# Do textual variants give us confidence?



## KMK (Jun 6, 2007)

This is from Bryan Chapell in "Christ Centered Preaching" which has been a good read. But I don't understand his paradigm here:



> Pg. 64 The Holy Spirit's divine inspiration and providential preservation of Scripture is a continuing miracle of God's spiritual care of our souls. A good study Bible prepared by scholars who accept the Bible's full authority will give preachers ample warning of a questionable text *and will grant us the confidence that we are preaching in accord with the Spirit's imprimatur*.



Do textual variants give us confidence in the Spirit's inspiration of Scripture? If so, how? To my simple brain it would seem the other way around.

Earlier in the paragraph he wrote:



> We can keep the people to whom we preach confident of the Bible's authority by reminding them how rare such questions are...



Is he saying that if there were no variants that it would tear down at the authority of the Bible? How so?


----------



## satz (Jun 6, 2007)

For what little it is worth, I agree with you.

I think variant texts and translations actually make the bible less authoritative. Even if they are inevitable, I think they ought not to be celebrated.


----------



## Herald (Jun 6, 2007)

Ken - I suppose a good study bible _can_ help, but I believe a working knowledge of the orginal languages is best. But I can't help but wonder how textual variants present a real problem. None of them put into question any doctrines. They don't negatively effect christology or soterigoloy. I suppose in that sense a good case can be made the variants are insignificant. 

 yes? no?

P.S. And just to make sure I am on the right page with the OP, by textual variants do you mean questionable texts like Mark 16:9-20?


----------



## KMK (Jun 7, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Ken - I suppose a good study bible _can_ help, but I believe a working knowledge of the orginal languages is best. But I can't help but wonder how textual variants present a real problem. None of them put into question any doctrines. They don't negatively effect christology or soterigoloy. I suppose in that sense a good case can be made the variants are insignificant.



I have definitely heard that argument before. But the author seems to be saying that the existence of textual variants amplifies the authority of the Bible. In other words,, they are *significant* in that they boost our confidence in the inspired nature of the scriptures. 



BaptistInCrisis said:


> P.S. And just to make sure I am on the right page with the OP, by textual variants do you mean questionable texts like Mark 16:9-20?



That seems to be the author's definition as well.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jun 7, 2007)

Ken,

On pages 45, 82, and 107-8 the text Chapell uses is the NIV. This need not detract in the slightest from the excellence of his book (my favorite commentator, Wm. Hendriksen, uses the Critical Text).

No doubt in Chapell's view he considers the CT the reliable text and the marginal notes give him warning concerning "spurious texts." He feels secure in the judgment of the editors who introduced those notes, which originally were Westcott and Hort. This is what he means when he says,



> A good study Bible prepared by scholars who accept the Bible's full authority will give preachers ample warning of a questionable text and will grant us the confidence that we are preaching in accord with the Spirit's imprimatur.



Personally, I like the margin notes in the NKJV so as to give me a heads-up on the variants other textforms use.

A minister should educate the flock as to the basics of text criticism and what, in his view, are the reliable Scriptures.

In fact, variants _from the TR 1894_ (i.e., disagreeing with it) are the spurious. Though, as Bill says, they are "insignificant" in the main. Clearly we should agreeably disagree on which textform has "the Spirit's imprimatur."

In preaching, His 'imprimatur" on our hearts and minds is the crux of the matter.

Steve


----------



## KMK (Jun 7, 2007)

Thanks, Mr. Rafalsky.

So some scholars see the existence of textual variants as support for the Holy Spirit's inspiration and providence of Scripture because they are relatively few and 'insignificant'. Their assumption would be, I assume, that if it were just any old book there would be many variants and they would be 'significant'. Does this fairly capture the essence of their assumption?

My only question would be, if there were no variants at all, would that undermine the Spirit's inspiration and providence?


----------



## Herald (Jun 7, 2007)

KMK said:


> My only question would be, if there were no variants at all, would that undermine the Spirit's inspiration and providence?



No. We have _exactly_ what God intended. Whether the redactors made changes or whether there were fragments of text that were not part of the C.T., the point was made (and seconded) that they do not effect the veracity of the bible.


----------



## Poimen (Jun 7, 2007)

Variants convince us of the historicity of the Scriptures. They did not drop down from the heavens like _The Book of Mormon_ or _The Koran_ but were given to men as they were moved by the Holy Spirit to address the issues of the day. The variants thus demonstrate that our Bible is grounded in history and fact. 

(argument stolen from Dr. Peter Jones of WSCAL).


----------



## KMK (Jun 7, 2007)

Poimen said:


> Variants convince us of the historicity of the Scriptures. They did not drop down from the heavens like _The Book of Mormon_ or _The Koran_ but were given to men as they were moved by the Holy Spirit to address the issues of the day. The variants thus demonstrate that our Bible is grounded in history and fact.
> 
> (argument stolen from Dr. Peter Jones of WSCAL).



So... variants were providentially brought about by the HS to convince us of and give us confidence in the inspiration and preservation of Scripture. And if there were no variants that would actually cast doubt on the authority of the Bible in the same way it does the Books of other religions. Am I summarizing correctly?


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 7, 2007)

I am not 100% up to speed on the variants issue, but I believe that the cornerstone of the Bible's veracity is that the Scriptures are so consistent over the span of thousands of years and multiple authors, testifying to the inspiration of the HS.

My summization on the variants is that, while variants exist with differing degrees of "variation", they still do not detract from overall orthodoxy, thus the HS inspired message is not impacted by them and this fact substantiates the infallibility of the words from the HS.



> Regarding the evidence, suffice it to say that significant textual variants that alter core doctrines of the NT have not yet been produced.



link


----------



## KMK (Jun 7, 2007)

jdlongmire said:


> I am not 100% up to speed on the variants issue, but I believe that the cornerstone of the Bible's veracity is that the Scriptures are so consistent over the span of thousands of years and multiple authors, testifying to the inspiration of the HS.
> 
> My summization on the variants is that, while variants exist with differing degrees of "variation", they still do not detract from overall orthodoxy, thus the HS inspired message is not impacted by them and this fact substantiates the infallibility of the words from the HS.
> 
> ...



I understand that argument. What I am trying to understand is the argument that the existance of variants actually *strengthens* our confidence in the authority of scripture.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 7, 2007)

KMK said:


> I understand that argument. What I am trying to understand is the argument that the existance of variants actually *strengthens* our confidence in the authority of scripture.



I guess maybe that is my point - even the determined efforts of the variants authors did not succeed, so that fact strengthens the case (and our confidence) for the immutability of the HS's message.


----------



## KMK (Jun 7, 2007)

jdlongmire said:


> I guess maybe that is my point - even the determined efforts of the variants authors did not succeed, so that fact strengthens the case (and our confidence) for the immutability of the HS's message.



OK. I think I see what you are saying. The fact that the HS was able to preserve the scriptures 90% intact in spite of man's negligence or abuse strenghtens our confidence. The assumption being that if preservation was left to man alone, there would be a great deal more variants and they would be of a more significant nature.

And if there were no variants, that would actually make us suspicious of the Spirit's 'imprimatur'.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 7, 2007)

KMK said:


> OK. I think I see what you are saying. The fact that the HS was able to preserve the scriptures 90% intact in spite of man's negligence or abuse strenghtens our confidence. The assumption being that if preservation was left to man alone, there would be a great deal more variants and they would be of a more significant nature.
> 
> And if there were no variants, that would actually make us suspicious of the Spirit's 'imprimatur'.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Jun 7, 2007)

KMK said:


> Do textual variants give us confidence in the Spirit's inspiration of Scripture? If so, how? To my simple brain it would seem the other way around.



No, I take his statement as saying that we have greater confidence when we know _where _the variants occur because we'll know which parts of Bible are _not in question_, and can have confidence in these sections (not in the sections where variants exist).

I might be reading it wrongly because I don't have the full text, but that's what it seems to me.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 7, 2007)

KMK said:


> OK. I think I see what you are saying. The fact that the HS was able to preserve the scriptures 90% intact in spite of man's negligence or abuse strenghtens our confidence. The assumption being that if preservation was left to man alone, there would be a great deal more variants and they would be of a more significant nature.
> 
> And if there were no variants, that would actually make us suspicious of the Spirit's 'imprimatur'.



After further reflection - I would modify your statement:

The fact that the HS was able to preserve the Scripture *99% (?)* intact in spite of man's negligence or abuse strengthens our confidence. The assumption being without the HS acting to preserve the Scripture, there would be a great deal more variants and they would be of a more significant nature.


----------



## Poimen (Jun 7, 2007)

KMK said:


> So... variants were providentially brought about by the HS to convince us of and give us confidence in the inspiration and preservation of Scripture. And if there were no variants that would actually cast doubt on the authority of the Bible in the same way it does the Books of other religions. Am I summarizing correctly?



No. Variants simply remind us about and support the historical, organic view of inspiration. I would not be so bold to say that the HS did this for that particular reason. Reason and logic, however, simply lead us to this conclusion.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 7, 2007)

I believe the loss of the original manuscripts and the textual variants proof this:



> 1 Peter 1:23-25
> 
> 23since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God; 24for
> 
> ...



That is - everything associated with this creation - paper, scrolls, original texts and documents, etc... will fall and fade away, but the word of the Lord remains forever...


----------



## KMK (Jun 7, 2007)

Poimen said:


> No. Variants simply remind us about and support the historical, organic view of inspiration. I would not be so bold to say that the HS did this for that particular reason. Reason and logic, however, simply lead us to this conclusion.



I have never heard of inspiration as being 'organic'. (But there are a great deal of things of which I have not heard) Do you believe there was anything organic in the original manuscripts, or just those that have been preserved? I mean, was it hit or miss with the originals? Is that why we only have two letters to the Corinthians, because Paul screwed up on the others? Or is it organic in the sense that the writers may have written more than one manuscript with slight variations in each?

I have heard it argued that the fact that all four gospels (or three if you discount Mark because of the variants) describe the resurrection in different ways actually strengthens their veracity. If all the gospels told the story in the exact same way it would actually diminish the testimony of the resurrection. Is this the same kind of argument?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jun 8, 2007)

No, it is not. 

The perfect accord from four different witnesses (and upon close examination – not cursory – there are no discrepancies between them) does “strengthen their veracity.” The same argument does not apply to the manuscripts and the variants (definition: “having or showing a difference from the norm”).

There are those – the CT adherents – who feel the variants represent a true copy. This is the hand-to-hand combat in the trenches: examining each one (or each significant one) and evaluating the evidence for its authenticity. If, after a multitude of evaluations, a particular text-type shows itself to have superior attestation for its readings, even to the minutiae, then that text-type is deemed to be the best, i.e., the truest to the autographs.

There are other factors to be considered, such as a plausible account for that text-form’s existence – a reconstructed history of its origins and transmission – which would be buttressed by the evidences for its readings.

_Variants_ are those readings which differ from the normative or “true” text-form – the _standard_. Starting with the Reformation, in its defense against the assaults of Rome, the Standard Scriptures have been the Byzantine text with a few readings brought into it from the Latin and other sources, deemed by some to have been so brought in by the Providence of God in His final step in preserving His word, according to promise.

By definition, the _variants_ are those readings which differ from this Reformation text. Rome consciously used the existence of variants to try to overthrow the Reformers’ claim that they had a sure word of God per se, which did not need either interpretation or validation by Roman authority. Rome denied this. The Reformers were able to make their defense. The Reformation succeeded. The Presbyterian and Reformed churches prospered.

Liberalism, a child of the Enlightenment, crept into the camp – initially in the form of rationalistic (unbelieving) German text critics and philosophers, as well as Papal scholars – and continued the deconstructing assault on the Reformation Standard text, as well as the Reformation faith.

Even believing text critics and scholars (Tregelles) joined the unbelieving (Semler, Griesbach, Lachmann, etc.) in this “enlightened” approach to text criticism, which simply continued Rome’s agenda but under a different banner. As can be seen, they succeeded. Through allies, Rome’s assault against the despised “Protestant Pope” took the field. Multitudes today do not realize what has happened. They rationalize the “variant weapons” that have penetrated the hull of the Protestant Flagship and exploded within, and do their best to accommodate to and minimize the damage, as can be seen in the explanations of the variants given above.

What is not realized by most is that the ship has taken a lethal hit, and will not stay afloat as it is. In this generation, it most likely will, but in one or two from now, our great grandchildren (should the Lord tarry that long) will have a much harder time explaining away the “debunked Bible texts,” the patch-work crapshoot of the modern versions. Smaller ships will carry much of the passengers en route to the Golden Shore, and they will have a sure text.

The variants so glowingly spoken of above are lethal “hunter-seeker” missiles sent from the ancient Adversary. One by one they must be stopped, dismantled, and disarmed. Since they are _spiritual weapons_ aimed at the mind some will like their allure and let them pass into themselves.

Bottom line: a variant is either true or false. If false, ultimately it is from the father of lies. The fighting is in the trenches.

Steve


----------



## Poimen (Jun 8, 2007)

KMK said:


> I have never heard of inspiration as being 'organic'.



I'll let Berkhof explain the meaning of 'organic' inspiration. From _Summary of Christian Doctrine_



> Organic inspiration. The proper conception of inspiration holds that the Holy Spirit acted on the writers of the Bible in an organic way, in harmony with the laws of their own inner being, using them just as they were, with their character and temperament, their gifts and talents, their education and culture, their vocabulary and style. The Holy Spirit illumined their minds, aided their memory, prompted them to write, repressed the influence of sin on their writings, and guided them in the expression of their thoughts even to the choice of their words. In no small measure He left free scope to their own activity. They could give the results of their own investigations, write of their own experiences, and put the imprint of their own style and language on their books.



Taken from - http://www.mbrem.com/shorttakes/berk3.htm


----------



## KMK (Jun 8, 2007)

Thank you for that insightful post, Mr. Rafalsky. I have enjoyed reading many of your posts concerning the defense of the BT. 

Yours is an argument that I am familiar with, as well as the argument that the variants are 'insignificant'. But I had never heard the argument that the variants actually strengthen our confidence in the Bible.


----------



## KMK (Jun 8, 2007)

Poimen said:


> I'll let Berkhof explain the meaning of 'organic' inspiration. From _Summary of Christian Doctrine_
> 
> 
> 
> Taken from - http://www.mbrem.com/shorttakes/berk3.htm



Thanks for that definition. How do variants support that definition?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jun 8, 2007)

I like that definition too, Daniel.

The variants weren't in existence when the inspired Scriptures were written; I would say they attempt to detract from the integrity of that definition. Take the (by now) familiar variants of the CT in Matthew 1:7 and 10, Asaph and Amos replacing the genuine Asa and Amon. These variants are in the _Greek_ of all the CT texts, indicating Matthew knew no better than that, and wrote erroneously in the autograph. (The ESV prints them in the English.) The explanation they are "alternative spellings" is lame.

For Mark 16:9-20 to be disallowed on the testimony of basically two corrupt MSS which disagree against each other _in the Gospels alone_ 3,036 times is a scandal, and again impugns the integrity of an "inspired Scripture" -- the margin notes tell the world the Reformation Bible is not to be trusted. And the Reformation text people tell the world, the CT Bibles & their notes are not to be trusted. Suspicion and uncertainty has entered into the precincts of God's house concerning His word.

Good men try to make the best of it. But damage has been done.

Steve


----------



## Poimen (Jun 8, 2007)

KMK said:


> Thanks for that definition. How do variants support that definition?



See post #9.


----------



## KMK (Jun 8, 2007)

I think I understand. The assertion is that 'variants convince us of the historicity of the Scriptures' because it is common knowledge that histories that have been copied over and over for thousands of years would naturally have variants, whether it be the Bible or some secular or apocryphal document. If the Bible had no variants after all these millenia it would be suspect in the same way that the Book of Mormon is suspect.

I am thankful for everyone's help in understanding this argument. 

However, it sounds to me like a worldly assertion. In other words,, this argument might be useful in proving the Holy Spirit's influence over the Bible to unbelievers, but a believer should not need such reassurance. It seems to me that the believer, who has the truth written on their hearts, would gain more confidence in seeing how the HS led those who have the rule over them, who have spoken unto them the word of God. The testimony of the church should, in my mind, give confidence to the believer rather than variants introduced by academia.


----------



## Robert Truelove (Jun 10, 2007)

Let me give an example of a textual error that increases my faith in the integrity of the scriptures...

1 Samuel 31:1...The ESV accurately translates what is actually in the Hebrew...

"Saul was . . . years old when he began to reign, and he reigned . . . and two years over Israel."

The the footnotes explain the reason for the omission is that ALL the Hebrew manuscripts and all but a few very late manuscripts of the Septuagint (obvious 'corrections' made by later scribes) have the number ‘dropped out’ of the text.

What this shows is an ancient scribal error in the text of the Old Testament. Now one may ask, “how on Earth does this increase my faith in the preservation of the text?”. 

It does so because it shows that for hundreds of years scribes copied this verse knowing the number had dropped out but instead of correcting it, they faithfully transcribed what was before them. If the scribes of the Old Testament would so faithfully preserve an obvious omission, don’t you think they were just as tenaciously faithful with the rest of the text?

This of course applies to the Old Testament. Unfortunately, we gentiles were not so tenacious which is why it is a blessing we have such old manuscripts of the New Testament.

**puts on hardhat and dives head first into bomb shelter**


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jun 10, 2007)

Hello Robert,

To correct a typo, the verse in question is 1 Sam *13*:1.

You apparently give a _lot_ of credence to the ESV’s margin notes! I certainly would not. But when you say in your post “ALL the Hebrew manuscripts” it is unscholarly hyperbole (a bad habit probably picked up from CT margin notes!), for the major Hebrew text of the past four centuries – used by the Jewish community as well as the Christian – was the Ben Chayyim text, which does not read as you allege. From Dr. D.A. Waite:

What about the Hebrew text used by the KJV translators? Here is some background on it. The Daniel Bomberg edition, 1516-17, was called the First Rabbinic Bible. Then in 1524-25, Bomberg published a second edition edited by Abraham Ben Chayyim (or Ben Hayyim) iben Adonijah. This is called the Ben Chayyim edition of the Hebrew text. Daniel Bomberg's edition, on which the KJV is based, was the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text. This was called the Second Great Rabbinic Bible. This became the standard Masoretic text for the next 400 years.

The Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text was used even in the first two editions of Biblia Hebraica by Rudolf Kittel. The dates on those first two editions were 1906 and 1912. He used the same Hebrew text as the KJV translators.

The edition we used when I was a student of Dr. Merrill F. Unger at Dallas Theological Seminary (1948-53), was the 1937 edition of the Biblia Hebraica by Kittel. All of a sudden, in 1937, Kittel changed his Hebrew edition and followed what they called the Ben Asher Masoretic Text instead of the Ben Chayyim. They followed, in that text, the Leningrad manuscript. The date on it was 1008 A.D. This was not the traditional Masoretic Text that was used for 400 years and was the basis of the King James Bible. They changed it and used this Leningrad manuscript. So even the main text used by the NKJV, NASV, and NIV in the Hebrew is different from that used for the King James Bible. The footnotes in Kittel's Biblia Hebraica suggest from 20,000 to 30,000 changes throughout the whole Old Testament.

The reason that most of the Hebrew departments, in colleges, universities, and seminaries who teach Hebrew, use the Ben Asher Hebrew Text instead of the Ben Chayyim Text is the same reason they use the critical Greek text in the N.T. They believe the "oldest" texts, either in Hebrew or in Greek, must always be the best. Not necessarily. (from, _Defending The King James Bible_, p.27)​
To look at the verse in question in the Kittel 1912 or Ben Chayyim 1524-5 Hebrew text, it reads,

_BEN SHANAH SHAUL BeMAHLeCO_ – “Saul was a son of A YEAR in his reigning.” [Don’t any of you good civilized Reformed folks flip out at my citing flaming Peter Ruckman, as I don’t flip out at your citing liberal Bruce Metzger!] Ruckman points out that,

This is the exact Hebrew idiom found in 1 Kings 22:42 and 2 Kings 8:26.…Did…the Lockman Foundation (New ASV) have any trouble with the “missing numbers” from the “Hebrew text” when they got to 1 Kings 22:42 and 2 Kings 8:26?....They translated the numbers there exactly as they appear in 1 Samuel 13:1 in the Hebrew idiom. They just pretended that the number was not in 1 Samuel 13:1. It was (Heb.—“_Shanah_,” meaning “A YEAR”). (from, _Problem Texts_, pp. 174-5.)​
Ruckman goes on to point out that in the margin of the 1611 King James Bible, the translators wrote, “_Hebr. the sonne of one yeere in his reigning_”. They knew what the Hebrew said.

You allege,



prespastor said:


> What this shows is an ancient scribal error in the text of the Old Testament. Now one may ask, “how on Earth does this increase my faith in the preservation of the text?”.
> 
> It does so because it shows that for hundreds of years scribes copied this verse knowing the number had dropped out but instead of correcting it, they faithfully transcribed what was before them. *If the scribes of the Old Testament would so faithfully preserve an obvious omission, don’t you think they were just as tenaciously faithful with the rest of the text?
> 
> ...



If you will restrict your remarks to the OT and NT _you_ have, and the words “we gentiles” to the CT camp _you_ are in, and not make either of these statements refer to my camp, then you might come out of your bomb shelter and relax. But if you want to lay these allegations to _my_ OT & NT, and the camp _I_ live in, you might as well remain in the shelter and keep your hardhat on. If there’s a TV and a cot in there, you might even think of calling it home.

You’ve been talking of inferior texts which lurk in the shadows of the Reformation’s light, and were afraid to come out then, but now have more boldness due to the darkness of the times.

Steve


----------



## Robert Truelove (Jun 13, 2007)

So what do you do with the fact that all of the older Greek Septuagint manuscripts follow in faithfully preserving these omissions as found in the older Hebrew manuscripts?

Since the older Hebdrew manuscripts all contian this omission as well as the earlier Greek translation, is it not much more evident that the later manuscripts were 'corrected' by well meaning scribes?



Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hello Robert,
> 
> To correct a typo, the verse in question is 1 Sam *13*:1.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jun 14, 2007)

Robert, you say,



prespastor said:


> So what do you do with the fact that all of the older Greek Septuagint manuscripts follow in faithfully preserving these omissions as found in the older Hebrew manuscripts?
> 
> Since the older Hebrew manuscripts all contain this omission as well as the earlier Greek translation, is it not much more evident that the later manuscripts were 'corrected' by well meaning scribes?



Again it seems to me you indulge in hyperbole: my copy of the LXX (Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton’s translation; Zondervan, ISBN 0310204208) does not even contain verse 1 – omits it entirely! When you talk about the LXX mss “faithfully preserving” readings lacking in Hebrew manuscripts, I wonder how carefully you have considered the gross irregularities of transmission found in the LXX. I realize it is an axiom of modern text criticism that the Septuagint can do as you assert, but it is a theory as unproven as the one about the older Greek MSS being more reliable than the majority text. The LXX is notoriously corrupt in its readings throughout, often its writers “back-correcting” to either supposedly fit prophecy (as in Daniel 9:24-27 being made to refer to the Maccabean period) or supposedly agree with the NT as in its Psalm 14:3. 

When you say “the older Hebrew manuscripts all contain this omission…” I take it you are referring to the Leningrad codex (mentioned above in post #29). I repeat again, older manuscripts are not necessarily better ones, neither the Hebrew nor the Greek, as we have discussed at length previously.

Keil and Delitzsch, who are to be respected, do agree with you. I prefer John Gill’s take on the matter (and Gill was an excellent Hebraist himself):

Gill’s 9 Vol. Exposition: http://www.freegrace.net/gill/

[1 Sam 13] Ver. 1. *Saul reigned one year*,.... "Or the son of a year in his reigning" {s}; various are the senses given of these words: some interpret them, Saul had a son of a year old when he began to reign, Ishbosheth, and who was forty years of age when his father died, (2Sa 2:10), others, who understand the words of Saul himself, think there is an "ellipsis" or defect of the number, and that it may be supplied, that Saul was the son of thirty or forty years, or whatsoever age he may be supposed to be at when he began his reign; others take the words in a figurative sense, that he was like a child of a year old, for purity and innocence; so the Targum, 

"as the son of a year, in whom there are no faults, so was Saul when he reigned;''

or he was but a year old, reckoning from the time he was turned into another man, and had another heart, which was immediately after he was anointed king at Ramah by Samuel; or he was but a year old with respect to his kingdom: the inauguration of a king is "natalis imperil", the birthday of his kingdom, and therefore the words are well enough rendered by us, "Saul reigned one year"; which is to be reckoned either from his unction at Ramah, or rather from his election at Mizpeh, to the renewal of the kingdom at Gilgal: *and when he had reigned two years over Israel*; which the Jewish chronologers {t} make to be the whole of his reign, which is not probable, considering the many things done in his reign, the many battles he fought with all his enemies on every side of him, and his long persecution of David; and there were no less than three high priests in his reign; Josephus says {q} he reigned eighteen years in the lifetime of Samuel, and twenty two years after his death, in all forty; which agrees with (Ac 13:21). Some interpret it he reigned two years well, and the rest in a tyrannical way; or that at the end of two years, when David was anointed, the kingdom was not reckoned to him, but to David; and to this purpose Dr. Lightfoot writes, that he had been king one year from his first anointing by Samuel at Ramah, to his second anointing by him at Gibeah (Gilgal I suppose he means); and he reigned after this two years more, before the Lord cast him off, and anointed David; and the time he ruled after that was not a rule, but a tyranny and persecution {r}; but the sense Ben Gersom gives is best of all, that one year had passed from the time of his being anointed, to the time of the renewal of the kingdom at Gilgal; and when he had reigned two years over Israel, then he did what follows, chose 3000 men, &c. In the first year of his reign was done all that is recorded in the preceding chapter; and when he had reigned two years, not two years more, but two years in all, then he did what is related in this chapter.

{s} wklmb lwav hnv Nb "filius anni Saul in regnando ipsum", Montanus. {t} Seder Olam Rabba, c. 13. p. 35. Juchasin, fol. 11. 1. {q} Antiqu. l. 6. c. 14. sect. 9. {r} Works, vol. 1. p. 55.​
I have a Bible I trust. Does not yours depend on the acumen of your own wits and the wits of others more or less expert? I trust God’s preserving of it, according to promise, even in the minutiae. I do not see you have this confidence. "But what you get by on, I can't rely on", to loosely quote Johnny Cash.

Steve


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jun 15, 2007)

To continue a little about the Hebrew text of the Bible, as it’s the NT that usually gets the attention.

The Masoretes were the last of Jewish scholars who devoted themselves to preserving the Hebrew Bible. The Masoretic text was the first printed Hebrew text, printed in its entirety in 1488, with two more editions following in 1491 and 1494.

One of the most famous masorete scholars was Ben Asher of Tiberius, who labored to produce a correct copy of the Scriptures. From the 12th century forward the Ben Asher text was the received Hebrew text.

In 1516-17 the Daniel Bomburg edition of the Masoretic text was printed, and called the _First Rabbinic Bible_. Bomberg was a Jewish rabbinical scholar. In 1524-25 the Ben Chayyim edition of Bomberg’s Hebrew Bible was printed. Ben Chayyim was also a Jewish rabbinical scholar. This edition was called the _Second Great Rabbinic Bible_. These Masoretic Hebrew Bibles became the basis for all the Reformation translations. For 400 years this Hebrew Masoretic Old Testament was the sole basis for Bible translation around the world. This was also the edition used by Rudolf Kittel for the first two editions of his _Biblia Hebraica_ in 1906 and 1912. [Quoted or paraphrased from David Cloud’s, _Faith vs. the Modern Bible Versions_ (Way of Life Literature; ISBN: 1583180877), pp. 165-170.]

I will now look at Dr. E.F. Hills’ _The King James Version Defended_ as he also contributes greatly to our understanding of the Hebrew texts. In his Chapter Four he gives an overview of the textual situation of the Hebrew Scriptures (pages 100-102 in the book): 

*(f) Manuscripts of the Hebrew Old Testament — The Dead Sea Scrolls*

The Jewish rabbis venerated their copies of the Old Testament so much that they did not allow them to be read to pieces. As soon as their Old Testament manuscripts became too old and worn for ordinary use, they stored them in their synagogues and later buried them. Hence, until rather recently no ancient Hebrew Old Testament manuscripts were available to scholars, the oldest known manuscript dating from no earlier than the 9th century A.D. All the available manuscripts, however, were found to contain the Masoretic (Traditional) text and to agree with one another very closely. The first critic to demonstrate this was Bishop Kennicott, who published at Oxford in 1776-80 the readings of 634 Hebrew manuscripts. He was followed in 1784-88 by De Rossi, who published collations of 825 more manuscripts. No substantial variation among the manuscripts was detected by either of these two scholars. (28)

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has altered this situation. These scrolls had been placed in earthen jars and deposited in caves near Wadi Qumran by the Dead Sea. They were first brought to light in 1947 by an Arab who was looking for a goat which had wandered away. After a few months some of the scrolls from this first cave were sold by the Arabs to the Syrian Orthodox Monastery of St. Mark and others to the Hebrew University. In 1955 the Monastery of St. Mark sold its share of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the State of Israel. Thus these two lots of ancient writings were finally reunited under the same owners. (29)

This collection includes the following documents: (1) Isaiah A, an almost complete copy of Isaiah in Hebrew; (2) Isaiah B, another copy of Isaiah in Hebrew, reasonably complete from chapter 41 onwards but containing only fragments of earlier chapters; (3) a copy in Hebrew of the first two chapters of Habakkuk with a verse-by-verse commentary also in Hebrew; (4) the _Rule of the Community_, a code of rules of a community written in Hebrew; (5) a collection of hymns in Hebrew; (6) the _Rule of War_, a description in Hebrew of ancient warfare; (7) an Aramaic paraphrase of chapter 5 to 15 of Genesis. (30) Of these seven manuscripts Isaiah A is regarded as the oldest. One expert sets its date at 175-150 B.C.; another expert makes it 50 years younger. The other manuscripts are thought to have been written from 50 to 150 years later than Isaiah A. (31)

After these manuscripts had been discovered in the first cave, ten other caves in the same vicinity were found to contain similar treasures. Of these Cave 4 has proved the most productive. Thousands of fragments, once constituting about 330 separate books, have been taken from this location. These fragments include portions of every Old Testament book except Esther. (32) Rather recently (1972) O'Callaghan has claimed that certain fragments found in Cave 7 are from New Testament manuscripts. This discovery, however, has been rejected by most other scholars. (33)

The discovery of the first Dead Sea Scroll, Isaiah A, was generally regarded by scholars as a victory for the Masoretic (Traditional) Hebrew text of the Old Testament. According to Burrows (1948), this manuscript agreed with the Masoretic text to a remarkable degree in wording. (34) And according to Albright (1955), the second Isaiah scroll (Isaiah B) agreed even more closely with the Masoretic text. (35) But the discovery in 1952 of Cave 4 with its vast store of manuscripts altered the picture considerably. It became apparent that the Proto-Masoretic text of the Isaiah scrolls was not the only type of Old Testament text that had been preserved at Qumran. In the manuscripts from Cave 4 many other text-types have been distinguished. Accordingly, in 1964 F. M. Cross presented some of the conclusions which he had drawn from his Qumran studies. He believed that three distinct ancient texts of Samuel can be identified, namely, ( 1 ) an Egyptian text represented by the Septuagint, (2) a Palestinian text represented by manuscript 4Q from Cave 4, and (3) a Proto-Masoretic text represented by a Greek text of Samuel also from Cave 4. And in the Pentateuch also Cross divides the text into the Egyptian, Palestinian, and Proto-Masoretic varieties. (36) G. R. Driver (1965), however, disagreed with Burrows, Albright, and Cross. According to him, the Dead Sea Scrolls were written in the first and early second centuries A.D. (37)

Thus we see that, despite the new discoveries, our confidence in the trustworthiness of the Old Testament text must rest on some more solid foundation than the opinions of naturalistic scholars. For as the Qumran studies demonstrate, these scholars disagree with one another. What one scholar grants another takes away. Instead of depending on such inconstant allies, Bible-believing Christians should develop their own type of Old Testament textual criticism, a textual criticism which takes its stand on the teachings of the Old Testament itself and views the evidence in the light of these teachings. Such a believing textual criticism leads us to full confidence in the Masoretic (Traditional) Hebrew text which was preserved by the divinely appointed Old Testament priesthood and the scribes and scholars grouped around it.
--------
Note 28 _Our Bible And The Ancient Manuscripts_, by F. G. Kenyon, London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1898, p. 41.
Note 29 _Second Thoughts On The Dead Sea Scrolls_, by F. F. Bruce, Grand Rapids: Eerdman's, 1956, p. 21.
Note 30 Idem, pp 22-25.
Note 31 Idem, pp. 38-42.
Note 32 Idem, pp. 28-33.
Note 33 Newsletter No. 11, _American Schools of Oriental Research_, Cambridge, Mass., June, 1972.
Note 34 "Variant Readings in the Isaiah Manuscripts," by Millar Burrows, BASOR, October, 1948, p. 16.
Note 35 "New Light on Early Recensions of the Hebrew Bible," by W. F. Albright, BASOR, December, 1955, p. 30.
Note 36 "The History of the Biblical Text in the Light of Discoveries in the Judean Desert'" by F. M. Cross, HTR, vol. 57 (1964) pp. 296-297.
Note 37 _The Judean Scrolls, The Problem And A Solution_, by G. R. Driver, Oxford: Blackwell, 1965, pp. 3-6, 239-241, 371.​
-----------

Dr. Hills puts in perspective the differences in the various Hebrew Texts, the “marginal” mss that vary from the accepted (or once accepted) Hebrew Bible.

I haven’t noted here (though it has been discussed elsewhere on this board) the battle the post-Reformation defenders fought concerning the Masoretic text. Rome was determined to overthrow the Reformation principle of Sola Scriptura with regard to the Hebrew perhaps even more than the Greek of the reformers’ Textus Receptus. There is a wealth of literature (unfortunately some choice pieces in the Latin which remain untranslated, such as J. Buxtorf’s work!) on this topic, notably by John Owen and John Gill (of those readily available).

Some will allege that holding to the view of the Reformers is obscurantist, in light of the “new” discoveries made in recent years. To the end of countering such allegations I have brought Dr. Hills’ view to the fore. Were the architects of the Westminster Confession (and the 1689 Baptist Confession) in error when they said the Scriptures in Hebrew and Greek, “being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical”? They were referring to the texts they had in hand which were “kept pure”, which they were using against Rome – and not some theoretical versions which they didn’t have, or hoped they might some day have. They were referring to the Masoretic Hebrew Text of Ben Chayyim and the Textus Receptus Greek texts under the KJV.

If genuine and authentic discoveries are set aside, one could use the term “obscurantist,” but if the so-called “progress” of new discoveries is in fact a descent into error and inferior materials, then the epithet becomes a slander, a lie, at best a mistake.

God was working mightily in the Reformation period, not only to recover sound doctrine for His people, but to give them His word in a providentially preserved form. In the little things He worked, overruling the designs of men, to produce wonders, foremost of which was His Bible.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jun 15, 2007)

Some afterthoughts on the above post of mine.

As Hills describes the contents of Cave 4 with its numerous OT texttypes, I ponder what some archeologists might think upon discovering my own large library some time in the far future. I have some 40 versions of the New Testament and around 23 of the Old. I’d say at least 80% of these are modern versions (whether in English, Greek or Hebrew) and of inferior quality. But a wide variety are represented. It would probably cause confusion to those seeking to ascertain the pure texts of the original, although I know very well which are which. The Essene community had scholars who possibly collected a like wide variety of manuscripts. It makes perfect sense to me that many text-types were available to those who liked to study the transmission of the Word of God, as is the case with me. The Hebrew text that was used in mainstream Israel – and Jerusalem in particular, where the priesthood was given the duty of maintaining the Tanakh (OT Bible) – where the Lord Jesus lived and taught, this is the standard Hebrew, not whatever might be found in the offshoot Essene community.

Let me continue briefly concerning the changes in the Hebrew text in the 20th century. In 1937 the third edition of Kittel’s _Biblia Hebraica_ followed the Lenigrad Codex (B19a or “L”), dated 1008 A.D. This is based on the modern textual criticism’s theory that “oldest is best.” The Leningrad Codex is of the Ben Asher family but it is…different from the manuscripts used prior to the 20th century. [I draw on the previously mentioned works of David Cloud, and also D.A. Waite.]

We find the same phenomenon here as we find with the NT mss – mostly secular scholars with rationalist methodologies seeking to determine the OT text. They are not guided by any criterion of faith, no taking into account the attestation of Scripture to itself as regards God’s promise to preserve it intact, and so proceed as though this were any old manuscript – not inspired in its writing, nor preserved in its transmission.

I may consider the end results of their work, but I put no faith at all in it. I put my faith in what I see as the Biblical texts God’s hand has been upon. And this is not just some flaky idea of a lone individual. This is the faith that actually guided and protected the Reformation, and it has its able and scholarly defenders to this day, though it be somewhat in the minority in this age of “great progress” and “knowledge”.

Steve


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jun 16, 2007)

*And yet a little more,* 

as I realize some folks lurk in hopes of finding treasure on these boards; and treasure there is, for those who seek assurance – and withal to defend – concerning the superiority of the Bible of the Reformation over against the German rationalist-originated / Roman Catholic MS.-based / liberal-lauded modern versions. We are in the minority at this juncture in history, but that is no matter, for the truth of a thing is not determined by numbers against or for it, but by its own qualities of excellence. David excelled in skill at combat, not in himself (although he had long practice on his sling), but in the Spirit of his God, who gave him the victory. And so we trust He is enabling us to stand for His great feat in preserving His word intact for His beloved, the Bride of His Son, that she be able to war with might. The excellence is His, the workmanship, the fine details, the finished product.

Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God….Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. –Jesus, in Matthew 4:4; 24:35​
For more information on the Old Testament Hebrew text (often neglected in our discussions on the Scripture), I recommend Jack Moorman’s,  _Forever Settled: A Survey of the Documents and History of the Bible_, and on this particular topic, Part One: A Survey of Old Testament Documents. The hard copy book has some charts not in this online version. This is an excellent survey of the field from a TR / AV defense position. 

Moorman notes in his section on the OT that many scholars do not accept the vowel points of the Hebrew Masoretic text to be of ancient origin, so I have appended some material on that issue. One of the most notable exponents of their ancient origin is Dr. Thomas Strouse.

“A Review of and Observations about Peter Whitfield's _A Dissertation on the Hebrew Vowel-Points_”, by Dr. Thomas M. Strouse. 

And a couple more articles by (or containing) Dr. Strouse on the Masoretic Hebrew text:

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/myths-masoretic-text.html

http://www.wayoflife.org/ency/ency003e.htm

For those seriously inquiring into these things, I would suggest downloading the entire articles (or books) – along with the urls – as sometimes sites fold. 

It will be noticed that I draw heavily on IFBs – Independent Fundamentalist Baptists – for a lot of my information on the Scriptures. For what it is worth to you reformed folks, although these IFBs are our fierce opponents as regards the Doctrines of Grace (a visit to some of their sites, or other books will confirm this), these apparently despised-by-many men have been granted of the Lord peculiar graces as regards the discernment, scholarship concerning, and vigorous defense of the Authorized Version and the Hebrew Masoretic text and Greek Textus Receptus underlying it. To you modern version folks they may likely remain despised, but you Byzantine and Traditional text people ought to value worthy comrades-in-arms, for we would be hard put to mount a strong defense of our Lord’s preserved word without them in this day of gross confusion about the Biblical texts.

Yes, they must – and shall – be vigorously withstood as regards their errors with respect to the Doctrines of Grace, but as far as I am concerned they are beloved and honored for that sound knowledge they share with the rest of the Body in this day of intense warfare over the words of our God and King. (Imagine in a kingdom of the world, an endeavor to suppress and deny the sayings, commands, and wisdom of a monarch, to the consternation and dangerous ignorance of his people!)

Perhaps this grace has been given the IFBs to humble the wise and mighty-in-the-scriptures reformed folks, that we not vaunt ourselves over our brethren. The battle for an intact and trustworthy Bible is the conflict on which the entire warfare of the church militant stands or falls. To lose this battle is to lose the war. And it will not do to say, “But the Lord is sovereign, we cannot lose!” There have always been men and women who have been His agents in fulfilling His purposes, while others – suffering from advanced sovereignitis – remain passive and not co-working with Him (Col 1:29).

Remember, He raised up a Luther and a Calvin to execute His designs among His people, and to withstand the hordes of the wicked and the deceived. And so He raises up defenders of His word, for the sake of giving His people light, and an intact Sword of the Spirit with which to smite the demon and his hosts. Such are our brethren. We each have a vital part in this fray.

Steve


----------



## KMK (Jun 16, 2007)

Thank you for these posts, Mr. Rafalsky. I am still digesting them. 

If you were going to recommend a starting point point for someone who is ignorant of textual criticism, where would it be? Burgeon? Letis? Rafalsky?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jun 16, 2007)

Ken,

I would say the following are the six best to start with (and probably in that order):

_Myths about the Modern Versions_, by David Cloud (ISBN: 1583180591). Just Google the ISBN number and pick the lowest-priced vendor.

_The King James Version Defended_, by Edward F. Hills (ISBN: 0915923009)

_Forever Settled: A Survey of the Documents And History of the Bible_, by Jack Moorman (ISBN: 18883280610)

_The Revision Revised_, by John Burgon (Google: revision revised burgon hobbs – [I like this edition]) 


The Letis books get here, as otherwise they generally cost a fortune:

INSTITUTE FOR BIBLICAL TEXTUAL STUDIES 
5151 52nd Street, S. E., Grand Rapids, MI 49512 - Telephone (616) 942-8498 – [email protected] 


_The Majority Text: Essays & Reviews in the Continuing Debate_, Theodore P. Letis IRRBS 2000 $20.00 
Paper back, 210 pages 

_The Ecclesiastical Text: Text Criticism, Biblical Authority and the Popular Mind_, Theodore P. Letis IRRBS 2000 $28.00 
Paper back, 232 pages.

--------

Burgon is not easy reading, but once gotten into, and gotten used to, he is a textual detective _par excellence_! Letis has some cutting edge stuff none others have. Hills is a classic. Moorman's a great resource. But Cloud's book I would say is good foundation material. The Rafalsky character hasn't published yet.

Hope this helps.

Steve


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jun 16, 2007)

Considering the possibility that the things I have said concerning the Hebrew and Greek of the Authorized Version, as well its English, have led some to favor the view that this is the preserved and thus reliable Bible, I want to say a few words about personal demeanor. We all know of the KJVO defenders who are rude, arrogant, and apparently uncaring of the souls of others, their “position” of such overriding importance to them – and their “opponents” surely akin to demons (in their view) – they feel they have liberty to insult and revile others at will. Such folks have an agenda which is not of God.

The Lord through Paul says, in 1 Cor 13:1-3, it matters not if you have eloquence, deep understanding, and even faith – if you have not love, you are nothing. Your knowledge amounts to nil. You are a banner to the world, “My knowledge puffs me up!” A spirit reflecting the love and graciousness of Christ is what edifies. (1 Cor 8:1)

If any of you become convinced of the superiority of the TR / AV or even the Byzantine / Majority texttype, you will gain no hearing from your peers if you are seen as anything other than godly and gracious. Few churches have the KJV as the “agreed-upon” Bible to be used, so you must carry yourself tolerant and gracious, grateful to the Lord He has given you light in this area, and humble before your brethren who are likely better than you in many other areas of their lives and hearts.

At which point I must say, although having the sure word of God is of paramount importance as regards the Faith, there is something more important in the area of _living_ the Faith. What is that? It is the integrity – the purity – of the Gospel. The Gospel as it is lived – and taught – by us, and manifested in our interactions with others.

I don’t primarily seek to ascertain which Bible version people I come across use, but how they understand _and live_ the gospel. Do they know the sovereignty of God in their salvation, His surpassing grace in their conversion and ensuing daily lives? Do they understand – as Tim Keller likes to put it – “We are more wicked than we ever dared to think, and – simultaneously – move loved than we ever dared to hope”? _Simul iustus et peccator_. If we know this – how the Lord knows the depravity of our remaining corruption, and still loves us with an everlasting love (having paid for everything in us unworthy and sinful) – we will be humble before others, who are likely not as wretched as we! And we will be transparent, joyous and bold before Father who cares for us – including discipline as we need it – in the reality of our lives. *These* things are more important than Bible versions!

For a good while I was in a large NIV / ESV church, with me in the great minority with my KJV. In a position of servant leadership I did not push my view on others, but gently explained at significant moments why a certain reading was more sound than another, and gave some scholarly support. _Important as a reliable Bible is, forming Christ in others, rooting and grounding them in His love, is moreso_. There are godlier men and women who use the modern versions than I with my KJV! We all need to remember that.

I knew a reformed guy who was so aggressive, unconvinced folks called him “a reformed Nazi”! (He’s better now.) Let’s not be like that over the Bible issue.

Steve


----------



## KMK (Jun 19, 2007)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I ponder what some archeologists might think upon discovering my own large library some time in the far future. I have some 40 versions of the New Testament and around 23 of the Old. I’d say at least 80% of these are modern versions (whether in English, Greek or Hebrew) and of inferior quality. But a wide variety are represented. It would probably cause confusion to those seeking to ascertain the pure texts of the original, although I know very well which are which.



However, if they took note of which versions you used in your preaching and teaching and counseling etc, it would be obvious to those archeologists which versions you considered to be superior.

This would be the case with the church. Which mss did the pastors of the church through the ages use for their preaching, teaching and counseling? The mss of the TR, correct?

But is there evidence that the church (reforemers, Erasmus etc) had access to other older mss that they deemed inferior? Or does the TR represent everything that was available to them? (This has probably been addressed in another thread, and if so, you could direct me to it)


----------



## etexas (Jun 19, 2007)

satz said:


> For what little it is worth, I agree with you.
> 
> I think variant texts and translations actually make the bible less authoritative. Even if they are inevitable, I think they ought not to be celebrated.


I am a "king Jimmy" man I agree.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jun 20, 2007)

Ken,

Yes, it has been addressed, but I don't at present remember where.

The early church Fathers used various manuscripts, according to which textform was dominant in their areas, and some used a variety which were available. The books listed immediately below are studies on this topic.

_Early Manuscripts And The Authorized Version_, Jack Moorman 
_Early Church Fathers And The Authorized Version_, by Jack Moorman 

These two books are available at The Bible For Today online bookstore (http://www.biblefortoday.org/search_result.asp)

This linked article addresses the mss the Reformation editors had available to them:

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/isthereceived.htm

In the post below I will copy an article I found on the web -- but the link is defunct now -- and is the 2nd article in the book I recommended above to you, David Cloud's, _Myths About the Modern Versions_. I highly recommend the book itself.

Sorry I can't do more for now; I've gotten quite busy. Hope this helps.

Steve


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jun 20, 2007)

[Continuing from the post above: this below is the 2nd chapter of David Cloud's, _Myths About the Modern Versions_]


REFORMATION EDITORS LACKED SUFFICIENT MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE

[The following material is published by Way of Life Literature and is 
copyrighted by David W. Cloud, 1986. All rights are reserved. Permission is 
given for duplication for personal use, but not for resale. The following 
is available in booklet format from Way of Life Literature, Bible Baptist 
Church, 1219 N. Harns Road, Oak Harbor, Washington 98277. Phone (206) 675-
8311. This article is number two in a set of five booklets.]

MYTHS ABOUT THE KING JAMES BIBLE

Copyright 1986 by David W. Cloud. All rights reserved.

MYTH NUMBER 2:
REFORMATION EDITORS LACKED SUFFICIENT MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE
By David W. Cloud

A second popular myth about the Received Text is the well-worn but 
erroneous idea that Erasmus and the textual editors and Bible translators 
of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries had access to a severely limited 
variety of manuscript evidence. Again I quote a popular evangelical leader, 
the one time head of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, James 
Boice: "Moreover, Erasmus did not have very many texts to work 
with." <James Boice, letter to Dr. Tom Hale, United Mission to Nepal, 
Sept. 13, 1985.>

If you read only the studies of men who are opposed to the Textus Receptus 
you would think that this is an absolute, unquestionable fact of history. 
Hear the dogmatic assertion of another writer who holds the views of Dr. 
Boice:

"Although Erasmus published a fourth and fifth edition, we need say no more 
about them here. Erasmus's Greek Testament stands in line behind the King 
James Version; yet it rests upon a half dozen minuscule manuscripts, none 
of which is earlier than the tenth century. ... the textual basis of the TR 
is a small number of haphazardly and relatively late minuscule 
manuscripts." <D.A. Carson, The King James Version Debate (Baker Book 
House, 1979), pp. 35-36.>

Let's give one more example to illustrate just how common this thinking is. 
Consider this quote from an article by Doug Kutilek, assistant to 
evangelist Robert L. Sumner:

"In constructing and editing the text, Erasmus had the feeblest of 
manuscript resources. He chiefly used one manuscript of the Gospels, dating 
from the twelfth century, and one manuscript of Acts and the Epistles, also 
from the twelfth century. These he edited and corrected, using one or two 
additional manuscripts of each section along with his Latin Vulgate....

"Erasmus's fourth and fifth editions were all but slavishly reprinted by 
Stephanus, Beza, the Elzivirs and others in their editions of the Greek New 
Testament in the century that followed. All these collectively are often 
referred to as the Textus Receptus, or received text. It must be observed 
that these reprints merely reproduced without examination of evidence the 
hastily-produced text of Erasmus. The result is that the text of Erasmus, 
hurriedly assembled out of the slimmest of manuscript resources--containing 
a number of readings without any Greek manuscript support--became for 
nearly 300 years the only form of the Greek New Testament available in 
print, and the basic text for the Protestant translations of the New 7(2 
Testament made in those centuries. ...

"In short, there is no ground whatsoever for accepting the Textus Receptus 
as the ultimate in precisely representing the original text of the New 
Testament. Rather than being the most pristine and pure Greek New 
Testament, it was in fact the most rudimentary and rustic, at best only a 
provisional text that could be made to serve for the time being until 
greater care, more thorough labor, and more extensive evidence could be had 
so as to provide a text of greater accuracy. It is unfortunate that what 
was only a meager first attempt at publishing a New Testament Greek text 
became fossilized as though it were the ultimate in accuracy.

"It was not until the nineteenth century that the shackles of mere 
tradition and religious inertia were thrown off and a Greek text based on a 
careful and thorough examination of an extensive amount of manuscript 
evidence was made available. The Greek texts of Griesbach, Tregelles, 
Tischendorf, Alford, and Westcott and Hort were, individually and 
collectively, a great improvement over the text of Erasmus, because they 
more accurately presented the text of the New Testament in the form it came 
from the pens of the apostles." <Christian News (Apr. 21, 1986), p. 16.>

This lengthy quote was included to demonstrate the perversion of history 
which has become so common among Bible scholars, and also because it so 
graphically illustrates the strange hatred which prevails today among 
scholars of every label toward the ancient and revered Textus Receptus and 
those multitudes of versions which are based upon it. 

Even stranger is the fact that after dragging the textual editors of the 
Reformation and their work, the Received Text, through the mud and mire of 
hateful criticism for sixteen lengthy paragraphs, Kutilek makes an about 
face and contends that there actually is not a "hair's breadth in doctrinal 
difference between Erasmus's text and that of, say, Westcott and Hort," (a 
myth which is dealt with in another of this series--Myth #3: No Doctrinal 
Differences Between Texts and Versions) and is so kind to say, "I do not 
wish to be too hard on Erasmus, after all, I recognize him as a pioneer who 
opened up a frontier for others to follow and laid a foundation on which 
others would build."

These men have found out a marvelous thing: They seemingly have mastered 
the art of facing two ways at the same time!

One further comment regarding these statements by Kutilek is in order. If 
all of this is true, and only an imprecise, rudimentary, rustic, and 
provisional text was produced at the dawn of the age of printing and of the 
Protestant Reformation and was for four hundred years carried to the 
farthest reaches of the earth during the most zealous period of missionary 
Gospel work since the first century--where was God at that time and why did 
He allow such a text to prevail? Why does Kutilek completely ignore the 
Bible passages which promise that God will preserve His Word to every 
generation? We deal with this in yet another booklet in this series (Myth 
#4: Inspiration Is Perfect, but Preservation Is General), but this point is 
too important to pass over lightly. Kutilek's God must have been on a long 
lunch break during the sixteenth through the nineteenth centuries because, 
according to Kutilek, He certainly was not preserving the Scriptures.

We hasten now to offer some historical facts surrounding this matter of the 
Reformation editors and translators and their textual resources which quite 
contradict the popular ideas we have considered.

ERASMUS'S TRAVEL AND CORRESPONDENCE BROUGHT HIM INTO CONTACT WITH BROAD 
MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE

Erasmus personally visited libraries and carried on correspondence which 
brought him in touch with manuscript evidence which was vast both in number 
and variety.

If we would believe the critics of the Received Text, Erasmus and other 
Greek scholars of the Reformation engaged in their work while confined to 
barren rooms with only a handful of resource materials. This is far from an 
accurate view of history. These men were scholars of the first rank, which 
even their enemies and those in disagreement with their conclusions admit. 
As such, they were men engaged continually in dissertation with other 
scholars; they were men of wide-ranging personal correspondence, men who 
traveled, visiting libraries and centers of learning--yea, men who did all 
that was necessary to discover everything possible about the beloved 
projects to which they were devoted.

"He [Erasmus] was ever at work, visiting libraries, searching in every nook 
and corner for the profitable. He was ever collecting, comparing, writing 
and publishing. ... He classified the Greek manuscripts and read the 
Fathers." <David Otis Fuller, Is the KJV Nearest to the Original 
Autographs?>

"By 1495 he [Erasmus] was studying in Paris. In 1499 he went to England 
where he made the helpful friendship of John Cabot, later dean of St. 
Paul's, who quickened his interest in biblical studies. He then went back 
to France and the Netherlands. In 1505 he again visited England and then 
passed three years in Italy. In 1509 he returned to England for the third 
time and taught at Cambridge University until 1514. In 1515 he went to 
Basel, where he published his New Testament in 1516, then back to the 
Netherlands for a sojourn at the University of Louvain. Then he returned to 
Basel in 1521 and remained there until 1529, in which year he removed to 
the imperial town of Freiburg-im-Breisgau. Finally, in 1535, he again 
returned to Basel and died there the following year in the midst of his 
Protestant friends, without relations of any sort, so far as known, with 
the Roman Catholic Church.

"One might think that all this moving around would have interfered with 
Erasmus' activity as a scholar and writer, but quite the reverse is true. 
By his travels he was brought into contact with all the intellectual 
currents of his time and stimulated to almost superhuman efforts. He became 
the most famous scholar and author of his day and one of the most prolific 
writers of all time, his collected works filling ten large volumes in the 
Leclerc edition of 1705 (phototyped by Olms in 1963). As an editor also his 
productivity was tremendous. Ten columns of the catalog of the library in 
the British Museum are taken up with the bare enumeration of the works 
translated, edited, or annotated by Erasmus, and their subsequent 
reprints." <Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended, pp. 195-197, 
referring to T.A. Dorey, Erasmus (London: Kegan Paul, 1970); Bainton, 
Erasmus of Christendom; W. Schwarz, Principles and Problems of Translation, 
(Cambridge: University Press, 1955), pp. 92-166; Preserved Smith, Erasmus, 
Preserved Smith (New York: Harper, 1923).>

According to Dr. Edward F. Hills, the evidence points to the fact that 
Erasmus used other manuscripts beside five:

"When Erasmus came to Basel in July 1515, to begin his work, he found five 
Greek New Testament manuscripts ready for his use. ... Did Erasmus use 
other manuscripts beside these five in preparing his Textus Receptus? The 
indications are that he did. According to W. Schwarz (1955), Erasmus made 
his own Latin translation of the New Testament at Oxford during the years 
1505-6. His friend John Colet who had become Dean of St. Paul's, lent him 
two Latin manuscripts for this undertaking, but nothing is known about the 
Greek manuscripts which he used. He must have used some Greek manuscripts 
or other, however, and taken notes on them. Presumably therefore he brought 
these notes with him to Basel along with his translation and his comments 
on the New Testament text. It is well known also that Erasmus looked for 
manuscripts everywhere during his travels and that he borrowed them from 
everyone he could. Hence although the Textus Receptus was based mainly on 
the manuscripts which Erasmus found at Basel, it also included readings 
taken from others to which he had access. It agreed with the common faith 
because it was founded on manuscripts which in the providence of God were 
readily available." <Hills, p. 198.>

The following quotation from D'Aubigne's diligent historical research also 
indicates that Erasmus had access to more textual evidence than his modern 
detractors admit:

"Nothing was more important at the dawn of the Reformation than the 
publication of the Testament of Jesus Christ in the original language. 
Never had Erasmus worked so carefully. `If I told what sweat it cost me, no 
one would believe me.' He had collated many Greek MSS. of the New 
Testament, and was surrounded by all the commentaries and translations, by 
the writings of Origen, Cyprian, Ambrose, Basil, Chrysostom, Cyril, Jerome, 
and Augustine. ... He had investigated the texts according to the 
principles of sacred criticism. When a knowledge of Hebrew was necessary, 
he had consulted Capito, and more particularly Cecolampadius. Nothing 
without Theseus, said he of the latter, making use of a Greek proverb." 
<J.H. Merle D'Aubigne, History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century 
(New York: Hurst & Company, 1835), Vol. 5, p. 157.>

THE VATICANUS READINGS WERE KNOWN AND REJECTED BY THE PROTESTANT 
TRANSLATORS

Erasmus, Stephanus, and other sixteenth century editors had access to the 
manuscript from the Vatican called Codex B, the manuscript most preferred 
by Westcott and Hort and the English Revised translation committee. Yet 
this manuscript was rejected as corrupt by the Bible publishers of the 
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. 

Consider the following quotation from Benjamin Wilkinson, author of Our 
Authorized Bible Vindicated: 

"The problems presented by these two manuscripts [the Vaticanus and the 
Sinaiticus] were well known, not only to the translators of the King James, 
but also to Erasmus. We are told that the Old Testament portion of the 
Vaticanus has been printed since 1587. The third great edition is that 
commonly known as the `Sixtine,' published at Rome in 1587 under Pope 
Sixtus V ... Substantially, the `Sixtine' edition gives the text of B ... 
The `Sixtine' served as the basis for most of the ordinary editions of the 
LXX for just three centuries" (Ottley, Handbooks of the Septuagint, p. 64).

"We are informed by another author that, if Erasmus had desired, he could 
have secured a transcript of this manuscript" (Bissell, Historic Origin of 
the Bible, p. 84).

"There was no necessity, however, for Erasmus to obtain a transcript 
because he was in correspondence with Professor Paulus Bombasius at Rome, 
who sent him such variant readings as he wished" (S.P. Tregelles, On the 
Printed Text of the Greek Testament, p. 22).

"A correspondent of Erasmus in 1533 sent that scholar a number of selected 
readings from it [Codex B], as proof [or so says that correspondent] of its 
superiority to the Received Text" (Frederic Kenyon, Our Bible and the 
Ancient Manuscripts, Harper & Brothers, 1895, fourth edition 1939, p. 138).

"Erasmus, however, rejected these varying readings of the Vatican 
Manuscript because he considered from the massive evidence of his day that 
the Received Text was correct. ... 

"We have already given authorities to show that the Sinaitic Manuscript is 
a brother of the Vaticanus. Practically all of the problems of any serious 
nature which are presented by the Sinaitic, are the problems of the 
Vaticanus. Therefore the [editors of the 1500s and the] translators of 1611 
had available all the variant readings of these manuscripts and rejected 
them.

"The following words from Dr. Kenrick, Catholic Bishop of Philadelphia, 
will support the conclusion that the translators of the King James knew the 
readings of Codices Aleph, A, B, C, D, where they differed from the 
Received Text and denounced them. Bishop Kenrick published an English 
translation of the Catholic Bible in 1849. I quote from the preface:

"`Since the famous manuscripts of Rome, Alexandria, Cambridge, Paris, and 
Dublin were examined ... a verdict has been obtained in favor of the 
Vulgate. At the Reformation, the Greek Text, as it then stood, was taken as 
a standard, in conformity to which the versions of the Reformers were 
generally made; whilst the Latin Vulgate was depreciated, or despised, as a 
mere version'" (H. Cotton, quoted in Rheims and Douay, p. 155).

"In other words, the readings of these much boasted manuscripts, recently 
made available, are [largely] those of the Vulgate. The Reformers knew of 
these readings and rejected them, as well as the Vulgate. ...

"On the other hand, if more manuscripts have been made accessible since 
1611, little use has been made of what we had before and of the majority of 
those made available since. The Revisers systematically ignored the whole 
world of manuscripts and relied practically on only three or four. As Dean 
Burgon says, "But nineteen-twentieths of those documents, for any use which 
has been made of them, might just as well be still lying in the monastic 
libraries from which they were obtained."

"We feel, therefore, that a mistaken picture of the case has been presented 
with reference to the material at the disposition of the translators of 
1611 and concerning their ability to use that material." <Benjamin G. 
Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated.>

To this testimony I add one more quote:

"In the margin of this edition [his fourth] Stephanus entered variant 
readings taken from the Complutensian edition and also 14 manuscripts, one 
of which is thought to have been Codex D." If this was not actually Codex 
D, at the very least it was another one of that small family of manuscripts 
which presents a similar reading that contradicts the majority text." 
<Hills, p. 204.>

ERASMUS KNEW OF THE VARIANT READINGS PREFERRED BY MODERN TRANSLATORS

The notes which Erasmus placed in his editions of the Greek New Testament 
prove that he was completely informed of the variant readings which have 
found their way into the modern translations since 1881.

Even though Erasmus did not have access to all of the manuscripts 
translators can use today, there can be no doubt that he did have access to 
the variant readings in other ways.

"Through his study of the writings of Jerome and other Church Fathers 
Erasmus became very well informed concerning the variant readings of the 
New Testament text. Indeed almost all the important variant readings known 
to scholars today were already known to Erasmus more than 460 years ago and 
discussed in the notes (previously prepared) which he placed after the text 
in his editions of the Greek New Testament. Here, for example, Erasmus 
dealt with such problem passages as the conclusion of the Lord's Prayer 
(Matt. 6:13), the interview of the rich young man with Jesus (Matt. 19:17-
22), the ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20), the angelic song (Luke 2:14), the 
angel, agony, and bloody seat omitted (Luke 22:43-44), the woman taken in 
adultery (John 7:53-8:11), and the mystery of godliness (I Tim. 3:16)." 
<Hills, pp. 198-199.>

THE REFORMATION TEXT IS AS ANCIENT AS THE WESTCOTT-HORT TEXT

It is further true that the Greek text produced by Erasmus and other 
Reformation editors is representative of a text demonstrably as ancient as 
the modern critical text. Consider again the words of D.A. Carson in his 
book on the King James Version: "... the textual basis of the TR is a small 
number of haphazardly and relatively late minuscule manuscripts" (Carson, 
p. 36). 

While it is true that the actual Greek manuscripts Eramus had in his 
possession were relatively late ones, this is not the whole story. When all 
the facts are considered, we find that Carson's statement is a myth. 
Consider the testimony of Bishop Ellicott, the chairman of the committee 
that produced the English Revised Version, the predecessor of all modern 
versions:

"The manuscripts which Erasmus used differ, for the most part only in small 
and insignficant details, from the great bulk of the cursive MSS. The 
general character of their text is the same. By this observation the 
pedigree of the Received Text is carried up beyond the individual 
manuscripts used by Erasmus ... That pedigree stretches back to remote 
antiquity. The first ancestor of the Received Text was at least 
contemporary with the oldest of our extant MSS, if not older than any one 
of them" (Ellicott, The Revisers and the Greek Text of the N.T. by two 
members of the N.T. Company, pp. 11-12).

In commenting on Ellicott's statement, the Trinitarian Bible Society puts 
the matter into a perspective that the KJV detractors would like to ignore: 

"It must be emphasised that the argument is not between an ancient text and 
a recent one, but between two ancient forms of the text, one of which was 
rejected and the other adopted and preserved by the Church as a whole and 
remaining in common use for more than fifteen centuries. The assumptions of 
modern textual criticism are based upon the discordant testimony of a few 
specimens of the rejected text recently disinterred from the oblivion to 
which they had been deliberately and wisely consigned in the 4th century" 
(The Divine Original, TBS article No. 13, nd, p. 7).

REFORMATION EDITORS HAD WIDE TEXTUAL EVIDENCE IN THE BIBLES AVAILABLE TO 
THEM

Another matter frequently ignored by the detractors of the ReceivedText is 
the fact that Erasmus and the textual editors of the Reformation had a wide 
variety of Bibles which provided great help in their work. The editors and 
translators of the Reformation had access to many excellent Bible versions 
which attested to the textual witnesses upon which they, in turn, were 
based.

It was Erasmus's knowledge both in Greek manuscripts AND of versions of the 
Scripture in various languages, both contemporary with his time and 
ancient, that provoked Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson to note that "the text 
Erasmus chose had such an outstanding history in the Greek, the Syrian, and 
the Waldensian Churches, that it constituted an irresistible argument for 
and proof of God's providence." 

Wilkinson gives a brief history of the important role held by the 
Waldensian Bibles in preservation of the true text of Scripture:

"The Reformers held that the Waldensian Church was formed about 120 A.D., 
from which date on, they passed down from father to son the teachings they 
received from the apostles (Allix, Church of Piedmont, 1690, p. 37). We are 
indebted to Beza, the renowned associate of Calvin, for the statement that 
the Italic Church dates from 120 A.D. From the illustrious group of 
scholars which gathered round Beza, 1590 A.D., we may understand how the 
Received Text was the bond of union between great historic churches.

"There are modern writers who attempt to fix the beginning of the Waldenses 
from Peter Waldo, who began his work about 1175. This is a mistake. The 
historical name of this people as properly derived from the valleys where 
they lived, is Vaudois. Their enemies, however, ever sought to date their 
origin from Waldo. ... Nevertheless the history of the Waldenses, or 
Vaudois, begins centuries before the days of Waldo.

"There remains to us in the ancient Waldensian language, `The Noble Lesson' 
(La Nobla Leycon), written about the year 1100 A.D., which assigns the 
first opposition to the Waldenses to the Church of Rome to the days of 
Constantine the Great, when Sylvester was Pope. This may be gathered from 
the following extract: `All the popes, which have been from Sylvester to 
the present time' (Gilly, Excursions to the Piedmont, Appendix II, p. 10).

Thus when Christianity, emerging from the long persecutions of pagan Rome, 
was raised to imperial favor by the Emperor Constantine, the Italic Church 
in northern Italy--later the Waldenses--is seen standing in opposition to 
papal Rome. Their Bible was of the family of the renowned Itala. It was 
that translation into Latin which represents the Received Text. Its very 
name, "Itala," is derived from the Italic district, the regions of the 
Vaudois. Of the purity and reliability of this version, Augustine, speaking 
of different Latin Bibles (about 400 A.D.) says: `Now among translations 
themselves the Italian (Itala) is to be preferred to the others, for it 
keeps closer to the words without prejudice to clearness of expression'" 
(Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Christian Lit. Ed., Vol. II, p. 542). 
<Wilkinson.>

Here we can see the hand of God plainly evident in preserving the precious 
Word He had given to men. Through every dark century of persecution and 
apostasy, faithful and separated saints held to the Scriptures at the cost 
of earthly comfort, fortune, even life. The Waldenses, or Vaudois, were but 
one of these groups of faithful brethren. There were others, but the 
Vaudois were especially honored of God in that their versions of Scriptures 
were selected by the leaders of the Protestant Reformation as 
representative of the original manuscripts of the prophets and apostles. 

God promised to preserve His Word. How can we fail to see in these events 
the fulfillment of this promise? The pure Word of God was preserved by pure 
churches and in turn transmitted into the hands of the men who had been 
prepared of God to give this pure Word to the world during the great 
missionary period of the last four-and-a-half centuries.

In conclusion I quote from Which Version by Philip Mauro, outstanding trial 
lawyer of the nineteenth century. The testimony of men such as Mauro, Dr. 
Edward F. Hills, Dr. John Burgon, and Dr. David Otis Fuller is largely 
ignored and despised by evangelical (even many fundamental) scholars today, 
but their teaching is based upon the solid foundation of the biblical 
doctrine of divine inspiration and preservation, combined with careful 
scholarship. It is unwise and less than honest simply to ignore the 
testimony of such men, and yet that is exactly what is being done.

"When we consider what the Authorized Version was to be to the world, the 
incomparable influence it was to exert in shaping the course of events, and 
in accomplishing those eternal purposes of God for which Christ died and 
rose again and the Holy Spirit came down from heaven--when we consider that 
this Version was to be, more than all others combined, `the Sword of the 
Spirit,' and that all this was fully known to God beforehand, we are fully 
warranted in the belief that it was not through chance, but by providential 
control of the circumstances, that the translators had access to just those 
Mss. which were available at that time, and to none others.

"So far in our series on Myths About the King James Bible we have seen that 
it is not true that Erasmus was a humanist in the normal sense of which 
this would be understood in our day. Nor is it true that Erasmus and the 
Bible editors of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were severely 
limited in manuscript and textual evidence as compared with the late 
nineteenth and the twentieth centuries. If you have followed carefully with 
me in these studies to this point, I trust you can see that to call these 
myths is not at all an exaggeration of the term."

It is important to remind ourselves that our faith regarding the 
preservation of the Scriptures is not in man, but in God. Even if the 
Reformation editors had fewer resources than those of more recent times, we 
know that God was in control of His Holy Word. The preserved Bible was not 
hidden away in some monastic hole or in the Pope's library.

The vast majority of existing Greek manuscripts, ancient versions, and the 
writings of church fathers support the Received Text. This was a fact known 
by the Reformation editors. They saw the hand of God in this and believed 
that the witness of the majority of textual evidence contained the 
preserved Word of God. God's promise to preserve His Word has been 
fulfilled in the multiplication of pure Bibles and the rejection and disuse 
of corrupted Bibles. In reviewing the existing manuscript evidence, Jack 
Moorman gives the following summary:

"At Marquette Manor Baptist Church in Chicago (1984), Dr. [Stewart] Custer 
said that God preserved His Word `in the sands of Egypt.' No! God did not 
preserve His Word in the sands of Egypt, or on a library shelf in the 
Vatican library, or in a wastepaper bin in a Catholic monastery at the foot 
of Mt. Sinai. God did not preserve His Word in the `disusing' but in the 
`using.' He did not preserve the Word by it being stored away or buried, 
but rather through its use and transmission in the hands of humble 
believers. ...

"At latest count, there were 2,764 cursive manuscripts (MSS). Kenyon says, 
`... An overwhelming majority contain the common ecclesiastical [Received] 
text.' ... Kenyon is prepared to list only 22 that give even partial 
support to the [modern critical] text. ...

"Are we to believe that in the language in which the New Testament was 
originally written (Greek), that only twenty-two examples of the true Word 
of God are to be found between the ninth and sixteenth centuries? How does 
this fulfill God's promise to preserve His Word? ... 

"We answer with a shout of triumph God has been faithful to His promise. 
Yet in our day, the world has become awash with translations based on MSS 
similar to the twenty-two rather than the [more than] two-and-a-half 
thousand." <Jack Moorman, Forever Settled (Bible for Today, 1985), pp. 90-
95.>


----------



## KMK (Jun 20, 2007)

> "Through his study of the writings of Jerome and other Church Fathers
> Erasmus became very well informed concerning the variant readings of the
> New Testament text. Indeed almost all the important variant readings known
> to scholars today were already known to Erasmus more than 460 years ago and
> ...



Apparently, Erasmus and the Reformation era translators did not share the view that variant readings give us confidence in the organic inspiration of the scriptures. 

Mr. Rafalsky, to be fair, are you aware of any scholarly works that refute the assertions of Cloud, Letis, Hills, Burgon etc? Or are they simply ignored? And if so, what reason do modern text critics give for their silence?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jun 20, 2007)

Hi Ken,

You said,



KMK said:


> Apparently, Erasmus and the Reformation era translators did not share the view that variant readings give us confidence in the organic inspiration of the scriptures.
> 
> Mr. Rafalsky, to be fair, are you aware of any scholarly works that refute the assertions of Cloud, Letis, Hills, Burgon etc? Or are they simply ignored? And if so, what reason do modern text critics give for their silence?



You are correct in your first paragraph above, nor did *I* espouse that view, it was only Bryan Chapell in your OP, and which has been the topic here. To my thinking such a view is an anomaly.

Actually Erasmus did personally accept some variants, but deferred to the "common readings" of the church (and not the RC) in his Greek editions.

And yes, there are those who attempt to refute the men you mention in your 2nd ¶. 

I realize it is a laborious task, reading the arguments of one school, then the other, then comparing and weighing them. I was actually — it was around 1981 or 82 — about to spend my hard-earned $ on an NASB and separate like concordance, when I first heard the argument for the AV, so I held off and considered it. I already had a quality RSV & concordance (& other Bibles — along with my KJV), but I appreciated the arguments for the AV, and eventually held to it.

There is a remark attributed to Erasmus, "When I have a little money I buy books, and if there is anything left over I buy food, and clothing." That's how I conducted myself. Where some people save and buy homes, or cars, or guns, clothing, etc etc, I bought books. I said to myself, after Machen's saying, "I will not be held under 'the tyranny of experts'." There are so many apostate "expert" teachers, Greek and Hebrew scholars, even theologians! I was determined to have the scholarly resources and lexical tools to study and learn of things for myself.

I know that the view I espouse is in the minority today (it certainly was not in the Reformation and post-Reformation periods), but I am convinced of the position I hold. I continue to study the arguments of those who oppose me, 1st, so as to be ready for them, and 2nd, to be better able to interact intelligently with them, hopefully giving more light than heat. I am currently studying Dr. James White's arguments on the textual situation. I have even learned — and had to change some views — from opponents.

I may not have convinced you of the superiority of the TR 1894 / AV, but I am willing to share the information I have gathered and which I believe is in accord with the truth. A lot is at stake in this textual business. Language is my forte, and I see the decline in confidence in the language of the Bible — the very words of it — a distancing of the heart & mind from the heart and mind of God. The diminishing of this confidence is a slow, gradual process, like the growing of a great tree. There are trends that develop over the course of generations, over decades and even centuries. It is said that in the present is the seed — or embryo — of the future. The variants you brought up in your OP are like a cancer in the minds of many, even today. It was the _variants_ Rome used as a _weapon_ to try to subvert the Reformation, and its doctrines built on Sola Scriptura against the doctrine of "Sola Rome". And weapons they are! Arrows designed to foment doubt, and instill distrust. Such are deadly.

"A man is only as good as his word," the saying goes. It is patently obvious the *sure* word of God is not that "good" anymore in the views of many. What we get by on, our grandchildren may not be able to rely on. "Has He really spoken," they may say, "and even if He has, have His words been preserved down to our day? The experts tell us the Scripture text is uncertain, we have a _general_ idea of what they are, and perhaps we can muster up a _general_ faith in them."

I have been asked to visit a Jordanian couple (Eastern Orthodox) a woman from church knows, who are experiencing poltergeist and other satanic-type phenomena on Friday. I'd _better_ have a sure confidence in my Lord and His word to mix in that stuff! [Prayer solicited, folks!]

At any rate, Ken, I will be praying for the Lord to give you wisdom and discernment in these matters. Since you seem to ask _close_, detailed questions, perhaps the Burgon book I recommended, _The Revision Revised_, will be the best to start with. Few and far between are those who even attempt to refute his assertions, so meticulous is his research, evidence, and argumentation. He covers the things you show interest in.

Steve


----------



## KMK (Jun 20, 2007)

Thank you, Mr. Rafalsky. And I was not doubting or disagreeing with you. I was just curious as to the reaction of the opposition. Since critics in favor of the CT are in the majority, maybe they do not feel the need to refute the arguments of Burgon, Hills, Letis etc. Or maybe they are just speechless.


----------



## mbj0680 (Aug 28, 2007)

> Which mss did the pastors of the church through the ages use for their preaching, teaching and counseling?



This to me is really the heart of the issue today. It is not so much between the versions themselves such as the NASB, KJV, NKJV, NIV, ESV, RSV and so on, but the heart of it comes down to as Pastors what MSS are we going to go to in our Greek studies? 

I am an NASB users and like to use the NA27 in my Greek studies. Recently though I came across some discrepancies that really bugged me between the NASB/NA27 and the TR/Majority text. Words/phrases have been dropped from the NASB without notation or cause. I understand that numerous verses had been bracketed and noted as not being in earlier MSS, but I always thought they made note on every difference between the NA27 and the TR/Majority text. That is not the case. There were over 60 plus verses with words/phrases dropped for no reason or changed without notation. 

The main question I keep coming back to is why would God allow the TR/Majority text to have been the MSS of choice for hundreds of years though bibles like the Geneva and the KJV and then in the early to mid 1900's come back and say that He wants to change things and reveal a different set of MSS that remove and change verses?

Now I remind you that I am a huge NASB fan so this is really tough for me to consider, but when I see so many differences between the NA27 and the TR/Majority text it really begins to bother me and I have to ask what shall we do with two different MSS? Which one do we go to as the finnal authority on a verse with so many differences? Is it the MSS version that came out in the early to mid 1900s or the one that has been around for hundreds of years? 

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## Pilgrim's Progeny (Sep 3, 2007)

No thoughts, just a testimony.

Brother, I have blindly followed modern evangelical scholarship and outright rejected the KJV. Surely White and Carson could not be wrong? It was good in it's day, let's move on. I only use it to read the Scriptures to old people in nursing homes and hospitals.

That was then, now I am slowly doing my own research and I find myself retreating back to the old paths. Lately, I have been saying things in my sermons like, "I believe the KJV has it right and my NAS does not". I even desire to read the KJV for personal devotion and let the NAS collect dust. I am not sure what has come over me. Once a KJVO basher, now a KJV praiser coming out of the darkness.


----------



## Ivan (Sep 3, 2007)

mbj0680 said:


> > Which mss did the pastors of the church through the ages use for their preaching, teaching and counseling?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is precisely what we are discussing at our church. I'd appreciate more thoughts, links or references in this matter.


----------



## MW (Sep 3, 2007)

Paul G. Woods said:


> No thoughts, just a testimony.
> 
> Brother, I have blindly followed modern evangelical scholarship and outright rejected the KJV. Surely White and Carson could not be wrong? It was good in it's day, let's move on. I only use it to read the Scriptures to old people in nursing homes and hospitals.
> 
> That was then, now I am slowly doing my own research and I find myself retreating back to the old paths. Lately, I have been saying things in my sermons like, "I believe the KJV has it right and my NAS does not". I even desire to read the KJV for personal devotion and let the NAS collect dust. I am not sure what has come over me. Once a KJVO basher, now a KJV praiser coming out of the darkness.



 What a testimony! God is good!


----------



## Pilgrim's Progeny (Sep 4, 2007)

Ivan said:


> mbj0680 said:
> 
> 
> > > Which mss did the pastors of the church through the ages use for their preaching, teaching and counseling?
> ...



Ivan, this thread answers that question well In my humble opinion. But, a thorough reading of the texts that Steve suggested would be a start. Also, one would be amiss not to ask, what did the reformers and puritans use? Therein, I believe, is your answer. What did they whom God used most mightily in recent ages past,in my opinion, use as there primary mss? This is where I am at.


----------



## Ivan (Sep 4, 2007)

Thank you, Paul.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 5, 2007)

Ivan,

Look through the table of contents of this online book, _Forever Settled: A Survey of the Documents and History of the Bible_ -- http://www.biblebelievers.net/BibleVersions/kjcforv1.htm, -- and see if there isn't info you desire, such as in ch. 11, "Examples Of The Patristic Support For The TR Readings". I have the hard copy of this as well -- my only caveat about it is he doesn't cite his references. I have many of the works he cites, but I prefer documentation.

What was said above by Paul is right, that the texts the Reformation and post Reformation men used -- the TR editions and the Geneva, AV, etc -- are those God provided for His people. They were aware of the old Egyptian/Roman Catholic mss, and rejected them.

Steve


----------



## mbj0680 (Sep 5, 2007)

Paul, 



> No thoughts, just a testimony.
> 
> Brother, I have blindly followed modern evangelical scholarship and outright rejected the KJV. Surely White and Carson could not be wrong? It was good in it's day, let's move on. I only use it to read the Scriptures to old people in nursing homes and hospitals.
> 
> That was then, now I am slowly doing my own research and I find myself retreating back to the old paths. Lately, I have been saying things in my sermons like, "I believe the KJV has it right and my NAS does not". I even desire to read the KJV for personal devotion and let the NAS collect dust. I am not sure what has come over me. Once a KJVO basher, now a KJV praiser coming out of the darkness.



Thank you for that Paul. I am right there with you. It really makes me mad because now I am beginning to question what I thought was the final word on Scripture, the once anointed NAS. I don't know about you, but when I use the KJV as my primary text I feel out of place or lost because I am so use to my NAS and where things are and how things read in Scripture. 

Another thing that is interesting to note about the NAS is that it claims to have no differences in doctrinal issues. The haunting question for me is what about the doctrine of Bibliology and the inerrancy of scripture? If you come back and add/change/remove text by claiming to have a more accurate original "earlier" MSS are you not stating that you believe that what we have in the TR/Majority Greek text is wrong and is in error and thus by default messing with the doctrine of inerrancy of scripture?




> Also, one would be amiss not to ask, what did the reformers and puritans use? Therein, I believe, is your answer. What did they whom God used most mightily in recent ages past,in my opinion, use as there primary mss?



That is also a great point Paul.


----------



## Ivan (Sep 5, 2007)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Ivan,
> 
> Look through the table of contents of this online book, _Forever Settled: A Survey of the Documents and History of the Bible_ -- http://www.biblebelievers.net/BibleVersions/kjcforv1.htm, -- and see if there isn't info you desire, such as in ch. 11, "Examples Of The Patristic Support For The TR Readings". I have the hard copy of this as well -- my only caveat about it is he doesn't cite his references. I have many of the works he cites, but I prefer documentation.
> 
> ...



Thank you, Steve.


----------



## mbj0680 (Sep 5, 2007)

Steve, 

This is a good book. I may have to get it for my shelf. The auther makes a great point in relation to: 



> What was said above by Paul is right, that the texts the Reformation and post Reformation men used -- the TR editions and the Geneva, AV, etc -- are those God provided for His people. They were aware of the old Egyptian/Roman Catholic mss, and rejected them.


 
Check this quote out. Pretty amazing thought. It's from the bottom of page 171. That whole section is actually interesting to read on foreign language versions:




> Unquestionably, the leaders of the Reformation German, French and English were convinced that the Received Text was the genuine New Testament, not only by its own irresistible history and internal evidence, but also because it matched with the Received Text which in Waldensian form came down from the days of the apostles.



http://www.biblebelievers.net/BibleVersions/kjcforv6.htm#XXVIII


----------



## yeutter (Sep 10, 2007)

satz said:


> For what little it is worth, I agree with you.
> 
> I think variant texts and translations actually make the bible less authoritative. Even if they are inevitable, I think they ought not to be celebrated.



A paper by Dennis Kenaga, a member of of Grace OPC in Lansing, MI, that deals in part with this question was recently posted at the Grace OPC website. It can be found here.Skeptical Trends in New Testament Textual Criticism


----------



## JM (Jan 13, 2008)

[video=youtube;XGm4U0xZcAc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGm4U0xZcAc[/video]


----------



## JM (Jan 14, 2008)

How can I know if what I'm reading in the Bible is part of scripture or not?


----------



## Pilgrim (Apr 24, 2008)

yeutter said:


> satz said:
> 
> 
> > For what little it is worth, I agree with you.
> ...



I just came across this article. It favors the Byzantine Text but of course the KJVO's won't like it because the author thinks the NKJV is an acceptable translation as well. Although I haven't had the chance to read it all yet, but overall it seems to articulate the position that I have come to. I found some excellent portions like this: 




> If one text is as likely as the other to approximate the original, and the church has already held the Byzantine position for over twelve centuries, then retaining the Byzantine position is an intelligent option today. Challenging the church’s text on speculative grounds, as if the new texts were more accurate, has been an expensive historical sidetrack. It is easier to tear down than to build up.
> 
> At first it might seem difficult to dispute with all those current experts. They will not hesitate to tell you how much they know and snow you with jargon. As Colwell says, “the more lore the scholar knows, the easier it is ... to produce a reasonable defense of or to explain almost any variant.”[39] Convincing the experts is impossible, but opposing them is actually easy to do. Just open up to almost any page of their works (TCGNT is a good example) and look at some claim based on alleged scribal habits or text history or text types and say, “That is just speculative. They do not know that. I do not believe there ever was a stable Alexandrian text type. Other experts think differently. They cannot all be right. Alexandrian textual scholars have been proven wrong before.” Try it. You will see how easy it is. The sturdy old Protestants did something like that to the priests 500 years ago.
> 
> If Alexandrian proponents claim that their texts are better than the Byzantine ones, ask them what theological difference it makes. If they say none, then tell them the new texts do not matter much. If they tell you what theological difference it makes, remind them that the whole Alexandrian victory in the church depended on claims by its promoters that it was theologically neutral. If they are changing their storyline now, maybe it is time to revisit the orthodoxy of the scribes from the land of the gnostic gospels of Thomas and Judas. But be sure to tell them that you do not have the definitive text answer. If they like their Alexandrian Bible, peace be upon them. If they had a better case, you would seriously consider it. But since they do not, it seems intelligent to stick with the historic text. Ordinary KJV or NJKV readers can say that to the most learned expert and hold their ground.


----------

