FROM THE BOOK "HOW WE GOT THEBIBLE" by Neil R. Lightfoot.
Pertinent facts you should know for the strengthening of your
Christian faith, compiled by Keith Hunt.
When I entered the Church of God back in the winter of 1961/62
some of the first books I obtained was on HOW we got our present
day King James Bible. A few of the books were LARGE and somewhat
technical. I particularly enjoyed and was appreciative of a
smaller book, of about 126 pages. It is from this book by Neil
Lightfoot that the following pertinent information is re-produced
for your edification.
FROM THE FOREWORD:
This study seeks to be a factual and honest account of how
the Bible has been preserved and handed down to our generation.
The subject is vast and at times complex. It has been my constant
aim, therefore, to simplify the material and to state it, as far
as possible, in a non-technical manner..........Although this
edition is designed for the average reader, it is hoped that it
will be useful for the general Bible class as well......Two
current books (that was back in 1962 when the author wrote these
words - Keith Hunt) which are especially recommended are OUR
BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS, by Sir Frederic Kenyon
(revised by A.W. Adams), and THE BOOKS AND THE PARCHMENTS, by
F.F. Bruce...........
FROM CHAPTER ONE: The Making of Ancient Books
How the Bible has come down to us is a story of adventure
and devotion.......the Bible did not just happen nor has it been
preserved through the years by mere CHANCE. The Bible is a MARVEL
all its own......
The starting-point of our Bible is preceded and determined
by another story, the history of ancient books and writing...Thus
the whole history of the Bible is conditioned upon (1) the
history of writing, and (2) the history of the materials used in
the making of ancient books. Our Bible is a very old book, but it
is by no means the OLDEST book in the world. Discoveries made
within the last century show that writing was a well-established
art in many countries long before the beginning of the Hebrew
nation in the land of Palestine. The earliest known examples of
writing carry us into the ancient land of Egypt.......In
Babylonia inscriptions are extent of king Sargon 1 who lived
about 3750 B.C., and the writings of the Sumerians of this area
date back even earlier. In Palestine itself letters written by
governors of cities date as early as 1500 B.C........
1. STONE. In almost every region the earliest material on
which writing has been found is stone.......
2. CLAY. In the countries of Assyria and Babylonia the
predominant writing material was clay.......
3. WOOD. Wooden tablets were used quite generally by the
ancients for writing purposes.......
4. LEATHER. For hundreds of years leather of animal skins
played an important role in the history of the Bible. Leather is
not specified in the OT, but it was unquestionably the principal
material employed for literary purposes by the Hebrews........
5. PAPYRUS. The significant role of leather for the OT is
played by papyrus in the NT. Indeed, papyrus was the most
important writing material which could be found in the ancient
world and was so widely used that it is practically certain that
the original NT letters were penned on papyrus sheets......About
the time of the first or second century A.D., however, the
papyrus ROLL began to give way to what is known as the papyrus
CODEX. A codex manuscript is simply what we know today as a
book.......
6. VELLUM or PARCHMENT. Vellum came into prominence as a
writing material due to the efforts of King Eumenes 2 (197-158
B.C.) of Pergamum in Asia Minor........by perfecting an improved
process in the treatment of skins. The result of this improvement
is known as VELLUM or PARCHMENT.......Vellum manuscripts are
beautiful in appearance.......the most important feature about
vellum is its DURABILITY. Papyrus by nature is fragile and
subject to decay.......so from the fourth century through the
Middle Ages the principal receptacle for the written Word of God
was vellum.
7. PAPER. Paper also reaches back to the ancient
world......the Chinese people as early as the second century
B.C., but it was not until much later before the secret of
paper-making became known to the rest of the world. This came
about in the middle of the eighth century A.D. when Arabs
captured some Chinese prisoners who were skilled in the making of
paper.......
8. OTHER writing materials. Other kinds of materials such
as wax, lead, linen, pieces of pottery, etc. were used for
writing by the ancients.......
FROM CHAPTER TWO: The Birth of the Bible
It is not possible for us to fix with EXACT precision the
circumstances of the Bible's origin. We cannot go to a specific
time and place and say that here the Bible had its birth.....from
century to century the many books of the Bible were coming into
being separately and under varying conditions.......it is a
treasure-house of sacred books which has grown through the
centuries......And it is the firm belief of the Christian that
the Bible is honored today because in the past it grew under the
favorable and directing influence of Him who is the Author of all
things.
THE EARLY FORM OF OUR BIBLE
.........At first and for a long time God's communication to
man was oral........But the time came when it was necessary for
the divine will to be put in a more permanent form, and that a
record of God's revelations be made for succeeding
generations.....The first person in the Bible as mentioned as
writing anything is Moses.......In the early books of the Bible
there are SIX distinct things attributed to his hand: (1) the
memorial concerning Amalek (Ex.17:14); (2) the words of the
covenant made at Sinai (Ex.24:4); (3) the Ten Commandments
(Ex.34:27,28); (4) the journeys of the children of Israel in the
wilderness (Num.33:2); (5) the Book of the Law which was to be
kept with the Ark of the Covenant (Deut.31:9,24); (6) the Song
found in Deuteronomy 32:1-43 (Deut.31:22). In addition, Moses is
held by strict Jewish tradition as being the author of the first
five books of the Bible known as the Pentateuch. Other writers of
the Bible and the Lord Himself gave unvarying support to this
view (cf. Josh.8:31; Judg.3:4; Mal.4:4; Luke 24:44; John 7:19).
When once divine revelation was put in writing, it was
natural for other revelations and events to be recorded. So the
successor of Moses, Joshua, also wrote words "in the
book of the law of the Lord" (Josh. 24:26). This in turn become
the practice of other men of God who wrote both history and
prophecy. In the book of 1 Samuel it is said that the venerable
Samuel recorded certain events of his day in a book. We read:
"Then Samuel told the people the rights and duties of the
kingship; and he wrote them in a book and laid it up before the
Lord" (1 Sam.10:25).
Prophets in later times are also engaged in writing books.
God speaks to Jeremiah and says: "Take a scroll and write on it
all the words that I have spoken to you against Israel and Judah
and all the nations, from the day I spoke to you, from the days
of Josiah until today" (Jer.36:2)........So the books of Moses'
law came first, then came the prophets. In this way the OT
Scriptures grew gradually and finally came to be assembled
into an accepted collection about the time of Ezra (c.44 B.C.).
The Jewish authority, Josephus, writing in the time of the first
century, said that no book was added to the Hebrew Scriptures
after the time of Malachi (Josephus, Against Apion I. 8.
Actually, Josephus marks off the interval of the OT canon as
being from Moses to the Persian king Artaxerxes. The time of
Artaxerxes was the time of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Malachi).
The NT came into being gradually also, although the books
themselves were written in a comparatively short period of time
(50-100 A.D.). These books were simply letters penned by
inspired men and addressed to different churches and individuals.
From the first, however, they were looked upon as DISTINCTIVELY
AUTHORITATIVE writings; and thus were received with respect...
Soon afterward came the INTERCHANGE of extant letters among the
churches (cf.Col.4:16), the individual churches in this way
profiting from an exchange of apostolic instructions. The next
step was the embodiment in writing of the central events of the
life of Jesus........in fulfilment of this demand Matthew, Mark,
Luke and John sent out their witness to Jesus (cf.Luke 1:1-4;
John 20:30-33). The logical outgrowth of the four Gospels was
the book of Acts.......and as a kind of climax to the whole came
Revelation with its prospect of a triumphant Christ. The result
of it all was that a new community of people, just like the
people of the Old Covenant, had as a cherished treasure their own
writings as "Scripture."
( Let me interject here that one of the very best new books
to come on the scene of the Christian world as of late is a book
called THE ORIGINAL BIBLE RESTORED by Ernest L. Martin, yes the
Ernest Martin that was a part of the WCG for many years. There
are many areas of Theology where I would be in total opposition
to Martin, but this is not one of those areas. One of the most
important teachings this book shows and proclaims is the fact
that the canonization of the NT was done during the first century
by the apostles and the first century Church of God, not by later
generations of the Roman Catholic church. A book well worth
having in your home or church library - Keith Hunt).
To be continued
All emphasis in this series of articles will be both from the
authors themselves and from myself - Keith Hunt - who is
reproducing them for your edification.
............................
2. Bible - How it came to be
A detailed look at how the Bible was preserved
THE ORIGINS OF GENESIS
by
A.B.Grimaldi, M.A.
from The Banner of Israel, January 3, 1912
The subject of the compilation, preservation, and
transmission of the sacred Hebrew records is one of the greatest
interests and importance. That collection of books we name the
Bible was finally completed in A.D. 100.........The PATRIARCHAL
or first Church (B.C.4000-B.C.2000) was so generally similar in
its principles and practices to the Hebrews, or second Church
(B.C.2000-A.D.1), that we may logically conclude it was so
also as to its sacred Hebrew records. In the HEBREW CHURCH these
records were, as to COMPILATION, PRESERVATION,and TRANSMISSION,
under the charge of the HIGH PRIEST, and from his ORIGINALS,
copies were made (2 Kings 22:8; 1 Maccabeus 12:9,21). In the
PATRIARCHAL CHURCH the racial head acted as high priest, Adam
being the first. They therefore would COMPILE, PRESERVE and
TRANSMIT the sacred....records. The origins of the book of
Genesis as thus obtained are particularly interesting and
remarkable.
the TITLE of this book in the Authorized Version is THE
FIRST BOOK OF MOSES, CALLED GENESIS. But this is NOT ITS NAME IN
THE HEBREW, not in the GREEK Bible (LXX - Septuagint). It is not
its original or inspired name. The name in the original Hebrew
MSS(manuscripts), is BERASHITH (Beginnings): and its name in the
Greek version is GENESIS (Creations). Neither of them say that
Moses wrote it. How could he know what Abraham said and did
centuries before his birth?
FROM THE SACRED HEBREW RECORDS, HANDED DOWN TO ABRAHAM BY
SUCCESSIVE PATRIARCHAL HIGH PRIESTS, HE WOULD LEARN THESE
DETAILS. As Canon Girdlestone says, Moses "may have been
instructed to avail himself occasionally of earlier records of
inspired patriarchs" (Annotated Paragraph Bible, R.T.S.
1.1). That is to say, Moses recorded in the sacred Hebrew
records whatever he knew by himself that was worthy of
preservation, and for the past he had the former records
handed down from Adam onwards - just as the inspired Matthew
transcribed the Davidic genealogy from the high priest's sacred
Hebrew records.
There appears to be TEN of these sacred Hebrew records.
(Note: Ten would be a very fitting number, as God uses the
number ten in His word in very interesting ways, more on that in
future articles on the Arithmetic of God - Keith Hunt).
1. - GENESIS 1:1 TO 2:3
This is the first of the sacred Hebrew records. Adam could
know nothing of the creative work. This account then would be
given to him in Paradise, where, we are told, Jehovah, the future
Messiah, conversed with His unfallen creature. For the Jehovah of
the Old is the Jesus of the New Testament (Gen.1:28, 29, 2:16,
17).......
2. - GENESIS 2:4 TO 4:26
This is the first of the human sacred Hebrew records, being
compiled by adam, the first of the patriarchal high priests. If
they were written on parchment, or in cuneiform tablets, as Smith
seems to think (Cuneorum Clavis, 1875), they would be doubtless
laid up in the tabernacle in Eden.............
We find that God condescended to converse with man.....both
in and out of paradise - Eden (Gen.3:10-13, 16-19, 4:9-15).
This further account of man's origin.....would be complied from
what he had been Divinely taught and from his own observation. If
writing was not used then, they would be stored up in Adam's
memory and by him imparted to Seth and Methuselah, his
successors: and the last would hand on the sacred Hebrew records
to Noah, in whose time, after the Deluge, we may conclude writing
to have existed.
The countries (2:10-25) would be probably added by Moses,
the rest being from Adam's own observation, as the Canon
(previously mentioned) remarks: "It is evident that some
subsequent writer has occasionally inserted a brief explanation."
Adam lived with Methuselah about 233 years, who died in the year
of the deluge. So there was ONLY ONE PERSON NEEDED - godly
Mathuselah - to TRANSMIT the sacred Hebrew records from ADAM to
NOAH; thus illustrating one of the purposes for which a few
godly lives were so prodigiously prolonged. The account of
Cain's family (4:16-24) would be brought to Adam, most probably
by Lamech, who, being the first poetical composer we read of,
was probably an intellectual man (4:23,24) and was likely to keep
up intercourse with the patriarch of the race.
3. - GENESIS 5:1-6......SETH
On Adam's death Seth, his eldest believing son, would become
patriarchal high priest......But he only lived 122 years after
Adam, and Enoch's birth is the only recorded event. This
paucity of material recorded during Seth's high priesthood is in
general agreement with his being engaged in the laborious and
difficult work of arranging the stars into zodiacal system (Gen
4:26) so as to form a star Bible for the patriarchal church
(Rolleston: Mazzaroth, 1875).
4. - GENESIS 5:7 TO 6:8......METHUSELAH
When Seth died, Methuselah was 335 years old. He would add a
considerable amount to the sacred Hebrew records, but all matter
within his own knowledge, both of history and genealogy. He died
in the year of the Deluge, showing how easy the sacred Hebrew
records passed from Adam to Noah, only through one person -
whether orally or by writing - with PERFECT ACCURACY, WITHOUT
ALTERATION OR LOSS. The patriarchal Church therefore, before the
Deluge, possessed sacred Hebrew records comprising Genesis 1 to
6:8.
5. - GENESIS 6:9 TO 9:27......NOAH
Noah was the first patriarchal high priest after the Deluge,
and to his inspired pen are we indebted for the extremely
important record of that supreme event: for there is no
reason for doubting that the calligraphic art was as early as
Noah. This is confirmed by the reputed translations of the
Deluge cuneiform tablets discovered by Dr. Smith and now
in the British Museum.
This translation gives an account of the Flood, but speaks
of its being derived from the record of Ishtar, who is properly
identified with the Biblical Noah. In fact, the Hebrew record and
the Babylonian record are both from Noah's original record: but
the former, passing only through inspired custodians, has been
preserved perfect; while the latter, passing through pagan high
priest keepers, has become vitiated. The actual death of
Noah would of course be added by his successors, Shem (28, 29),
just as Joshua added Moses' death to the Pentateuch.
6. - GENESIS 9:29 TO 11:32......SHEM
There is ample evidence that Shem, on his father's death,
became the priestly and official head of the human race, and this
was UNDISPUTED until NIMROD threw off his authority, raised a
rebellion, and founded a rival priestly dynasty and rule, to
consolidate which he planned the tower or temple as a centre,
which, as the cause of the religious schism or confusion which
followed, was named BABEL.
Shem's record concerns the sons, grandsons, and
great-grandsons of Noah's three sons. Shem as the patriarchal
head would have this genealogical information reported
to him at his headquarters in Armenia, and would be preserved by
INSPIRATION from error in his selection of information. He lived
600 years and SURVIVED Abraham 35 years, AND THEREFORE HAD AMPLE
TIME, AS WELL AS FULL AUTHORITY, to collect all these details,
HEATHEN, AS WELL AS HEBREW HISTORY, TESTIFY TO SHEM'S
EXTRAORDINARY CHARACTER AND TRIBAL POWER.
7. - GENESIS 12:1 TO 25:4......ABRAHAM
A change in the high priestly succession now occurs of VAST
IMPORTANCE. In consequence of Nimrod's apostasy and idolatry, it
was determined by DIVINE WISDOM to constitute one special race
the depositaries of DIVINE TRUTH and its propagators; and
HENCEFORTH the line of HIGH PRIEST were all Hebrews by DESCENT as
well as language. ABRAHAM was the selected founder, and he was
called out of Chaldea to Canaan for that purpose. He thus became
the first Hebrew high priest, the SECOND or HEBREW CHURCH being
constituted by the religious and racial rite of circumcision...
Shem WOULD KNOW......before Abraham left Chaldea finally, would
supply him with a certified, accurate transcript of the sacred
Hebrew records from Adam to Shem.
(Note: Certainly within the 35 years that Shem's life
overlapped that of Abraham's, God had ample time to arrange in
whatever way He did, that the ancient and inspired records handed
down from Adam, were in the possession of Abraham - Keith Hunt).
These Abraham would bring with him into Canaan and
afterwards continue to add to them till his own death. Most of
this record 7 consists of his own life. The account of
Chedorlaomer's invasion was brought to him by a trustworthy
eye-witness, probably one of Lot's family; and from the King of
Sodom (14:1-13, 17). The narrative of Lot's danger and escape
Abraham would learn from himself, the distance from Zoar and
Hebron being very small (19:1-38). Hagar's history (21:15-21)
was probably obtained from Ishmael by Isaac and inserted by him
(25:9). The account of Nahor's family (22:20-24) was duly
reported to Abraham, and this case incidentally illustrates how
each important matter was regularly made know to Abraham as the
hebrew high priest and head of the race (ver.20). Eliezer's
mission would of necessity be fully detailed to both Abraham and
Isaac (24:10- 64).
8. - GENESIS 25:5 TO 35:26......ISAAC
The covenant birthright blessing devolved upon Isaac, who
thus became the next or SECOND Hebrew high priest. We see both
Abraham and Isaac exercising their priestly functions as to
sacrifice, circumcision, blessing, altar building, altar
consecrating, and prayer for themselves and intercession for
others (20:7) and prophecy. Isaac would ADD the few last details
of Abraham's death to the sacred hebrew records (25:5-8),
and then CONTINUE the record from his own knowledge. Jacob's
history in Padanaram (28:10, 35; 35:26) he would report to Isaac
on his return, and thus Isaac's record would be completed.
9. - GENESIS 35:27 TO 49:32......JACOB
Jacob succeeded Isaac as the inheritor of the covenant
birthright blessing and Hebrew high priest, and we find him
therefore exercising all the priestly functions in full
power. Jacob's record, the 9th, is one of the LONGEST and most
IMPORTANT. Edom's genealogy and history would be given to Jacob
by Esau when they met at Mahanaim (32:2) and at Isaac's funeral
(35:29), though the few later ones would be obtained by
Moses during his 40 years sojourn in Arabia, and added by him
when he edited the Pentateuch finally at sinai and Horeb.
Judah's history (38) Jacob would learn from him, and Joseph would
fully report his wondrous history to his father after his arrival
in Egypt (39:41). Judah would also report to Jacob his Egyptian
experience (42:29) as well as the later visit and discovery
(43:15; 45:26). Joseph's own history would be told by himself
to Jacob (47:1-26), who completed his long record by adding the
remaining incidents of his own life.
10. - GENESIS 49:33 TO 50:21......JOSEPH
Joseph was the next recipient of the covenant birthright
blessing (Gen.49:22-26) and the FOURTH Hebrew high priest. The
sacred hebrew records now consisting of the book Berashith
(Genesis) would come into Joseph's possession on Jacob's death.
He would add Jacob's death and burial and reconciliation with his
brethren, and his final prophecy (40:33; 50:25). The final note
of Joseph's own death would naturally be added by Ephraim, his
prophetic first-born, and so complete the first book of the Bible
called GENESIS.
These sacred Hebrew records therefore are the work of FIVE
INSPIRED HIGH PRIESTS of the patriarchal Church, and FOUR
inspired high priests of the Hebrew Church. And they consist of
TEN records.......and from a literary and historic point of view
they may be considered as the most PRICELESS RECORD that the
world possesses.
.........................
What a fine old article. Will you join me in saying: A most
natural logical understanding of HOW WE GOT THE BOOK OF GENESIS.
I only came by this article recently as it was re-produced in one
of the religious magazines that cross by desk each month.
But, we are only just getting started on this inspiring subject
of HOW WE GOT THE BIBLE. There are cart loads of more great
truths of how our heavenly Father has through the agents of
humans, written and preserved His WORD for us today. I hope it is
inspiring and strengthening your faith - Keith Hunt.
To be continued
3. Bible - How it came to be
A detailed look at how the Bible was preserved
THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
WE CONTINUE HERE WITH CHAPTER 8 FROM THE BOOK "HOW WE
GOT THE BIBLE" BY NEIL LIGHTFOOT.
.......Our next task is to focus attention upon the text of
the Old Testament(OT)......Text-data for the OT is not vast as
compared with the multitude of witnesses on the Greek text, nor
does the available data appear as impressive.......The EARLIEST
Hebrew manuscripts are known as the CAIRO CODEX and the LENINGRAD
CODEX of the Prophets. The Cairo codex includes the FORMER and
LATER Prophets and is DATED at A.D. 895. The Leningrad Codex of
the Prophets is slightly later, DATING from A.D. 916. Another
early Hebrew manuscript is the British Museum Codex of the
PENTATEUCH. It has proved to be a VERY IMPORTANT WITNESS to the
OT text, yet it comes from the TENTH or ELEVENTH century.
THE OLDEST KNOWN MANUSCRIPT OF THE ENTIRE OT IS THE
LENINGRAD CODEX WHICH WAS COMPLETED IN 1008 A.D........
One may wonder WHY copies of the Hebrew Bible are LATE in
comparison with the NT materials and especially so when it is
recalled that the OT was completed several centuries before the
NT book was written. The answer is not difficult to find.
The Jewish scribes look upon their copies of the Scriptures
with an almost SUPERSTITIOUS RESPECT, which LED THEM to give a
CEREMONIAL BURIAL to any copy which was OLD or became WORN. Their
MOTIVE was to PREVENT the IMPROPER USE of the material on which
the sacred name of God had been inscribed. But however noble
their intentions, this ANCIENT CUSTOM has deprived us of the
early Hebrew manuscripts which we might otherwise have, and thus
has lengthened the gap between the available copies of the text
of the OT autographs.
(Note: So this explains as to why we today do not have OT
Hebrew texts dating back to the beginning of A.D. times or
before. But this by itself DOES NOT mean the Hebrew text that we
do have is CORRUPT or somehow less accurate than if we did have
Hebrew texts dating back to B.C. times. The subject of
accurately preserving the OT text is what we shall now begin to
investigate - Keith Hunt).
The Massoretes
Before considering the PRESENT status of the OT text, it
will be necessary to say a little about its background.
Until the invention of printing, the OT Scriptures were
handed down to us by COPYING. This process makes it inevitable
for scribal variations to appear. Especially is the case with the
Hebrew manuscripts, because of the difficulty of the language
involved. Not a few letters of the hebrew alphabet look very much
alike, which sometimes led to the confusion of the small details
of the text. A good illustration of this is the familiar name
Nebuchadrezzar, a form which is TECHNICALLY more accurate than
the more familiar Nebuchadnezzar. The two name obviously refer to
the SAME PERSON, but a mix-up of the similar Hebrew letters r and
n occasioned this difference.
(Note: So some letters may get mixed up now and again as in
the above illustration, but that amounts to SPELLING, we all know
it is the same man. No huge DOCTRINE disagreement here or blatant
contradiction in teaching - Keith Hunt).
RECOGNIZING the ever present possibility of scribal
MISTAKES, and possessed with an almost INHERENT OBSESSION to
GUARD the LETTER of the LAW, there sprang up at an EARLY DATE
various circles of Jewish scholars DEDICATED to the
PRESERVATION of the OT text. At the head of this list was a
group of scribes centered at TIBERIAS, who are generally known as
MASSORETES.
THEIR school was not by any means the EARLIEST, since it did
not come into being until 500 A.D., but it is the most important
one for the history of the Hebrew text.
(Note: Remember what Lightfoot said here. This school of
500 A.D. was NOT THE EARLIEST ONE! The meticulous, and extremely
fanatical we may say, order of the copyist to preserve the Hebrew
OT did NOT START in A.D.500 - it had already been in process for
centuries before - Keith Hunt).
The Massoretes are so named because of their acknowledged
dependence on the AUTHORITATIVE TRADITIONS (Massorah) concerning
the text. Their labors are spread out over a period of four or
five centuries and their contributions are many. They are
perhaps best known for their system of VOWELS and ACCENTS which
they devised for the Hebrew text. It will be remembered that all
the letters in the Hebrew alphabet are CONSONANTS. Thus the OT
was FIRST written WITHOUT VOWELS.......the Massoretes, on the
basis of their well kept traditions, INSERTED vowel points ABOVE
and BELOW the lines of the text. It must be EMPHASIZED, however,
that they DID NOT BOTHER THE TEXT ITSELF - they only added a
means by which to insure the correct PRONUNCIATION of the text.
(Note: A very important point here. The text itself was not
changed or messed about with. The vowel and accent points were
added ABOVE or BELOW the text, which was still preserved in their
meticulous way as we shall proceed to see - Keith Hunt).
The Massoretes were not concerned only with such things as
details of proper pronunciation. MORE THAN THIS, they sought
WAYS and METHODS by which they could ELIMINATE scribal SLIPS of
addition or omission. THIS THEY ACHIEVED through INTRICATE
PROCEDURES OF COUNTING.
They numbered the verses, words and letters of each book.
They counted the number of times each letter was used in each
book. They noted verses which contained all the letters of the
alphabet, or a certain number of them, etc. They calculated the
middle verse, the middle word, and the middle letter of each
book. (The middle verse of the Pentateuch is Lev.8:7, while the
middle verse of the Hebrew Bible is Jeremiah 6:7)......With these
SAFEGUARDS , and OTHERS, when a scribe finished making a copy of
a book he could then CHECK the accuracy of his work before using
it.
(Note: Now, read those last two paragraphs AGAIN! Read
them SLOWLY! Let what these Jewish copy scholars DID in order to
preserve ACCURATELY every letter, every dot and tittle of the
Hebrew OT, sink into your mind fully and completely. See the
hand of the Almighty Eternal God in all of this, so His WORD
would never be lost, become full of errors and mistakes so His
truth of DOCTRINE would be confused or not understandable. As
Jesus, who was the God of the OT, the preserver of the OT, said:
"not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law, until all be
fulfilled" and "heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words
shall never pass away." The Eternal is able to preserve His word
so nothing has been lost, even through the agents of human hands
- Keith Hunt).
This BRIEFLY illustrates why the work of the Massoretes is
SO IMPORTANT. The Massoretes were TEXTUAL CRITICS of the FIRST
RANK!
They examined and appraised carefully all the textual
materials available to them, and on the basis of their abundant
evidence set down in writing the form of the text which had been
received at LEAST SEVERAL CENTURIES BEFORE their time.
Indeed, their labours were so productive and their
contributions so large that our Hebrew text today is often
referred to as "the Massoretic text." The extant Hebrew
manuscripts noted above are outstanding specimens of the
Massoretic text.
Other Materials on the Text
The most important materials in the establishing of a text
are those that are found in the ORIGINAL LANGUAGE of the text.
The BASIC source then of the OT text will always remain the
HEBREW manuscripts. Nevertheless ADDITIONAL materials are often
in a position to throw much light on the TRADITIONAL text...these
additional textual authorities will now be noted.
1. SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH......is not a translation, but is a
form of the Hebrew text itself. It's BEGINNING is to be traced
back to about 400 B.C. when the Samaritans .......built their
sanctuary on Mt. Gerizim, near Shechem. As a result the
Samaritans adopted their own form of the Hebrew Scriptures and
counted as authoritative ONLY the FIVE books of Moses.
In one sense the Samaritan Pentateuch presents a PROBLEM,
for it bears some 6,000 variants from the Massoretic text. BUT ON
EXAMINATION the problem is NOT AS GREAT as it might appear. MOST
of the variants have to do with SPELLING and GRAMMATICAL
differences which DO NOT EFFECT the MESSAGE of the text, while a
number of others UNMISTAKABLY have been INSERTED to SUPPORT the
PECULIAR beliefs of the Samaritan community. OVER ALL THERE ARE
FEW MAJOR DIFFERENCES between the Hebrew and the Samaritan
Pentateuch, which MEANS that to a high degree the Samaritan
Pentateuch CONFIRMS the traditional Hebrew text.
2. SEPTUAGINT. The word "Septuagint" is derived from the
Latin Septuaginta, meaning "Seventy," and is the common name
given to the Greek translation of the OT.
.......about 70 men took part in the translation of the
Pentateuch. As the tradition goes.....Jewish scholars from
Jerusalem were summoned to Alexandria by the Egyptian king to
make a translation from the hebrew to the Greek.......Little of
the story is accepted as factual.......The time of the Egyptian
king, Ptolemy 2 Philadelphus, is probably right, making the
origin of the Septuagint approximately 250 B.C. At a later date,
time and circumstances unknown, the remaining books of the OT
were translated into Greek.
(Note: The introduction to the Septuagint in the volume
that I have is VERY REVEALING. It is too long to quote here. The
reader may want to read it for themselves. Most larger cities
will carry the Septuagint translation in their religious
department of their public libraries - Keith Hunt).
Whatever MYSTERIES may surround it, the Septuagint
translation will always hold interest among Christians.......It
was......often quoted by the apostles and inspired writers
of the NT.......It is true that it has its DEFICIENCIES; it has
its MISTAKES of translation and its differences from the
Massoretic text; but it still plays a SIGNIFICANT role in
supporting the text of the OT. While the Samaritan Pentateuch
covers only the first FIVE books, the Septuagint witness spans
the remainder of the OT as well.
3. ARAMAIC TARGUMS. After the period of the Jewish exile,
Aramaic began to be the spoken language of the Jews. In order for
the people to understand the reading of the Scriptures in public
worship, it was necessary that they be translated or paraphrased
in aramaic. The translation was called TARGUM. By the time of
the FIFTH CENTURY A.D. two official Targums had emerged....both
are deliberately literal in their efforts of translation.
4. SYRIAC PESHITTA. The Syriac translation was begun very
early, perhaps as early as the middle of the FIRST century A.D.
In its EARLIEST FORM the Peshitta is in CLOSE AGREEMENT with the
Massoretic text. LATER, there is CONSIDERABLE EVIDENCE where it
has been unduly INFLUENCED by readings from the Septuagint.......
5. LATIN VERSIONS and OTHERS. There are two main types of
the Latin translations, the OLD Latin and the VULGATE. The Old
Latin dates back to A.D. 150, but it has definite limitations
because it was a translation based on the Septuagint. The
latin VULGATE, on the other hand, even though later, is a
VALUABLE text-authority. It was the work of the knowledgeable
JEROME, who spent the years of 390-405 translating DIRECTLY from
the Hebrew in to the Latin. At a time when all other
translations of the Church resorted to the Septuagint, it was an
unheard of thing to do! Jerome's work indeed has its
SHORT-COMINGS, but even so it throws much light on the early
Hebrew text.
Additional materials on the OT text are available. There
are such sources as the Biblical quotations found in the Tamuld
(200-500 A.D.), along with other Jewish materials........still
other versions such as the Coptic, the Ethiopic, the Armenian,
and the Arabic......they serve to illustrate the abundance of
text-materials accessible OUTSIDE the Hebrew manuscripts.
(Note: I want you to pay CLOSE ATTENTION to the next
section from Lightfoot, for it serves to bring out the workings
of the Lord as He put within the Jewish scribal copyists what we
would call FANATICAL-ISM today, as they copied and preserved the
text of the Hebrew Old Testament - Keith Hunt).
Present Status of Our Text
We have seen that our earliest Hebrew manuscripts date no
further back than the NINTH century, which leaves a rather wide
separation of centuries between the original OT autographs and
the materials available to us today. This might give occasion
for alarm WERE IT NOT FOR THE EXTREME CARE TAKEN BY JEWISH
SCRIBES AS THEY MADE THEIR COPIES OF THE SCRIPTURES.
CENTURIES PRIOR to the Massoretes, Jewish scribes were
CONSCIENTIOUSLY SEEKING PERFECTION in the transcription of the
text. EVIDENCE of this is found in the TALMUD (Jewish civil and
religious law) where RIGID REGULATIONS are laid down for the
preparation of COPIES of the Pentateuch to be used in the
synagogues.
"A synagogue roll must be written on the skins of clean
animals, prepared for the particular use of the synagogue by a
Jew. These must be fastened together with strings taken from
clean animals. Every skin must contain a certain number
of columns, equal throughout the entire codex. The length of each
column must not extend over less than forty-eight, or more than
sixty lines; and the breadth must consist of thirty letters. The
whole copy must be first lined; and if THREE WORDS be written in
it without a line, it is WORTHLESS. The ink should be black,
neither red, green, nor any other color and be prepared
accordingly to a definite recipe. An AUTHENTIC copy must be the
exemplar, from which the transcriber ought not in the least to
deviate.
No WORD or LETTER, NOT EVEN A YOD, MUST BE WRITTEN FROM
MEMORY, the scribe not having looked at the codex before
him......Between every consonant the space of a hair or thread
must intervene; between every word the breath of a narrow
consonant; between every new parashah, or section, the breadth
of nine consonants; between every book, three lines. The fifth
book of Moses must terminate exactly with a line; but the rest
need not do so. Beside this, the copyist must sit in full Jewish
dress, wash his whole body, not begin to write the name of
God with a pen newly dipped in ink, and should a king address him
while writing that name, he must take no notice of him.....
The ROLLS in which THESE REGULATIONS are NOT observed are
CONDEMNED to be BURIED in the ground or burned; or they are
banished to the schools, to be used as reading books" (Cited by
Sir Frederic Kenyon. OUR BIBLE and the ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
Revised by A.W. Adams - NY: Harper and Brothers, 1958, pp.
78-79).
THIS STRICT SET OF REGULATIONS which governed the EARLY
JEWISH SCRIBE is a chief factor which GUARANTEES the ACCURATE
TRANS MISSION of the OT text. There are also all the meticulous
precautions observed by the Massoretes in their vigorous effort
to detect scribal errors.......ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE on the
question shows that the type of text made permanent by the
Massoretes WAS EXTANT in the CENTURIES which ANTEDATE the coming
of Christ.
End of quote from Lightfoot for this fourth section of our
study.
(Note: During the life of Jesus on this earth, He made NOT
ONE comment about the OT Hebrew Scriptures having been lost,
corrupted, miss-placed, or in any way, large or small, messed up
or perverted. I guess not, because He as the God of the OT was
making sure they were preserved accurately. Jesus also moved
about mainly within the main-stream Judaism of His time, and
attending their Sabbath synagogue services, reading from the
Scriptures THEY preserved and copied. Sure, there may have been
some small cults and sects here and there with their Hebrew or
Aramaic or Greek translations of the OT, but Jesus mainly ignored
them. He said "salvation is of the Jews" and that it was the
"scribes and Pharisees who sit in Moses' seat." He told the
woman at the well that the Samaritans "worship you know not
what." Paul was inspired to say there was an advantage in being
a Jew, for unto them were committed the oracles of God
[Rom.3:1,2]. The main stream Jewish scholars of Judaism, that
also regulate the Hebrew perpetual calendar, who have the
authority over the calendar, the descendants of the
Jewish Sanhedrin of Christ's time [which did continue after
A.D.70 as history proves] have a standard text, the received
text, of the Hebrew OT. They have over the years published a few
translations of this text into English. One of the very first,
if not the first, by the Jewish Publication Society was called
THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, and was published in 1917.
The most recent translation of the OT into English by the
Jewish Publication Society is the translation called TANAKH,
which is a Hebrew word derived from the THREE sections of the OT
- the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. The beginning of
the Preface to this translation says: " This translation of
Tanakh, the Holy Scriptures......was made directly from the
TRADITIONAL HEBREW TEXT......."
They do go on to show that in certain respects the
translations of 1917 and 1985 are somewhat DIFFERENT, for various
reasons. The reader is asked to see what they say on this for
themselves, and come to their own conclusion as to which of the
two translations they deem the more faithful to the original
traditional Hebrew text - Keith Hunt).
The Dead Sea Scrolls
(Note: Much new insight and research has developed in the
last number of years concerning the Dead Sea Scrolls. Many more
scholars from around the world have been busy trying to fit them
all together. The work of the past, often done by only a few
scholars[they wanted to hang on to them like a winning lottery
ticket] has been showed to be full of errors and mistakes.
Interesting as this many be, all of that does not really
concern us in this study of the Hebrew OT manuscripts. What
Lightfoot brings out is of importance as it pertains to the
Isaiah scrolls found among the so called Dead Sea Scrolls - Keith
Hunt).
To be continued
....................
Written December 1997
4. Bible - How it came to be
A detailed look at how the Bible was preserved
Part 5
THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
WE CONTINUE HERE WITH CHAPTER 8 FROM THE BOOK "HOW WE
GOT THE BIBLE" BY NEIL LIGHTFOOT. All emphasis throughout this
series is by Keith Hunt.
The Dead Sea Scrolls
(Note: Much new insight and research has developed in the
last number of years concerning the Dead Sea Scrolls. Many more
scholars from around the world have been busy trying to fit them
all together. The work of the past, often done by only a few
scholars[they wanted to hang on to them like a winning lottery
ticket] has been showed to be full of errors and mistakes.
Interesting as this many be, all of that does not really concern
us in this study of the Hebrew OT manuscripts. What Lightfoot
brings out is of importance as it pertains to the Isaiah scrolls
found among the so called Dead Sea Scrolls - Keith Hunt).
Lightfoot:
In March of 1948 the discovery of some ancient manuscripts
found in the vicinity of the Dead Sea was first reported....since
the first news of those scrolls, numerous others have been
located in the same region. In all about 350 rolls, most of them
fragmentary, have been uncovered(Note: this book being written in
the early 60's it is probably a lot more than 350 that have been
discovered now, in 1997 - Keith Hunt).
These scrolls were produced by a deeply religious community
of Jews who had taken up their station in the desert........Many
of the scrolls concern only the particular beliefs of the sect,
yet there are many others which contain the text of fragmentary
portions of the OT. Actually, fragments of ALMOST EVERY BOOK of
the OT have turned up.......
THE MOST IMPORTANT OF THESE MANUSCRIPTS ARE TWO SCROLLS OF
THE BOOK OF ISAIAH. One is COMPLETE, except for a FEW words, and
is known as Isaiah A; the other one, known as Isaiah B, is NOT
complete, but contains a considerable portion of material (Isaiah
chapters 41 to 59).
The AMAZING story of these manuscripts is bound up with
their AGE. Isaiah A dates back to 100 B.C. or earlier, while
Isaiah B is but a little later. HERE ARE SCROLLS THAT ARE A
THOUSAND YEARS EARLIER THAN THE OLDEST OF OUR PREVIOUS HEBREW
MANUSCRIPTS!
WHAT DO THE SCROLLS REVEAL ABOUT OUR TEXT? HOW DO THEY
COMPARE WITH THE MANUSCRIPTS OF THE MASSORETIC TEXT from which
they were separated by so many centuries? Do these newly
discovered manuscripts demand such CHANGES in the text that
require also changes in our faith?
The scrolls tell us much, but chiefly that there has
SCARCELY BEEN, AT LEAST SINCE THE FIRST OR SECOND CENTURIES B.C.,
A MAJOR CHANGE IN THE FORM OF THE HEBREW TEXT, as Professor F.F.
Bruce expresses it, " the new evidence confirms what we had
already good reason to believe - that the Jewish scribes of
the early Christian centuries copied the text of the Hebrew Bible
with the UTMOST FIDELITY " (F.F. Bruce, Second Thoughts on the
Dead Sea Scrolls - Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1956 - pages 61-62).
(Note: Lightfoot goes on to tell us that the Isaiah A scroll
became known in time for the Revised Standard Version of 1952 to
take it into account. With Isaiah A in hand they only adopted 13
variant readings as contrasted to the Massoretic text, and Millar
Burrows, a member of the translating committee, a first-rank
scholar and authority on the scrolls, later confessed that he
personally felt that some of the departures from the Massoretic
text were a mistake[Millar Burrows, The Dead Seas Scrolls - New
York: Viking Press, 1955, page 305] - Keith Hunt).
AS A WHOLE the text of these ancient scrolls are REMARKABLY
LIKE OUR TEXT TODAY. The sixth chapter of Isaiah......Comparing
Isaiah A and our present Hebrew text we are able to count 37
variant readings in this chapter. BUT PRACTICALLY ALL of these
variants are no more than SPELLING DIFFERENCES. Only three of
them are large enough to be reflected in an English translation,
and of THESE not a ONE is significant. These variants are: "they
were calling" instead of "one called to another" (verse 3);
"holy,holy" instead of "holy, holy, holy" (verse 3); and "sins"
for "sin" (verse 7). IN THESE CASES OUR PRESENT TEXT IS
UNQUESTIONABLY BETTER THAN THAT FOUND IN ISAIAH A.......
This has prompted Millar Burrows to say: "It is a matter for
wonder that through something like a thousand years the text
underwent so little alteration. As I said in my first article on
the scroll, 'Herein lies its CHIEF IMPORTANCE, SUPPORTING THE
FIDELITY OF THE MASSORETIC TRADITION" (Ibid., p. 304).
Summary
Our oldest Hebrew manuscripts date no further back than the
NINTH century......Early versions of the OT and other sources are
of great value since they ATTEST to the RELIABILITY of our
present text. The biblical documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls are
nothing short of sensational. The most important are the two
Isaiah scrolls, which......CONFIRM BEYOND DOUBT THE ACCURACY OF
OUR PRESENT HEBREW TEXT.
So ends chapter 8 from the book by Neil Lightfoot.
NOTE: We have seen that yes, of course, there naturally
would be various books of the OT, maybe even the whole OT,
written and copied by various small religious sects of Judaism,
and such sects as the Samaritans with their Pentateuch (the first
five books of Moses). But the fact still remains very clear that
from the time of Moses, we have those that "sat in Moses' seat."
We have the official leaders and God guided(not in spiritual
matters where they were infallible as to the understanding of the
Eternal's word) scribes who were granted by the Lord to be the
custodians of the correct preservation and copying of the words,
the yod, and the tittle, of the scared Scriptures of the OT.
These same "sitters in the seat of Moses" were given the
"oracles" of God, and therein lies the advantage of being a Jew
as Paul was inspired to tell us. They were also given the
authority over the regulations of the calendar, its rules and
laws, and when the pronouncement of the first day of each month
of the year would be, so the announcing of the first of Nisan,
leading into the first feast of Lord - the Passover.
The text of the OT was in their hands, to preserve it and
to copy it CORRECTLY! This we have seen they did do so, and we
have seen in some detail HOW they made sure that it was copied
correctly, so every word of the Lord would be preserved. We
have seen that Jesus during His nearly thirty-four years of life
on this earth, never spoke one word about any words, passages,
sentences etc. of the OT Hebrew, being lost, corrupted, or so
messed up with, that we could not know for sure what were the
words of God. We have seen that just the opposite is the case,
and that Jesus said though heaven and earth would pass away not
one word of His would pass away, and those words indeed would be
the words to judge a man at the day of judgement. He stated that
not one jot or tittle would pass from the law until all was
fulfilled.
We have seen how Jesus, as the God of the OT, as the "I Am"
of the OT(John 8) and His Father in heaven, were able, had the
power to guide the minds and hands of men to so preserve and copy
the Hebrew OT so not one word would be lost.
There was, within Israel, within the main-stream religious
community, those that sat in Moses' seat to safe-guard the
oracles of God. In the days of Christ, He Himself clearly stated
that it was the "scribes and Pharisees" who sat in that seat of
Moses(Mat.23). It was not some sect in Samaria, who had their
own temple on their own hill to worship God in, contrary to what
God had clearly established in Jerusalem. It was not some sect in
Egypt who disagreed with the Jews of Judea, and so set up their
own headquarters of worship. It was not some fanatical desert
sect who went off to the Dead Sea area, to gather scrolls from
anywhere, and to write their own. These and others like
them were not entrusted by God with the preservation of the
oracles of the Lord, the preservation of the Hebrew OT, and the
governance over the calendar.
I must give EMPHASIS to this! It is important you really
have this foundation, for on it lies the basic bedrock of this
question about the accurate preservation of all the words of God,
as to what words are THE BIBLE, and to the question that is being
raised today about the authority over the calendar we are to
follow, as to when (the dates) we should observe the Festivals of
the Eternal.
There have always been groups of people, even from the days
of Moses, who did not agree with Moses, or Joshua, or other men
of God. Who did not agree with, would not follow the calendar
that those who sat in Moses' seat proclaimed. History shows
many such sects broke away from the main-stream Israel religious
community. They set up their own towns, their own temples, their
own priesthood, their own translations of the Scriptures or parts
of it, they wanted to follow(the Samaritan sect, only followed
the five books of Moses). They set up their own calendars, in
opposition to the calendar proclaimed in Israel or Judea(after
the house of Israel departed from the true worship of
God) by those in Moses' seat.
The same was still going on in the days when Jesus walked
among His people. The same is still going on to this very day!
Just because some group or some sect, over here or over
there, have a religion, have some translation of the Hebrew OT,
have some calendar they follow, DOES NOT make their calendar,
does not make their translation of the OT, the CORRECT ONE! You
need to understand that point and never forget it. More confusion
in people's minds of late has been caused because they HAVE NOT
understood or have FORGOTTEN who in Israel, were given the
official God inspired guidance as to the accurate preservation
of the oracles(words of God as the Lord had them written down) of
the Eternal, and as to the proclaiming of the calendar in regards
to the announcing of the new month days.
In Israel it was those who sat in Moses' seat that were
given custody of these TWO important functions - the literal
copying and preservation of the Hebrew OT, and the regulation and
proclaiming of the calendar. During the time of Jesus, it was He
who stated that it was the Scribes and the Pharisees, who sat in
Moses' seat! Do not misunderstand me. That did not mean the
scribes and Pharisees were custodians of all the doctrinal truths
of God, and correct understanding of the Scriptures. There is a
VAST DIFFERENCE between writing down the words and preserving the
words of God correctly, and understanding correctly the words of
the Lord. The two areas should never be confused, they are
totally separate from each other.
Jesus on MANY occasions did not agree with the "doctrines"
and the "teachings" and the "understandings" of the scribes and
the Pharisees as they read the words of the Scriptures and
interpreted them. But they did sit in Moses' seat as to
preserving accurately the literal words from literal manuscripts
in the literal Temple.
The other sects from other parts of the country(Dead Sea
etc.) or world, did not sit in Moses' seat, they were not
inspired to preserve the words of the Lord on manuscript
scrolls correctly, hence they all contain errors or some sort,
even if they are mainly small, insignificant, or by and large
just spelling differences.
The Septuagint (Greek) translation of the OT is another
matter. It contains some HUGE errors, and the reader needs to
study carefully as to what is written in the "Introduction" to
the English/Greek translation, that can be found in most public
Libraries.
The scribes and Pharisees who sat in Moses' seat during the
time of Christ, were also a very large part of the Jewish
Sanhedrin, who, with other things, were in charge of regulating
the calendar, and announcing the new month days. Jesus, NEVER
disagreed with them, over the calling of the new month days. Of
course not! It was He as the "I Am" of the OT that gave them that
authority in the first place! He did not take it away from
them, neither during His life on earth, nor after His return to
the Father in heaven. He never gave such authority over the
calendar to the NT church. They never claimed it was now
transferred to them. The NT church continued to observe the
Feasts of the Lord WITH the Jews, at the times they observed the
beginning of the new months. The church led by leaders such as
Polycarp and Polycrates of the 2nd century A.D. also continued
to observe the Passover as set down by the main-stream Jewish
Sanhedrin, in proclaiming when the first of Nisan would be
observed and called.
This Jewish, main-stream, Sanhedrin did not come to an end
in 70 A.D. as history clearly shows. It continued to function in
another town when Jerusalem was destroyed. This I have thoroughly
expounded in other articles.
Those who sat in Moses' seat from the time of Moses, during
the time of Christ, during the start of the NT church, up to the
destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and AFTER that time as it
continued to exist on into the centuries of A.D. and even up to
this present time, HAVE PRESERVED ACCURATELY THE OT HEBREW
SCRIPTURES OF THE WORD OF THE LORD. And in part four and five of
this series we have seen HOW the Eternal inspired them to do it,
in the literal physical way they copied and re-copied the ancient
manuscript scrolls.
AGAIN, to give emphasis to all this, somewhat laboring the
point, maybe so, but so important is it that I feel I must
be-labor it further. I will quote from the book "The Oxford
Companion to the Bible" Oxford University Press, 1993, edited by
Bruce Metzger and Michael Coogan, pages 486,487.
Lightfoot......Hebrew Bible
Forms. ancient texts such as the Hebrew Bible were transmitted
over centuries in various forms, at first in scrolls, later in
manuscripts of codex format, and in recent centuries in
printed editions....... Development of the Biblical Text. When
the composition of a biblical book was completed, in theory there
should have been ONLY ONE MASTER copy of that particular
book(Note: we have seen that under Moses and under the High
Priest there was only one master copy of the books of the OT
Bible, kept in the Tabernacle or Temple - the official
copy - Keith Hunt). In practice, however, even at that stage
there MAY HAVE BEEN several copies which differed from one
another, often a great deal(Note: I have covered that situation
and those facts of the case above. Certain break-away sects from
the main body of Israel and eventually Judah, did have "their"
translations, but the fact remained the official translation and
copy was with the high priest in Israel and in the Tabernacle
or Temple - Keith Hunt)........These differences increased rather
than diminished in the next centuries (Note: In some cases only.
Yet, if that was the case with some, it still did not mean there
was not an official OT Hebrew scroll of the books of the
canonized Bible, under the authority of the high priest in
Jerusalem, kept in the Temple - Keith Hunt)......Many of these
different texts fell out of use, especially because the religious
groups supporting them ceased to exist or diminished in
importance (Note: This all bears weight to what I brought out
above. These different translations of the OT were from
small split-off sects of the main-stream body of Israel and the
official God instituted Priesthood from Moses' time, who sat in
Moses' seat . These sects came and went, rose up and diminished,
came into being and went out of being. The official people who
sat in Moses' seat did not diminish, they were still there at the
time Jesus walked this earth among the main-stream religious Jews
- Keith Hunt).......In the Roman period, however, there were many
different "families" of texts in use, as the Qumram (Note: The
sect by the Dead Sea - famous for the so-called Dead Seas Scrolls
- Keith Hunt) text show; AMONG THESE was what was to become the
OFFICIAL VERSION of the text of the Hebrew Bible ("the received
text") in the centuries to follow, the MASSORETIC Text (Note: It
was not "to become" the official text, it was ALREADY the
official text. Those in Moses' seat had preserved the OT Hebrew
Scriptures from the time of Moses. We have seen how they
meticulously did this for centuries - Keith Hunt)
The Massoretic Text. After the destruction of the Second Temple
in 70 CE, a PARTICULAR GROUP of texts was emerging, ENDORSED BY
and COPIED BY the CENTRAL STREAM OF JUDAISM, THAT OF THE
PHARISEES, LATER TO BE KNOW AS THE MASSORETIC TEXT.........
End of quote with my comments added.
Note:
Ah, did you see what they had to say under the last section
I gave you, under "The Massoretic Text"?
I have proved to you in this series that the particular
groups of texts that after 70 A.D. was "emerging" as they put it,
the ones "endorsed by" and "copied by" the CENTRAL STREAM of
Judaism, WERE ALREADY THERE, they did not have to "emerge." The
OT Scriptures Jesus read from when in the synagogue on the
Sabbath day, were ALREADY THERE! They had been preserved by the
"central stream" of Israel's and later Judah's religious body,
those who sat in Moses' seat, FOR CENTURIES! They were the
official Scriptures, and had been for centuries in Judah, for to
them was given the oracles of God, and that is why Paul said
there was an advantage to being a Jew!
You will notice WHO the above book (The Oxford Companion to
the Bible ) says was the CENTRAL STREAM of Judaism - the
PHARISEES! It will still shock some people to hear that, because
they cannot see the difference between God using a certain
people from within His community of Israel, to preserve the
accurate words of the Lord as given in the OT Hebrew, and the
authority over the regulations of the calendar, AND the authority
given by God to the NT church to INTERPRET and UNDERSTAND
correctly the MEANING of those words of the Eternal as found in
the Scriptures.
Because such people have a terrible time with seeing the
difference between the two truths above, they get all upset at
the possible thought that the scribes and Pharisees could have
been used by God IN ANY WAY! Especially is this truth so strange
to them when they consider how Jesus spoke about the scribes and
Pharisees in Matthew 23 and at other times in His ministry. Yet,
contained in Matthew 23 are the words from Jesus, that the
scribes and Pharisees did sit "in Moses' seat"! It IS THERE
friend, whether you like it or not! The scribes and Pharisees DID
HAVE a certain amount of authority. There were certain areas in
the religious life of Israel and the people of God, the NT
church, that the Lord was using the scribes and Pharisees to
perform for the health and the benefit of all the people of God
and ultimately for the benefit of the whole world.
TWO large and very important areas God was and is still
using those people of central stream Judaism, is in the accurate
preservation of the OT Hebrew Scriptures, the official "received"
text, and also the official regulations of the Hebrew calendar,
which ensure, on a world-wide, global, international, united
front(no pun intended for those readers of the church of God)
that the Eternal's children observe His Festivals at the
same time(taking into account different sunsets around the world
etc.) no matter what country they are living in.
We can all have the SAME WORD OF GOD, and the SAME
FESTIVALS, at the SAME TIME!!
The TRANSLATING of the OT Hebrew INTO English is another
matter altogether, with other considerations and other problems
to take into account. All of that we shall look into in the next
article on this series.
...............................
Written December 1997
To be continued
5. Bible - How it came to be
A detailed look at how the Bible was preserved
AN OVERVIEW FROM AN OLD
ARTICLE
Before we explore the difficult area of translating the
Hebrew OT from Hebrew into the English language(which part 7
contains), I think it would be good to give you some excerpts
from an article written that was part of a publication by the
Worldwide Church of God back in 1980. The publication was called
"The Authority of the Bible" and the article within it that I
will quote from was called "Has the Bible Been Preserved
Accurately?" and its author was Neil Earle.
All large capital letter emphasis is mine - Keith Hunt.
Quote:
Could a collection of writings scattered over 1,500 years of
composition, spanning 60 generations and authored by 40-plus
writers in THREE languages survive such a journey?
Jesus Christ said YES. The skeptics DISAGREE........
Critical doubts and scholarly questions do not constitute
refutation......The document gets the benefit of any doubt. The
burden of proof lies with the skeptic!
A nation of priests
The evidence for the integrity and authenticity of the
documents underlying the biblical text makes a fascinating story.
It begins with the Eternal God's selection of an entire
nation as a "kingdom of priests" (Ex.19:6). The CARE and
PRESERVATION of Israel's lively oracles was ultimately to become
a solemn duty of PROFESSIONALS called scribes.
How easy was it to palm off forgeries on the SPECIALLY
CHOSEN teachers of the tribe of LEVI (Deut.33:10)? How did later
educated Jews feel about the authenticity of the documents they
VENERATED as the "holy scriptures" (2 Tim.3:15)?
Let JOSEPHUS, a Jewish historian of the first century,
answer:
' From Artaxerxes (Malachi's time) until our time everything
has been recorded but has not been deemed worthy of like credit
with what has preceded, because the exact succession of prophets
ceased. But what faith we have placed in our own writings is
evident by our conduct; FOR though so long a time has now passed,
NO ONE HAS DARED TO ADD ANYTHING TO THEM, OR ALTER ANYTHING IN
THEM' (Contra Apion, Whiston's Josephus, p.609).
Often overlooked is that the law, prophets, and writings,
which were accepted by Jesus (Luke 24:44), formed the BASIS FOR
THE LEGAL PRACTICES of the Jewish nation. These religious
writings had NATIONAL IMPACT equal to Britain's Magna Carta...or
America's Plymouth Rock Covenant and Declaration of
Independence....Animosity was, paradoxically, a powerful force in
PRESERVING the unimpeachability of Scripture. The appeal to the
text was the common arbiter in theological debate (Matt.19:7).
The Scriptures were known at the grass-roots level as well (Luke
4:16-20). UNOFFICIAL DELETIONS, INSERTIONS OR CORRUPTIONS would
have triggered an OUTCRY among the faithful in a nation ZEALOUS
FOR THE LAW (Acts 22:3).
TAMPER with the OFFICIAL Hebrew text? One may as well
consider EDITING the Declaration of Independence, DELETING a
sentence in a NEW copy of the Gettysburg Address......VITAL
literary production of NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE are too WELL KNOWN
to be PRIVATELY tampered with among the faithful. There were, of
course, enemies who tried to do so - and still do!
Today thousands of people have committed the TEN
COMMANDMENTS TO MEMORY. Imagine the PROTEST if a NEW Bible
translation INSERTED AN EXTRA commandment!.......
The Thread of Conveyance
Scripture itself speaks of a systematic, ORGANIZED
PRESERVATION of the law, prophets and writings.
Moses entrusted the law to the Levites guarding the ark,
center-piece of Israel's religion (Deut.31:24-26). Joshua 1:8
comments upon "this book of the law" that Moses' successor read
to the entire nation (Josh.8:32-35).
Literate, proficient scholars functioned even through the
chaotic Judges period (Judg.5:14, 1 Sam.1:3,9). Under Samuel
and David and Solomon, during Israel's Golden Age, inspired
writers laid the basis for the historical narratives in Samuel,
Kings and Chronicles. David revered the sacred writings
(Ps.119:97), and he and Solomon contributed and collected many
psalms and proverbs.
These writings formed the basis for successive national
revivals and reforms (2 Chron.17:7-9; 2 Kings 22:8). Later on
Isaiah and Hezekiah updated the text (Prov.25:1; Isa.8:16). In
this way "holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy
Spirit" (2 Pet.1:21). The writings of the prophets were accepted
- often after the death of the prophets - because of God's
evident approval and inspiration, shown through dramatic
fulfilment (Isa.38:4-7).
Even during the babylonian captivity Daniel had access to
the Scriptures (Dan.9:2), and the return to Jerusalem was greatly
influenced by Ezra, a "ready scribe" and guardian of the text
(Ezra 7:6,10). According to Jewish tradition, Ezra officially
updated and clarified the text in certain places(e.g.,Deut.34:5).
Shortly after his time the book of Malachi, the last OT prophet,
was written.
Ancient computers
How responsible was the transmission of the text? We can get
a good insight by surveying TWO PERIODS OF TRANSCRIPTION: from
the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 to about A.D. 500, and from A.D.
500 to A.D. 916.
In the first five centuries a group known as the TALMUDISTS
guarded and copied the text. A supreme effort to safeguard the
OT accompanied the scattering of the Jewish people after A.D. 70.
"A great rabbi - Yochanan ben Zakkia by name (reconstituted)
the SANHEDRIN AT JANNIA, between Joppa and Azotus. They
considered whether canonical recognition should be accorded to
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs and Esther......the
upshot was the firm acknowledgement of all these books as Holy
Scripture" (F.F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments, p.97).....
TRANSCRIPTION WAS LETTER BY LETTER, WORD BY WORD, OR PHRASE
BY PHRASE! DILIGENCE, VENERATION, PROFESSIONALISM. THE HALL
MARKS OF THE TALMUDIST TRADITION!
The MASORETES (Hebrew Masorah, meaning "to deliver something
in to the hands of another") safeguarded the text from about A.D.
500 to A.D. 916. These dedicated scholars based in Tiberias
produced the Masoretic texts used today; they are the basis for
our English OT of 1611. "The Masorah is called 'a fence to the
scriptures' because it locked all words and letters in their
places. It records the number of times the several letters occur
in the Bible; the number of words and the middle word; the number
of verses and the middle verse, etc., for the set purpose of
preventing the loss or misplacement of a single letter or word"
(Bullinger, Companion Bible, Appendix 30).
Designating the middle letter of the Pentateuch and the
middle letter and verse of each book as well as the entire OT was
not enough for these technicians. Phrases were counted,
enumerated, distinguished. "House of Israel" was computed
separately from "sons of Israel" and the number of times each
occurred was well noted. The expression "sins of Jeroboam" is
noted separately from "the sins of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat."
thus the Jewish zeal for God was turned to good use (Romans
10:2).
So confident were the Talmudists and Masoretes that the
older documents were discarded. In the words of Sir Frederick
Kenyon, late curator of the British Museum, "Age gave no
advantage to a manuscript." Understanding the PRECISION and
SKILL of the Jewish scribes explains why. Who has ever counted
the letters of Shakespear, the words of Herodotus, the phrases of
Homer?
(Note: An interesting paragraph from the Companion Bible,
Appendix 30, that was not quoted by Earle is this:
" The Text itself had been fixed before the Massorites were
put in charge of it. This had been the work of the Sopherim [from
saphar, to count, or number]. Their work, under Ezra and
Nehemiah, was to set the Text in order after the return from
Babylon; and we read of it in Neh.8:8 [cp Ezra 7:6,11]. The men
of 'the Great Synagogue' completed the work. This work lasted
about 110 years, from Nehemiah to Simon the first, 410-300 B.C."
- Keith Hunt).
The Dead Sea Scrolls
............Then came 1947. One of the famous Dead Sea Scrolls
found was the COMPLETE Isaiah manuscript. Its date?
Approximately 125 B.C. This is a thousand years earlier than the
Masoretic tests. HOW DID IT COMPARE? Norman L. Geisler and
William E. Nix report:
"In one chapter of 166 words (Isa, 53) there is only ONE
WORD (three letters) in question after a thousand years of
transmission - and this word does not significantly change the
meaning of the passage" (General Introduction to the Bible,
p.263).
Minor stylistic and spelling variations PALE before the FACT
that the Isaiah scroll "proved to be WORD FOR WORD IDENTICAL with
our STANDARD HEBREW BIBLE in more than 95 percent of the text"
(Archer, A Survey of the OT, p.19).
In the words of Mr. Geisler and Mr. Nix, "the King James
Bible is 98.33 percent pure" when compared with the Dead Sea
Scrolls.
Yet, as the accuracy of the Talmudists and Masoretes SHOULD
DEMONSTRATE, the Dead Sea Scrolls NEED TO BE EVALUATED BY THE
OFFICIAL MASORETIC TEXT, NOT VICE VERSA.................
End of quotes from Neil Earle's article.
In our next study in this series we will look at the difficulties
of translating the OT Hebrew into English.
...................
Written December 1997
6. Bible - How it came to be
A detailed look at how the Bible was preserved
TRANSLATING THE HEBREW
INTO ENGLISH
We have then only a few OT Hebrew manuscripts. None of them
are from before the 9th century A.D. That's all just fine,
because if the Eternal God has said HE will not only give us His
word, but that He will also make sure it is preserved accurately
even to the letter, and the jot and the tittle would not be lost,
then the above facts really do not matter. If the Almighty has
said He will do something, He does have the POWER to do it, and
He WILL DO IT, but He will do it IN THE WAY He decides. He has
the free choice to preserve His word DIFFERENTLY from one part
of His word to another part, if He wants to, after all we do not
tell Him what he can or cannot do.
He so decided that His word would be preserved in two basic
languages - Hebrew and Greek - some parts He chose Aramaic as we
have seen. He used in the main, the Hebrew language for the OT,
and He inspired the scribes and the copyists of those OT
manuscripts and scrolls to formulate a very strict and demanding
set of rules and regulations to make sure His word was copied and
preserved fully and accurately.
Now, it is one thing to have the full and accurate words of
the Lord in writing on scrolls or in codex book form, remembering
that it was capital letter after capital letter, no sentences or
punctuation of any kind in the originals, AND to be able to
accurately understand and present the different words to make
logical thoughts and ideas in the minds of people wanting to
comprehend those words of the Lord.
In other words, you may have the literal letters of the
literal words God inspired to be written on paper, but
translating them into understandable form for different peoples
of different languages in different nations of the earth, is NOT
AS SIMPLE as saying your ABC's.
First of all, Hebrew is a certain language with certain
distinct traits, and then again so are many other languages.
Going from one language with certain specific traits into
another language with certain specific traits, can be VERY
DIFFICULT at times, in some parts of the linguistic transition
and movement from one language to another.
We shall see all this clearly as I bring you quotes from a
certain Hebrew/English Interlinear.
From the Preface of the Hebrew/Greek/English Internilear by
Green, p.7-13
" This work, we believe, contains all the Hebrew and Aramaic
words which have been preserved for us by the Masoretes, and
which in total has become known as the Masoretic Text. this work
also contains the Greek words as printed in the Stephens
Edition of 1550, which has become known as the Textus Receptus,
or, Received Text.......Why did we use these particular texts?
It is simply because these are the only texts which can justly be
designated as 'received' texts. In worldwide acceptance they
tower so far above any other original Hebrew or Greek texts that
there is no doubt but what they must be used in a work such as
this is.......They are the 'Received Texts' because no other text
has been able to win the adherence of any group powerful enough
to displace either the Masoretic or the Received Text from their
place as the standard by which all others are measured........
SPECIFIC DIFFICULTIES ENCOUNTERED
......In rendering the Biblical languages into English we
particularly found it difficult to deal with the following:
FIGURES OF SPEECH.
The Hebrew speaks of the 'lip' of the river, rather than the
'bank' ; sometimes the 'mouth' of Jehovah, rather than the
'word' or 'command' of Jehovah; 'lifting the heads' rather than
counting etc........
(Note: Many readers of the Bible do not understand that it
is full of what is known as 'figures of speech.' So much is this
so that Mr Bullinger wrote a 1104 page book on the subject,
called "Figures of Speech used in the Bible." This book I highly
recommend to all Ministers and Bible class leaders in the Church
of God - Keith Hunt).
PARTS OF SPEECH.
It is not always possible to render the parts of speech in
literal form, and at the same time convey the meaning to the
English reader.
INTERPRETATION.
There is always interpretation in rendering one language
into another, and it is necessary to consider the entire context
before making a translation........
IMPLIED WORDS.
There are many instances in which the verb, or other words,
are implied within the Hebrew word, either by the sentence
structure, the syntax, or the context. In such cases the
translator has supplied the word, even though it is not
represented by Hebrew characters. In these cases the word
supplied has been put in parentheses so that the reader will know
that they were supplied by the translator. In the marginal
translation these supplied words may be in italic type.
PUNCTUATION and CAPITALIZATION.
It should be realized that in the original Biblical
languages, both Hebrew and Greek, all letters were capital
letters, as we think of them........It should also be noted that
there was no punctuation in the original manuscripts, either in
the Hebrew or Greek.......In the English translation in the
margin we have followed modern English punctuation rules,
our authority being The Chicago Manual of Style.......
NON-CONCORDANT TRANSLATION.
As in all languages, parts of speech may be fluid enough to
have many meanings for one word or particle, usually depending on
its contextual circumstances.......
(Note; An example would be the English word 'present.' In
one context it is something you give to someone as a 'gift' or
'present.' In another context you are 'present' at a meeting of
the school board. The word in English is said exactly the same
in both situations but as you see the meaning is quite different
in both circumstances- Keith Hunt).
NON-AGREEMENT OF NUMBER.
Singular pronouns are often translated by the plural
(normally a Hebrew collective) - for example, the literally TO
HIM may appear as TO THEM. Numbered objects are often singular
in Hebrew. For example, literally, it is written FOUR HUNDRED MAN
but herein it will be rendered in the plural, FOUR HUNDRED MEN.
SPACE LIMITATIONS.
......A moment's reflection on the difficult task of putting
English meanings under Hebrew words will show that many short
words require long English translations, or even more than one
English word at places......."
End of quotes from Green's Interlinear.
(Note: Concerning "space limitations," this is often a
common difficulty going from one language to another language.
Seeing the difficulty going from Hebrew/Greek to English is the
reason why the translators of the AMPLIFIED BIBLE came forth with
that particular translation of the Old and New Testament
Scriptures - Keith Hunt).
............................
Written December 1997
To be continued
7. Bible - How it came to be
A detailed look at how the Bible was preserved
THE 14 APOCRYPHAL
BOOKS
15O BC TO 3OO AD
from Rockeliffe Fellowship Bulletin, Ottawa, Canada
Tucked in among the profusion of new versions of the Bible are
a few that contain writings which have been acknowledged by
Protestants and Jews as historically interesting, but have never
been accepted as part of the canon of scripture. Since the
advent of ecumenism promoted by Vatican II, some of these
writings have formed part of the Roman Catholic Bible. Recently
they are beginning to show up in Protestant churches through
ministers schooled in theological institutes having long ago
distanced themselves from acknowledgment of the Bible as the Word
of God.
But why would they bother? Because acceptance of these writings
is seen as a double triumph for liberalism. First, it moves the
Protestant churches closer to the Roman fold and secondly, it
opens a door for the addition of writings - including modern
writings - to the canon of scripture. In a very short time, such
massive tampering with God's Word would provide Christendom with
a 'bible' replete with liberal philosophy and professing to
present the flock with a more 'reasonable' assortment of things
which theological scholars believe God would have said had He
been aware of how radically modem society would be altered.
What follows is presented as basic information for those who
feel uneasy about these fourteen books and wish to know where
those who accept them are coming from theologically and
spiritually.
The Canon of Holy Scripture
The term 'canon' refers to the accepted body of inspired
writing. It is derived from the Greek, 'kanon,' which is of
Semitic origin (Hebrew 'qaneh') and carries the meaning of
'measuring instrument.' Later it was used in the sense of 'rule
of action.' When we use the term 'canon,' we denote that the
Bible is a closed collection of writings inspired by the Spirit
of God; that they have complete and unquestioned authority and
are held by the church as the only rule for faith and life. The
Bible is called a 'closed canon' because nothing can be added and
nothing taken from it. Thus we see that the Old Testament
writings which looked forward to the coming Messiah (Christ) and
the New Testament writings which present Him to the world and
look forward to His coming again in Glory, comprise one complete
story from Genesis to Revelation.
*See Revelation 22:18,19.
The Canon of Scripture is 'closed'
The historian Josephus considered the Old Testament to be a
close canon from the time of Ezra and Nehemiah (450BC), but it
did not officially become so until decreed by the COUNCIL OF
JAMNIA in 90 AD. By 'closed' is meant that nothing is to be added
or deleted from the body of scripture as it stood during the
early days of the Church of Christ. Although the books are
arranged a little differently than we have them, the Hebrew Old
Testament Canon consists of the same 39 books found in our
Bible. These 39 books were translated from the same *Massoretic
text which was used in the King James Version of 1611.
Preservation of the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament
(500 - 1000AD)
The reverence with which the Jews regarded their scriptures
affords a powerful guarantee against any deliberate corruption of
the text.
Speaking of their duty in this regard, the apostle Paul says,
"What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of
circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them
were committed the oracles of God" - Romans 3:1,2. The word
'oracle' is derived from the Greek Logikos meaning 'the expressed
thought of God. A vehicle, personal or otherwise, of Divine
inspiration or revelation.' In this context, the oracles of
God comprise His own thoughts expressed in His Word. Thus the
sacred texts were faithfully copied for centuries by scribes
(Sopherim) and this solemn duty was assumed by the Massoretes,
which literally means 'transmitters,' between 500 and 1000 AD.
The textual apparatus or method of preservation which they
introduced is probably the most complete of its kind ever to be
used. The stress was on preserving even the smallest letter in
its original, pure form.
The Massoretes introduced the vowel points and accentual marks
into the consonantal text, but it was their resolute purpose to
hand on the text as they had received it, therefore they left the
text itself unchanged. Every imaginable safeguard was used, no
matter how cumbersome or laborious, to ensure the accurate
transmission of the text. The number of letters in each book were
counted by their numeric value and the sum was noted so that the
copyists work could be checked numerically as well as visually.
To further ensure the fidelity of their work, they counted the
number of times a word or phrase occurred and their lists finally
included all orthographic peculiarities (correctness of spelling)
of the text. This was necessary because the spelling of a word
could change its meaning perceptibly where two words which were
of nearly parallel spelling were poles apart in meaning. If, when
the work was being examined and tested for faithfulness of
reproduction, three or more scribal errors were found in any
manuscript being copied, the entire work was destroyed and begun
again. Wherever copyist errors were allowed to be corrected under
this strict rule, the correction was noted in the margin - never
in the body of the text.
Until recently, no ancient Hebrew Old Testament manuscripts
were available to scholars, the oldest known manuscript dating
from no earlier than the 9th century AD. All the available
manuscripts, however, were found to contain the Massoretic text
and to agree with one another very closely. The first critic to
demonstrate this was Bishop Kennicott, who published the readings
of 634 Hebrew manuscripts at Oxford in 1776-80. He was followed
in 1784-88 by De Rossi, who published collations of 825 more
manuscripts. No substantial variation was detected by either of
these scholars. That's a healthy record for 1459 separate
manuscripts!
What is the Apocrypha?
The word 'Apocrypha' finds its root in the Greek word
apokruphos meaning 'hidden'. It was used very early in the sense
of 'secretive' or 'concealed', but was generally accepted to
include writings whose origins is doubtful or known to be false
and heretical. Eventually the word took on the meaning of
'non-canonical' (that is, outside of the body of scripture) and
thus, for centuries, books of this type have been known as
apocryphal books.
Of the fourteen which are presently in contention for a place
in the Old Testament canon, twelve have already been incorporated
in the Roman Catholic versions of the Bible as a result of a
pronouncement by the Fourth Session of the Council of Trent held
on April 8th, 1546. This pronouncement overruled the objections
of many of the hierarchy of the Roman Church who had, at various
periods in its history, been outspoken against its inclusion as
scripture.
These 14 comprise: I Esdras; II Esdras; Tobit; Judith; The Rest
of Esther; The Wisdom of Solomon; Ecclesiasticus (not to be
confused with the Biblical Ecclesiastes); Baruch, with the
Epistle of Jeremiah; The song of the Three Holy Children; The
History of Susanna; Bel and the Dragon; The Prayer of Manasses; I
Maccabees; II Maccabees.
Why not include the Apocryphal
writings in the Bible?
The reason is simple - these books do not evidence intrinsic
qualities of inspiration and great portions of them are obviously
legendary and fictitious. They also contain historical,
chronological and geographical error. In the book of Judith, for
example, Holofernes is described as being a General of
Nebuchadnezzar who ruled over the Assyrians in the great city of
Nineveh (Judith 4:1). Actually, Holofemes was a Persian General
and, of course, Nebuchadnezzar was King of the Babylonians,
ruling in the city of Babylon. Also, some of these books
contradict themselves and disagree with the canonical scriptures.
For instance, in the book of Baruch it is said that God hears
prayers for the dead (Baruch 3:4); and that upon His return,
Christ will reign for 400 years (compare with Revelation 20:6)
and then must die again (2 Esdras 7:28-32).
The basis for the Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory is found
in 2 Maccabees 12:43-45 where we are told that 2000 pieces of
silver were sent to Jerusalem as an offering for sin...
"Whereupon he made reconciliation for the dead, that they might
be delivered from sin." Christ's finished work on the cross at
Calvary is the only 'reconciliation' of man to God that is either
required or available to mankind.
Salvation by good works is proposed in Ecclesiasticus 3:30
where it is claimed that "Water will quench a flaming fire, and
alms maketh an atonement for sin." The same book teaches that if
a Devil or an evil spirit trouble anyone, they can be driven away
by making a smoke of the heart, liver, and gall of a fish.. .and
the Devil will flee away and not bother the person again - Tobit
6:5-8 and 17.
The rationale for the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary
is imagined in Wisdom 8:19,20... "For I was a witty child, and
had a good spirit. Yea rather; being good, I came unto a body
undefiled.." Actually, the entire chapter is speaking of Solomon
and his relationship with wisdom whom he refers to as 'she'.
Following chapters confirm this view but the Roman Catholic
church has preferred to envision the immaculate conception
instead.
The concerted drive to have Protestant churches return to the
Roman Catholic fold is the reason that many (including The United
Church of Canada, the Lutheran Church and now, many evangelical
churches as well) are including some apocryphal passages in their
'scripture' readings these days. Of course, they have declined to
reveal their agenda at this point, perhaps feeling that it's a
little too early in the game to risk a negative reaction
by their congregations.
While the above and many others are obvious and valid reasons
for rejection of the apocryphal books, errors such as these are
not the only reasons that they have been rejected by Protestant
Christianity. Some other reasons are:
I. The apocryphal books, with the exception of Ecclesiasticus,
were written in Greek rather than Hebrew and have never been
accepted by Hebrew scholars of any generation as part of the
God-given scripture.
2. Neither Jesus nor the Apostles, in their 263 direct and 370
allusions to passages in the Old Testament, ever quoted from an
apocryphal book. Had these writings been genuine scripture,
Christ could easily have confirmed their authenticity by quoting
from them.
The apocryphal books as 'history'
The apocryphal books cover an historical period of about 450
years between the writings of the prophet Malachi (last of the
Old Testament Prophets) and Matthew of the New Testament, a
period when there was no prophet in Israel. Since God had kept
silence for such a long time, it is little wonder that the people
(including the Scribes and Pharisees) flocked to John the Baptist
when he appeared out of the wilderness, clothed as a prophet
and speaking the Words of God. Obviously they did not look upon
the apocryphal writers as prophets, but as heretical imposters.
Although they have been subsequently accepted by some churches as
'historical records' and 'instructions in manners', they are
definitely not the Word of God and should be accorded no place
whatever in the canon of scripture.
This has been the past state and status of these books insofar
as the Protestant Church is concerned, but now they reappear in
new and corrupted 'versions' such as the New English Bible and
more recently, a new Protestant-Roman Catholic work known as the
'Good News Bible' which includes these 'deuterocanonical' books.
Deuterocanonical literally means 'second canon' and is a term
coined by the Roman Church in order to add them to the first or
closed canon of scripture. These new versions are not the result
of the debated decision of a Council open to the public, but come
to us through the back door of secretive revision committees who
are passionately 'ecumenical' but scripturally unknowledgeable,
perhaps believing that they have made a concession which will
attest to their 'good faith' and support of the underlying
principle (as yet undisclosed) of ecumenism.
...............................
This article is re-printed as part 8 of our series on "How We Got
The Bible," January 1998.
To be continued
8. Bible - How it came to be
A detailed look at how the Bible was preserved
The Greek New Testament
SETTING THE SCENE-- by Keith Hunt
We have seen how God decided to preserve the Hebrew OT. We
have seen how He used a nation with its leaders and its skilled
copyists to keep safe within it's central Temple, the words of
the Lord that make up the OT. We have seen how God inspired
those leaders and those scribes to formulate a very complicated
set of rules and regulations to govern the copying of the OT
Scriptures so not one jot or tittle would be lost.
When we come to the writing and preservation of the Greek
NT, we come to a different ball game altogether. It is just not
the same at all as the preservation of the OT. Now for sure, the
Eternal could have used the same type of system I guess, as He
used for the preservation of the OT. The Lord can do anything,
nothing is impossible for Him. He could have called all the 12
disciples together, and through the Holy Spirit(that was doing
wonderful things in those early years of the NT church) said to
them: "Okay fellows, we have the words of the Lord as contained
in the law, the prophets and the writings, so now we shall
undertake to formulate the New Covenant words of the Lord. There
will be chosen four guys to write four accounts of the life and
ministry of the Christ, then we shall have one chosen who will
keep a record of the workings of the NT church over the next
number of years. That record will be called Acts. There will be
others chosen to write other things for the edification of the
people of God, and finally one man will be chosen to write a
prophetic book called Revelation."
The Lord could have spoken to the twelve and told them the
one, two, three order of how the NT Scriptures would be written.
He could also have told them exactly how and under what rules and
regulations, those NT words would be copied and preserved. He
could if He had wanted to, set things up similar as He did under
Israel for the safe keeping of the OT Scriptures, but used the
structure of the NT church instead of a nation or race of people.
Yes, God could have done it that way IF He wanted to, for He
is God and the clay does not say to the potter "why have you made
me thus?"
But as we look into the book of Acts we find not the
slightest hint that God ever desired to write and preserve the NT
Scriptures in the way He did with the OT Scriptures. For many
years to would seem nothing was said to the apostles that any NT
Scriptures would be written as such. Their Scriptures were the OT
with added light and magnification through the life, death, and
resurrection of the Messiah, the Christ. They went out with
those same old Scriptures and preached Christ, and that salvation
was through Him and no other way.
Although Jesus had told them before ascending to heaven that
they were to go into all the world and make disciples of all
nations, it would seem for a while after the NT church started
that they were rather slow on the up-take, had forgotten those
words, a little in the dark about how far they should go with the
truth of the word. Finally the Spirit told Peter the Gentiles
were to be a part of the NT church, and the gospel began to
spread abroad, near and far. Paul was called to the ministry of
Christ, and finally he was led, after trying to work with the
Jews for a time, to go mainly to the Gentiles.
Now the gospel was not just in one group of people, in a
somewhat centralized location in a relatively small area of the
earth - Palestine. The gospel and truth of God was ALL OVER the
Roman Empire! Many ministers were needed here and there, all
serving the work of God, where He sent them. Churches were being
raised up everywhere. The children of God needed to be taught and
instructed. We find this fully illustrated in the life of Paul.
He raised up churches, stayed for a while to teach, then moved
on, and did the same again and again. He would hear of troubles
and problems in some of the churches he founded and would write
letters to instruct them.
In the process of time Perter did the same, and so did James
and so did John. At first there was probably no thought in the
minds of these individuals that they were sitting down to write
inspired NT Scriptures. There was a need to write to certain
peoples or a certain church and they just did. Yet, we also find
that in this process of letter writing and time, these writings
or certain writings became generally looked upon as inspired from
the Lord, and they became acknowledged as "scripture." We see
this in what Peter said in 2 Peter 3:15,16. We are not given the
details in the NT as to WHEN and HOW all this took place. As
Peter wrote what he wrote in his second letter, we of course know
this had come about in his life time, before he was killed. So
we know that before the close of the first century A.D. the NT
church and its apostle leaders had accepted certain writings
by authors of the NT church as "scripture."
This is very important to realize. For the idea that it was
the Roman Catholic church that decided the canon of the NT
sometime in the third or fourth century is totally false, and is
a doctrine quite frankly of demons. The canon of NT Scripture
was decided in the first century A.D. by the true Church of God
itself. All of this truth can be fully read about in the book by
Ernest Martin called "THE ORIGINAL BIBLE RESTORED." I am
certainly not a supporter of very much of Martin's writings and
theological views, but that one book above has my full
recommendation.
So we have then writings in the NT church that were
classified as "scripture" but they were letters in the main, sent
here and yonder, to this or that church group, then as we read
about in one of Paul's letters, to be passed on to other churches
for them to read. Copies of these letters could easily be done by
members in various churches. Soon you may have had a number of
copies of any one of Paul's letters. And so it would go on, a
copy of this letter a copy of that letter. Some churches would
have more copies of more apostolic letters than another church.
Some would have this one and some would have that one, but
probably no church had all the accepted originals or copies of
what was deemed NT "scripture." The main point is: there were
many copies all over the place of NT scriptures.
And it would seem, for there is no other word from the Lord
to the contrary, that God wanted it to be so. That the NT
Scriptures would be handed down to us in a far different way than
was the OT Scriptures.
With that background we are now ready to embark on the
fascinating study of the NT Greek scriptures, and how we can
determine with assured accuracy, what the words of the Lord are
for the New Covenant, or what is popularly known as the New
Testament.
Once more I shall now quote different section from the book
"HOW WE GOT THE BIBLE" by Neil Lightfoot.
Quote:
MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NT
We have seen that the NT letters made their appearance in
the latter half of the first century. We have noted also that
these letters were written undoubtedly on papyrus sheets. Papyrus
was used widely but had the disadvantage of being a fragile
writing material. So very soon after the NT letters were penned
the original autographs perished. Yet God's word was not
hopelessly lost. The different NT letters had been received
......which prompted early Christians to make many copies of
these precious apostolic messages. These copies of the NT in
Greek are know simply as manuscripts......
NT manuscripts are of two major types, the form of the
letters supplying the key in determining those types. The
manuscripts of one group......are written in CAPITAL letters and
are known as "uncials." The handwriting found in a larger group
is smaller and in a running hand-style, so these manuscripts are
known as cursives.".......The number of our NT manuscripts is
VAST (about 5,300 - Keith Hunt).......only a FEW contain anything
like what could be termed a complete NT.......Most of the
manuscripts do not contain the entire NT for the simple reason
that a hand-produced copy of the whole was too bulky for
practical use. Our present manuscripts indicate that four
categories were generally followed when making copies of the NT:
(1) the Four Gospels, (2) the Acts and the General Epistles, (3)
the Pauline Epistles, and (4) the book of Revelation........In
other words the NT was often broken down into separate volumes,
and this is why most of our manuscripts today do not contain all
of the twenty-seven books. Of the known....manuscripts, the vast
majority are cursives.......while those of uncial script number
altogether about 300.
When the NT was first written the literary style was of
uncial character. This means that the letters of the apostles
were inscribed in large letters, without intervening spaces
between the words, and with no marks of punctuation. How Paul's
letter to the Romans appeared to his readers may be illustrated
as follows:
PAULASERVANTOFJESUSCHRISTCALLEDTOBE
ANAPOSTLESEPARATEDUNTOTHEGOSPELOFG
ODWHICHHEPROMISEDAFORETHROUGHTHE............
This looks something like Paul's original letter, except
that Paul may have used abbreviations for familiar words and, of
course, wrote in Greek instead of English.......
OTHER MANUSCRIPTS AND NT WITNESS
.........The many NT manuscripts are scattered all over the
world.........The cursives, those written in a running hand form
by far the larger group of our manuscripts.......
The Lectionaries
One further word need to be added in order to make the story
of NT manuscripts complete. Included in the number of our NT
manuscripts is a group of materials known as "lectionaries." The
term "lection" refers to a selected passage of Scripture designed
to be read in the public worship services, and thus a lectionary
is a manuscript especially arranged in sections for this purpose.
Most lectionaries are of the Gospels, but some are of Acts and
the Epistles.......More than 1,800 lectionaries have now been
enumerated.
The Versions
We have now finished a survey of the primary sources of the
NT text. We come now to consider materials that, in comparison
with the manuscripts, are of a SECONDARY rank, yet are valuable
witnesses in their own right......
(1) The SYRIAC VERSIONS. Syriac was the chief language
spoken in the regions of Syria and Mesopotamia and is almost
identical to Aramaic......undoubtedly one of the earliest
translations to be made.......
(a) The OLD SYRIAC.......there are two chief manuscripts of
the Old Syriac: the Curetonian Syriac and the Sinaitic Syriac.
The Curetonian Syriac is a fifth-century copy of the
gospels......the Sinaitic Syriac......a rescript manuscript of
the Gospels, of which about one-fourth is not decipherable. It is
considered to be a little earlier than the Curetonian
Syriac......
(b) The PESHITTA. The word "Peshitta" means "simple" or
"common" and refers to the standard Syriac translation which has
been in use since the fifth century. There are about 250
manuscripts of the Peshitta.......
(2) The LATIN VERSIONS......the Latin Bible was for many
centuries the Bible for Great Britain and all of Western Europe.
(a) The OLD LATIN. The Old Latin version, like the Old
Syriac, goes back to a very early date. It undoubtedly originated
sometime in the second century......about twenty copies, not
including fragments......The Old Latin is by far the most
important of the Latin versions since it reaches back very close
to the time when the last books of the NT were written.
(b) The LATIN VULGATE. By the time of the fourth century the
Old Latin had been widely copied and circulated.....Somehow a
revision had to be made.......In 382 Damasus, bishop of Rome, was
able to gain the services of Jerome for this undertaking.....What
Jerome accomplished then was a revision of a certain form the Old
Latin version - a revision of a version and not an independent
translation.....What followed amounted to a thousand years reign
of the vulgate in the West. While in the East devoted scribes
were toiling carefully to transmit the Word of God in Greek,
western scribes were seeking just as conscientiously to preserve
the Word of God in Latin......accounts for the fact that there
are extant more copies of the NT in the Latin Vulgate (perhaps
10,000) than of the original Greek tongue.
Thus it is scarcely possible to over-estimate the influence
of Jerome on our Bible. For more than a thousand years every
translation of the Scriptures in Western Europe was based on
Jerome's Vugate. Even AFTER men RIGHTFULLY TURNED BACK TO
THE GREEK instead of the Latin for the basis of their
translations, still the Vulgate continued to assert its
influence. Even in the King James Version the Latin Vulgate is
reflected to a greater degree than most people suspect.
Eventually Jerome's Vulgate was made the official Bible of
the Roman Catholic Church, and so it remains today. The Roman
Catholic Bible in English is actually a translation of a
translation, and is not as the Protestant Bible a translation
from the original Greek language.
(3) OTHER VERSIONS. Numerous other versions - the Egyptian
version, the Armenian, the Gothic, the Ethiopic, and the Arabic -
made their appearance in the early centuries of the Christian
era........
The Fathers
.....These Christian writers lived near the end of the first
century, and shortly afterwards. The most important of these for
the NT text include Justin Martyr, Tatian, Irenaeus, and Clement
of Alexandria, all of the second century; Origen, Tertullian and
Cyprian, of the third century; and in the fourth century the
famous names of Eusebius of Caesarea and Jerome. Volume after
volume of their writings have been preserved, many of which are
literally filled with quotations of the NT Scriptures......How
their many quotations read certainly tell us much concerning the
ancient Bible of the primitive church.
End of quotes from Lightfoot.
So we have seen how God decided to write the NT Scriptures.
Not at all like He did under the OT. Writings of the apostles
were, even during some of their lives, accepted as "scripture."
The original autographed writings perished because of the
material written upon. Yet, they were sent here and there, and
copies were made here and there, many copies. No church or no
person ever had the full compete NT scriptures it would seem,
during the lives of the apostles. We have no record that it was
so. The copies made and the ones that survive to this day do not
contain the whole NT. But we have thousands of parts (large and
small) of copies that can be carefully compared to each other. We
have versions or translations made from these early copies, and
we have those who bore the name of Christian living in the second
and third and fourth centuries, who quoted the NT Scriptures in
their writings.
We have all this, to work with and to ascertain the original
and accurate words of the Lord for the NT covenant writings.
Next time we shall begin to look at HOW the so-called
"textual critics" study all these Greek manuscripts (over 5,000)
to ascertain the true original words of the NT.
To be continued
............................................
Written January 1998
9. Bible - How it came to be
A detailed look at how the Bible was preserved
Part 10
SOME OF THE RULES FOR
DETERMINING THE ORIGINAL
GREEK TEXT
We have over 5,000 Greek manuscripts, and at first that
might lend to the thought of "confusion" as to determining the
original words of the Lord. Actually the opposite is the case,
for most of those manuscripts agree in the main with each other,
but I will have more to say on that matter later in our series.
The wealth of material we have for the NT is a very large plus.
F.F. Bruce sums it up very well in his book THE NT DOCUMENTS,
pp.16-17, "Perhaps we can appreciate how wealthy the NT is in
manuscript attestation if we compare the textual material for
other ancient works. For Caesar's 'Gallic Wars' (composed between
58 and 50 B.C.) only nine or ten (manuscripts) are good, and the
oldest is some 900 years later than Caesar's day. Of the 142
books of Livy (59 B.C. to A.D. 17) only 35 survive known to us
from no more than 20 manuscripts......only one of which is as old
as the fourth century. Of the 14 books of Tacitus (c.A.D.
100)......the texts of these historic works depends entirely on
two manuscripts, one of the ninth century and one of the 11th.
The History of Thucydides (c.460-4000 B.C.) is known to us from
eight manuscripts, the earliest belonging to A.D. 900....The same
is true of the history of Herodotus (488-428 B.C.). Yet no
classical scholar would listen to an argument that the
authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the
earliest manuscripts of their works of any use to us are over
1,000 years later than the originals."
Again, we have over 5,000 Greek manuscripts for the
verification of the NT words of the Lord, plus 10,000 manuscripts
of the Latin vulgate, and about 1,000 for other early versions,
as well as quotes of the NT from the so-called early "church
fathers."
The verification of the 27 NT books is easier than for any
other piece of classical writing. The large manuscript data makes
it much simpler to reconstruct the original reading for disputed
or unclear passages. The scholars who spend their life studying
the Greek NT manuscripts do use some basic rules to ascertaining
the original words. We need to look at some of them.
Once more I go back to the book by Lightfoot "How We Got the
Bible."
Quotes from chapters 5 and 6.
The Text of the NT
We have already seen that the original autographs of the NT
are no longer in existence. We may wonder why the Supreme
Governor of the world would allow this to happen. We may be
tempted to ask why God did not in some way collect all the
original letters of the inspired writers and store them up
through the years for sake keeping. Final answers to these
questions cannot be given by men. Nevertheless we can see that it
was necessary for SOME copies of the originals to be made, for
otherwise there could have been no spreading of the written
record; and we can see that the first copies had to be made by
use of the originals........
Textual Criticism
.......The function of the textual critic is plain: He SEEKS
BY COMPARISON AND STUDY OF ALL THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE TO RECOVER
THE EXACT WORDS OF THE AUTHOR'S ORIGINAL COMPOSITION. The NT
text-critic seeks, in short, to weed out the chaff of the bad
readings from the Genuine text......Why is he so much concerned
about the Greek text? Because he knows that the only way to have
a reliable English translation is to make sure that the original
fountain-head is free from all impurities......
Mistakes of Copyists
.......Manuscript faults come about in two ways: either the
alterations made by the scribe are UN-intentional slips of the
pen, or else the alterations are made deliberately.
1. UN-intentional Errors. Mistakes of the hand, eye and ear
are of frequent occurrence in the manuscripts, but usually pose
NO PROBLEM because they are so easy to pick out. Often a scribe
with a copy before him mistakes one word for another, and so by
chance copies down the wrong word. Sometimes a scribe confuses
words of similar sound, as in English we often interchange
"affect" and "effect." Not a few times does the scribe......
misunderstand the passage due to improper division of the
words......remembering that during most of the unicial period the
style of writing was to crowd the letters together in such a way
as to leave the words without intervening spaces between them.
Errors of OMISSION and ADDITION are common in all the
manuscripts. Words are sometimes omitted by a copyist for no
apparent reason, simply an un-intentional omission. More often
however, omissions are due to similar appearance of words at a
corresponding point.....the scribes eye might skip.....Likewise a
scribe might add to his copy in the same way. He may
inadvertently transcribe a word twice in succession. He may
write for example, "Jesus, Jesus" instead of simply "Jesus."
.....But the textual critic by comparison of the many manuscripts
can detect and explain these errors without hesitation.
Another form of error, more difficult to solve, grows out of
the practice of writing explanatory notes in the margin. These
marginal notes are somehow incorporated in the main body of
material and thus become a part of the text. BUT IT SHOULD BE
STRESSED in this connection that the NT manuscripts RARELY
EXHIBIT THIS KIND OF ERROR, and when it does occur our MANY
TEXTUAL WITNESSES keep us on the right course.
2. Intentional Errors.......What presents a more serious
problem to the textual critic are the variant readings which have
been purposefully inserted by the scribe. We are NOT TO THINK
that these insertions were made by some dishonest scribe who
simply wanted to tamper with the text. Almost always the
intention of the scribe is good and he only wanted to "correct"
that appears to be an error in the text..........
Basic Rules of Textual Criticism
......Over a period of serval centuries Textual Criticism
has formulated a number of fundamental "rules" or principles
which has proved of inestimable value in deciding between
variations in the manuscripts......
One basic rule is that the more DIFFICULT READING IS TO BE
PREFERRED.
.......This is true because it was a natural tendency for the
scribe to smooth out rough places in the text which he was
copying. If a scribe looks at a passage which he does not
understand, or at a word which is unfamiliar to him. he will
think that somewhere along the line his text has become corrupt;
in this event he will alter the passage slightly, thinking all
the while that he is improving it........
Still another important rule enters here. In parallel texts,
as we find in the Gospels, DIFFERENT READINGS ARE USUALLY
PREFERRED. All of the Gospels present but one view of Jesus, that
He is the Son of God. Yet in presenting this view their
individual descriptions of Him and His sayings often employ
different words. Through the years these verbal distinctions,
either intentionally or unintentionally, would tend to be
"harmonized" by the scribes. Thus it is a sound conclusion that
in parallel accounts the text which preserves minute verbal
differences is generally the better text......
Naturally there are many other similar rules of Textual
Criticism, some of which are much more technical in
character........What an unexperienced person might consider a
maze of bewildering data on the text, a trained specialist will
regard as a wealth of material in which has been preserved the
original reading.......
(Note: There is one large rule of Textual Criticism I left
out from Lightfoot's above chapter, and that is the rule the
MODERN - last 150 years - critics use, namely, the so-called
"early quality" manuscripts - the Vaticanus and Sinaitic
manuscripts - must be regarded as true, above the "older
quantity" manuscripts. In other words our modern Textual Critic,
places more value upon a few of the earliest in date manuscripts,
than upon thousands of later dated manuscripts that agree. To put
it yet another way, they say "the earlier is correct, though only
a few, the later to be disregarded though thousands of them
agree." Of course we are talking about when there is a difference
between those few early manuscripts and the thousands of later
ones. This modern rule of the Textual Critic, is itself not
without its critics, and in the process of time, more and more
critics have given criticism against this rule. It is quite
frankly a false and deceptive rule which I shall give some
in-depth study to in later instalments in this series of articles
- Keith Hunt)
Significance of Textual Variations
Number of Variations
Suppose some were to say that there are 200,000 errors in
the NT text. What would be our response?.......From one point of
view it may be said that there are 200,000 scribal errors in the
manuscripts, but it is wholly misleading and untrue to say that
there are 200,000 errors in the text of the NT. This large number
is gained by counting all the variations in all the
manuscripts(over 5,000 - Keith Hunt). This means that if, for
example, one word is misspelled in 4,000 different manuscripts,
it amounts to 4,000 "errors." Actually in a case of this kind
only one slight error has been made and it has been copied
4,000 times. But this is the procedure which is followed in
arriving at the large number 200,000 "errors.".........Because we
have more NT manuscripts we have more variations.....If the large
number of manuscripts increases the total of variations, it
supplies at the same time the means of checking them.
Consequences of Variations
......What bearing do they have on the NT message and
faith?......
1. Trivial variations which are of no consequence to the
text.
The GREAT MAJORITY of variant readings in the
manuscripts has to do with trivial matters, many of them so
minute that they cannot be represented in translation....variants
concern the omission or addition of such words as "for," "and,"
"the," etc. and others have to do simply with different forms of
the same Greek words. At one point is there a real problem of the
text.......Very often words in the Greek copies are spelled
slightly differently over a period of years......English words
have changed their spelling the last few centuries. One has only
to take in hand a copy of the first edition of the King James
Bible of 1611.......In a similar way the Greek language was
undergoing change......Variations in grammar and even vocabulary
are to be explained on the same basis. Or a variation may be no
more than a change in the order of the words, as "the Lord Jesus
Christ" instead of "Christ Jesus the Lord." In all cases like
this we have an abundance of information which enables us, even
in trivial matters, to make a concrete decision as to the
original text.......
2. Substantial variations which are of no consequence to the
text.
We do not wish to leave the impression that all textual
variants can be lightly dismissed. Some variations involve not
only a word ot two but a whole verse or even several
verses...examples...Codex Bezae of the fifth century......has
peculiar readings, one of which is found in Luke 6:5: "On the
same day, seeing one working on the sabbath day, he said unto
him, Man, if you know what you are doing, you are blessed; but if
you do not know, you are accursed and a transgressor of the law."
This curious incident is recorded in no other manuscript or
version. It is beyond doubt a substantial variation, but we are
sure it was not apart of Luke's original Gospel.........
(Note: The above example shows that such a reading in Luke's
Gospel was not a part of the original because it only appears in
this particular manuscript, and compared to all the other
thousands of manuscripts the Codex Bezae is noted to contain some
very strange verses. Textual Criticism has unhesitatingly reject
it as part of the original from Luke - Keith Hunt).
End of quotes from Mr.Lightfoot.
We have briefly seen the overview of Textual Criticism. The
problem arises with Textual Critics over the last 150 years. The
King James Bible was founded upon certain Greek manuscripts that
are known as the "Textus Receptus" or "received text." Now the
KJV was published in 1611, a lot longer than 150 years ago, so
why am I saying that the problem with modern Textual Criticism is
from about 150 years ago. Well, during that time TWO manuscripts
came to light, the Vaticanus and the Sinaitic(we shall have much
to say about them in the next article). They differ in MANY
places over the Greek manuscripts known as the "Textus Receptus"
and because these two manuscripts are dated earlier than the rest
of the Greek manuscripts that the KJV was based upon, many
textual critics of the last 150 years, base their NT translation
on these two manuscripts where there may be a difference between
them and the thousands of Greek texts that constitute the
"received text."
If you will read say the NIV translation and the KJV or
NKJV, verse by verse, side by side, you will soon discover many
differences, and some are large and important differences. To
prepare yourself for our next studies in this subject you may
want to read the "introduction" to the NEW King James Bible.
Then you might want to ask yourself: Did the words of the
Lord, the original words of the writers of the NT exist BEFORE
these two manuscripts of the Vaticanus and Sinaitic came to light
in the 19th century, or was God's word somewhat hidden in its
full completeness until those two manuscripts became known? In
other words: Did not people have the complete words of God in the
NT until the Vaticanus and Sinaitic manuscripts came on the
scene? Did God hide His true word from us until the 19th
century?
The modern Textual Criticism started with two now famous(we
shall see later they are really infamous men) individuals by the
names of Westcott and Hort. There is a side to those men that few
have read about, or been told about. You will be shown that side
over the next few articles.
The battle over the REAL NT Greek text we shall start to
explore next time.
To be continued
.............................................
Written January 1998
10. Bible - How it came to be
A detailed look at how the Bible was preserved
LAYING THE FOUNDATION
FOR THE TRUE GREEK NT
We have over 5,000 Greek manuscripts, from various parts of
the Roman world of the time. Some of these manuscripts have
certain things in common with each other, and so as the Textual
critics study them it is like dividing a whole bunch of apples.
There are many types of apples, there is the "delicious" and
there is the "macintosh" or the "spartan" etc. Having to sort
out a huge bin full of apples would mean you would soon recognize
and put together all the "delicious" in one basket and all the
"macintosh" into another basket. Well so it is with sorting out
all the huge box full of Greek manuscripts. The Textual scholars
notice the ones that are obviously from the same family and put
them together. Hence we have the Greek manuscripts divided up
into "families."
Here is what Lightfoot says, ".....Further study of these
manuscripts shows that some habitually agree in their readings.
They are evidently derived from a common ancestor and are called
a 'family.' These families of manuscripts have arisen at
different times and under varying conditions. Within certain
limits, their origins can be traced back to different quarters of
the world: some to Alexandria in Egypt and are known as
'Alexandrian' ; others to Antioch of Syria, designated as
'Syrian' or 'Byzantine' ; and still others to Western Europe,
which are termed 'Western' ; and so on. Since these various
groups represent the wide range of textual variants, it is safe
to conclude that whenever several important families agree on a
given reading, this amounts to textual certainty" (How We Got the
Bible, p.62).
The last sentence by Lightfoot is important. If you have
"families" of manuscripts agreeing on a reading, then you have
MAJORITY claim for that reading being the true and original
reading. THIS IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER AS WE CONTINUE IN OUR
STUDY. With all the thousands of Greek manuscripts of the NT it
should be logical that if the majority agree(crossing all family
bounds), then it would be safe to conclude we have the true text,
and the true words of God as preserved in the Greek language.
This form of Textual Criticism is called today the MAJORITY TEXT
and is really the only true way to examine and correctly decide
upon the original words of the Greek NT.
From what we have seen so far in our study of the
preservation of the NT, this is how the Eternal God had decided
to preserve His NT word, with thousands of Greek copies from the
originals, with MAJORITY evidence from the manuscripts, from
other versions in other languages of those copies, from men who
quoted in their writings much of the NT Scriptures(so-called
"church fathers"), and so the true words of God as given
in the writing of the NT would be established. In this
particular case, God was seeing to it that the MAJORITY would
rule and have the final say. The Lord had decided He would
not leave the NT words in the hands of one man or a few men in
the Church of God to hold them and preserve them. The NT
Scriptures were not given per se to the Church of God to
preserve. They were preserved in the thousands of Greek
manuscripts, but some CHAFF crept in among the WHEAT, and that
chaff must be found and thrown out so only the pure wheat - the
bread of life - can remain to be eaten.
Four "family" groups of the Greek manuscripts
It will be helpful to outline the four basic family groups
that Textual scholars talk about the most. To do this I will
quote from the book "A Textual Commentary on the Greek New
Testament" by Bruce M. Metzger. From his "introduction" we read:
".......The ALEXANDRIAN TEXT......Characteristics of the
Alexandrian text are brevity and austerity. That is, it is
generally shorter than the text of other forms, and it does not
exhibit the degree of grammatical and stylistic polishing that is
characteristic of the Byzantine and, to a lesser extent, of the
Caesarean type text. Until recently the two chief witnesses to
the Alexandrian text were codex VATICANUS and codex SINAITICUS
parchment manuscripts dating from about the middle of the fourth
century.......
(Note: This is the family group that contains these two
infamous manuscripts that Westcott and Hort idolized so much, and
which most of the modern NT translations are based upon, when
there is a difference from them and the majority texts. These
two manuscripts are so worshipped by many modern textual critics
they often say as does Metzger in his book, "is usually
considered to be the best and most faithful in preserving
the original." We shall see later that NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER
FROM THE TRUTH as that idea penned by Metzger and repeated by
others continually. We shall have much to say concerning those
two famous manuscripts later - Keith Hunt).
.......The WESTERN TEXT, which was widely current in Italy and
Gaul as well as in North Africa and elsewhere (including
Egypt)......The most important Greek manuscript that present a
Western type of text are codex Bezae of the fifth
century......codex Claromontanus of the sixth century.....codex
Washingtonianus of the late fourth or early fifth century.
Likewise the Old Latin versions are noteworthy witnesses to a
Western type of text......The chief characteristic of Western
readings is fondness to PARAPHRASE. WORDS, CLAUSES, and even
WHOLE SENTENCES are FREELY CHANGED, OMITTED, or INSERTED....In
the book of Acts the problems raised by the Western text
become most acute, for the western text of Acts is nearly TEN
PERCENT LONGER than the form which is commonly regarded to be the
original text of the book.......
(Note: Ah, this family of texts contains that also infamous
codex "Bezae." Earlier in a study in this series we saw how that
codex contains some really strange and off the wall sentences.
So this family of texts looks like it contains more chaff than it
does wheat - Keith Hunt).
......The CAESAREAN TEXT, which seems to have originated in
Egypt.....was brought, perhaps by Origen, to Caesarea, where it
was used by Eusebius and others. From Caesarea it was carried to
Jerusalem, where it was used by Cyril and by Armenian.......Thus
it appears that the Caesarean type of text has had a long and
checkered career.......is characterized by a DISTINCT MIXTURE OF
WESTERN READINGS AND ALEXANDRIAN READINGS.......
(Note: If you know the truth about the fellow called Origen,
then the use of this family of texts by him would make it
questionable to begin with, then add that it is a mixture of both
the Western and Alexandrian type texts and you really have a
bunch of chaff worthy in the most part to be blown away from the
wheat - Keith Hunt).
.......The BYZANTINE TEXT, otherwise called the SYRIAN
text.....the KOINE text.....the ECCLESIASTICAL text.....and the
ANTIOCHIAN text.....is, on the whole, the latest of the several
distinctive types of text of the NT. It is characterized chiefly
by LICIDITY and COMPLETENESS......produced perhaps at Antioch in
Syria, was taken to Constantinople, whence it was distributed
widely throughout the Byzantine Empire. It is best represented
today by codex Alexandrinus......the later uncial manuscripts,
and the GREAT MASS OF MINUSCULE manuscripts. Thus......during the
period from about the sixth or seventh century down to the
invention of printing with moveable type(A.D.1450-56), the
Byzantine form of text was GENERALLY REGARDED AS THE
AUTHORITATIVE FORM OF TEXT AND WAS THE ONE MOST WIDELY CIRCULATED
AND ACCEPTED.....The first edition of the printed Greek
Testament, issued at basel in 1516, was prepared by Desiderius
Erasmus......(Note: Metzger goes on to show what Erasmus based
his Greek on, and how he had to depend on Jerome's Latin Vulgate
for certain parts. As he shows the end result is that some verses
of Erasmus' Greek have never been found in any Greek manuscript.
And this error has been re-produced over the centuries by
claiming and printing Erasmus' Greek as the "Textus Receptus"
which it really is not - Keith Hunt).
.......In 1550 Stephanus published at Paris his third
edition......It is the first printed Greek testament to contain a
critical apparatus: on the inner margins of its pages Stephanus
entered variant readings from fourteen greek manuscripts, as well
as readings from another printed edition, the Complutensian
Polyglot. Stephanus' fourth edition (Geneva, 1551).....contains
two Latin versions (the Vulgate and that of Erasmus)......
Theodore Beza published no fewer than nine editions of the
Greek Testament between 1565 and 1604, and a tenth edition
appeared posthumously in 1611......The translators of the
authorized or King James Bible of 1611 made large use of Beza's
editions of 1588-89 and 1598.......
(Note: The popular so-called Textus Receptus that first
appeared under Erasmus was not the full received text as those in
the Byzantine Empire had preserved and used for centuries. Some
minor changes were made from time to time after the days of
Erasmus, but even to this day in many editions of the KJV the
complete corrections have not been made. The large part of
Erasmus' Greek Testament was taken from the manuscripts of the
Byzantine family, but not all, and he did resort to Jerome's
Vulgate, and so many of those weak and "not founded on any Greek
manuscript" words, found themselves carried over into the KJV of
1611, and so even to this day. The KJV is not without its errors,
but as we shall see it was still based upon more reliable
manuscripts than today's modern translations that comes from the
Alexandrian family which house the Vaticanus and Sinaitic
manuscripts - Keith Hunt).
Where are we today?
So we have 5,000 plus Greek manuscripts, most of them come
under the Byzantine family house, which were the accepted and
received text of those in the Byzantine Empire for centuries.
Then we have the Erasmus Greek Testament, which used the Vugate,
but became known as the "Textus Receptus" and even found its way
into the KJV of 1611, so it's not 100% pure. Then you have many
of the modern translations based upon the two manuscripts of the
Vaticanus and Sinaitic from the Alexandrian family, which I shall
show are two of the most untrustworthy Greek manuscripts around.
So where do we stand? Textual Criticism by the scholars HAS
BEEN and STILL IS ......MOVING.......the word of God was there in
the accepted Greek manuscript texts under the Byzantine Empire,
it encountered the slipping in of errors under Erasmus and others
following, some were corrected in the process of time, but the
correction is still taking place today under the MAJORITY TEXT.
As all this has been going on there was in the late 19th
century a movement by many into the narrow clutches of the
Vaticanus and Sinaitic manuscripts, but now there is a growing
scholastic movement away from this narrow mind-set view, as many
begin to realize more and more the real truth of the matter
concerning these two very questionable manuscripts.
Here is what the Personal Study Edition (1990, 1995) of the
NKJV has to say on all this:
The NT Text
There is more manuscript support for the NT than for any
other body of ancient literature. Over five thousand Greek, eight
thousand Latin, and many more manuscripts in other languages
attest the integrity of the NT.......The King James NT was based
on the traditional text of the Greek-speaking churches, first
published in 1516 and later called the Texus Receptus or Received
Text (Note: We have seen above some of the details concerning
this "received text" and that it was based also upon the Vulgate
- Keith Hunt).
....In the late nineteenth century, B.Wescott and F.Hort
taught that this text had been officially edited by the
fourth-century church, but a TOTAL LACK OF HISTORICAL
EVIDENCE for this event has forced a revision of the theory.
(Note: Let me explain exactly what is being said here. The
Vaticanus and Sinaitic manuscripts were discovered in the 19th
century, and Westcott and Hort began to worship at their feet.
They claimed these were earlier dated than the other manuscripts
preserved by the Greek church, and should then be taken as more
correct. Hence they taught the Greek manuscripts had been
officially edited, shorted, with many words and verses taken out,
by the fourth-century church. They claimed these manuscripts were
then the official Greek text. As there has never been any
historical evidence from anywhere to back such a statement by
Westcott and Hort, a revision to the contrary has been forced on
the theory. We shall look at Westcott and Hort later and discover
more of their wild crazy theological theories and beliefs - Keith
Hunt).
It is now WIDELY HELD that the Byzantine Text that largely
support the Textus Receptus has as much right as the Alexandrian
or any other tradition to be weighed in determining the text of
the NT......
Since the 1800's MOST of the contemporary translations of
the NT have relied upon a RELATIVELY FEW manuscripts DISCOVERED
chiefly in the LATE nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
Such translations DEPEND primarily on TWO manuscripts, Codex
Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus.....The Greek text obtained by
using these sources and the related papyri.....is known as the
Alexandrian Text. HOWEVER, some scholars have grounds for
DOUBTING the faithfulness of Vanticanus and Sinaiticus, since
they OFTEN DISAGREE WITH ONE ANOTHER, and Sinaiticus exhibits
EXCESSIVE OMISSIONS (Note: I will give you more detail in the
next article on the huge unfaithfulness of these two manuscripts
- Keith Hunt).
A THIRD viewpoint of the NT scholarship (Note: the first
being the texts used by Erasmus and those after him, the second
being the texts of Wescott and Hort in the late 19th century -
Keith Hunt) holds that the BEST TEXT IS BASED ON THE CONSENSUS
OF THE MAJORITY OF EXISTING GREEK MANUSCRIPTS. This text is
called the Majority Text. MOST OF THESE manuscripts are in
substantial AGREEMENT. Even though many are late, and none is
earlier than the fifth century, USUALLY their readings are
VERIFIED by papyri, ancient versions, quotations from the early
church fathers, or a combination of these. The MAJORITY TEXT is
SIMILAR to the Textus Receptus, but it CORRECTS those readings
which have little or no support in the Greek manuscript
tradition (Note: This would correct those words or verses that
came into the KJV via the Vulgate of Jerome through Erasmus and
others who copied him - Keith Hunt).
TODAY, scholars agree that the science of NT textual
criticism is in a STATE OF FLUX. Very few scholars still favor
the Textus Receptus as such.......For about a century most have
followed a Critical Text......which depends heavily upon the
Alexandrian type text (Note: The Westcott and Hort text). MORE
RECENTLY many have abandoned this Critical Text(which is quite
similar to the one edited by Westcott and Hort) for one that is
more ECLECTIC(CHOOSING FROM VARIOUS SOURCES, not following one
system but selecting and using what seems best from all systems).
FINALLY, a small but GROWING number of scholars prefer the
Majority Text, which is CLOSE to the TRADITIONAL text except in
the Revelation........
End of quote from NKJV, Personal Study Bible, section "Preface."
In the next article on this subject of HOW we got the Bible,
I will take you behind the scenes, what most do not know, and
what most are never told about those "come-along lately"
manuscripts of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and the two fellows who
pushed them on to the Christian world, Westcott and Hort. You
will be surprised at their theological views.
To be continued
.......................
Written January 1998
11. Bible - How it came to be
A detailed look at how the Bible was preserved
TWO MANUSCRIPTS
and
TWO SCHOLARS
It's now time to look in some detail about two specific late
discoveries of the 19th century that underpin nearly all modern
translations of the English Bible today - the manuscripts of
called "Vaticanus" and "Sinaiticus." Then we shall look a little
deeper into the theological lives of two men that are considered
the fathers of modern Textual Criticism - Westcott and Hort.
THE VATICANUS MANUSCRIPT
As its name implies it is located in the Vatican Library at
Rome. It has been there since at least 1481, the date of a
catalog in-which it is listed. There is no story to its
discovery, only to the repeated efforts of many scholars over the
years to publish its contents to the world. It was not until the
close of the last century, the 19th century, that the contents of
this manuscript became available. Someone sent Erasmus in 1533 a
number of selected readings from it. In 1669 acollation a
(statement of its various readings) was made by Bartolocci, but
it was never published. Other imperfect collations were made
about 1720 and 1780. Napoleon carried it away to Paris as a prize
of victory. It remained there until 1815. After its return to
Rome a period of seclusion set in. In 1843 Tischendorf was
allowed to see it for six hours. The next year De Muralt was
permitted to study it for nine hours. It was in 1845 that the
English scholar Tregelles was allowed to see it but not to copy a
word. It was the Roman authorities themselves that took matters
in their own hands and in 1857 and 1859, editions by cardinal Mai
were published, which DIFFERED SO MUCH FROM ONE ANOTHER and were
both so inaccurate as to be useless.
In 1866 Tischendorf was again allowed to work with the
manuscript, this time for a number of days - fourteen days of
three hours each. He was able in 1867 to publish the most perfect
edition of the manuscript which had yet appeared. then in 1868-81
an improved Roman edition appeared.
It was not until 1889-90 that a complete photographic
facsimile of the whole MS was made, and it then became the common
property of all the scholars.
It is bound in book form (a codex) and contains 759 leaves
of the finest vellum. The pages are about ten inches square and
hold three columns of writing. It is held to be the earliest of
the great uncials.
And as Neil Lightfoot says in his book "How We Got the
Bible" page 32, "The printed texts of the Greek NT TODAY rely
HEAVILY upon the Vaticanus codex" (Emphasis mine).
THE SINAITIC MANUSCRIPT
It is known by this name because it was "discovered" by the
text-critic Constantine Tischendorf at St. Catherine's Monastery
on Mt. Sinai.
It was in 1844 that Tischendorf was visiting the Monastery,
and just about literally stumbled on a basket full of old
parchments which were destined for the fire. On examination he
found numerous sheets of the Greek OT. He was permitted to take
some away with him. They were the oldest he had ever seen. But
his excitement aroused suspicion and the authorities of the
monastery would not co-operate any further with him. By 1859
Tischendorf, still in quest for these documents, had made friends
with the Emperor of Russia; and since St. Catherine's was a Greek
Orthodox Monastery, that friendship would prove to be very
valuable.
With the backing of the Russian Emperor, Tischendorf came
again to Mt.Sinai. Day after day he searched, but turned up
nothing. The night before his planned departure the next morning,
the steward of the monastery mentioned to him he had a old copy
of the Scriptures. Well this manuscript was the very one
Tischendorf had been looking for. It contained parts of the OT
and all 27 books of the NT. After a long road of events,
Tischendorf finally succeeded in obtaining the manuscript as a
gift to the Russian Czar.
But in 1933 the Russian Authorities, more interested in
money than Bibles, sold the Sinaitic Codex to the British for the
sum of 100,000 pounds. It resides today in the
manuscript room of the British Museum.
The leaves in the Sinaitic Manuscript are larger than those
in the Vatican codex, about fifteen inches square. The
handwriting is large and clear, four columns to the page on
quality vellum. The scholars date it to about the middle of the
fourth century.
Well so much for the historical facts about these two
manuscripts. The modern Textual Critic of the Westcott and Hort
school, basically teach this: "The oldest surviving
manuscripts must be the most reliable. Therefore......when
determining what manuscripts to depend on, the Vaticanus and the
Sinaiticus should be accepted as correct." They say this even if
998 other manuscripts disagree with them.
MORE FACTS ABOUT THESE TWO MANUSCRIPTS
The Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus DISAGREE WITH EACH OTHER
over 3,000 times in the GOSPELS ALONE!! Wow! Just in the
Gospels!
The Vaticanus omits Genesis 1:1 to Gen.46:28; Psalms 106 to
138; Matt.16:2-3; the Pauline Pastoral Epistles; Hebrews 9:14 to
13:25; and all of Revelation.
Besides all that - in the Gospels alone it leaves out 237
words, 452 clauses and 748 whole sentences, which HUNDREDS of
later copies AGREE TOGETHER as having the same words in the same
places, the same clauses in the same places, and the same
sentences in the same places.
The Vaticanus also CONTAINS the APOCRAPHA (which we look ar
earlier in this series).
The Sinaiticus Manuscript contains the NT books but it also
contains the "Shepherd of Hermes" and the "Epistle of Barnabas."
John Burgeon spent years examining EVERY AVAILABLE
manuscript of the NT. He writes about the Sinaiticus.....
" On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through
very carelessness. Letters, words or even whole sentences are
frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately
cancelled; while that gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted
because it happens to end in the same words as the clause
proceeding, occurs no less than 115 times in the NT."
On nearly every page of the manuscript there are corrections
and revisions, done by 10 different people. Some of these
corrections were made about the same time that it was copied, but
most of them were made in the 6th and 7th century.
Phillip Mauro was a brilliant lawyer who was admitted to the
bar of the supreme Court in April 1892. He wrote a book called
"Which Version" in the early 1900's. He writes concerning the
Sinaiticus.....
"From the facts, therefore, we deduce: first that the
IMPURITY of the codex Sinaiticus, in every part of it, was fully
recognized by those who were best acquainted with it, and that
from the very beginning until the time when it was finally cast
aside as worthless for the practical purpose."
Both the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus LEAVE OUT the last 12
verses of Mark. BUT there is not one other manuscript, either
uncial or cursive that leave out this passage. There are 18
other uncial(capital letters) manuscripts that have the passage
in and at least 600 cursive(small letters) manuscripts that ALL
contain these words. THE EVIDENCE IS AT LEAST 618 TO 2!
This REVISED Greek text of Westcott and Hort, the NT based
largely on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts(and from
which most modern translations come) DIFFERS from the basic
Textus Receptus in......wait for it.............5,337 places!
Some want you to think there is little difference between
the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts and the rest of the over
5,000 Greek manuscripts, even Hort wanted people to believe that,
and tried to say so in certain words, that some still quote
today, BUT the TRUTH OF THE MATTER is CLEAR TO SEE for the
scholars who will open their eyes to see the PLAIN truth.
These differences we shall look at in more detail in part 13
in this series.
THE OTHER SIDE OF WESTCOTT AND HORT
We need to note here that Dr.Hort while a life long opponent
of the Received Text, and the man who dominated the English NT
Revision Committee, did say this: "An OVERWHELMING proportion of
the text in all known cursive manuscripts except a few is, as a
matter of fact, IDENTICAL" (Hort's Introduction, p.143).
Here was his clear acknowledgement what most scholars
already knew, thousands of manuscripts from different countries
in different ages, said the SAME thing!
The differences in the Greek manuscripts come from a very
few of those 5,300 manuscripts.
The modern movement of Textual Criticism was founded by
Roman Catholics! And remember they hold TRADITION on as equal
footing as Inspiration. One of those men was Richard Simon in the
1600's. Hort said it was Simon who shared a large part in the
discrediting of the Textus Receptus. The Catholic
Encyclopedia(Vol.4, p.492) says it was Simon who must be viewed
as the father of Biblical criticism.
Then there was Jean Astruc, a French Catholic physician who
pushed along the tide in 1753 with his book. A German by the
name of Johann Gottfried Eichorn greatly developed Astruc's
hypothesis. The Sottish Catholic priest called Alexander
Geddes(1737-1802) really went to town with certain theories,
which were introduced into Germany by Vater in 1805.
Some of the earliest critics in the field of collecting
variant readings of the NT in Greek were Mill and Bengel. We have
Dr. Kenrick , Catholic Bishop of Philadelphia in 1849, as
authority that they and others had examined these manuscripts
recently exalting as superior, such as the Vaticanus,
Alexandrinus, Beza, and Ephraem, and had pronounced in favor of
the Vulgate, the Catholic Bible (Quoted in Rheims and Douay by
Dr. H. Cotton, p.155).
There is MUCH more on all this, too much to be written here.
But it is all recorded in the book by Benjamin Wilkinson, Ph.D.
called "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated" - see at the end of this
article.
During the 1830's and thereafter began the invasion of
German Gnosticism Theology into England. More and more "scholars"
were coming forth who were openly putting to one side all the
mass of manuscripts evidence that supported each other, agreed
together, and putting their mind-set on a relatively few, which
we have seen did not agree with each other. But the mind was set
by these so-called "scholars" to trash the Textus Receptus.
Wilkinson in his book mentioned above, has a whole chapter
on how the Catholic Jesuits captured the thinking of Oxford
University in England. Most do not realize that in the middle
1800's the Catholic Church in England made HUGE gains. In
Cardinal Wiseman's address to the Congress of Milines in 1863, he
reported that in 1830 the number of priests in England was 434;
in 1863 they numbered 1242. The converts in 1830 amounted to only
16; in 1863 there were 162 (Ward, Life of Wiseman, Vol.2, p.459).
It was in this climate that Dr. Westcott and Dr. Hort
appeared on the scene.
Let it first be noted - these two men were ROMAN CATHOLICS,
and very much so, dedicated to the Roman Catholic cause in no
uncertain way.
While Hort was still wet behind the ears in any kind of
religious Theology, at the tender age of 23, he wrote:
" .....that VILE Textus Receptus....." And that sentiment clung
to him till his dying day.
The life of Westcott and Hort, their writings and thoughts
and teachings have been preserved for us by their sons. Probably
all large public Libraries will have those two books.
Hort was very much taken up with the now famous book by
Charles Darwin, and wrote it seemed to be unanswerable. He wrote
to John Ellerton, April 3, 1860, "But the book which has most
ENGAGED me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a
book that one is PROUD to be contemporary with.....My feeling is
STRONG that the theory is UNANSWERABLE. If so, it opens up a new
period" (Life of Hort by his son, Vol. 1, p.416, emphasis mine
throughout these quotes).
Westcott writes to the Archbishop of Canterbury on OT
Criticism, March 4, 1890: " No one now, I suppose, holds that the
first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a LITERAL
history - I could never understand how any one reading them with
open eyes could think they did" (Life of Westcott, Vol.2, p.69).
Hort writes to Mr.John Ellerton: "I am inclined to think
that no such state as 'Eden' (I mean the popular notion) EVER
EXISTED....." (Life of Hort, Vol.1, p.78).
Hort firmly believed the Catholic Church would win the day,
come back as THE ONLY Church on earth, and that Protestantism
would eventually be an ideology of the past. Writing to Westcott,
September 23, 1864: " I believe Coleridge was quite right in
saying that Christianity without a SUBSTANTIAL Church is vanity
and disillusion; and I remember shocking you and Lightfoot not so
long ago by expressing a belief that 'Protestantism' is only
PARENTHETICAL and TEMPORARY " (Life of Hort, Vol.2, p.30).
We have these quotes from Hort's Autobiography......
"....Evangelicals seem to me PERVERTED rather than
untrue.......I have been persuaded for many years that
MARY-WORSHIP and Jesus-worship have much in common.......But you
know I am a STAUNCH sacerdotalist(belief in the sacraments)...The
popular doctrine of SUBSTITUTION is an IMMORAL and material
COUNTERFEIT....."
Hort also wrote these expressions of his belief to John
Ellerton in the year 1848.....
" The old dogmatic view of the Bible therefore, is not only
open to attack from the standpoint of science and historical
criticism, but IF TAKEN SERIOUSLY it becomes a DANGER to religion
and public morals......God is the author, NOT of the Bible BUT of
the life in which the authors of the Bible partake, and of which
they tell in such IMPERFECT HUMAN WORDS as they could command.
.....The most downright claims to infallibility are made by the
Apocalyptist, as for example in the NT REVELATION(see 22:6, 16,
18-19) a book which some of the WISEST THINKERS of the early
Church wished to exclude from the canon, and which as A WHOLE, is
SUB-CHRISTIAN in tone and outlook......Moses HAS LEFT US NO
WRITINGS, and we know little of him with certainty......For
indeed the bare idea of vicarious expiation(substitutionary
atonement) is NOT WHOLLY RATIONAL......."
Then there is this quote from the pen of Hort, " The
Romanish view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to the
truth than the Evangelical......We dare not forsake the
sacraments or God will forsake us."
There is much I could quote from Westcott, but enough has
been recorded here in this relatively short exposition to show
the reader the other side of these two Roman Catholic Textual
Critics.
Wilkinson has a full chapter of quotes about Westcott and
Hort, in his book named below. Sections include - "Their Higher
Criticism" "Their Mariolatry" "Their Spiritualism"
"Their Anti-Protestantism" "Anti-Anglicanism" "Their Ritualism"
and others.
The great Revision Committee that was formed after the time
of the discovery of the Vanticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts,
was DOMINATED by Westcott and Hort. Dr. Scrivener was the one man
that fought them tooth and nail all the way, but he was always
outvoted. The Committee followed the Greek text as advocated by
Westcott and Hort, which was based on the main from the Vatican
and Sinaitic manuscripts, and especially the Vaticanus. Where it
contained no text the Sinaiticus was used.
So the Revisers "went on changing until they altered the
Greek text in 5,337 places" (Dr. Everts, The Westcott and Hort
Text Under Fire, Jan. 1921).
The year 1870 was marked by the Papal declaration of
infallibility. It has been well said that the blind adherence of
the Revisionists to the Vatican manuscript proclaimed
"the second infallible voice from the Vatican."
If you want the DETAILS in full on what the above study is
based, then you need to obtain the TWO following books(and there
are others):
THE AUTHORIZED BIBLE VINDICATED by Benjamin Wilkinson,
obtainable from: Leaves-Of-Autumn Books Inc. P.O.Box 440, Payson,
Arizona 85541.
LET'S WEIGH THE EVIDENCE by Barry Burton, obtainable from
Chick Publications, P.O. Box 662, Chino, CA 91710.
To be continued
.........................................
Written January 1998
12. Bible - How it came to be
A detailed look at how the Bible was preserved
COMPARING THE
MODERN TRANSLATIONS
We have seen that nearly all of the modern translations of
the NT base their Greek text on mainly two manuscripts - the
Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus. We have noted that modern
translations differ from the Majority Received Text in thousands
of places, some small but some also large.
This part of our study will look at a few of those
differences.
Please note the reading in the KJV of 1 Timothy 3:16. This
verse clearly teaches Jesus is God! God was manifest in the
flesh. It was Jesus who came in the flesh. He was Immanuel(God
with us). Christ was and is a member of the Godhead - hence He
is God!!
Notice how the New American Standard reads here: "And by
common confession great is the mystery of godliness: He who was
revealed in the flesh........"
Ah, by changing "God" to "He" they take out the fact that
Jesus IS God. They add the words "who" and "was" so changing the
sentence structure and meaning.
Turn in the KJV to Romans 14:10b and 12. All will stand
before the judgment seat of Christ and give account to God.
Christ is clearly God, not God the Father, but a member of the
Godhead, and all in that entity are called God. I am Hunt, and my
children are called Hunt.
The New American Standard(NAS) has it this way: "For we
shall all stand before the judgment seat of God.....So then each
one of us shall give account of himself to God."
UMMM! Did you see what was done? There is not proof in
these verses that Jesus is God, not from the NAS there is no
proof.
Note Acts 20:28 in the KJV. The Church of God was purchased
with "his own blood" thus clearly making Christ God as it was
Jesus who shed the blood.
But here's how the RSV renders this part of the verse:
"........to care for the church of God which he obtained with the
blood of his own Son."
Just not really the same at all, for in the KJV we have a
constant truth being proclaimed all the time - Jesus Christ IS
God.
From Scriptures such as Mat.4:10; Rev.22:8-9; Acts 10:25-26;
we see that God is to be "worshipped."
From Scriptures in the KJV such as Mat.9:18; 20:20; Mark
5:6; Luke 24:52; we see that Jesus allowed people to "worship"
Him. Now you go right ahead and look up the Greek word used, see
all the places where it is used in the NT, and you will indeed
see that it means "worship" as when you worship God.
Mat.9:18 from the NAS, "......behold there came a synagogue
official and BOWED DOWN before Him saying......"
Mat.20:20 from the NIV, "Then the mother of Zebedee's sons
came to Jesus with her sons and, KNEELING DOWN, asked......"
Mark 5:6 from The Everyday Bible, "While Jesus was still far
away, the man saw him, ran to him, and fell down before him."
Luke 24:52 from the NAS, "And they returned to Jerusalem
with great joy" (worship is omitted). A footnote in the New
Living Translation says, "Some manuscripts do not contain
'worshipped him and.' " From this study you will have seen it is
only a very few manuscripts do not contain those words.
"To worship" is not the same as to "bow down." You can bow
down to the Queen of England out of respect, but you are not
worshipping her. What the writers of the Gospels wanted to make
very clear to their readers in so many verses, was the fact that
Jesus was God and so was worshipped, and because He knew He was
God in the flesh He also allowed people to come and worship
before Him.
There is a doctrine floating around today, and it is not
new, for it goes back many hundreds of years, that teaches that
Christ Jesus had an "origin" - had a beginning - was a created
being of the Father's - the first creation of the Father's. Some
of the modern translations give forth this teaching. Please read
carefully Heb.2:11 in the KJV. Now this is how the Revised
Version renders this verse: "For he who sanctifies and those who
are sanctified have ALL ONE ORIGIN. That is why he is not ashamed
to call them brethren."
There is a vast difference between the two translations.
The RSV teaches that Christ had an origin. The KJV teaches no
such thing. We shall see in the next verse we look at that
Christ did not have an origin. He has been from eternity just as
the Father has. There is not one verse in the entire Bible that
says Christ had an origin or was the first creation of the
Father. This is not the place to show it, but there is much
evidence to prove that Jesus is YHWH as is the Father YHWH. I
will give you one section of Scripture on this point. Zechariah
chapter 14. The whole Bible teaches that the one to come and
rule the earth, to stand on the Mount of Olives, will be the one
who was Jesus Christ on this earth two thousand years ago. The
Hebrew word used in Zechariah 14 is YHWH.
Turn to Micah 5:2 in the KJV. This is clearly speaking about
the Christ that was to come, Immanuel - God in the flesh. Notice
the last phrase: "......whose GOING FORTH have been from of old,
from EVERLASTING."
Now see what the RSV does to it: "......whose ORIGIN is from
of old, from ancient days."
Christ had no origin (even if some do claim He had), but the
RSV teaches he did have an origin from some old time, from some
ancient time in the past.
God promised Abraham that through his seed the people of
the earth would be blessed. There are a number of NT Scriptures
that show this promise to Abraham was fulfilled in a specific way
through ONE individual - Christ Jesus. Please read Acts 3:25-26
in the KJV. Here this plain truth is given. A blessing to all
people was given through Abraham when God sent His Son to turn
away every one from his iniquities.
Now this is how the RSV renders Genesis 12:3, "I will bless
those who bless you and him who curses you I will curse, and by
you all the families of the earth shall BLESS THEMSELVES."
Instead of being blessed through CHRIST.....they BLESS
THEMSELVES!!
John 6:47 KJV, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that
believeth on ME hath everlasting life."
The NAS has, "Truly, truly, I say unto you, he who believes
has eternal life."
He who believes WHAT? The Late, Late Show? That President
Clinton has never committed adultery? They leave out the key
factor as to how to have eternal life.
Zech. 9:9 in the KJV has "and having salvation" while the
RSV leaves it out .
Col.1:14 in the KJV contains "through his blood" while the
NAS leaves it out.
There are the verses of Mark 16:9-20. These verses tell
about the resurrection of Christ. Some new translation may leave
them out, while others put brackets around them and give you a
foot-note that says something to the effect that these 12 verses
were "probably not" in the original writings. Or that some of
the best manuscripts leave them out. They of course by referring
to the best manuscripts are referring to the Vaticanus and
Sinaiticus, which we have seen would have served us better hidden
on the Vatican Library shelf never to be discovered, and left in
the garbage basket for the furnace fires.
Their statements in foot-notes on this passage are very
misleading. Out of 620 ancient manuscripts of the book of Mark,
these 12 verses are found in 618 of them. To say they were
probably not in the original writings is scholastic
egg-headedness, and Theological bias.
Look at Luke 24:6 in the KJV. The RSV only has, "Remember
how he told you, while he was still in Galilee." They leave out
"He is not here, but is risen."
Here's a funny one if it wasn't so serious a matter. Read 1
Peter 2:2 in the KJV. Pretty plain as to what to desire to make
one grow thereby. You are to desire the "milk of THE WORD."
The RSV says, "Like newborn babes, long for the PURE
SPIRITUAL MILK, that by it you may grow up to salvation."
What on earth is "spiritual milk"? WHO KNOWS? There could
be all kinds of opinions and ideas as to what constitutes
"spiritual milk." God did not leave us guessing or having to
decide for ourselves on this. He knows what is needed for His
children to GROW! It is the desire for the milk, the food of His
WORD!
Luke 4:4 in the KJV has "......that man shall not live by
bread alone, BUT BY EVERY WORD OF GOD." The NAS, New Living
Translation, NIV and others, all leave out "but by every word of
God."
Many ministers today of large Church denominations, are
denying that God created what Genesis says took six days. Many
deny Jesus was born of a virgin. Some think He did not rise from
the grave, did not ascend into heaven, will not literally return,
and many other things that the KJV is quite dogmatic about.
Concerning the virgin birth of Christ there is a web of
deceptive thought that runs through many of the modern
translations. You may want to compare the modern versions with
the KJV in Scriptures such as these: Isaiah 7:14; Mat.1:22-23;
Luke 1:34; Luke 2:33.
The KJV makes it so very clear that Immanuel, God with us,
the person from the Godhead that was to come to earth and be born
as flesh and blood, would be born of a VIRGIN, a young woman who
had never known(had any sexual relations) a man. It would indeed
be a SIGN, a miracle, just as Isaiah had foretold. The truth of
this may from a technical point have been somewhat hidden in the
exact words used by Isaiah in chapter 7 verse 14, but the MEANING
was not hidden. Immanuel would come as a SIGN - born from a
young woman. Young women, married or not married, have babies
every day, and it is no sign. But a young woman who is a virgin
having a baby, now THAT IS a SIGN! Of course the Bible was
speaking outside of modern science that today can pregnate a
woman with child, without knowing a man, so she could still claim
to be a virgin.
OMISSIONS
The CAPITAL lettered words in the following NT Scriptures
are omitted by many of the modern versions. This is only a small
example of such omissions.
Mat.17:21 "BUT THIS KIND DOES NOT GO OUT EXCEPT BY PRAYER AND
FASTING."
Mat.18:11 "FOR THE SON OF MAN HAS COME TO SAVE THAT WHICH WAS
LOST."
Mark 11:26 "BUT IF YOU DO NOT FORGIVE, NEITHER WILL YOUR FATHER
WHO IS IN HEAVEN FORGIVE YOUR TRANSGRESSIONS."
Luke 17:36 "TWO MEN WILL BE IN THE FIELD; ONE WILL BE TAKEN AND
THE OTHER WILL BE LEFT."
Luke 24:
11-13a "And these things appeared to them as nonsense, and they
would not believe them. BUT PETER AROSE AND RAN TO THE TOMB;
STOOPING AND LOOKING IN, HE SAW THE LINEN WRAPPINGS ONLY; AND HE
WENT AWAY TO HIS HOME, MARVELLING AT THAT WHICH HAD HAPPENED. And
behold, two of them were going that very day to a village named
Emmaus."
John 5:3-5 "In these lay a multitude of those who were sick,
blind, lame, and withered, WAITING FOR THE MOVING OF THE WATERS;
FOR AN ANGEL OF THE LORD WENT DOWN AT CERTAIN SEASONS INTO THE
POOL, AND STIRRED UP THE WATER; WHOEVER THEN FIRST, AFTER THE
STIRRING UP OF THE WATER, STEPPED IN, WAS MADE WELL FROM WHATEVER
DISEASE WITH WHICH HE WAS AFFLICTED. And a certain man was there,
who had been thirty-eight years in his sickness."
John 7:53-8:11 This whole section, like Mark 16:9-20, is said by
the modern Textual Critics NOT TO BE A PART OF THE BIBLE.
Acts 8:36-38a "......AND PHILIP SAID, 'IF YOU BELIEVE WITH ALL
YOUR HEART, YOU MAY,' AND HE ANSWERED AND SAID, 'I BELIEVE THAT
JESUS CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD.' And he ordered the chariot to
stop....."
Acts 18:21 "But bade them farewell, saying, I MUST BY ALL MEANS
KEEP THIS FEAST THAT COMES IN JERUSALEM, I will return again unto
you, if God will....."
THIS IS JUST A VERY SMALL SAMPLING.
YOU MAY LIKE TO COMPARE THE FOLLOWING VERSES IN THE KJV WITH SOME
OF THE MODERN VERSIONS.
Mark 7:16; 9:24; 9:44 & 46; 10:21; 11:10; 11:26; 12:29-30; 13:14;
15:28; 16:9-20;
Luke 1:28; 2:33; 2:43; 4:4; 4:8; 4:41; 7:31; 9:54; 11:29; 22:31;
23:17; 23:42;
24:12; 24:40; 24:49; 24:51;
John 1:18; 1:27; 3:13; 3:15; 4:42; 5:3; 5:4; 6:47; 7:53-8:11;
8:16; 11:41; 16:16; 17:12;
Acts 2:30; 7:30; 7:37; 8:37; 9:5-6; 10:6; 16:31; 17:26; 20:25;
Romans 1:16; 5:2; 9:28; 11:6; 13:9; 14:6; 14:9; 14:21; 15:29;
16:24;
1 Cor.5:7; 6:20; 7:39; 10:28; 11:24; 11:29; 15:47; 16:23;
2 Cor.4:6; 4:10;
Gal.3:1; 4:7; 6:15;
Eph.3:9;
Again this is not all by any means. There are still over 80 more
that could be still listed.
WHERE DID OUR KJ BIBLE COME FROM?
We have seen that the KJV is not WITHOUT its ERRORS. A
classic example is Acts 12:4 and the word "Easter." This word is
not in the Greek manuscripts. The Greek word is the one for
PASSOVER. You can clearly see this in any Greek Interlinear.
There are some other errors also. And we have seen that the
Latin Vulgate, or parts of it, got into the KJV translation. But
the MAJORITY Greek manuscripts we have, can correct the errors of
the KJV. The KJV is still a better translation than the modern
versions in the fact that it did work its way to a more majority
text than what the present day translations do.
The KJV translators did not use either the Vaticanus or the
Sinaiticus manuscripts. The manuscripts from which the modern
versions are translated include the manuscripts that were used by
the KJV translators, PLUS the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. It was
the Protestant/Textus Receptus hater by the name of Hort who
along with some others he could pull to his side, including his
other Roman Catholic buddy, Westcott, that started the slide
against the majority text school, and into Hort's favorite
manuscript from the Vatican Library - the Vaticanus. Many of the
so-called "Textual Critics" to follow stepped right into the
deceptive net laid by Westcott and Hort. A net that was very
definitely from the Roman Catholic Church, to bring Christianity
under its domain once more. Although she does speak some truth,
and appears as an angel of light, nevertheless all false
doctrine, from the change of the Sabbath day to Sunday, Passover
to Easter, the Trinity doctrine, introduction of Christmas and
many other heathen festivals, false Church Government, this and
much more, all the way to a false Bible that not only her ONE
BILLION members espouse, but millions of other deceived
Christians also now have as their first Bible.
As the Worldwide Church of God walked into the pathway of
religious deception and heresy, what did they do? Why, they
officially adopted the NIV translation of the Bible. It, along
with their leader's mind-set, led them down the garden path, out
into the thorn bushes, and back into the waiting arms of the
Woman Whore's children - the Protestant Churches, who waved the
flag of victory.
Well it is not surprising. It was to be this way at the
time of the end. Jesus clearly told us so, if we will but see it.
He said deception would be so great just before His return that
ONLY THE ELECT would not be deceived (Mat.24:24). Paul was
inspired to say there would come a great "falling away" before
Christ came again (2 Thes.2). What better way to have people
fall away and be deceived, than to have the wrong Bible, from
wrong perverted manuscripts, that disagree among themselves in
thousands of places, or have people and even ministers/leaders in
the Church of God NOT SURE as to what are the words of the Bible.
Make no mistake about it the words of Revelation chapter 12
and verse 9 say that the Devil, the one we call Satan, has
DECEIVED THE WHOLE WORLD!
Do I have some of the modern translations? Oh, you bet I do!
I have a number of them in my library. They do serve at times a
useful end. But they are not my reading or study Bible. I still
use the KJV, in conjunction with my NewKJV study Bible, noting
their center reference comments on Textual Criticism - NU means
the modern Westcott/Hort text, and M means Majority texts.
One more study in this series should rap it up. To end this
topic you will hear from one of the Hebrew/Greek "scholars" who
has "been there" as they say. He has been behind the doors with
the Textual Critics, knows where they are coming from, knows
things about the manuscripts that they(the Hort students) will
not tell you, and do not want you to know, so the "dumb sheep"
can be led to follow down the pathway of the blind.
And as Jesus said, if the blind lead the blind, they will
both fall into the ditch.
Yes, I will pull no punches with you friend. THIS IS A
SERIOUS MATTER! IT CONCERNS THE VERY TRUTH OF GOD, WHICH IS HIS
WORD (John 17:17).
Most of the above facts on the differences between the KJV
and the Modern translations was taken from the book: LET'S WEIGH
THE EVIDENCE by Barry Burton. You need to have this small book.
You can obtain it from Chick Publications, P.O. Box 662, Chino,
CA 91710, USA.
....................................
Written January 1998
To be continued
13. Bible - How it came to be
A detailed look at how the Bible was preserved
THE LAST WORD
BY JAY P. GREEN, SR.
I think is it fitting that the last word on this series of
studies should come from one of the scholars of Hebrew/ Greek
Textual Criticism, a man who has been there, knows this
particular school of Theology. Jay P. Green, Sr. is the editor
of "The Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Bible, Four Volume Set. I
certainly recommend this work, especially for all Church leaders
and pastors - Keith Hunt.
FROM THE PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION - All Emphasis by K.Hunt
.........The market-place is being glutted with new books
which are being represented as versions of the Bible. Each one
claims to be the very word of God, yet there are literally
thousands of differences between them......In one way these new
versions agree: they all leave out dozens of references to the
deity of Jesus Christ, and they add words which tend to question
His virgin birth, His substitutionary, fully satisfying
atonement. This is due to their decision to depend on an
Alexandrian textbase, instead of that body of God's words which
have been universally received and believed in for nineteen
centuries., known to us as the Received Text. These new versions
are not only marked by ADDITION, but also SUBTRACTIONS, since
some FOUR WHOLE PAGES OF WORDS, PHRASES, SENTENCES, AND VERSES
HAVE BEEN OMITTED BY THESE NEW VERSIONS. And these are words
ATTESTED TO AS GOD'S WORDS BY OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE CONTAINED IN
ALL THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS, IN THE ANCIENT VERSIONS, IN THE
WRITINGS OF THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS; and these from every
inhabited land on the earth where Christianity has been........
For remember that it has been written, "For I say to you,
Until the heaven and the earth pass away, in no way shall pass
away one iota or one point from the Law, until all things come to
pass." - Matthew 5:18. WHO THEN WILL YOU BELIEVE? If our
Almighty God assures us that not even an iota, or a point, of His
word shall pass away, then an IMPORTANT WORD, OR PHRASE, OR
SENTENCE, OR VERSE SURELY CANNOT BE LOST! But still we see
version after version after version pouring off the presses
WITHOUT hundreds and hundreds of AUTHENTIC, WELL-ATTESTED WORDS
which have always been held as the very words of God.
Should you not ask, WHO ARE THESE MEN WHO TELL US THESE ARE
NOT GOD'S WORDS?....How did these words come to be questioned in
the first place? WHAT IS BEHIND THESE OMISSIONS?....
WHO ARE THESE MEN WHO ARE ASSURING US THAT THIS OR THAT
WORD, OR PHRASE, OR VERSE DOES NOT BELONG IN OUR BIBLES?........
What then is the evidence these Bible-alterers offer to
persuade you to give up the precious words they have removed from
their versions? MAINLY, THEY CITE TWO MANUSCRIPTS, admittedly
old, but also admittedly CARELESSLY EXECUTED. THE SINAITICUS WAS
SO POORLY EXECUTED THAT SEVEN DIFFERENT HANDS OF 'TEXTUAL
CRITICS' CAN BE DISCERNED AS THEY TRIED TO IMPOSE THEIR
VIEWS ON THE BIBLE. THEY TWISTED IT LIKE A NOSE OF WAX TO MEET
THEIR PURPOSE AT THE TIME. It is no wonder it was DISCARDED,
FOUND IN A WASTEBASKET FOURTEEN CENTURIES AFTER IT WAS EXECUTED.
THE VATICANUS MANUSCRIPT LAY ON A SHELF IN THE VATICAN
LIBRARY AT ROME UNTIL 1431, AND WAS CONSIDERED SO CORRUPT THAT NO
ONE WOULD USE IT (Erasmus, the noted Roman Catholic scholar,
refused to consider it as a source when he formed the Received
Text).
THE VATICANUS HAS ERRORS SO ABSURD THAT THE BOOKS PURPORTING
TO TEACH 'TEXTUAL SCIENCE' CAREFULLY AVOID MENTIONING THESE GROSS
ERRORS IN THEIR FAVORITE MANUSCRIPT. THEY TAKE THIS ONE AND ADD
TO IT A HANDFUL OF OTHER MANUSCRIPTS FROM THE ALEXANDRIAN
TEXTBASE, ALL OF THEM VERY LOOSE IN THEIR HANDLING OF THE
SCRIPTURES. FROM THESE THEY GIVE YOU THEIR THEORIES, THEIR
HYPOTHESES, THEIR GLOSSES. AND YEAR BY YEAR ONE OR ANOTHER
EXPLODES THE THEORIES OF THE PAST
YEAR.
........WHAT ARE THESE WORDS WHICH THEY HAVE SO FREELY
REMOVED FROM THEIR VERSION OF THE SCRIPTURES?........
( Green goes on to give some examples. We covered this in part 13
of this series - Keith Hunt).
......Like ORIGEN, an early textual critic, too many men believe
WHAT HE SAID, that "the Scriptures are of little use to those who
understand them as they are written," (quoted by McClintock and
Strong Cyclopedia, article on Origen). And given the
opportunity, MANY LIKE ORIGEN WILL ACTUALLY ALTER THE MANUSCRIPTS
TO MAKE THEM SAY WHAT THEY UNDERSTAND THEM TO MEAN.
Such things were done as soon as the WORD of God was
complete. In fact the apostles, Paul, Peter, and John all warned
that CORRUPTERS OF THE WORD OF GOD WERE ALREADY PLYING THEIR
TRADE WITHIN THE FIRST CENTURY CHURCHES......GALATIANS
1:6,7......1 JOHN 4:1.......2 PETER 3:15,16........
By the time the apostle John died, GNOSTICISM had gotten a
toehold in many Christian churches. And quickly thereafter they
expanded their poisonous influence at a rapid pace. JUSTIN
MARTYR, VALENTINUS, CLEMENT of Alexandria, MARCION, TATIAN, and a
horde of others practiced their textual science by OPERATING on
the manuscripts, or by writing their own 'version.' To this we
have MANY TESTIMONIES, such as this one, "The worst corruptions
to which the NT has ever been subjected originated WITHIN A
HUNDRED YEARS after it was composed; that Ireneus (A.D. 150),
and the African fathers, and the whole WESTERN ,........used FAR
INFERIOR manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or
Stephens, thirteen centuries later, when moulding the Textus
Receptus" - Scrivener, INTRODUCTION TO THE NT, third edition,
p.511.
And Eusebius quotes a second century father as writing:
"Wherefore, they have not fear to lay hands on the divine
Scriptures under pretence of CORRECTING them.....As for their
denying their guilt, the thing is impossible, since the copies
were written in their own hand; and they did not receive the
Scriptures in this condition from their teachers, nor can they
show the originals from which they made their copies." -
Eusibius, ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY, Vol. 1, p.522-524.
Even ORIGIN condemned MERCIAN and LUCAN for ALTERING the
Scriptures, though he himself can be shown to have quoted the
same verse of Scripture in two contradictory wordings in many
places. Like many "textual critics" of our day, Origin
moulded the Scriptures according to his philosophy, or his fancy
based on the allegory of the day, having no twinge of conscience
for doing so. It is this Origin, considered by his pupils
GOURAMI and EUSEBIUS to be the MASTER of textual critic, that we
owe so many of the invidious deletions from our modern
versions........
Origin believed Jesus was a created being, and by his
reputation, and his influence on his pupils, the Latin Vulgate,
the ornate manuscripts made from the libraries and the rulers of
his day, our latter-day attackers of the Majority Text attempt to
keep out many references in the Scriptures which plainly reveal
Jesus Christ to be God the Son, our original Creator.........
THE PROVIDENTIAL PRESERVATION OF THE SCRIPTURES
We believe wholeheartedly that God has preserved His word,
that He guided His true followers to carefully copy, and to use
the whole Bible, as is represented in the MAJORITY of the extant
manuscripts.....All modern-day critics will admit that the text
as essentially displayed in the vast majority of the extant
manuscripts has been virtually identical in copy after copy from
the period from the fourth century until the invention of
the printing press. In fact the Received Text was so widely and
so completely accepted in all countries, and in all denominations
EXCEPT the Roman Catholic, that WESTCOTT and HORT felt compelled
to invent a mythical council of church fathers, who supposedly
met and fixed the text as we now know it. Such a council is
unknown to history, and being totally demonstrable by evidence,
it must be considered a MYTH proposed in order to DECEIVE......
FIRST, many trustworthy copies were produced by faithful
scribes. SECONDLY, these were read, used, and recopied by true
believers when those original copies were worn out. THIRDLY,
untrustworthy copies (such as the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus)
were laid aside, not copied, consigned to oblivion. TODAY there
are more than 5,000 manuscripts and lectionaries in Greek as
witnesses to the NT text. And 95% OF THEM WITNESS TO THE
RECEIVED TEXT READINGS.
Party due to the fact that ancient manuscripts containing
the Received Text were worn out by use, while the Alexandrian
textbase manuscripts were preserved by the dry conditions in
Egypt, SOME have sort to DISCREDIT the Received Text because they
say it is not ancient. BUT NOW THAT MANUSCRIPT PORTIONS FROM THE
SECOND CENTURY ARE BEING UNEARTHED, it is found that MANY of the
readings of the Received Text which have been tagged scornfully
as "late readings" by nearly unanimous consent of the "textual
scientists" are APPEARING IN THESE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS. Readings
which were before called "late" and "spurious" have been found in
these early-date manuscripts. FOR EXAMPLE, the Chester Beatty
Papyri contained 65 readings which had before been rejected from
the versions of the critics. AND Papyrus Bodmer 2, of the second
century, actually was found to contain 13% of all the so-called
late readings of the critic-despised Majority Text.
YET STRANGELY, IN TEXTUAL CRITICISM CLASSES, SUCH
DISCOVERIES WERE SWEPT UNDER THE RUG, NOT REPORTED TO THE CLASS.
AND SO IT GOES, DAY BY DAY WE SEE THE CONJECTURES OF THESE
REPUTED EXPERTS BEING SWEPT AWAY, ALONG WITH THEIR HYPOTHESES.
NEXT, WE TRUST, WILL BE THE DISCREDITING OF THEIR "VERSIONS."
In the light of these facts, should we then ALLOW these
"scientists" (falsely so- called...........)
..........All who follow them will wind up in the spiritual
ditch........Try the spirits, whether they are of God.
End quotes from Jay P. Green, Sr.
I do recommend to all Christians, and especially those in
leadership functions within the Church of God, the FOUR VOLUME
SET of Green's Hebrew/Greek - English Interlinear, coded to
Strong's Concordance Numbers - Keith Hunt.
..................................
Written February 1998
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment