# KJV-Textus Receptus "onlyism" in the Modern Reformed Community



## BrianBowman (Oct 9, 2005)

Of late I notice many Scriptures quoted on the PuritanBoard are from the KJV and others cite the Textus Receptus as their preferred Greek Text. Perhaps this has already been discussed (and consequently someone could simply provide a thread reference), but it seems that the KJV is favored by some here. Could those who favor the KJV explain how their viewpoint converges/diverges with the typical "Right-Wing Fundy/Dispensational" who hold the KJV-only position? 

Also, these often cite Dean Burgeon in defense of the textual-transmission heritage that the KJV is founded upon. Does his work truly refute the so-called advances in textual criticism of the past 150 years or so (i.e. the work of Westcott/Hort, the Alands, UBS, etc.) or is this simply an intramural argument concerning the which Bible presents whose pet doctrines more authoritatively?

Again, can someone present a cogent summary for the usage of the King James by some Modern Reformed Pastors/Scholars and do these men believe, like their fundamentalist counterparts, that the abhorrent problems in modern Evangelicalism can be traced to non-KJV Bible translations based on modern critical text work?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 9, 2005)

Brian,
Do a search for the threads, or just dig around in this forum. You rightly suppose the question has come up.

I suppose the primary difference between the "preference" some here have for the KJV/NKJV and the KJVonlyist is the word "preference". You aren't going to find much support for the idea that recognizing manuscript variations = liberalism on the PB. 

Having said that, it only takes a studied glance at the relevant facts to realize that starting with the German higher-critics of the mid-19th century, the science of textual criticism has been dominated by _unbelievers._ These people are no more "neutral" than believers are. Their "fact-chasing" is permeated with naturalistic bias. So why do they get a free pass while Burgeon (old) or Lettis (modern) are dismissed? Simple. If you can avoid dealing with uncomfortable challenges by ad hominem abuse, you don't have to deal with uncomfortable challenges at all.

With the discovery of a couple older manuscripts that differed in some ways from the bulk of the texts (emmanating from the Byzantine era), it was posited that after several centuries the Eastern church just "officialized" one version of the Bible, but the African tradition represented an older, hence "purer" strain (never mind the multitude of differences between Siniaticus and Vaticanus!). Beside an obvious disdain for the doctrine of preservation and the equal reverence that all true believers have held for the integrity of God's Word over millenia, this theory cannot logically hold the water it's supposed to carry. Over time, the radical position of the critics has (been forced to) softened, but the Majority Text is still given short schrift.

The _originals_ certainly could not last forever, but they were doubtless kept for decades or even centuries in the cities to which they were sent, mostly in Asia. Hence, for a long period of time copies were literally "verifiable". Where is it more likely that the "best" texts were circulating? In an isolated monastary in the desert?

I venture that most of the folks here with an affinity for the KJV/NKJV would not once posit that what we need is for everyone to just use one or the other (or both) to the exclusion of versions/translations. But it would be nice to see a new renaissance in textual studies that builds on the work of believing scholars started back in the days of the old humanism (ad fontes). Sturtz, Pierrepont, Letis (to a degree), and others made important contributions in the latter 20th century. The existence of two Majority Text (MT) options (not including the Trintarian Bible Society's "TR" Greek text) balancing out the Nestle and UBS critical text options is a nice start.

What we really need is a firm, rebuilt (biblical) philosophical foundation to the whole textual edifice. I think one of the pillars ought to be the restoration of respect for the Byzantine text-type (MT). A critically derived MT deserves at a minimum to be accorded an equal place at the table along with the oldest Alexandrine texts, and frankly (though he stopped short of claiming it) Sturtz proves that such a text is _critically superior_ to anything available from the Alexandrine family, simply because there is so much less of Alex. to build a case out of. I.e., what Alex. gains by age it loses by paucity of evidence, its internal variations being so disruptive to its witness.

This post is long enough... (blahblahblah)


----------



## BrianBowman (Oct 10, 2005)

Thanks Bruce,

Given the history and depth of this topic, you have provided exactly what I was hoping for.


----------



## Greg (Oct 17, 2005)

Are there any Bibles published today that are translated soley from the Majority Text?

Also, what is the main difference between the T.R. and the M.T.?


----------



## larryjf (Oct 17, 2005)

> Are there any Bibles published today that are translated soley from the Majority Text?


I believe the World English Bible (WEB) uses the Majority Text. It is also in the public domain. It is also available as a download for e-sword.

Here's the WEB homepage...
http://www.ebible.org/


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Greg_
> what is the main difference between the T.R. and the M.T.?


The T.R., as it is published today, is essentially a "reverse-engineered" Greek text for the KJV. We know that Erasmus' critical Greek text was basic to the work, and what other resources (both Greek manuscripts and prior English/other versions) were available to the translators. The "text behind the KJV translation" is reconstructed Greek out of which English decisions on rendering were made. There was no "universal Greek text" from which the KJV was translated.

The Majority Text is the direct decendent of the critical text work of the Renaissance/Reformation humanists like Erasmus. "Majority" refers to the majority of extant Greek manuscripts, which are of a certain "type", namely _Byzantine._ They form a "family" of manuscript evidence, one that is distinugishable from one or two other major lines, and additional minor lines. Men like Erasmus had access to certain old manuscripts, almost exclusively from the Byz. Empire, carried west by Greek Orthodox monks and scholars fleeing Turkish Islamic depradations.

Over centuries an even greater store of this manuscript tradition has come to light. This tradition has a high degree of uniformity. Of course, Greek functioned as the common tongue of Byz. Empire for a thousand years (not to mention the Bible itself written originally in koine {vulgar} Greek). As an aside: note the history of the KJV's impact on the English language--unifying usage and slowing down organic linguistic transformation.

The 20th century critics, finding ancient African manuscripts in the arid desert (preserving effect), claimed "earlier, therefore closer to original and thus purer." However, this is a purely materialist assumption, and not even a good one at that, having obvious logical flaws. Quickly, led by German rationalists, text-work relegated the Byzantine text type (M.T.) to step-child status. The uniformity of the text was postulated the work of 5th century revisers, who created an "official" version, and expunged all the evidence of other "versions". The evidence for this revision? Primarily the lack of evidence of "many manuscript traditions in Asia Minor," i.e. assuming the very thing that demanded proof.


----------



## Greg (Oct 17, 2005)

Thanks for that link Larry.

Thank you Bruce for the reply. I have not studied textual criticism, but is there really a significant difference between the CT and the MT? Significant enough that it effects doctrine in certain points between the two? 

I have heard of a couple of the variations: one being 1 John 5:7 of the TR, and the other one being the end of Mark's gospel (16:9-20) not being in all manuscripts. The footnote in the ESV says that some of the earliest manuscripts do not have this portion of Scripture. 

Thanks.


----------



## Peter (Oct 17, 2005)

Thanks for the very informative posts Rev Bruce. The  James Begg Society and the Trinitarian Bible Society are two Reformed organizations which promote the TR/MT and the KJV


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 17, 2005)

I think its fair to say that the vast majority of variations from whichever family and all of them amount to a trifling matter. Those who foam at the mouth over "Christ Jesus" versus "Jesus Christ" in some place or other, or the longer ending to the Lord's Prayer omited from Matthew are simply putting their ignorance on display. Hostile critics love them, because they use them to make cartoons out of _all_ their opponents, no matter how erudite and rational.

I don't think a version based _exclusively_ on the M.T. is a desireable development. That errs in the other direction (for now we have a text where virtually all the hard decisions are made on the basis of bad logic and anti-supernatural bias). No single manuscript tradition is flawless, for everywhere, imperfect men worked on transmission. The whole body of textual material--including NT in ancient languages like Old Latin, Aramaic, etc., are all inaluable aids for determining *exactly what God said,* as best we can. Some falible person or committee is going to make those decisions inevitably, but the fact is that the truth lies there *in full* in the remains of the texts.

1 John 5:7 has a unique history. There is hardly _any_ Greek manuscript evidence for it. That's a serious problem that must be dealt with. Erasmus felt the one late Greek text that had "come to light" between revisions of his critical edition, had been "made-to-order". I believe there has to be sober, faith-based discussion on matters like this.

The book of Mark has about 3 or 4 different endings. The "long" ending we typically find incorporates most of the debated language. If we have too much, it is better than too little, but it is an unresolved question. And there are others.

But there is no truth of the Bible that hangs on these questions. No biblical truth is of any value locked away in foreign languages. And there is no translation, version, or manuscript, faithfully undertaken (or even deliberately mangled like the JW's Bible), that fails to powerfully witness the Voice of the Lord, whenever it is truthfully and accurately presented.

The real weakness of the KJV-only (or Latin Vulgate-only) folks is that they share something with their hated foes--a belief in a perfection that is tangible and graspable. The "conservatives" lodge it in a tradition. The "liberals" lodge it in the critical process. The truth is in between and above both. We believe in supernatural revelation and preservation. We understand and admit the falibility of sinful man, even when motivated by the highest of intentions. I happen to think that it is supremely reasonable to begin by supposing that God preserved his Word most beneficially, purely, and efficiently in the original language and geographically _where it was being used_ the most, Byzantium. From there we take in the other lines of preservation and compare and evaluate their witness.

We need a harmonious inspiration, transmission, preservation, and usage doctrinal blend. We need biblical a priori philosophy to inform our data interpretation. It just makes more sense to me to admit a Byzantine mss. priority, without idolizing it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bond-servant (Oct 17, 2005)

Rev. Buchanan

Excellent, succinct and eloquent synopsis. Thank you


----------



## Greg (Oct 17, 2005)

Thank you!


----------



## StudentoftheWord (Nov 5, 2005)

Howdy!

I am a Baptist, Fundamental with Reformed leanings.... I use and Love the King James Version of the Bible. I do feel it is a superior, Faithful, preservation of the Original Scrolls. (The Purtians of old did as well...) Nothing More, Nothing Less, I do not, however, subscribe to the False Doctrine of "Double Inspiration", that is promoted by such apostates as "Dr" Peter Ruckman of Florida. 

This is strictly my personal position on the subject, and by no means is intended to convey the position of this board. 

For the Elect's sake,

-Chuck


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 5, 2005)

Chuck, are you IFB?


----------



## StudentoftheWord (Nov 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Chuck, are you IFB?



Well, that sort of a hard question to answer. Doctrinally, Sort of, But I am kinda Disenchanted with the traditions of the IFB Churches, (I.E. Dress, music, Hair length, ect....) 

(although to be perfectly clear, I am NOT a fan of the modern CCM/Contemporary worship music...)

I cannot honestly say, I am a 5 point Calvinist, More like a 4 pointer... 

I hope that doesn't affect my status on this board. 

For the Elect's Sake,

-Chuck

[Edited on 11-5-2005 by StudentoftheWord]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 5, 2005)

What reservation do you have specifically?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Nov 5, 2005)

From everything I have read about Erasmus' work with the TR, there is no way I would ever trust it alone.


----------



## brymaes (Nov 5, 2005)

> (The Purtians of old did as well...)


Really? Which ones?


----------



## StudentoftheWord (Nov 5, 2005)

Sorry guys, I didn't come here to argue doctrine. 

I'll just refrain from posting.

Thank you.

-Chuck


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 5, 2005)

Fair enough Chuck.........keep it neutral if that is what you prefer.


----------



## StudentoftheWord (Nov 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Fair enough Chuck.........keep it neutral if that is what you prefer.



Thanks.


----------



## larryjf (Nov 5, 2005)

I don't know of Puritans who held to the purity of the KJV, but there were Puritans who believed in the purity of existing apographs and did not require autographs for such purity...

John Owen said,"the purity of the present original copies of the Scripture, or rather copies (apographa) in the original languages, which the Church of God doth now and hath for many ages enjoyed as her treasure."

Francis Turretin wrote in his Systematic Theology, "By original texts, we do not mean the autographs written by the hand of Moses, of the prophets and of the apostles, which certainly do not now exist. We mean their apographs which are so called because they set forth to us the word of God in the very words of those who wrote under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit."


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by StudentoftheWord_
> Sorry guys, I didn't come here to argue doctrine.
> 
> I'll just refrain from posting.
> ...



I didn't see any arguing. It just looked like someone was asking for clarification. You made a statement and someone wanted you to back it up. That wasn't arguing.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 5, 2005)

Many Puritans were men of prodigious learning. They would have been aware of many minor textual disagreements going back to the days of the Early Fathers. Yet this awareness did not diminish their unshakable conviction that they continued to hold in hand an indestructible revelation. It was the church's treasure, to be sure, and not one she would ever casually or carelessly surrender. The Word of God is the property of the universal church. And all have taken part in its providential preservation.


----------



## StudentoftheWord (Nov 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Fair enough Chuck.........keep it neutral if that is what you prefer.



Well, I figure, if I try and defend my stance, the sources I use to quote from will be rejected as unrealiable, so, I figure what's the point?

Besides, The Bible says...:




> (1 Corinthians 14:38 KJVR) But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.



'Nuff Said.

-Chuck


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 5, 2005)

Chuck, I asked because I was raised IFB. I am familiar with their beliefs. If you have questions, please ask. The men on this board are very helpful.


----------



## StudentoftheWord (Nov 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Chuck, I asked because I was raised IFB. I am familiar with their beliefs. If you have questions, please ask. The men on this board are very helpful.



Thanks.  But I'm quite happy being the IFB'er with Reformed leanings that I am... 

-Chuck


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 6, 2005)

Chuck, you may find it hard to believe but there are a few here that appreciate the Majority Texts over the Alexandrian text. What are your resources? 




> 1 Corinthians 14:38 KJVR) But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
> 
> 
> 'Nuff Said.
> ...



Are you implying that we are ignorant because we may have reason to disagree. We don't even know if we disagree. This seems to be unbecoming of Love in Christ.


----------



## DTK (Nov 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by StudentoftheWord_
> Howdy!
> 
> I am a Baptist, Fundamental with Reformed leanings.... I use and Love the King James Version of the Bible. I do feel it is a superior, Faithful, preservation of the Original Scrolls. (The Purtians of old did as well...) Nothing More, Nothing Less, I do not, however, subscribe to the False Doctrine of "Double Inspiration", that is promoted by such apostates as "Dr" Peter Ruckman of Florida.
> ...



Actually, Most of the Puritans used the Geneva Bible translation. 

DTK


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by StudentoftheWord_
> ...



My understanding is that the Geneva version was popular even after the 1611 KJV, but I believe by the time of the Westminster Assembly the KJV had gained general approval in Puritan circles. The Westminster documents, I think -- including the Bible version used in conjunction with the Annotations -- all quote the KJV. So I think it depends on which timeframe one is speaking of. The Westminster Puritans, I believe, primarily used the KJV.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> 
> Actually, Most of the Puritans used the Geneva Bible translation.
> 
> DTK



This was what I had thought as well.


----------



## DTK (Nov 6, 2005)

> My understanding is that the Geneva version was popular even after the 1611 KJV, but I believe by the time of the Westminster Assembly the KJV had gained general approval in Puritan circles. The Westminster documents, I think -- including the Bible version used in conjunction with the Annotations -- all quote the KJV. So I think it depends on which timeframe one is speaking of. The Westminster Puritans, I believe, primarily used the KJV.


While this is true, I think that some historical perspective will be helpful here. As Leland Ryken stated in his book, _Worldly Saints, the Puritans As They Really Were_... 


> "If we are looking for a specifically Puritan contribution to Bible translation, we should look to the Geneva Bible of 1560. Produced by the English-speaking colony in Calvin's Geneva, it became the favorite Bible for several generations of Puritans, as well as the Bible used by Shakespeare and Spenser. It was printed with marginal notes containing Puritan and Calvinistic interpretations of passages. Of the more long-term importance were several innovations that set the standard for future English Bibles." p. 138.


It is also to be noted that the Geneva Bible, more than any other, contributed to the King James Bible of 1611. At the Hampton Court Conference (January 1604), it was the Puritans who made a number of proposals to King James, among them being the suggestion that the work of a new translation be initiated. This proposal was moved by John Reynolds, who was the president of one of the colleges of Oxford, and a prominent leader of the the Puritan side of the Church of England. King James was no friend to the Puritans, and at the same conference remarked, "I could never yet see a Bible well translated in English; but I think that, of all, that of Geneva is the worst."

Thus, to spite the Puritans, King James set up a committee of fifty-four scholars who did the translation work, which was evenly divided between Anglican and Puritan parties. The irony is that they used more from the Geneva Bible than any other version to help them with their translation work.

DTK


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> 
> 
> > My understanding is that the Geneva version was popular even after the 1611 KJV, but I believe by the time of the Westminster Assembly the KJV had gained general approval in Puritan circles. The Westminster documents, I think -- including the Bible version used in conjunction with the Annotations -- all quote the KJV. So I think it depends on which timeframe one is speaking of. The Westminster Puritans, I believe, primarily used the KJV.
> ...



Yes, the Puritans asked the king for a new translation -- apparently not as a planned outcome of the Hampton Conference but spontaneously in order to gain some positive ground at a conference that was going against the Puritans. 

The Geneva Bible was published from 1560 to 1644. It was the Bible of the Pilgrims and generations of other English-speaking Protestants. What set it apart from other Protestant translations of the day and made it so popular with Puritans (and incurred the king's wrath) were the annotations. It is interesting to note that there is a 1672 edition of the KJV with the Geneva Annotations which, I think, combines the best translation with the best notes. I personally refer almost exclusively to the KJV and my 1599 Geneva Bible (I used to sell the Geneva Bible on commission and it has a special place in my heart). Both Bibles are in the same tradition or vein and as you rightly point out there is irony in the fact that the KJV translators relied so heavily on the Geneva Bible which in turn relied heavily on the work of Tyndale. I am thankful to God for the work of those men in Geneva, Oxford, Cambridge and Westminster. They stood on the shoulders of men who went before and left us with a great legacy which among other things inspired this comment on the King James Version from a famous unbeliever:



> "The translation was extraordinarily well done because to the translators what they were translating was not merely a curious collection of ancient books written by different authors in different stages of culture, but the word of God divinely revealed through His chosen and expressly inspired scribes. In this conviction they carried out their work with boundless reverence and care and achieved a beautifully artistic result...they made a translation so magnificent that to this day the common human Britisher or citizen of the United States of North America accepts and worships it as a single book by a single author, the book being the Book of Books and the author being God."
> 
> --George Bernard Shaw


----------



## StudentoftheWord (Nov 7, 2005)

I'd like to apologize to anyone I might have offended. 

I will state for record my personal position on the KJV.

I believe that the *Original Scrolls* are the Inspired Word of God. 

I believe that the *King James Version* and ONLY the *King James Version* is a accurate, Faithful, and inerrent Preservation of those original scrolls. I do, for the record, acknowledge the fact that there were other reformation Bibles out there. that contained the preserved Word of God. Although, some of these Bibles contained translation errors. Not saying that KJV doesn't, there are some instances were the KJV translaors took liberites in translation and interpretation as well. Atonement is a classic example of this...:



> And they shall eat those things wherewith the atonement was made, to consecrate and to sanctify them: but a stranger shall not eat thereof, because they are holy.
> (Exodus 29:33 KJV)



From Scofield's Notes (1909 edition):



> "Hebrew, Kaphar, "to cover." The English word "atonement" (at-one-ment) is not a translation of the Hebrew, Kaphar, but a translator's interpretation. According to Scripture the legal sacrifice "covered" the offerer's sin and secured the divine forgiveness; according to the translators it made God and the sinner at-one. But the Old Testament Sacrifices did not at-one the sinner and God. "It is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins." (Heb_10:4). The Israelite's offering implied confession of sin and of its due desert, death; and God "covered" (passed over," (Rom_3:25) his sin, in anticipation of Christ's sacrifice, which did, finally, "put away" the sins "done aforetime in the forbearance of God."; (Rom_3:25); (Heb_9:15).
> 
> The word "atonement" does not occur in the New Testament; (Rom_5:11) meaning reconciliation, and so rendered in the R.V."



and, it turns out, Scofield is correct...:



> ×¨
> kaÌ‚phar
> kaw-far'
> A primitive root; to cover (specifically with bitumen); figuratively to expiate or condone, to placate or cancel: - appease, make (an) atonement, cleanse, disannul, forgive, be merciful, pacify, pardon, to pitch, purge (away), put off, (make) reconcile (-liation).



there are many others, But I shall not go into them for space considerations...

What I am saying, before anyone says I'm speaking out of both sides of my mouth, I am saying, Yes there's flaws, but the DOCTRINES in the KJV are infallable! and the WORDS (overall) are infallible, The Word Translation is old, and sometimes needs someone to use a Strongs and a commentary, But it's still God's Word! and it shall never return void! 

And... there has to be a standard. otherwise, you have confusion. and the Bible Clearly says...:



> For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. (1 Corinthians 14:33 KJV)



Let's look up confusion in the greek...:



> Î±Ì“ÎºÎ±Ï„Î±ÏƒÏ„Î±ÏƒÎ¹ÌÎ±
> akatastasia
> ak-at-as-tah-see'-ah
> From G182; instability, that is, disorder: - commotion, confusion, tumult.



These are the things people get when have 2000 different translations around... CONFUSION! Why have all that? Use one Version. that has faithfully preserved God's Holy Word, and not left anything out or put it in the margins... The *KING JAMES VERSION!*

Respectfully Submitted,

-Chuck



[Edited on 11-7-2005 by StudentoftheWord]

[Edited on 11-7-2005 by StudentoftheWord]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 7, 2005)

Chuck,
I am a lover of the KJV as well. However, to validate the claim that the KJV is the purer document is close to impossible and based solely upon assertions that just cannot be proven.

God is not the author of confusion?


----------



## BrianBowman (Nov 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Chuck,
> I am a lover of the KJV as well. However, to validate the claim that the KJV is the purer document is close to impossible and based solely upon assertions that just cannot be proven.
> 
> God is not the author of confusion?


----------



## StudentoftheWord (Nov 8, 2005)

Hmmmmm.. Perhaps I don't belong here. I always thought the puritans were for the preservation of God's Word.


Perhaps not. 

Good Day all.

-Chuck


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 8, 2005)

Your assertion cannot be proven.  I've already done the reserarch years ago.


----------



## BrianBowman (Nov 8, 2005)

Scott,

Chuck's is a fundamentalist debate. My orginal intent starting this thread was to inquire if conservative Reformed Scholarship confirms "KJV/TR-*only*" assertions. There seem to be 100's of credible Reformed Men (at least in the last 80 years or so), who are *not* "KJV-only". These men have not departed from the purity of the faith, simply because they don't exclusively study the KJV. The myriad of problems in Christ's Church today are traceable to the same cause as always - SIN, which is a direct result of neglecting the preaching, hearing, and doing of God's Word from a circumsized heart, not some "gnat strain" over the relatively minor [when the whole of the matter is considered] textual variations being argued.

The KJV is a wonderful _translation_ but I agree that there is no "proof" that "God preseved His Word" in the King James Bible.

[Edited on 11-8-2005 by BrianBowman]


----------



## daveb (Nov 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BrianBowman_
> The KJV is a wonderful _translation_ but I agree that there is no "proof" that "God preseved His Word" in the King James Bible.
> [Edited on 11-8-2005 by BrianBowman]


----------



## bond-servant (Nov 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BrianBowman_
> Scott,
> 
> Chuck's is a fundamentalist debate. My orginal intent starting this thread was to inquire if conservative Reformed Scholarship confirms "KJV/TR-*only*" assertions. There seem to be 100's of credible Reformed Men (at least in the last 80 years or so), who are *not* "KJV-only". These men have not departed from the purity of the faith, simply because they don't exclusively study the KJV. The myriad of problems in Christ's Church today are traceable to the same cause as always - SIN, which is a direct result of neglecting the preaching, hearing, and doing of God's Word from a circumsized heart, not some "gnat strain" over the relatively minor [when the whole of the matter is considered] textual variations being argued.
> ...



 Well said.

At the beginning of this topic there were informative and helpful posts. These have dwindled, and old arguments are beginning to be rehashed.

If this is going to turn into another KJV vs. everything else thread, and all on the original topic of the post has been said, I humbly suggest we consider closing this one. There are a plethera of KJO threads archived to choose from. 

Thoughts?


----------



## piningforChrist (Nov 8, 2005)

Beth, I agree!! To switch us back on track, let me present a follow-up question:

Is there a particular set of original manuscripts (i.e. MT/TR vs. CT) that is BEST to be used for consistency in daily reading, preaching, study, memorization, etc.? 

Has anyone here read Leland Ryken's book, THE WORD OF GOD IN ENGLISH? Has anyone here read James White's book, SCRIPTURE ALONE? Do either of these resources shed light on both the original manuscripts issue and the practical issue of what translations are best to use?


----------



## bond-servant (Nov 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> 
> Has anyone here read Leland Ryken's book, THE WORD OF GOD IN ENGLISH? Has anyone here read James White's book, SCRIPTURE ALONE? Do either of these resources shed light on both the original manuscripts issue and the practical issue of what translations are best to use?



I have _The Word of God in English_. It presents an informed, eloquant argument for formal translations. I don't recall Mr. Ryken discussing manuscripts as much as translating it beautifully and accurately into the receptor language.


----------



## Peter (Nov 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> From everything I have read about Erasmus' work with the TR, there is no way I would ever trust it alone.



 You're going to have to back that one up. From what I've read the TR (the work of Erasmus, Beza, and other scholars) was an exemplary critical text of the NT similar to our modern ones, except from manuscripts the church had for thousands of years and not ones discovered in waste baskets two hundred years ago.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 8, 2005)

Chuck, I find it interesting that your blog discusses Peter Ruckman (in a negative light fortunately), however you refuse to apply the same logic to English on English translation. You have admitted that there is some error with the KJV, but insist that none can ever live up to it's standard. We are very choosy as to which versions we permit into our home...however, have you not considered or taken the time to look at the work done in the manner that the KJV was, but with improvement (ie, the NKJV and the ESV)? It is fine to wish to play it safe as many do (I myself have done this)...but to simply make a blanket statement with no grounds is not good. I do believe that God has preserved His Word...but I do not believe one particular translation is the end all, be all of it.

(speaking of foreign translations...due to the mention of Ruckman...I really enjoy what I have read of Luther's German Translation, I found it to be even clearer than the KJV...at least the first chapter of Die Erste St. Johannes, as that's as far as I got in my German language instruction)


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 8, 2005)

> Has anyone here read Leland Ryken's book, THE WORD OF GOD IN ENGLISH? Has anyone here read James White's book, SCRIPTURE ALONE? Do either of these resources shed light on both the original manuscripts issue and the practical issue of what translations are best to use?



I haven't read White's "Scripture Alone", but I would doubt that he touches on the issue there. However he dealt with it at length in "The King James Only Controversy" where he took on Ruckman, Riplinger, and to a lesser extent, the Reformed KJV advocate, Edward F. Hills. While White has respect for the NKJV (especially the text notations), he is a Critical Text advocate who uses the NASB.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> 
> 
> > Has anyone here read Leland Ryken's book, THE WORD OF GOD IN ENGLISH? Has anyone here read James White's book, SCRIPTURE ALONE? Do either of these resources shed light on both the original manuscripts issue and the practical issue of what translations are best to use?
> ...



I had some reservations about what James White said. He also misrepresented Jay P. Green Sr. in the book.


----------



## DTK (Nov 10, 2005)

> You're going to have to back that one up. From what I've read the TR (the work of Erasmus, Beza, and other scholars) was an exemplary critical text of the NT similar to our modern ones, except from manuscripts the church had for thousands of years and not ones discovered in waste baskets two hundred years ago.


I wonder if you could expand on this. What manuscripts were "discovered in waste baskets two hundred years ago?"

DTK


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> 
> 
> > You're going to have to back that one up. From what I've read the TR (the work of Erasmus, Beza, and other scholars) was an exemplary critical text of the NT similar to our modern ones, except from manuscripts the church had for thousands of years and not ones discovered in waste baskets two hundred years ago.
> ...



David,

I believe Peter is referring to Vaticanus, which was discovered in a rubbish bin in the Vatican.


----------



## DTK (Nov 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> David,
> 
> I believe Peter is referring to Vaticanus, which was discovered in a rubbish bin in the Vatican.


Fred,

I don't think he is. Vaticanus was not discovered that way. But I am really interested in hearing his response.

Thanks,
DTK


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Nov 10, 2005)

Anything discovered in the Vatican's trashbin belongs on my wall, framed!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> ...



Dr. White has contacted me and we are discussing my accusation that he misrepresented Jay. I may owe him an apology. We will see.


----------



## Peter (Nov 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



Sinaiticus was.

[Edited on 11-11-2005 by Peter]


----------



## DTK (Nov 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> [
> Sinaiticus was.
> 
> [Edited on 11-11-2005 by Peter]


No, codex Sinaiticus was not discovered in a waste basket, and this web site does not confirm your mistake. This is the sort of thing of which urban legends are made.

The mss found in the waste basket at St. Catharine's Monastery in 1844 was not codex Sinaiticus. Metzger explains, as does this web site you offered, that it was parts of a copy of the Septuagint that was found in the waste baskets, not Sinaiticus. You've offered a specimen piece of misinformation here.


> *Bruce M. Metzger:* The story of its [i.e., codex Sinaticus] discovery makes a fascinating tale, and deserves to be told in some detail. In 1844, when he was not yet thirty years of age, Tischendorf, a _Privatdozent_ in the University of Leipzig, began an extensive journey through the Near East in search of Biblical manuscripts. While visiting the monastery of St. Catharine at Mount Sinai, he chanced to see some leaves of parchment in a waste-basket full of papers destined to light the oven of the monastery. On examination these proved to be part of a copy of the Septuagint version of the old Testament, written in an early Greek uncial script. He retrieved from the basket no fewer than forty-three such leaves, and the monk casually remarked that two basket loads of similarly discarded leaves had already been burned up! Later, when Tischendorf was shown other portions of the same codex (containing all of Isaiah and 1 and 4 Maccabees), he warned the monks that such things were too valuable to be used to stoke their fires. The forty-three leaves which he was permitted to keep contained portions of 1 Chronicles, Jeremiah, Nehemiah, and Esther, and upon returning to Europe he deposited them in the university Library at Leipzig, where they still remain. In 1846 he published their contents, naming them the codex Frederico-Augustus (in honour of the King of Saxony, Frederick Augustus, the discoverer´s sovereign and patron). Bruce M. Metzger, _The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration_, third, enlarged ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), pp. 42-43.


It wasn't until 1859 when Tischendorf returned the third time that Sinaiticus was discovered, and it had been neatly bound with a red cloth and stored by a steward/monk, who was not initially willing to part with it as Metzger (and the source to which you yourself pointed) explains. When accounts are not read carefully, this kind of misinformation is passed on.


> *Bruce M. Metzger:* In 1853 Tischendorf revisited the monastery of St. Catharine, hoping to acquire other portions of the same manuscript. The excitement which he had displayed on the occasion of his discovery during his first visit had made the monks cautious, and he could learn nothing further about the manuscript. In 1859 his travels took him back once more to Mount Sinai, this time under the patronage of the Czar of Russia, Alexander II. The day before he was scheduled to leave he presented to the steward of the monastery a copy of the edition of the Septuagint which he had recently published in Leipzig. Thereupon the steward remarked that he too had a copy of the Septuagint, and produced from a closet in his cell a manuscript wrapped in a red cloth. There before the astonished scholar´s eyes lay the treasure which he had been longing to see. Concealing his feelings, Tischendorf casually asked permission to look at it further that evening. Permission was granted, and upon retiring to his room Tischendorf stayed up all night in the joy of studying the manuscript"”for, as he declared in his diary (which as a scholar he kept in Latin), _quipped dormire nefas videbatur_ ("˜it really seemed a sacrilege to sleep´)! He soon found that the document contained much more than he had even hoped; for not only was most of the Old Testament there, but also the New Testament was intact and in excellent condition, with the addition of two early Christian works of the second century, the Epistle of Barnabas (previously known only through a very poor Latin translation) and a large portion of the Shepherd of Hermas, hitherto known only by title.
> The next morning Tischendorf tried to buy the manuscript, but without success. Then he asked to be allowed to take it to Cairo to study; but the monk in charge of the altar plate objected, and so he had to leave without it. Bruce M. Metzger, _The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration_, third, enlarged ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), pp. 43-44.



Sinaiticus was not discovered in a waste basket.

DTK


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> ...



I don't recall Green being dealt with at length in that book, perhaps only a few sentences or a footnote. I think maybe White noted that Green basically has a TR only position and that he disagreed with it, but I can't remember. My understanding is that Green denounces any translation but the KJV or those translated by him, even coming out against the NKJV a few years ago. Gary Zeolla, a MT advocate, has info about this on his website, http://www.dtl.org


----------



## Peter (Nov 11, 2005)

You're right, my apologies and thank you for correcting me. You are correct. I did not read the account carefully and I believed that it confirmed an "urban legend" which I took for granted as true. I pray that I did not spread the error to others.

DTK, what is your evaluation of the accuracy of Sinaiticus in comparison to other MSS?


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 11, 2005)




----------



## DTK (Nov 12, 2005)

Peter,

I think that one of the positive aspects of the PB is the opportunity here for check and balance, which in turn helps members here to participate in mutual correction.



> _Originally posted by Peter_
> 
> DTK, what is your evaluation of the accuracy of Sinaiticus in comparison to other MSS?


Since I am not qualified to speak as a textual scholar, I think it would be presumptuous of me to comment on the accuracy of codex Sinaiticus. I am grateful for God's providence in the preservation of all the extant mss. in our possession today, and I tend to respect the discipline of lower criticism as our friend rather than foe in its effort to help establish as near as possible a reflection of the original autographs of the NT text. I think our posture should be to approach the results of textual evidence, comparisons, and speculations very cautiously, while at the same time not imputing covert motives based on suspicion and/or prejudice when we have no basis for such. Although the Lutheran textual scholar Kurt Aland was not the most conservative theologian, I think we have reason to believe such statements from him as the following...


> Aland: When we compare the variations found in the New Testament manuscripts they appear to be quite innocuous, especially since an extensive manuscript tradition provides a means of control and correction. . . . Naturally they all exhibit differences from the original form of the text, but from the moment it becomes possible to compare all the manuscripts of the New Testament together at one time (and at the Institute for New Testament Textual Research in MÃ¼nster this can now be done for the first time in the history of New Testament textual studies), it also becomes possible to distinguish which of the readings are later adaptations and which are the originals. Kurt and Barbara Aland, _The Text of the New Testament_, 2nd ed., trans. Erroll F. Rhodes (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989), p. 291. On p. 28, he points out that amateurs and even specialists "œhave far too rarely reflected an overall perspective" . . . and that they often forget "œhow rarely significant variants occur"”yielding to the common danger of failing to see the forest for the trees."


I have found that one of the recurring complaints of Roman apologists with respect to the Protestant trust and confidence in the Bible is that it suffers from extensive textual corruption. They complain about textual variants repeatedly with respect to the NT text. At the same time, we should remember that it is well known by students of the Bible that textual variations between the Hebrew text, the Septuagint (LXX), and copies of both existed in the days of our Lord´s flesh, yet the Lord Jesus and the New Testament writers themselves quote repeatedly from contemporary copies of both the extant Hebrew texts and translations of the Septuagint, never once calling into question the certainty, integrity, and adequacy of these copies to communicate infallibly the word of the true and living God. To suggest otherwise is to call into question the integrity of the New Testament witnesses themselves. Moreover, we have good reasons to believe that the preservation of the New Testament text (from the first century to our own day) has been shown many times over to possess the highest degree of accuracy in comparison to other ancient texts. Thus, as Protestants, we can appeal to the precedent of practice set by none other than that of our Lord himself, and the New Testament writers as well, in respect of their accepted use of contemporary Old Testament texts with known variants from the autographa. Commenting on the phrase "œas it is written" and addressing himself to this very point, Roger T. Beckwith has helpfully commented...


> The quotations are treated as having finality, and it is the contemporary text of the quotations which is treated in this way. Philo quotes from the Septuagint translation, as the New Testament often does and the Fathers regularly do, but when the Hebrew is quoted or reflected (as in the Dead Sea Scrolls and sometimes in the New Testament), there is nothing to suggest that anything other than contemporary manuscripts of the Hebrew is being used. Paraphrase, where paraphrase is employed, is evidently designed to draw out the most relevant implications of the passage quoted, and not to restore a more primitive form of the text. In all this, the practice of Jesus and his apostles in the New Testament is like that of their Jewish contemporaries.
> What this implies is that God´s "œsingular care and providence" was understood to extend not just to the traditional form (or forms) of the original text, but even to standard and accepted translations of the text, such as the Septuagint. See Beckwith´s "œToward a Theology of the Biblical Text" in Donald Lewis and Alister McGrath, eds., _Doing Theology for the People of God: Studies in Honor of J.I. Packer_ (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1996), p 48.


In spite of the variants that do exist, comments such as these by the following scholars could be multiplied...


> J. Harold Greenlee: In the NT and in other ancient literature as well, there is no question concerning the reading of most of the words. Textual criticism needs to operate in only a limited portion of the text. When one is engaged in this study, and the number and importance of the variants are made the center of attention, it is well to remember that the main body of the text and its general sense are left untouched and that textual criticism engages in turning a magnifying glass upon some of the details. J. Harold Greenlee, _Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism_, revised edition (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995), p. 6.
> 
> F. F. Bruce: The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no-one dreams of questioning. And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt. It is a curious fact that historians have often been much readier to trust the New Testament records than have many theologians. F.F. Bruce, _The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?_ (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, reprinted 1997), p. 15. See too the brief but helpful review of John Jefferson Davis, _Foundations of Evangelical Theology_ (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), pp. 207ff.
> 
> F. F. Bruce: By the "œsingular care and providence" of God, the text of Scripture has come down to us in such substantial purity that even the most uncritical edition of the Hebrew and Greek, or the most incompetent (or even the most tendentious) translation of such an edition, cannot effectively obscure its essential message or neutralize its saving power. F.F. Bruce´s remarks in the forward to Dewey M. Beegle, _Scripture, Tradition and Infallibility_ (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1973). See also the comments of Gerhard Maier, _Biblical Hermeneutics_, trans. Robert W. Yarbrough, (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1994), p. 185.



Blessings,
DTK


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> ...



As I stated above I am discussing it with him and Jay Sr.


----------

