The Greek New Testament
by
Keith Hunt
SETTING THE SCENE
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
............................................
Bible - How it came to beA detailed look at how the Bible was preserved
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
.............................................
Bible - How it came to beA 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
.......................
Bible - How it came to beA 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
.........................................
Bible - How it came to beA 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.
....................................
Bible - How it came to beA 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.
..................................
|
|
|
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment