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

[Pilgrim]

Originally posted by mangum

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

The Byzantine Text had its beginnings in Syria when a Bible scholar named Lucian who had studied at a famous theological school in Antioch revised the Greek Old and New Testaments from a collection of manuscripts available to him. That is, rather than copying one original manuscript, Lucian (perhaps with help from others) seems to have consulted several different manuscripts in the process of compiling a new one. This was probably done early in the fourth century (Lucian was martyred in 312). From there the manuscript was taken to Constantinople, where it was widely distributed throughout the Byzantine empire (thus the name "Byzantine" text). As time went on, thousands of copies were made and in fact 90 percent of the Greek New Testament manuscripts existing today are of this type. Almost all of them were produced after the sixth century within the Byzantine Empire, since by this time Greek was scarcely understood outside the Empire and Moslem conquests had greatly reduced the numbers of Christians beyond the Empire as well.

It is sometimes asked what evidence there really is that Lucian did such a revision. The most important direct evidence comes from the fourth-century church father Jerome, who makes several remarks about Lucian in his own works. In his Preface to the Four Gospels, Jerome criticizes Lucian and another scholar, Hesychius, for editing the Scripture. Later, in his preface to the books of Chronicles, Jerome remarks that from Constantinople to Antioch the Greek Old Testament of Lucian meets with approval. In another work written shortly after 392, Jerome praises Lucian and comments that Lucian worked so hard in the study of the Scriptures that even at that time some copies of the Scriptures still bear his name. In a letter written about 11 years later, Jerome tells two Bible students that there is one edition "...which Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, and all Greek commentators call koine--i.e. common--and widespread, and is now called 'Lucianic' by most people." http://www.kjvonly.org/other/riplinger_lockman.htm

[Edited on 7-3-2006 by Pilgrim]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

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

It is sometimes asked what evidence there really is that Lucian did such a revision. The most important direct evidence comes from the fourth-century church father Jerome, who makes several remarks about Lucian in his own works. In his Preface to the Four Gospels, Jerome criticizes Lucian and another scholar, Hesychius, for editing the Scripture. Later, in his preface to the books of Chronicles, Jerome remarks that from Constantinople to Antioch the Greek Old Testament of Lucian meets with approval. In another work written shortly after 392, Jerome praises Lucian and comments that Lucian worked so hard in the study of the Scriptures that even at that time some copies of the Scriptures still bear his name. In a letter written about 11 years later, Jerome tells two Bible students that there is one edition "...which Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, and all Greek commentators call koine--i.e. common--and widespread, and is now called 'Lucianic' by most people."​

I will study a little more on what Jerome was referring to, but this certainly does not qualify as an official recension imposed upon the entire church, as Hort alleges. To have Jerome say, there is one edition "...which Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, and all Greek commentators call koine--i.e. common--and widespread, and is now called 'Lucianic' by most people", linking this supposed koine MS to Origen and Eusebius is to confuse two different kinds of texts with one another. Origen was gone by the time of Eusebius, and the text these two produced (E. inheriting Origen's MSS. and library in Caesarea), and which did indeed become the official text promoted by Constantine when he ordered of Eusebius 50 high-quality (i.e., the vellum sheets) Bibles was to all intents and purposes the CT we have today, and widely diverged from the genuine koine MSS, which were written on papyrus and did not last as long, this being the favorite and the standard of the poorer common people. What came from Origen and Eusebius suffered from much editing. Tischendorf surmised that his Aleph MS. was very likely one of the Fifty!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the heart of our Savior,

Steve

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

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

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

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

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

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

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

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

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Originally posted by Reed
People -
for hundreds of years childeren were reared on the Geneva or King James translations -- let's remain true to our heritage. Let's not water down our children's education. Our kids will only become stronger if we discipline them on challenging literature.

The more you read King James and old style English literature (especially Puritan writing) the easier it eventually becomes to understand... you just have to be patient.

While I realize the King James isn't the preferred translation, kids should be able to read it and understand it --- and they'll only be able to do this if they are hearing it and reading it. Yes, Bible study, memorization -- use the version your pastor is using -- but for learning the beauty of the English language, exposing kids to the King James is a good idea.

I am reminded of the words of the Westminster Assembly in their introduction to the Shorter Catechism, which is challenging for most of today's adults, but was intended for those of "weaker capacity." While adhering the principle that the Scriptures should be available to all in vulgar tongues, we ought nevertheless to keep the bar of Biblical literacy high (for children and adults). There is no finer English language translation than the King James version (speaking as someone who is not KJVO), which was written in an elevated style designed to be read from the pulpit, consistent with this principle and consistent with the Scriptures themselves.

George Bernard Shaw had this to say of the King James version:

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

[Edited on 7-3-2006 by VirginiaHuguenot]

 

[Pilgrim]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

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

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

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

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

 

[Pilgrim]

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

 

[Pilgrim]

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

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

 

[fredtgreco]

This is a very good and helpful discussion.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by Pilgrim

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Originally posted by blhowes

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
The Trinitarian Bible Society has a good balanced critique of the NKJV called What today's Christian needs to know about the New King James Version. It avoids unnecessary hyperoble while highlighting areas of concern.

Andrew,
You don't happen to have a link, do you? I can't seem to find it.
Thanks,
Bob

It's not available in electronic form on their website, but you can order it for 60 cents. It's under the section called "other publications"/"articles"/"modern version reviews".

 

[Pilgrim]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Originally posted by Pilgrim

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Originally posted by blhowes

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
The Trinitarian Bible Society has a good balanced critique of the NKJV called What today's Christian needs to know about the New King James Version. It avoids unnecessary hyperoble while highlighting areas of concern.

Andrew,
You don't happen to have a link, do you? I can't seem to find it.
Thanks,
Bob

It's not available in electronic form on their website, but you can order it for 60 cents. It's under the section called "other publications"/"articles"/"modern version reviews".

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

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

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

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

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

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

 

[MW]

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

 

[Pilgrim]

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

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

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

From the NKJV Preface:

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

On the textual notes:

Where significant variations occur in the New Testament Greek manuscripts, textual notes are classified as follows:

1. NU-Text. These variations from the traditional text generally represent the Alexandrian or Egyptian type of text described previously in "The New Testament Text." They are found in the Critical Text published in the twenty-sixth edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (N) and in the United Bible Societies´ third edition (U), hence the acronym, "NU-Text."

2. M-Text. This symbol indicates points of variation in the Majority Text from the traditional text, as also previously discussed in "The New Testament Text." It should be noted that M stands for whatever reading is printed in the published Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, whether supported by overwhelming, strong, or only a divided majority textual tradition.

[Edited on 7-4-2006 by Pilgrim]

 

[MW]

I wouldn't take their word for it.

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

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

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

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

 

[Pilgrim]

Originally posted by armourbearer
I wouldn't take their word for it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

1611 KJV:

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

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

Gk. of our God and Saviour

Geneva Bible (1567):

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

Bishop's Bible (1568)

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

Coverdale (1535)

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

Tyndale 1526

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

[Edited on 7-4-2006 by Pilgrim]

[Edited on 7-4-2006 by Pilgrim]

 

[Contra_Mundum]

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

 

[MW]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[fredtgreco]

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

τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆÏος Ἰησοῦ ΧÏιστοῦ

[Edited on 7/4/2006 by fredtgreco]

 

[MW]

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

 

[larryjf]

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

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

 

[Pilgrim]

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

 

[MW]

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

So I retract my earlier statement.

 

[fredtgreco]

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

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

Here is the Scriviner's:

τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆÏος ἡμῶν Ἰησ¿á¿¦ ΧÏιστοῦ

 

[MW]

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

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

Thoughts?

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

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

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

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

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

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

The editions of Stephens, Beza and the Elzevirs all present substantially the same text, and the variations are not of great significance and rarely affect the sense. The present edition of the Textus Receptus underlying the English Authorized Version follows the text of Beza's 1598 edition as the primary authority, and corresponds with [Scrivener's of 1894 and 1902].​

In Scrivener’s book, The Authorized Edition Of The English Bible (1611), Its Subsequent Reprints And Modern Representatives (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1910), in “Appendix E. The Greek text adopted by the Translators of the Authorized Version of the New Testament, Section II. Passages wherein the text of the Authorized Version agrees with Beza 1589 and 1598) against Stephen (1550),” as regards 2 Peter 1:1, he notes, “Beza 1565—98 adds ἡμῶν after σωτῆρος.”

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

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

---------


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

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

This seems to be plain in itself. The stars in this connection must, of course, not be taken in the literal sense, no more than the entire portion. In this connection the inference is plain that they indicate the fellow angels of the devil. In Job the angels are called the morning-stars. And indeed this application is very appropriate for these spiritual inhabitants of the sphere of eternal light. And the devil himself has been such a morning-star, - perhaps, as we have said before, the greatest and most glorious among them all. And although the passage in Isaiah 14:12 cannot literally be applied to Satan, yet the language in which this metaphor against the king of Babylon is used, is such that the latter is evidently a type of the devil. And therefore also the devil may fittingly be called Lucifer, the day or morning-star. This morning-star, as we know, rebelled against God. Almighty. But he was not alone. He instigated a general rebellion in the heaven of heavens. He seduced others of his fellow angels to rise with him and exalt themselves against the Most High. And it is this feature that is pictured of the devil most probably in the fourth verse of this chapter. He dragged the third part, that is, in this sense, a great many, yet not a majority, of his fellow angels with him in his fall from heaven. And they together with him were cast down from their exalted place.​

Hoeksema, as well as the PRC today, adheres to the King James Bible, and they have a number of writings on it. If anyone wants to dispute using HH (and the PRC) due to his and their stand on “common grace” and the “well-meant offer,” well that’s a different issue, and I’m not familiar with the theology boards here to know if that’s been discussed (how could it not be?).

----------

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

Steve

 

[Contra_Mundum]

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

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



On another issue:

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

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

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

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

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So in order to gain a little respectability (the leading and liberal textual critic George Kilpatrick writes a commendation on the jacket), Hodges, Farstad and friends find themselves firmly in a textual half-way house (Jack Moorman, When the KJV Departs from the "Majority" Text: A New Twist in the Continuing Attack on the Authorized Version).​

In this large work (153 pages, 8.5X11-inch format) Jack Moorman demonstrates the following: (1) the Hodges-Farstad Majority Text is established upon an insufficient and faulty foundation (the Von Soden apparatus and the 046 MSS of Revelation); therefore, their conclusion that in 1,800 places the Authorized New Testament lacks majority text support is in error. "These two factors account for the vast majority of readings which they would like to alter in the Received Text." (2) Even most of the remaining passages which do seem to have only a minority of MS support, "nevertheless [have] quite substantial support." Moorman presents this support in 87 pages of listings. (3) Even the verse which has supposedly has less manuscript support than any other in the Authorized Version (1 John 5:7) has a wide variety of support and is inspired Scripture. Moorman gives an overview of the internal and external evidence for this important verse.​

--------

Steve

 

[MW]

Steve,

Thankyou for your posts. Very helpful.

Are you with MERF?

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Matthew,

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

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

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

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

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

Steve

 

[MW]

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