
> When I saw his _Ecclesiastical Text_ was for sale on eBay for $5 I was determined to get it (it is selling for $100+ on the web), so I stayed up late, saw I had a serious rival bidder, and about 15 seconds before the auction ended posted my bid of as much as I could afford. I ended up having to pay only $8.06 + postage! My old eBay tricks came in handy. I look forward to reading it when it comes, and his stuff I downloaded today.
> 
> I think it important to be familiar with the views of such a man, who I gather was at least in the same league as E.F. Hills, for the defense of the KJV & TR, which I am set for. It is also important to me to learn as much as I can about Hills, especially from such a man as Letis. It must have been a great thing to personally know him.
> 
> Thanks for anything you can do.
> 
> Steve



Steve,

I am still looking, I literally have hundreds and hundreds of emails from Letis. We had discussed everything from Biblical texts to the Antichrist, from my Reformed Theology as opposed to his Lutheran Theology, he always challenged me.

He told me, I believe it was the day before he died, that he felt he had accomplished the goal of his calling and it was fulfilled. That being carrying the torch where Burgeon and Hills left it to where he was at. He said he wouldn't mind going home to be with the Lord except for his love for his family. A few days later I heard that he had been killed in an auto wreck. The conversation struck me.

BTW, he really wasn't a defender of the KJV as being the best translation available, and thought it would be good to have a modern translation based upon the "Ecclesiastical Text". What he did defend was the text that the KJV was translated from, and thought that Luther, Calvin, Beza and the King James Translators handed to the church the proper and historical method of translation. His belief was that God preserved the infallible message of the text through faithful men and used His people in that process. The result is that the language that the text are translated into, because the highest standards of the language will be held, result in the language becoming a "religious language" specific for the use of the church. Thus there is a Theology that is used in translation, and that being that the highest standards will be used because translation is a ministry and calling of the Lord. If one adopts the philosophy that the translation should be directed at demographics for the purpose of marketing, then the theology will be lost and the consumer becomes what determines the infallible word of God.

Hope that makes sense.

Blessings.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tallen

Steve, Bill and others participating in this discussion, going through the emails and exchanges that I had with Dr. Letis I came accross this, which I thought would be a good input here on the subject.

Remember this is Ted's opinion. I edited out some personal detail and started where he addresses matters in his profession. Please check out the link to Maurice Robinson's article as well, I have come to appreciate him more and more.

I wrote:

"Ted, I haven't read this yet but came across this. Are you familiar with him? Am I wasting my time?

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1221

Blessings, 
Ted Clore"


This exchange later got post in part in another forum. The above link is to a Daniel Wallace article. Since I wasn't familiar with him I asked if Ted was familiar with him. I talked to him on the phone about Wallace, and he had some good things to say about the man and said he respected him very much. He wasn't a fan of Wallace, but he wasn't and enemy either.


Dr. Letis' response:


"Wallace

To begin, let me just say that dependence on Wallace is surely leaning a hand on a broken reed. He is an amateur at best, and a serious propagandist at worst. The tabulations for the differences between the various editions of the TR and the published Majority Text editions can be found elsewhere. I would not trust what he says. Take note of his comments about my own position, as I have noted them elsewhere (Preface to the current edition of my book, The Majority Text), as well as my public assessment of him:

"An ill-informed assessment of this book in its first edition by fundamentalist, Daniel B. Wallace, "œThe Majority Text Theory: History, Methods and Critique," in Bart Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes, eds., The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research:: Essays on the Status Quaestionis (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1995). For a full refutation of this see my "œThe Ecclesiastical Text Redivivus?" in The Ecclesiastical Text, pp. 140-145"¦. Daniel Wallace wrote a very confused and misapprehending review with little interest at attending to the actual argumentation and perspective of the work, Bibliotheca Sacra vol. 145, no. 580 (October-December 1988): 469-470. It has been my experience that fundamentalists work with very limited categories and so tend to paint with rather broad brushes when addressing this issue. As I said of his contributions to this discussion in another work, The Ecclesiastical Text: Text Criticism, Biblical Authority and the Popular Mind 2nd ed. (Philadelphia, 2000), p. 145, "œIn short, Wallace´s own unacknowledged predisposition as an American fundamentalist leave him less than capable of accurately assessing the various schools advocating the Ecclesiastical text. What is required is someone trained more in the scientific study of religion and with a genuine pedigree as a text critic and less oriented by one´s own unacknowledged sense of advocacy."
Moreover, Maurice Robinson has also underscored Wallace´s failures, here:

http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol06/Robinson2001.html

Hence, if you will confine your sources to those actually in the guild, we can have a common playing field.

Pre-Critical/Critical/Post-Critical

Please do not think me condescending in any way when I ask you to read Metzger´s excellent, The Text of the New Testament pp. 95-124. Here you will see that he does what all text critics do; he acknowledges that the age before the Enlightenment is "œpre-critical." That is, those who worked in N.T. studies knew there was much textual variation but they had no scheme by which to organize the data. When you use modern critical categories, and then project them back onto Erasmus, you commit a grave sin in historiography. It is ironic that you fall into this trap, because this is one of my favorite themes, which I brought before the International Meeting of the N.T. Text Criticism Section of the Society of Biblical Literature a few years back in Berlin. Here is the abstract of my lecture:

Theodore P. Letis

"Teaching New Testament Text Criticism: The Necessary Backdrop of an Intellectual History of the Discipline"
Abstract:

Eldon J. Epp observed in 1989 that, "History, theory, and practice are interwoven in most realms of human knowledge, yet students approaching a field often care little about its history; they are concerned with its application and how the discipline is practiced." He then went on to stress that this is particularly so within the discipline of New Testament text criticism. This presentation addresses the value of a comprehensive grasp of the intellectual history and development of the discipline for understanding the evolution of contemporary canons of criticism. Moreover, it will treat in historical survey various historically conditioned ideologies that have informed the development of the discipline. This will be accomplished by citing concrete examples of incomplete, or inaccurate historical treatments as found in the various handbooks. In short, an historical consciousness about the various stages of the discipline will be shown to be indispensable for understanding all aspects of the contemporary praxis. On the other hand, the absence of such historical awareness presents students with the sole and necessary option of a near unquestioning dogmatic application of canons without a sense of their historical genesis, and therefore, their ultimate significance.

What Erasmus was doing bears no resemblance to what W&H were doing"¦

Erasmus

Erasmus was convinced that the Vulgata Latina had been purposefully corrupted by the Roman Church. Because of his fondness of the Greek fathers (Erasmus was the supreme patristics scholar of his day, par excellence), he believed the Greek Church had both escaped the corruption of Latin medievalism (theologically), as well as preserved the purest form of the Greek New Testament"”the Ecclesiastical (Byzantine) text. Hence, when he knew of several important readings from Vaticanus (though it was not called "œVaticanus" at the time), he rejected them because of their affinity with readings found in the Vulgata Latina. Hence, theology played a very key role in his decision to accept the recension of the Greek Church, over all other options (i.e., the Vulgata, or the Egyptian text, as he knew it from B). This was the pre-critical world. The same is true of Beza, who had access to Codex D but rejected it because it differed from the Ecclesiastical Text of the Greek Church. There were no "œtext-types" for either man; there was the Vulgata Latina and there was the Ecclesiastical Text. Everything else was merely an eccentricity to be avoided"”accept by the Unitarians, who seemed to like these aberrant texts. Do read my chapter in The Majority Text, "œTheodore Beza as Text Critic: A View into the 16th Century Approach to New Testament Text Criticism."

As for why Erasmus produced five editions (not three), it was to clear up many of the typos from the first edition"”many of which were Froben´s fault rather than Erasmus; sometimes it was because he added the Vulgata Latina; sometimes he did not. Sometimes he enlarged his annotationes. Never, however, did he depart from the Ecclesiastical Text recension as his definitive text (the few readings from the Latin excepted). His revisions are not to be compared with the modern critical editions changing as the dominant theories of the day went from a "œneutral" text priority, to a "œconsensus" text priority, to today´s eclecticism, both rigorous and reasoned. This final method has abandoned both the possibility of tracing the "how" of the transmitted text, and has succeeded in producing a text which is purely theoretical, not matching anyone manuscript even in an approximate way, ever discovered, by anyone. It is truly a "œscholars" creation. Erasmus, at least, had chosen in his pre-critical world, a text that had the sanction of continuous use within the Greek Orthodox Church from the era of Nicaea, to this very hour.

Post-Critical

While Wallace, White, and other Fundamentalists remain in the so-called critical school of text criticism, others have moved on to a post-critical stance (as a result of the failures of the "œcritical" school). This started independently with the work of Edward F. Hills (in 1956). It continues, again independently, with Eldon J. Epp ; and with Brevard Childs ; and finally with my stuff. There is not complete agreement with anyone of these post-critical options, but they do all agree in accepting as their premise the failure of the "œcritical" approach to reconstruct the "œoriginal" text. Hills, Childs, and I all have returned to the Ecclesiastical Text in a post-critical way." _Theodore P. Letis_


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Ted, I wonder if you realize (surely you do) what a wealth of edifying material you possess having so much of Ted Letis´ material via emails. Have you ever thought of compiling and publishing it, even if only in electronic form?

While I am waiting for Bill to return to the thread I´d like to reflect a little more on the things we have been discussing.

I mentioned a while ago the merits of a little book by Jakob Van Bruggen, _The Ancient Text of the New Testament_, and gave a link to where it might be obtained. I have since learned that not only is it no longer in print, but, as a rare book, fetches quite a neat sum when it is available: $185 to $237 (this latter Canadian; USD = $210) at the only two places it is currently for sale:

http://www.allbookstores.com/book/buy/AmazonCA/0887560059

http://www.allbookstores.com/book/compare/0887560059

Since my original mention I have learned the entire book is available online: http://web.archive.org/web/20030428225220/www.thescripturealone.com/VanBrug.html

I would strongly suggest saving this entire (small) book by downloading it into your computer. One never knows how long either books or websites will last, and this work has great value.

I am also selling an extra copy I have (brand new) for $100 USD + postage. See the PB forum, "œLet´s do business; For Sale!" for more info. Or contact me.

But about Bruggen´s book. It is, in all its 40 pages of fine print, primarily a close look at the phenomenon of intense disrespect shown to the Byzantine / Ecclesiastical / Traditional / Antiochian / Syrian / Majority textual tradition (it is known by many names), and the virtual certitude most textual scholars "“ and from the trickle-down effect, many lay people "“ have regarding the supposed _inferiority_ of this overwhelming majority of extant Greek MSS. 

Bruggen examines the presuppositions underlying 20th century text criticism, initially Professor Hort´s theory of the "œneutral text" derived from B and a, and even when that has been shown by subsequent textual discoveries and closer investigation to be an untenable theory, the _continued_ disapprobation remains everywhere, from Sunday school classes to seminaries.

His first chapter is titled, "œThe Last Certainty of New Testament Textual Criticism", which he shows to be simply the negative judgment passed upon the Majority or Byzantine textual tradition. That is the only so-called certainty in the discipline. As regards the New Testament text positively, _uncertainty_ characterizes the discipline throughout. There is no consensus about what constitutes the true text, only skepticism, with no real hope in sight.

Bruggen remarks,

<blockquote> This friction between certainty and uncertainty in modern New Testament textual criticism gives occasion to ask what reasons are given for rejecting the Byzantine or Church text, which has been used for so many centuries. After a century of less encouraging experiences on a new road, it is useful to look back to the intersection at which one turned off from an old road. In science the investigation of the arguments should always receive a legitimate place. True science does not depend on the authority of a few experts or the tradition of generations. Even though it is apparently sufficient for many exegetes to note that "most scholars" or "modern textual criticism" reject the church text, we must agree with the modern textual criticism that the majority _in itself_ is not decisive. Not the majority of manuscripts, but the weight decides. That also applies in a different way: not the majority of scholars in a particular century, but the weight of their arguments decides. In this case it is particularly important to test the arguments, because here the translation and explanation of God's Word is at stake(22). Translators of the Bible and exegetes will notice the consequences of their choice in favour of a certain text"‘edition(23). Translator and exegete deal with the how of translation and exegesis, but the text"‘edition decides _what_ is to be translated and explained. Here respect for the Word of our God compels us to be very careful. We must be able to account for our treatment of the text that has been handed down to us. There is a scientific and a religious duty to ask the question whether the ancient text of the New Testament is _not_ found in the majority of the manuscripts and whether the church has failed to follow the truly _ancient_ text for many centuries.

A critical investigation of the reasons for rejecting the Byzantine text soon encounters the difficulty that this rejection is accepted as a fact in the 20th century, but not defended as a proposition. For the argumentation one is usually just referred to the work of Hort in the 19th century. Yet various arguments of Hort are no longer generally accepted today. [All emphases Bruggen´s]</blockquote> 

After he concisely lists Hort´s three basic premises, he moves on, in his 2nd chapter, to briefly review the first of them in light of current textual criticism. This is the issue of "œThe Value of the Number of Manuscripts"; and after examining the theory of the Lucian recension, ascertaining the lack of historicity for such a view, states,

<blockquote>Although the name of Lucianus is mentioned less and less as the historical starting"‘point, people in the 20th century maintain with undiminished certainty that there was a recension in the 4th century. This is striking. Closer examination of the Byzantine tradition has shown, in the period after Hort, that several tendencies can be pointed out in this tradition. Von Soden distinguished various layers in these Koine manuscripts(39). It proved to be impossible to describe the layers as a variation arising within a group of manuscripts, which in fact all go back to one archetype. That there is much agreement between all these manuscripts does not mean that they all come from one and the same source. The later research"‘work done by Lake and Colwell did change the picture given by Von Soden, but at the same time it has shown even more clearly that it is better to describe the Byzantine textual tradition as a collection of converging textual traditions than as a varying reproduction of one archetype(40). This fact now prevents us from thinking of one recension as the source for the text that is found in the majority of the manuscripts. No matter how one judges about the value of the growing consensus in the textual tradition, one can not simply reduce the large majority of manuscripts to one vote and then only a secondary vote. To say it differently and more technically: it is impossible to treat the majority of the manuscripts during the evaluation of them as though they textually formed one _family_ (41). We do not deny that small family groups can be distinguished within this majority, just as families can also be determined in other text"‘types and with the versions. Yet even if the numbers of the different family groups are deducted from the majority of manuscripts, then the Byzantine text still keeps an important majority.

That no importance is attached to this majority as such in modern textual criticism is not only connected with the recension"‘idea, but especially with the opinion one has concerning the age and character of the Byzantine type. In the reasoning of Hort the arguments regarding age and character also had priority. Only later did Hort begin to think of a recension, possibly by Lucianus. Therefore, in the position of those who reject the Byzantine text, few problems seem to arise if the idea of a recension eventually has to be given up. Whether there was a recension or not, the traditional text still remains just as inferior. Before we deal with these primary arguments in more detail, we must, however, note that the abandonment of the recension"‘idea does weaken the modern view on the old Church"‘text. For if it is indeed true that this text has a secondary character, how then can it be accounted for historically that this secondary text received general approval? Hort had an answer to this question at hand: one man made a defective recension due to wrong methods and the Church followed this in good faith. But if this one man (e.g. Lucianus) falls away and also that one recension (e.g. in the 4th century), how can we explain the fact that the tradition is influenced in a negative sense and that this influence promoted _convergence_ and _uniformity_. When a text is exposed to gradual deterioration through faults in transmission, it always leads to divergency between various forms of text"‘corruption and to plurality in the types of degeneration. But history faces us with a tradition which has a convergent character. How can this be accounted for, if the tradition is thought to have deviated from the original and there is no clear revisor's hand in the picture after all? This difficult question can be answered historically, as long as the tradition of the text is not described as secondary. The different centres of production in the 4th and following centuries aimed at a most faithful copy of the original or at a good restoration of the original text. Therefore, after the first centuries of persecution and dearth, a number of traditions automatically appeared which went back to the good text and came close to each other because they all orientated themselves on the most faithful copy of the original. The similar motive explains the trend towards an identical text. Yet how is one to explain that various centres of production, independent of each other, show the same deviations? To say that government intervention caused this similarity in deviation has no historical grounds(42). If you wish the uniforming influence of the liturgy to explain this, then you are only transferring the problem into a different field.

_Summarizing_ we can say that the large number of manuscripts wherein the traditional or Church text occurs, must carry weight. This striking number can not be disqualified with an appeal to Hieronymus' statements about Lucianus of Antioch. It also can not be put aside as meaningless, as though it is to be traced back to one archetype in the 4th century. On the contrary, the large number deserves attention, since, in the midst of all sorts of variation, it confronts us with a growing uniformity. This can hardly be described historically as spontaneous converging deviation. It rather points in the direction of a simultaneous turning"‘back in various centres to the same central point of the original text. This text was sought in the oldest and most faithful manuscripts, and people conformed to it after centuries of textual disintegration.</blockquote>

The scholarly and dispassionate manner of his discourse may easily be discerned. After chapters discussing the age and the nature of the Byzantine Type, he summarizes in his final chapter, "œRehabilitation of the Ancient Text":

<blockquote>In the textual criticism of the 20th century, the rejection of the well-known traditional or Byzantine text predominates. That text is even ruled out completely and in advance by the selection"‘process at Munster. The arguments against this text originate from the 19th century. People are still using them, but without sufficient reason. In fact, much that was raised against this text has crumpled up. The genealogical method is losing ground. Papyri are shown to contain unexpected Byzantine readings. The arguments against this Byzantine text are still less decisive than in the 19th century.

There is, therefore, every reason to rehabilitate the Church text again. It has already been accepted for centuries and centuries by the Greek Church as the ancient and correct text. Its right does not have to be proven. The person who thinks he knows better than those who preserved and transmitted the text in the past should come along with proof. The churches of the great Reformation deliberately adopted this ancient text when they took the Greek text as starting"‘point again(87). This text deserves to remain recognized as reliable, unless real contra"‘proof can be given from a recovered better text. However, there are no better texts. There are theories about a better text and there are reconstructions of such a text, but they can not conceal the fact that, over against the rejection of the ancient, well"‘known text in the 20th century, only the embarrassment of eclecticism and of a renewed conjectural criticism(88) is left over. Over against this modern textual criticism, we plead for _rehabilitation_ of the ancient and well"‘known text. This means that we do not dismiss this text which is found in a large majority of the textual witnesses and which underlies all the time"‘honoured Bible translations of the past, but prize and use it(88).

Bringing the well"‘known, but rejected Byzantine text into use again leads to a totally _different scope of the textual criticism._ It will, in a reformatory sense, set itself the task of preserving this text. Here an appeal can be made to the often unjustly"‘forgotten work of scholars such as Nolan(90), Reiche(91), Scrivener(92), Burgon(93), Birks(94) and Miller(95), who at the time confronted themselves with the theories of Griesbach, Lachmann and Westcott"‘Hort. Association with the Byzantine text which was also defended by them implies, in the line of the history, first of all an association with and an emendation of the textus receptus, the printed Greek text from the time of the Reformation. Pleading for the return to the known Church text certainly does not mean that this textus receptus must be canonized. But this pleading does recognize the justice of the principle behind these text"‘editions of the Reformation. The textus receptus should not be rejected categorically because of its shortcomings, but should according to its own design and intention be corrected conformable to the so"‘called Byzantine text. This leads to a positively orientated textual criticism, which focuses its attention on all the material handed down, without discrimination.

Association with the text that has been transmitted for such a long time also demands protection of that text. Preservation of manuscripts should be stimulated. The theories of textual criticism, which oppose this text, must also be analysed. Those who wish to hold the well"‘known text in honour in the 20th century may not overlook the modern text"‘editions, the product of recent theories. The examination of the modern textual criticism and the readings it defends should, however, not stand in the service of an eclecticism whereby the Byzantine text is only accepted as one of the sources for optional"‘readings(96). Eclecticism is always a subjective matter and only creates new mixed texts. The criteria of eclecticism also contradict each other(97). Now that considerable agreement concerning the text exists in the broad stream of the text"‘tradition, there is no need to resort to eclecticism. Copies of a corrupt text"‘form in the 2nd century, accidentally saved, would then receive a place equal to that of copies from many other centuries which are generally accepted as faithful copies. With this we do not exclude in advance every thought of an emendation of the Byzantine text. But that emendation may only take place if it can be demonstrated clearly to everyone that the Church had lost a good reading or had exchanged it for a bad reading, and why. _In principle_ such an argumentation on the ground of external evidence must remain possible, but _in practise_ it is almost impossible in the present situation because we only have little and fragmentary textual and historical material from the first centuries. We should guard against wanting to do the work of the fourth and following centuries over again, with less and worse material than people at the time had at their disposal!

The rehabilitation of the received text should, in the churches of the Reformation, result in putting this text into use again, and that first of all for the Bible"‘translation. Translations which go back to the Byzantine text do not need to be old translations(98). They may even on the mission fields be very new. But the newest translation should still give access to the text of the Church of the ages and not to the text of five learned contemporaries in the 20th century(99). The _Greek New Testament_ of the _United Bible Societies_ should as basis for translations of the New Testament be exchanged for an edition of the textus receptus, possibly in an emended form. Also the _exegesis_ should turn back to this text. Thus the way to commentaries from many centuries, which all confidently explained this Church text, is again opened. Contact and fellowship with the history of the exegesis is essential for the explanation of Scripture in the 20th century. During a theological training the student must be made acquainted with both the edition of Nestle and the textus receptus. Yet in the exegesis he does not have to give up his faith in the traditional text because of a recent edition, even though it be frequently used. That Church text, and a good edition of it, should form the basis and the material for the exegesis.

This pleading for rehabilitation of the well"‘known text, however, runs up against the difficulty that a _text"‘edition_ of this text is no longer provided for and that the text of centuries and centuries can often only be obtained second"‘hand. In this situation it is not permitted to wait for a republication of the textus receptus until it can be offered in a still somewhat improved edition. An edition of the traditional text, as this was printed in the time of the Reformation, must first of all again be obtainably as soon as possible. The return to the Church text also in Bible"‘translation and exegesis can not be effectuated until such an edition is again available. In connection with this we can mention with thankfulness the initiative which the _Trinitarian Bible Society_ has taken to republish the Greek text that was followed in the Authorized Version. For this purpose they associate themselves with an edition of this text that Scrivener at the time took care of (100). This text deviates from the text of Beza's Greek New Testament only to a low degree and can be described as a variant of the textus receptus or of the Stephanus"‘edition 1550. Thanks to this edition there is now, over against the edition of the United Bible Societies which purposefully abandons the traditional text, also a Greek text available which deliberately wishes to follow that text.

Perhaps it is possible in the future that a revised new edition of Scrivener's Editio Maior(101) appears besides this text"‘edition: also the opponents of the Byzantine text will admit that it is desirable for scientific study to possess a text"‘edition, wherein one can accurately and instantly see where modern text"‘editions, including Nestle, deviate from the textus receptus. It would be advisable to offer a textual commentary with this new edition. This commentary could indicate at what points the textus receptus may be labelled as a deviation from the Byzantine text and at what points different readings occur within the Byzantine tradition itself (102).

The indication of these different readings can take place even before the number of witnesses for each individual variant reading has been completely determined. It will be a laborious and costly undertaking to determine that number and to provide a complete textual critical apparatus with the traditional text. One could consider whether it is not possible to determine the weight of variant readings in this traditional text in more detail, only in those cases in which the variant reading can be relevant for translation and exegesis. The number of such variant readings is only a small section of the total orthographical, lexical, syntactical or grammatical variations.

There is plenty of work for Reformed textual criticism. She, however, directs her attention to defining a conviction and does not lose herself, like the modern textual criticism, in a quest for the unknown. How many people will still wish to present themselves in the 20th century for this work on the preservation of the text of the New Testament? How many will still have interest in this work? This question can not easily be answered by people. We can only conclude with the absolute certainty, that the ancient text of God's inspired Word both now and in the future will remain an object of God's special care. This certainty creates for us the obligation to treat the text that has been handed down to us with great care. This obligation lies in the confession of the Reformation (Westminster Confession chapter 1, 8):

<blockquote>"œThe Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native Language of the People of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of writing of it was most generally known to the Nations), being immediately, inspired by God, _and by his singular Care and Providence kept pure in all Ages_, are therefore authentical: so as in all Controversies of Religion, the Church is finally to appeal into them."</blockquote></blockquote>

---------------

[Note: the footnotes are available on the online version of the book.]

It should be clearly understood that Dr. Bruggen was not a "œKing James Only" advocate, notwithstanding his hearty approval (see just above) of the 1894 TR printed by the TBS, but rather a Majority Text advocate, quite close to the position of Maurice Robinson (according to Robinson himself).

The MT folks, although they are perhaps the more scholarly (I have not received my Theodore Letis books as of this writing) than most of the KJO people, are, in my estimation, family (however much some of them may seek to disown me!). While I take great pleasure in lauding the work of the MT position, I go a step further, as did E.F. Hills, and Dr.Letis himself. As I have stated elsewhere here,

<blockquote>I do not need an expert to tell me what to believe. If I choose to hold to the views of a teacher in this field because his teaching exemplifies what I have already been taught in Scripture, I do no dishonor to the field of textual scholarship. I will not be under the "œtyranny of experts" as regards my faith, whether it concerns the Person of my Lord, or His word, which is just as supernatural a phenomenon as He Himself is.</blockquote>

Steve


----------



## Maestroh

> _Originally posted by Jerusalem Blade_
> Bill,
> 
> Got your email, though I would prefer we kept this entire discussion open on the boards here. I appreciate you don´t want to seem to be attacking anyone´s character or indulging in argumentum ad hominem, but all information pertaining to these issues is relevant. As it stands, all I can do is allude to what I think are incorrect statements you made privately to me regarding David Cloud.
> 
> Okay, he was very tough on the guy regarding Daniel Wallace´s publishing on the internet of "œThe Synoptic Problem," and in his response Wallace shows himself to be a gentlemanly and scholarly Christian. Nonetheless, Wallace´s type of higher-critical approach "“ although it is deemed orthodox (as opposed to heterodox) by the New Evangelicalism "“ offends Cloud´s particular defense of the inspiration of Scripture, and he is in his rights taking it to task, even severely as he did.



Steve,

A tough criticism is one thing; circulating an attack - and how else can you characterize the tabloid title "Dallas Seminary Professor Denies Inspiration" - to people, NOT asking that Christian brother for any clarification, and then continuing it eight years after you've been proven wrong is not apologetics; it is nothing less than slander. 

It isn't even that it was Wallace that bothers me; he has done it on other occasions as I said.



> _Originally posted by Jerusalem Blade_
> 
> Regarding Cloud´s use of Alfred Martin´s PhD thesis on the Hortian Textual Theory, I do not at all find he is misleading, at least not in the quotes you supplied. It is well known Martin is an opponent to the Hortian view, but an advocate of the Majority Text view and not the King James or its TR. Cloud did not imply otherwise. Martin´s oft-quoted brief remarks on the Theory are well known and widely used, being as succinct as they are. They are most pertinent to Cloud´s teachings, as are Burgon´s, though neither hold _fully_ with Cloud´s views.



Yes, it IS well known that Martin is not a Hortian and that he is not KJV Only as well. If interested in an ACTUAL representation of Martin's views, why did Cloud not make this clear? The 'everyone knows this' excuse doesn't cut it when everyone simply doesn't know it. You sir, are CLEARLY WELL READ on the issue - I disagree with you but I do not hate you and I do not deny that it is clear you have read up on it (your concession to change on the Cassidy point increased my respect for you as well, brother). So YOU know it; but the average guy does not know it. And I suspect that Cloud has NEVER REALLY READ Martin's thesis anyway. It was in "Which Bible," one of the books (and authors) Cloud lists as his influences toward KJV Onlyism.



You add Burgon; funny to me how Cloud minimizes the differences Burgon had with the TR - never addressing, of course, the obvious fact that if Burgon thought the TR needed change (which he did - although by 'different principles' than WH) - then Burgon didn't hold the TR to be the 'pure, unadulterated Word of God' that had no corruption.




> Cloud´s defense of Fuller indeed involved opposing the claim that Fuller and others were indoctrinated by Benjamin Wilkinson, as per Kutilek´s article on the "œRoots of King James Onlyism" or somesuch. I did find your hostility to Cloud apparent by how you characterized him. This is not dispassionate investigation. I don´t think you like the guy.



I would appreciate you not making an unfounded accusation - that I am not a dispassionate investigator or don't like the man. And I can't help but wonder if this is an attempt to play to the crowd - you're talking about what I said about Cloud here and those reading, of course, have no way of knowing exactlywhat I said.

For example, why did you not reference this part that I wrote?


You asked me about David Cloud on the board. I do not want to post a long list of what would be dismissed as an attack. It opens me up to accusation of ad hominem, and I do not want to be standing there. But before I critique some problems I have with Cloud, let me point out that he has done some very good work and has some rather interesting articles about Roman Catholicism as well as Pentecostalism. While I do not agree with every word he writes even about these systems, he often demonstrates an ability to clarify some doctrinal issues. He has also been one of the few KJV Only advocates to outspokenly denounce Peter Ruckman ("œthe KJV is advanced revelation") and Gail Riplinger (found at this link: http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/graphic1designer/writings/kjo/dcongar.html

And also THIS link: http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/newage.htm

In other words, there ARE instances where Cloud seems willing to buck the trend including his recent expose on Bob Gray, a KJV Only pastor who was arrested on pedophilia charges going back to 1949 (numerous allegations). So this is not to paint with a broad brush. 

END LETTER

It is hardly fair, Steve, for you to say I don't like the guy when I made perfectly clear what it was I didn't like - deception and double standards. Yet anyone not privy to what I would rather have not discussed here would say, "He hates Cloud because Cloud is KJVO" - which is not at all true. I don't hate David Cloud at all - but will we have a discussion or try to 'score points' as if this is a debate? I'm hoping the former.




> _Originally posted by Jerusalem Blade_
> In a recent post here you mentioned that Dr. Hills made a quick turn-about from embracing the CT view to opposing it:
> 
> <blockquote>And which Edward Hills do we believe? The one who turned in his doctoral dissertation in 1946 IN FAVOR of Westcott-Hort; or the one who wrote "The KJV Defended" in 1954? And how did he change his mind THAT fast?
> 
> He seems to have made up his mind earlier but was willing to dissemble or misrepresent his views in order to get his doctorate (see Letis, "E.F. Hills Contribution to the Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text" - Letis claims - and no, I don't have it in front of me - but he pointed out that Hills rejected the notion of textual criticism long before he left school and that for Hills it did not exist).</blockquote>
> 
> From your sentence structure it is hard to discern whether the allegation of his being "œwilling to dissemble or misrepresent his views in order to get his doctorate" is Letis´ or yours! In either case it is a most reprehensible remark concerning a man who has a sterling reputation even among those who strongly disagree with him.



Okay, let me clarify. I concede the flaw was mine in how I presented it. It was I (NOT LETIS) who asked how Hills had such a fast turnabout regarding his alleged views on TC. 'Reprehensible?' Hardly.

Sir, why was it okay for David Cloud to slander Daniel Wallace, but it is somehow 'reprehensible' for me to say what I did regarding Hills? Letis discusses this some at length (I will be mailing the thesis sometime the week after next). Hills refers to this as his 'great lapse.' Letis further argues (p. 150) that Hills realized at Chicago that unless one accepted the dogma of a late date for the Byzantine text type, he could never gain credibility with the textual critical guild.

Letis further writes, "...role theory might well explain how Hills could conform to the expected posture while at Harvard, since to succeed in text critical studies there he had to assume the role of one unconcerned with the Calvinistic, scholastic view of the text and begin at the assumption of viewing the Ecclesiastical text as late and nearly worthless, something most text critics believed from 1881 on. Whatever his compromises, by 1952, Hills was ready to return full circle to his historic Reformed roots and affirm with the Westminster Confession, the priority of the Textus Receptus." (This is quite an interesting comment - since I don't ever recall the WCF saying 'the TR is it.' - Bill).

Hills certainly possessed a doctorate. But a bad argument is a bad argument whether it's a third grader or a Ph.D. making it - and when Hills claims 'God must,' he is on quicksand in terms of telling us how 'God must' preserve His Word.

Another word though we'll interact more with it: I would have LESS PROBLEM with Hills if he had ACTUALLY FOLLOWED his mantras for textual criticism - if he had simply stuck with 'majority rules.' But as James Price - who worked on the NKJV that is based on the TR noted - Hills ran into a problem with his principles and it was this: "..in relation to textual criticism, that system must explain the realities of the manuscript evidence. It was precisely at this point that Hills´ system broke down. His system simply did not explain the facts as they existed in the manuscripts." (James Price essay located at: http://www.kjvonly.org/other/japrice_hills_pr.htm)



> _Originally posted by Jerusalem Blade_
> 
> 
> The point is, in less than four years I had a thorough theological reversal, and have produced much material in the new vein. In _eight_ years "“ the alleged time between Hills´ dissertation and his _KJV Defended_ "“ a productive individual, especially one with multitudinous research notes and files, could both have a change of heart and produce works opposing one´s former views.
> 
> Remember what I said about "œcharity of judgment."



But hardly similar. I'll let you read the thesis before I comment further.


[/quote]
Bill, you have stated a few times that you do not have a particular stake in a particular point of view at this time. May I ask, what is it that "“ in this interim period "“ you do hold to as regards the state of the Biblical text? You are full of many doubtful questions as regards the KJO and the 1894 TR position, which I do respect; but on the positive side, do you believe we have an inerrant Bible which is trustworthy? Or with many of the MT folks, do you believe we _sort_ of have a Biblical text, though it is not now "“ and may never in our lifetimes be "“ settled? 

[/quote]

A good question, my brother, and one I am more than happy to answer. I believe the Bible given originally without error and is ACCURATELY preserved in the abundance of copies in the Alexandrian, Caesarean, Byzantine, and Western families. I do not think the judgments are as 'black and white' as most people seem to want to make them on ANY side of the issue. AUTHORITY is derived FROM THE SOURCE - God Almighty. What must be remembered is that NOT EVERY MANUSCRIPT IS EQUALLY INERRANT IN TERMS OF ITS ACTUAL READINGS. Each is INFALLIBLE because it derives its authority from the original. The REAL question is not whether or not we have a preserved Word; it is whether that Word MUST be all in one place on one piece of paper (or exemplar of a new version for example) to be said to be 'preserved.'

When I say each manuscript is not equally inerrant, that is not a cause for concern that I somehow deny inerrancy. I hold the Rene' Pache view of a Scripture 'essentially preserved in all (copies) but perfectly preserved in none.'

[/quote]
You pose many sharp questions regarding my (KJV/TR) views of providential preservation (I include those in whose camp I am, such as Cloud and Hills, generally speaking), but have you any of your own that serve you and sustain your faith as you seek full knowledge of the truth?

It is a rather safe place "“ in terms of friendly disputations such as we are having "“ only being the interrogator, and positing nothing as regards your own faith. How are you able to stand in what you presently believe?
[/quote]

God makes me stand. I don't consider it a 'disputation' either. But it's a little more difficult for me to state 'like so and so' said; this is easy for most KJVOs to do - because when you knock one down, there's another to put there. Knock those whom Letis called dilletantes on the KJVO side down (Riplinger, Ruckman, etc) - and Hills can be thrown into the mix. Knock his arugments down and Burgon (who - and nobody seems to want to mention this - DIED before much of the textual evidence available now was here) is brought forth.

Go READ these folks - and bad arguments become crystal clear.

Now by the same token, I do not hold to the conflation theory of W/H, either - there is so little to commend it. I also have hesitation of a Lucianic recension; but the difference is that my position considers God's providence of using ALL the manuscripts - and not dismissing as 'corrupt' those that don't jive with my own view of how 'God must' have done something.

I also cringe every time I read 'the inferior Byzantine text,' because I do not believe it to be so clear cut.

[/quote]

As I see it, this contest is properly between the KJV/1894 TR holders and the MT holders. The CT position is a dying wolf; you don´t need to kick or beat a dying wolf if it is no longer able to maul you. Those of us in the fray are really in the same family, with not much between us save the issue of faith preceding our view, or our view preceding our faith. I think you have put it in similar terms.
[/quote]

Funny. The MAJORITY is supposedly right. Of course, the MAJORITY of Christians now use something BESIDES the KJV. The MAJORITY of Christians, in fact, use Bibles based on the W/H text.

And the MAJORITY of ANCIENT MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE is on the side of the CT.

A STORY AND I MUST GO FOR NOW

Steve,

My wife is after me to clean the house, so I'm going to have to go in just a moment. But I have enjoyed this portion and hope to engage the rest of it soon. But a quick story that exemplifies what you're talking about regarding 'family' and why it is such an issue with me.

In 1998, I joined a BMA church in Mississippi. After we'd been there about four months, the Missions Committee brought up a recommendation for Bibles to send to China. The discussion was proceeding well. The pastor then asked, "Are there any more questions before we vote?" At this point, the guy sitting behind me who had just joined said, 'Is it KJV?'

It took everything I had to not stand up and say, "Does that make a freaking difference?" This might be a fun subject to discuss. And you're correct, we are part of the same family - going to have to spend an eternity together reading the NIV (you know I'm joking, Steve . But this man was so committed to his tradition that he would rather vote AGAINST sending a 'non-KJV' Bible to China - rather than something that might actually produce fruit and salvation. It turned out not to matter; it was a Chinese version and passed unanimously.

Remarks like 'not a real Bible' about other versions really got me sick about the whole thing. We had a Sunday School class where the teacher liked to make a big deal about how the NIV 'misrepresented' a particular passage. Well, one Sunday morning the teacher was ready to make a big deal about it. I was sitting next to the pastor, who had his TR out. The teacher asked the pastor about something and the pastor looked - and told the teacher the truth: the NIV got it right in this particular pasage (w/the TR no less) and the KJV GOT IT WRONG!!

Needless to say, there wasn't a big deal made about that like there would have been if the opposite had been the case. And THAT is my issue: the double standard.

As I said earlier, I use the NKJV devotionally and the NASB for school. I use the NKJV because it has ALL THREE textual readings in it.

I'll try to interact the next few days. God bless you, and if I said anything that went after you personally, do know it came from the pen and not the heart - and I'm sorry if I did.

Maestroh Bill


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Bill,

When you said Cloud´s statements re Wallace were proven wrong, are you referring to Wallace´s response? That response, as I have said, showed Wallace´s heart in a good light, but I do not think it refuted Cloud´s objections. These two men have radically different frames of reference.

That Cloud did not specify Martin was MT rather than KJO I think is beside the point. The point is the critique of the Hortian theory.

Why nit-pick "” "œmajor on minors", some would call it "” on all the things Cloud did not say regarding 
Burgon? If I were to pick on little errors or misrepresentations (though I don´t think you mean to misrepresent), I could point out you said, 

<blockquote>"œBurgon thought the TR needed change (which he did - although by 'different principles' than WH)"¦"</blockquote>

But that´s not accurate. WH thought it should be _trashed_, not changed. Their "œprinciple" was _put it in the circular file_. And yes, Burgon did think it should be changed. You can see, when _I_ talk (at least now) of Burgon, Martin, Scrivener, Bruggen, etc., I make it plain they were not TR/KJO men but MT advocates, with varying nuances to their views. I do not think those who have glossed over this meant to deceive, though, primarily through dealing with you, I have found it prudent to make this very clear. Interacting with you has been edifying to me. I never had any conflicts over versions in the churches I have been in. I turned away from Ruckman when I saw how he treated others, besides his bad ideas. Ditto Riplinger. I have often been in the minority re the Bibles used. I suppose I have been blessed (a word I do not use loosely) by being in churches in recent years that live and move in a gracious spirit.

Bill, the reason why I want our discussion to be open (as opposed to private) is for the sake of clarity and grace: I didn´t quote your remarks about Cloud as it was clear you wanted them private, and I wanted to respect that. What I referred to was in the 12th paragraph. I stand by what I said. You see how "œprivate" communications on these issues complicates things?

I think you (and others) have a good point when you say that KJO defenders often don´t point out that when Fuller used Wilkinson´s work in _Which Bible?_ he didn´t state Wilkinson was SDA. To be honest, neither have I in my _To Break A Sword_, though that is one item I will correct in the final version. I seem to recall Cloud making note of that misjudgment on Fuller´s part, and I do not believe he uses Wilkinson´s work himself. I agree with you we need to be open and above-board in these things. The use of such material is an interesting discussion of itself.

Am I right in thinking you impugn witnesses to discredit their testimony rather than deal with issues? Put another way, dealing with personalities instead of ideas. I don´t like this approach. The only time I use it myself is regarding Westcott and Hort, for in their specific cases their conduct and private statements do cast light on their job performance, their integrity, their motives, and the product of their activity. I do not restrict myself to their conduct, and far more extensively deal with their ideas. Ultimately, that´s what this is about. Ideas, and the fruit of them.

When you impugn the character of my witnesses, I will defend them insofar as it is warranted. It is important to do so to prevent their testimony "” and their research "” from being discredited. And then there is the issue (related to Wilkinson et al) of using sources who are not always sound (either in conduct, doctrine, or both) but their research is good.

As I read further into your post I see we are getting onto dangerous ground. To accuse someone publicly of slander is to open yourself to actual legal charges of libel. I doubt Cloud would take you to court, per 1 Corinthians 6, but it nonetheless opens you to public rebuke. Bill, I honestly think such language is best stayed away from. Perhaps to you it is arguable, yet this is what defamation cases are made of. If you feel he has wronged someone else, let that one deal with it, except perhaps for bringing forth evidence to exonerate the wronged.

You have an advantage over me, as I don´t have Letis´ work on Hills (and which you are being so kind as to shortly remedy!), so I will refrain from discussing this at the moment.

Let me posit this, however. Many young men and women who are born-again Christians pursue medical studies; to get their degrees and succeed in their internships they almost always have to swallow their beliefs and "œgo stealth" so they are not flunked by their professors. This pertains not only in the field of medicine, but law, history, psychology & psychiatry, biology, etc. etc. WE NEED TO DEAL WITH IDEAS.

Thank you for the Price article! I appreciate all the info I can get.

Do you recall the passage where the "œNIV got it right"¦and the KJV GOT IT WRONG!!"? I´d be interested in that.

Thank you for obliging me and stating the view you hold as regards the MSS. We are on much safer and more solid ground dealing with ideas. And I would like to discuss them.

Bill, what do you think of ending this thread, and continuing the discussion on a new and similar one? At 200 plus posts it may be daunting to some to even begin reading.

Steve


----------



## Tallen

> _Originally posted by Jerusalem Blade_
> Ted, I wonder if you realize (surely you do) what a wealth of edifying material you possess having so much of Ted Letis´ material via emails. Have you ever thought of compiling and publishing it, even if only in electronic form?



Yes, and it will probably be offered on my website sometime in the future. I have a couple of great exchanges that happened between a "Post-mil Theonomist" and Letis, and some exchanges on the Pope being "The Antichrist". Both were very worthwhile, and both show the fiery personality of Letis.

I am hoping that at a future date I can get a hold of his organization and get permission to publish some of his work as well.

I am still looking for the email with the book attached, I haven't forgotten.

{Edit to remove triplet...}

[Edited on 8-9-2006 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## CDM

"Do you recall the passage where the "œNIV got it right"¦and the KJV GOT IT WRONG!!"? I´d be interested in that."



Can anyone provide a timeline showing when the manuscripts were found/developed? This would help the many who are new to this debate.


----------



## Maestroh

Steve,

A couple of points here.

1) Again, this seems for you to want to be some sort of 'debate.' I am interested in a discussion of the pertinent issues. Cloud lied about Wallace - period. You can accuse me of whatever you wish - yet he did not follow even the KJV in his confrontation. Since Dan Wallace does not hold David Cloud's view of inspiration - Wallace is an 'apostate,' a term that Cloud uses to describe him.

And you think I'M the one who deals in personalities? A perusal of Cloud's website shows his first mode of argumentation is 'ad hominem.' I simply wrote you to tell you up front WHY I consider him an unreliable source of information on this thing. Now, if you want to consider him reliable - fine. But it doesn't just boil down to Wallace; it is a constant theme.

All of us make mistakes in ministry and in judgment. If this were a one-time thing or even a two times in 31 years of Cloud's writings, it would be one thing. But it is a constant; even FBs don't like Cloud's attack dog personality and his 'going after' anyone who isn't just like himself. But I've said enough about Cloud and just want to drop him from discussion.

2) Regarding issues, I was hoping to get to this on the thread and deal with it; wife had me cleaning up the other night. Yet again, I think you're way off base. I mentioned the CT - and discussed my own views on it in part - to lay a foundation.

Let me say one other thing regarding personalities. I note you like Dr. Letis; he wasn't my flavor of tea, but he has been among the more honest and certainly scholarly KJV defenders. He has also been willing, if I may speak metaphorically, to clean up the trash in his back yard by pointing out the inconsistencies of such groups as the DBS. At the same time, a simple reading of what Ted posted (and I know Ted Clore from CARM) and a look at Letis' white throne judgments make me wonder if that bothers you - or if it only bothers you if it comes from someone on the other side?

Letis has referred to both Wallace and White as: dilletante, propagandists, and fundamentalists. Incredibly, not a single one of those ad hominem arguments on the part of Letis is true. Yet I was 'reprehensible' to talk about Hills ARGUMENTS - and his utter lack of EVIDENCE in applying them? When I point this out, that does NOT constitute a personal attack; Hills defended the KJV in places where it did not even have manuscript support - or incredibly little support - despite his professed axiom of 'the majority of Greek manuscripts.' (This begs the most obvious question: why the majority in the twentieth century? Why not the majority of the second, fourth, or tenth? And why not the LATIN manuscripts - that outnumber the Greek nearly two to one and show an Alexandrian bias? Why do we dismiss with all ancient versions EXCEPT the alleged early date of the Syriac Simple?) These are arguments of MANUSCRIPTS and TEXTS; Hills, you, Letis, I and everyone must deal with THOSE.

Remember Hills' arguments? The ones he claimed are from the Bible? I don't ever recall the Bible being a manual on how to do textual criticism. Now, if you wish to state - as I suspect you would - that there are different forms of TC, then you and I are in 100% agreement. This of course leads to the PRECISE subjectivity that KJV defenders profess to abhor. Yet EVERY TEXT CRITICAL METHODOLOGY - including that of Hills, Hort, and whomever - involves SUBJECTIVITY. The ONLY way to ever be COMPLETELY OBJECTIVE and remove ALL SUBJECTIVITY is to COUNT manuscripts all equally. MT advocates, though, don't want to do this because virtually all of the ancient VERSIONAL evidence plus the Latin manuscripts puts them in the minority. I do not advocate nose-counting as the simple solution, either; but it is the ONLY one with NO subjectivity if applied consistently.

Futhermore, I can't help but wonder if this - the accusation of personalities - is a red herring. I most certainly addressed the FACT that nowhere in the WCF (which Hills endorsed) does it say 'the TR is the preserved Word of God.' I notice that you did not bother to deal with my dealing with that particular issue - but chose instead to focus again on Mr. Cloud, Mr Martin, and whoemever. So with all due respect, I cannot help but wonder if it is you rather than I who am obssessed with it.

Stating that a source is unreliable - and PROVING the source is unreliable - is NOT ad hominem. Or at the very least proving the source is unreliable IN A PARTICULAR INSTANCE - while it does not suddenly exclude the source from citation (all of us are human after all) - it still does not constitute ad hominem. I did not consider Ted's post about Wallace by Robinson to be ad hominem; it dealt with issues. I DID consider Theo Letis' comments that Wallace was 'a broken reed,' a 'fundamentalist,' (though he quickly forgot his perjorative use of the term when Pensacola Christian College came calling in 1997 for the videos), and on holywordcafe a 'dilletante.'

That's quite an interesting eclectic mix of names to call someone - particularly when that person has authored THE second-year Greek grammar used in the bulk of seminaries and has translated the entire Bible into English and offered it for free. Furthermore, Wallace has come out in FAVOR of using the Majority Text as the collating base for manuscripts (since 1993).

And regarding White? Letis had six years that White challenged him to publicly debate the issue; Letis refused. Now I'm sure he had his own reasons - but the one stated was the White was not qualified in the field. Interestingly enough, do you know who Letis repeatedly declared was 'the leading authority in textual criticism?' Bart Ehrman. The AGNOSTIC from North Carolina - and I don't say that to attack Ehrman, I've emailed him and found him very cordial and kind as well as helpful in outlining his views; much of what he told me made it into "Misquoting Jesus." But if we're going to argue that theology is the driver in this discussion, I find it interesting that Letis would consider an agnostic a greater authority on the text of the Bible than someone who worked on the NASB Update in 1995. (By the same token, I thought it was unfair of White to put up the Theonomy-L debate with Letis from 1995 w/o Letis' permission; while I'm not accusing White of altering it, how do I know he didn't? That's not ad hominem; that's considering the world we live in and looking at it realistically).


However, let us come to an understanding on three things:

1) I agree with you that a new post needs to be opened. This post deals with the W/H manuscripts being 'bad' and we have wondered off tangentially.

2) I'm not ignoring you. It is difficult for me to find time lately. We may be buying our first house in the next month, I told you about people quitting at the hospital, and my son is playing football (he's seven) for the first time this fall and that has taken up a bunch of extra time. So don't think I'm hitting and running or just sitting back and waiting. I believe you deserve to be heard and responded to, and I hope to receive the same in return.

3) When the Van Bruggen book gets here, I'm going to read it - perhaps photocopy it (probably for reference) and send it back. I do not feel comfortable keeping a $140 book from someone as gracious as you have been with me.

I read all I can. Presently, I'm reading Tim Ralston's dissertation entitled, "Majority Text and Byzantine Text-Type Development." It's over 400 pages; if you'd like a copy, go to the DTS webpage and look up under faculty and email Tim Ralston (he's on staff now). And all I've ever heard is GOOD stuff about Van Bruggen from all sides of the issue - so I'm certainly looking forward to it.

God bless you, sir. And one final note.

I believe you told me not long ago that you have a child almost my age. I take that to mean that you are probably old enough to be my father. I hope to show you due deference as an elder in the faith. I'm appreciative of the discussion and hope that it leads to a better understanding on both sides.

I think we are in agreement: a Bible version is not worth dividing the church over. At the same time, I find myself agreeing with Zane Hodges who said that he hoped people would not think' there is nothing to discuss' because there is. And I hope to emulate his tone as well.

Take care,

Maestroh Bill


----------



## Maestroh

> _Originally posted by Jerusalem Blade_
> Bill,
> 
> I much appreciate the offer. I'll send you my address, and if you send me yours I'll ship the Bruggen book off to you, if you'd care for it (and don't have it -- I realize you must have a lot of TC books). I think the Fee article is important, if only to shed light on Origen and the state of the Alexandrian MSS, and P66 & P75's parts in that.
> 
> Re the material of James White in his book, _The King James Only Controversy_ you said you'd be willing to share with me, I desire to know specifically what he was referring to when he stated (on one of our threads or on his own site responding to something here),
> 
> <blockquote>"œthe consistent application of their [i.e., 1 Jn 5:7 supporters] arguments would demand the utter overthrow of the TR as a Greek text of the New Testament. As I pointed out in my comments in The King James Only Controversy, there are all sorts of readings with similar manuscript support to the Comma that would, by logical necessity, have to be inserted into the TR."</blockquote>
> 
> 
> It is his "œcomments in The King James Only Controversy" on particular "readings with similar MSS support" I wished to learn of so I might interact with him. I have already found some instances he _may_ be referring to, but wish to hear his examples.
> 
> I do not want to be oblivious to the text critical work being done, but rather interact with it, even if I do not approach the data in the same manner others do.
> 
> I suppose, Bill, what I hope to do -- specifically with regard to you -- is demonstrate that there is a "believing" approach to the Biblical texts -- as opposed to the naturalistic one -- which is intellectually respectable and warrants trust, although I am under no delusions all will believe, even devout Christians.
> 
> Steve



Steve,

Your last paragraph is what I find interesting. A 'beliving' approach. Fair enough. Can any of you who claim to believe this ACTUALLY TELL US WHAT IT IS?

Hills argues, "Majority rules - well, uh, except for those interpolations from the Latin Vulgate."

Basically, he STARTS with the KJV and goes backward - and concocts his 'believing principles' based on starting at the conclusion (without, of course, ever proving his is the ONLY believing conclusion).

I believe in a 'believing approach,' but unlike Hills it takes ALL of the manuscript evidence into account. I would point out that MANY conservatives who held/hold to inerrancy including Fee, Wallace, Robertson, Warfield, Machen, etc - are Bible believers who come to the EXACT OPPOSITE conclusion of Hills.

Hills' position, in fact, is so fragile that all it would take to implode it upon itself is a second century Byzantine manuscript to be found this morning. Period. ONE Byzantine manuscript found this morning would implode his entire set-up - because whilst Hills and his followers would argue, "See, the Byzantine text-type existed in the second century."

Fair enough.

Of course, it would ALSO be proof - by their own words - that the reason it is found is because it was 'recognized as corrupt, and set aside and not used; hence, it survived.'

OTOH, a Byzantine manuscript find would be VERY INTERESTING to hear from the MT standpoint because it would at least CONCLUSIVELY PROVE the existence of the text-type in the second century.

Yet I would point out that Van Bruggen, Letis, Hodges, Farstad, Robinson, Pierpoint, Pickering - are all Bible believers as well. Yet even among them w/in MT circles is disagreement as to the HOW.


God bless,

bb


----------



## Tallen

> _Originally posted by Maestroh_At the same time, a simple reading of what Ted posted (and I know Ted Clore from CARM) and a look at Letis' white throne judgments make me wonder if that bothers you - or if it only bothers you if it comes from someone on the other side?



Bill and Steve,

If you would start a new thread, perhaps I could put my two cents in about some things here and there that may shed a little light on a few of the things brought up. I am like Bill and am not particularly interested in debating the topic, but would be interested in talking about a few of these issues.

Also Bill, I was a personal friend of Letis, as you know, and spent many hours talking to him in emails, on a couple of forums and via phone conversations. It was not below him to use his fiery temper and ability with the language to state things in a manner that would stir the pot for the only reason to make conversation. He was known for his stated ad hominem and strawman as the spoon that would stir the pot. After the initial pot stirring to see what would come up, he would take the role of a teacher and teach his trade from his perspective. But privately he would state his love, concern and appreciation of those he was critical of. 

Wallace was one of those individuals. He did respect the man despite some of those things you have brought up. White although, was a different story as he felt that White presented himself falsely to others with phony credentials.  I think he wanted healing in that relationship, but it would come upon his terms. Simply stated, I believe he saw White as very knowledgeable, but as one presenting himself in a way to give credibility to his view through falsely representing himself as having a "legitimate" doctorate in the field.


----------



## Tallen

> _Originally posted by Maestroh_Steve,
> And regarding White? Letis had six years that White challenged him to publicly debate the issue; Letis refused. Now I'm sure he had his own reasons - but the one stated was the White was not qualified in the field. Interestingly enough, do you know who Letis repeatedly declared was 'the leading authority in textual criticism?' Bart Ehrman. The AGNOSTIC from North Carolina - and I don't say that to attack Ehrman, I've emailed him and found him very cordial and kind as well as helpful in outlining his views; much of what he told me made it into "Misquoting Jesus." But if we're going to argue that theology is the driver in this discussion, I find it interesting that Letis would consider an agnostic a greater authority on the text of the Bible than someone who worked on the NASB Update in 1995. (By the same token, I thought it was unfair of White to put up the Theonomy-L debate with Letis from 1995 w/o Letis' permission; while I'm not accusing White of altering it, how do I know he didn't? That's not ad hominem; that's considering the world we live in and looking at it realistically).



I must say that I agree with you here Bill, in regards to Ehrman, this was an inconsistency in Letis. I am sure he would have had his reason and did this with much thought and reflection. But one of his criticisms of Warfield was that he went to Europe to learn from W&H, those dang unbelieving heretics, and then turned around and looked to Ehrman as a leading authority. Although I can't say why, I suspect it is because of method and "legitimate" credentials, as apposed to the method, false credentials and agenda of the others.

I agree also that White's tactic of posting his debate with Letis was unfair to Letis, and I'll add, done from pride. It would have been much more fruitful if these two men of God had acted cordially toward each other and resolved their issues. But how many times can we say that when it comes to these important issues and human personalities.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Before I respond to Bill I want to ask anyone who may be listening: is there any way I can insert an image "“ a jpg file "“ into a post? I have a couple of charts that may illustrate somewhat the question Chris asked a few posts up. Not exactly a timeline, but in that vein. And while I´m asking, I can´t figure out how to put a photo into the avatar space in my "œedit profile". Can anyone clue me? Thanks on both counts.

Bill, I must say that James Price essay on Hills you posted the link to was very good. I will read it again to see if I can give some cogent response.

Please, Bill, hear me: when you critique Hills´ "“ or Letis´ "“ views and ideas, I certainly do not find that "œreprehensible", but to the contrary, engaging in civil discourse over issues and ideas. I quite like that. It was only the remark regarding Hill´s motives in changing his views I objected to. I would like to drop it.

I will have to read Cloud´s remarks on Wallace again. And I will read Letis´ remarks again. Let´s leave it at that for now.

I don´t consider "œdebate" a bad word, or thing. I suppose it depends on the spirit of those engaged in it. It may be an amiable discussion wherein friendly "œopponents" expose their views to mutual scrutiny; it may be especially valuable a forum if either is disposed to change their views as a result of such an exchange. I have looked at definitions of the word and some are quite benign. It is such an endeavor I believe we both are interested in.

I think in any public discussion there may be a legitimate "œplaying to the crowd", i.e., keeping others in mind while defending or promoting a certain point of view on things. There may also be an unhealthy/unsavory aspect to it, such as pandering to the base natures we all yet partake of while in this life. I seek to do the former where appropriate, and shun the latter constantly. If I fail in this I welcome rebuke.

Thank you for your deference to my age. I trust you won´t show me any quarter in arguments because of it; remember there is also a saying, "œThere´s no fool like an old fool!"

I have been listening closely to you, and the links you referred to, and I am getting a good sense of the opposition to the King James/1894 Textus Receptus position (as held by Hills et al), and take serious note of it. Especially noteworthy are the critiques by Majority Text advocates. As I said, the Price article was keenly reasoned. This is the particular area of my concern. I will also engage in discussions concerning why I do not think the Critical Text worthy of putting confidence in, though my primary area is as I said.

I will give you a chance to respond more fully, before engaging you again. I do understand you have a full and busy life, so there is no rush! Though I will attempt to post the two "œtimeline" graphs I have, with comments. 

Why don´t you keep the book? Use it to buy some textbooks for your studies if you want (speaking of which, have you checked Amazon or Alibris (http://www.alibris.com/) for used stuff?). Though _selling_ books is a nuisance. Some books & sets are very cheap. Another good place is http://www.allbookstores.com/. I would be disappointed if you returned it. It was simply a gift. And I haven´t been _that_ gracious! At any rate, it´s a good book to have. And I still have two copies.

So start a new thread. I´ll meet you there.

Steve


----------



## Tallen

> _Originally posted by Tallen_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jerusalem Blade_But I find I have been woefully ignorant of Ted Letis and his contribution to the subject. "œWoefully" because all his major works are now out of print and those for sale exorbitantly priced, and I have not benefited from his labors. I am seeking to amend that.
> 
> I understand that a version of Letis´ book, _Edward Freer Hills´ Contribution to the Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text_, used to be available in an online format. Any of you friends of his willing to email me that treasure would make me the richer in my own labors following in his steps (though I honestly can´t fit in his shoes!). For to my dismay, a former treasure trove of his works at holywordcafe.com, is no longer available, as the site seems to be shut down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steve,
> 
> Letis was a personal friend and I had a rich email exchange from him. Perhaps I have an electronic copy of Letis' book which I will be happy to email to you if I do, it is rather short around a hundred or so pages if I remember right. I'll let you know later tonight or tomorrow when I can go through the emails he sent.
> 
> Blessings.
Click to expand...


Steve and others that are interested in this book.

I have been going through my emails with Letis and checking the attachments and links he had sent to me. I think, regretfully so, that the book in question was on a link that is no longer provided by the host it was linked to. But I did come accross the following article that may be of some interest, and in the meantime I will continue to look for the book, as I am not sure if it was an attachment or a link.

Please find the following PDF file attached to this post.


----------



## pickwick

I would just like to say how much I have enjoyed listening in on this conversation. Not only have I been refreshed by the Christ-like spirit exhibited by all involved;I have been enlightened by the dialogue.

I look forward to a continuation of the discussion in a new thread.


----------



## MW

> _Originally posted by Maestroh_
> And you think I'M the one who deals in personalities? A perusal of Cloud's website shows his first mode of argumentation is 'ad hominem.' I simply wrote you to tell you up front WHY I consider him an unreliable source of information on this thing. Now, if you want to consider him reliable - fine. But it doesn't just boil down to Wallace; it is a constant theme.



Ad hominem arguments are valid in the context of the exclusive nature of Christianity's claims. Think of our Lord's references to the behaviour of publicans and hypocrites to show how a Christian ought not to act. If one does not believe in the divine inspiration and authority of holy Scripture then one can validly argue they have no basis upon which to make any legitimate claim about the Bible. There are foundational truths, which, if a man will not accept, he cannot be regarded as thinking rationally. At that point ad hominem argumentum is valid.


----------



## MW

> _Originally posted by Maestroh_
> Yet I would point out that Van Bruggen, Letis, Hodges, Farstad, Robinson, Pierpoint, Pickering - are all Bible believers as well. Yet even among them w/in MT circles is disagreement as to the HOW.



How is this relevant? The fact is that there are differences amongst the critical text crowd also. These differences are open for intramural discussion. But when they are discussed intramurally it is with an acceptance of the basis principle that distinguishes one school of thought from another. Hence when examining a school of thought from the outside, it is its distinctive principle which should be scrutinised, not the different views as to how this distinctive principle is to be applied.

The issue is between receiving the Bible as an infallible revelation from God and receiving it as a human writing like any other.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Bill,

Permit me, please, to try to get a few minor problem areas out of the way before we commence our discussion proper.

I looked at Cloud´s article on Wallace, and nowhere does he call W. an "œapostate". He does refer to DTS as an apostate school, not only because, as a "œNew Evangelical" institution (so he puts it), it teaches redaction criticism, but for other reasons as well. They pertain primarily to the issue of "œseparation". But look, the Presbyterian denomination I have come from (PCA), is likewise under fire for doctrinal aberrations. I understand the OPC is also having its struggles. In truth, the forces of apostasy are rampant, particularly in our seminaries. Exceeding few remain unscathed. The spirit of antichrist has infiltrated multitudes of churches and their denominational schools. I daresay there are those who could say WTS is going "œapostate" (I would not concede that as I don´t know the true state of the place). Some FBs see the issue of non-separation, i.e., worldliness, as widespread, and a terrible danger to the faith. Many Reformed people see the same thing. It is much written about. We need to be careful, and alert; and not defensive. It helps to understand other people´s points of view, even if we don´t see things the same way. Maintaining a godly walk in the midst of all this strife, accusations, and name-calling is not easy. It is too easy to become what we abhor in others.

The use (per Letis) of the term "œfundamentalist" to describe Wallace is vague in its import. When I read more of Letis I expect to understand his use of various terms better. I have, in an internet discussion, referred to myself as "œa fundamentalist", although I insisted on defining the term myself. J.I. Packer wrote a book, Fundamentalism and the Word of God, and I cited a chapter in it to give some historical background to the term. 

When I used the term on myself, what I meant by it was simply one adhering in strictest fidelity to the Biblical revelation "” informed by sound hermeneutical method "” with regard to knowledge, holiness, faith, separation from both apostatizing "œChristianity" and from the world, the while maintaining compassion for the suffering with attending works of mercy, and a zeal for evangelizing the lost.

It appears there are so few words nowadays which convey that utter fidelity to Biblical truth the Lord requires. "œEvangelical" is no longer a functional term, so diluted has it become, co-opted even by apostates from the Faith. So I do not care if I am called the despised term as long as it is nuanced by truth, and not slanderous malice. I do realize that others´ perception of the word has little nuance, and so I generally refrain from using it to describe myself. What does one call the kind of believer I refer to? It is a semantic problem.

You said,

<blockquote>a look at Letis' white throne judgments make me wonder if that bothers you - or if it only bothers you if it comes from someone on the other side?</blockquote>

Bill, at 64 years of age I have seen and heard so much, that I let a lot of it go. What saith the Scripture? "œThe discretion of a man deferreth his anger; and it is to his glory to pass over a transgression." (Proverbs 19:11) The NIV has the first phrase, "œA man´s wisdom gives him patience"¦" Another: "œHatred stirreth up strifes: but love covereth all sins." (Proverbs 10:12) And one more, "œIt is an honor for a man to cease from strife"¦" (Proverbs 20:3a) The last one is good for helping people to see the actual _honor_ in walking away from a provocation to fight. The adversary may call "œcoward!", but the angels watching from glory whisper, "œHonor!"

I would like to write a brief treatise: "œThe use of non-inflamatory language promotes peace, whereas inflammatory words war."

Do you realize how inflammatory a remark "œLetis´ white throne judgments" is? Calm down, young saint, a soft answer turns away wrath, but grievous words stir up anger.

David Cloud has spoken against D.A. Carson "” and with some cause, _from his point of view_ "” but I nonetheless like Carson, though I strongly disagree with some of his positions. Often I find myself friends with people who are enemies "” or at least opponents of each other "” and sometimes can mediate, or at least model a gracious spirit. And often I like people whom I vigorously oppose as regards doctrine or practice. I don´t like when _anyone_ disdains or disrespects a younger brother or sister of my King, be they from my camp or from an opposing camp. Just so we get that straight. I can look past the faults of my friends _and_ my opponents, and consider the issues.

Listen, others may speak roughly; do not be the vigilante executing wrathful judgment on them; rather model the Spirit of Christ yourself, that others may see it and be edified. Some people are going to be initially embarrassed when they meet in the Everlasting Kingdom, for those they vilified in this life (justifiably in their own minds) will be seen there as beloved of the King of glory, honored members of the royal family.

Sometimes what we hate in others are really characteristics we ourselves possess. "œ[so and so´s] white throne judgments", "œattack dog personality" "” those sound like the kind of personal attacks you so deplore when they are done by others.

I hope to model (a term we use in educational circles) a more benign way in the midst of this minefield of explosive issues and personalities. Let me make clear I´m not a great saint "” I´ve just made so many of the same errors myself, and the Lord Jesus has been gracious in showing me my own heart and profound failings and His steadfast love nonetheless. Simultaneously righteous and sinful. Such almost forces us to be humble.

So let´s get on with it, dear brother, in a way that will honor our God and Father. As I´ve said, I appreciate your knowledge of the issues, and your highlighting the apparent (though sometimes real) flaws in the arguments of those I have learned from. This is all very beneficial and edifying to me.

Steve


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Chris M.,

Tomorrow (where I am now it's 11 PM -- bedtime -- and 4 PM EST) I'll post something re the timeline request. As I don't know how to put an image into the post I'll write the text and attach the graphs.

--------

Dan,

Thanks for the 2Â¢!

Steve


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Folks,

It´s time to start the new thread. I´ll do it as I assume Bill has his hands full with work, study, and family. To find the continuation of this one please go to the thread, *"œWhat is the authentic New Testament text?"*

Hopefully, we all (myself included) will remember moderator/owner Scott Bushey´s policy re the board (seeing this is a volatile topic for some):

<blockquote>I have assumed a zero tolerance platform as of late; If I see any innuendo, ad hominem, slander, below the belt assaults on any believers from here on out, the guilty party will be banned immediately.

I'm over this; tread carefully. (Posted in the "œJames White on 1 John 5:7" thread, March 10, 2006)</blockquote>

Chris M., I´ll post the graphs in the new thread.

Bill & others, see you there.

Steve

[Edited on 8-10-2006 by Jerusalem Blade]


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I saw someone ask what is the difference between the TR and the Majority Text (MT).
> 
> The only thorough book on this I know of is Jack Moorman's, _When the KJV Departs from the "Majority" Text: A New Twist in the Continuing Attack on the Authorized Version_, available from Bible For Today. Moorman interacts with the work of Hermann von Soden, and his influence on the formation of the modern MT editions. (An excerpt from this book on David Cloud's site: http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/jackmoorman.htm):
> 
> 
> We would make mention of one more of Jack Moorman’s books: When the KJV Departs from the "Majority" Text: A New Twist in the Continuing Attack on the Authorized Version. Consider some excerpts from this extremely important book:
> 
> Until recently the defense of the King James Version was a one-on-one debate with the Critical Text (Nestle-Aland, UBS, etc.). Much has been written. In recent days new arguments for and against have been raised. But the issue is still the same— the vast majority of MSS on the KJV side versus a few old ones for the critical texts and modern versions.
> 
> Now a new element has been introduced (though certain aspects of it have long been recognized), with the publication of ‘The Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text’ (1982), published by Thomas Nelson, under the editorship of Zane Hodges and A.L. Farstad.
> 
> The Majority Text Edition concludes that the Greek text of our Authorised Version is represented by minority MS support in over 1800 readings and therefore is defective in these places. Thus our opponents (Critical Text, Modern Versions) say the AV New Testament is wrong in 5,300 places, and now our friends say it’s off in 1,800.
> 
> Zane Hodges has been a good ally. Several of the consulting editors, Harry Sturz, Jakob Van Bruggen, Alfred Martin, and Wilbur Pickering have contributed strongly to the defense of the Traditional Text. But, with this production they have left us with a ‘tentative’ Bible.
> 
> This is plainly stated on the jacket (second edition): ‘Scholarly discipline permeates the editor’s logic and conclusions; yet Hodges and Farstad make no claim that this text in all its particulars is the exact form of the originals.’ On page x we are told: ‘The editors do not imagine that the text of this edition represents in all particulars the exact form of the originals ... It should therefore be kept in mind that the present work ... is both preliminary and provisional.
> 
> WE ARE BOUND TO ASK, IF THIS ISN’T [THE PRESERVED WORD OF GOD], IF THE AV-RECEIVED TEXT ISN’T, IF THE CRITICAL TEXT ISN’T; WHERE MUST WE GO TO GET A BIBLE TODAY? IF AFTER THESE CENTURIES WE STILL HAVE ONLY A PROVISIONAL, PRELIMINARY, TENTATIVE BIBLE, WHAT ARE WE TO DO?
> 
> Three major errors of judgment have led to this ‘provisional’ edition:
> 
> 1. The editors do not want to be seen relying upon God’s preservation of the text. 2. They have resorted to a source which cites only a minority of the evidence. 3. They have followed the wrong stream of MSS in the Book of Revelation.
> 
> Scrivener and Hoskier in an earlier generation, and Hodges, Pickering with others in our day have made an immeasurable contribution in defending the Received Text against the Hortian theories. They have provided us with a great store of factual material ... But sadly in Hoskier, Scrivener, and the editors of the Majority Text Edition, little or no reference is made to God’s promises of preserving Scripture. In fact, Hodges and Farstad make absolutely no mention of it. Thus, the foundation for textual research has been taken away.
> 
> Wilbur Pickering is listed as one of the consulting editors. His book The Identity of the New Testament Text has done a great deal to clarify and cause a rethink concerning Westcott and Hort. He is careful to state that he believes in preservation, yet in the presentation of his material he says: ‘I have deliberately avoided introducing any arguments based upon inspiration and preservation in the preceding discussion in the hope that I may not be misrepresented by critics in the same way that Burgon has been’ (p. 153).
> 
> But if the critics misrepresent us because we present Biblical truth, and if they become uncomfortable with this, what does it matter? Who are we trying to please, God or man? Must we participate in their neutrality and unbelief in order to gain a hearing from them? Must we yield to peer pressure? Must we put our good friends ahead of our good Bible?
> 
> WHEN AN INQUIRER INTO THE TEXT OF SCRIPTURE (EVEN A DEFENDER OF THE RECEIVED TEXT) TAKES THIS NEUTRAL APPROACH IN ACCESSING THE EVIDENCE, IT WILL INEVITABLY LEAD DOWN THIS DEAD-END STREET OF HAVING ONLY A TENTATIVE BIBLE.
> 
> Notice the disturbing kind of statement Pickering is prepared to make: ‘We do not at this moment have the precise wording of the original text’ (The Identity of the New Testament Text p. 153). ‘When all this evidence is in I believe the Textus Receptus will be found to differ from the original in something over a thousand places’ (pp. 232,33). ‘Most seriously misleading is the representation that I am calling for a return to the Textus Receptus ... While men like Brown, Fuller and Hills do call for a return to the TR as such, Hodges and I do not. We are advocating what Kurt Aland has called the majority text (‘Queen Anne ... and All That’: A Response, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, June 1978, p. 165).
> 
> Also listed as a consulting editor to the Majority Text Edition is Harry A. Sturz. ... Sturz presents a number of other not-so-well-known areas of evidence for the Byzantine text. We owe him a great debt for his research. However, when he seeks to deny the theological/supernatural arguments for the preservation of the text he becomes unmoored.
> 
> You may be forgiven if you have difficulty understanding the following statement, or think it to be contradictory: ‘It should be pointed out that providential preservation is not a necessary consequence of inspiration. Preservation of the Word of God is promised in Scripture, and inspiration and preservation are related doctrines, but they are distinct from each other, and there is a danger of making one the necessary corollary of the other. The Scriptures do not do this. God, having given the perfect revelation by verbal inspiration, was under no special or logical obligation to see that man did not corrupt it’ (emphasis added) (The Byzantine Text, p. 38).
> 
> Coming now to Zane Hodges: In seeking to deny the charge that he might be leaning a little toward a theological/supernatural stance in textual matters, he gives the following lame reply when questioned about his contribution to the excellent book Which Bible?. ‘Finally, Fee ... seems to wish to continue to tag me with a theological slant that I have explicitly disavowed. The fact that I allowed an article of mine to be reprinted in a volume all of whose perspectives I did not share should not be used against me’ (‘Modern Textual Criticism and the Majority Text: A Surrejoinder,’ Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, June 1978, p. 163).
> 
> What a refreshing contrast it is to see the following appraisal of Edward Hills’ position: ‘He integrated the theological perspective with the discipline of New Testament text criticism. This is a taboo that recent Majority Text advocates have attempted not to transgress, preferring to work from within a purely scientific framework’ (King James Version Defended, p. vi).
> 
> So in order to gain a little respectability (the leading and liberal textual critic George Kilpatrick writes a commendation on the jacket), Hodges, Farstad and friends find themselves firmly in a textual half-way house (Jack Moorman, When the KJV Departs from the "Majority" Text: A New Twist in the Continuing Attack on the Authorized Version).​In this large work (153 pages, 8.5X11-inch format) Jack Moorman demonstrates the following: (1) the Hodges-Farstad Majority Text is established upon an insufficient and faulty foundation (the Von Soden apparatus and the 046 MSS of Revelation); therefore, their conclusion that in 1,800 places the Authorized New Testament lacks majority text support is in error. "These two factors account for the vast majority of readings which they would like to alter in the Received Text." (2) Even most of the remaining passages which do seem to have only a minority of MS support, "nevertheless [have] quite substantial support." Moorman presents this support in 87 pages of listings. (3) Even the verse which has supposedly has less manuscript support than any other in the Authorized Version (1 John 5:7) has a wide variety of support and is inspired Scripture. Moorman gives an overview of the internal and external evidence for this important verse.​
> --------
> 
> Steve


I’ve started reading “Crowned with Glory” by Thomas Holland and realized I really didn’t have a handle on the difference between the Majority Text position and the preservation position. This post is so helpful. I wanted to thank you, Steve, for all your hard work over the many years on this topic.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

