========================================================================
  MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE CLASS
  by Dr Thomas Holland
========================================================================

Holland's educational course on manuscript evidence and textual criticism,
emphasizing the preservation of Scripture through its transmission in copies and
translations. He argues from 2 Timothy 3:15-17 that transmitted texts should be
regarded as holy Scripture.

  Chapters: 12

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  TABLE OF CONTENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. 01 LESSON ONE
    2. 02 LESSON TWO
    3. 03 LESSON THREE
    4. 04 LESSON FOUR
    5. 05 LESSON FIVE
    6. 06 LESSON SIX
    7. 07 LESSON SEVEN
    8. 08 LESSON EIGHT
    9. 09 LESSON NINE
   10. 10 LESSON TEN
   11. 11 LESSON ELEVEN
   12. 12 LESSON TWELVE

========================================================================
  CHAPTER 1: 01 LESSON ONE
========================================================================

LESSON ONE: A Biblical Starting Point So then faith cometh by hearing, and
hearing by the word of God. (Rom 10:17)

Why do we believe salvation is by the grace of God apart for our own efforts and
works? Is it because of the way we feel, or because of what God says about
salvation in the Bible? As Christians, we believe that there was a world-wide
flood which destroyed the whole world with the exception of Noah and his family.
Why? Is it because some claim to have found the ark on Ararat or because the
Bible claims the flood as fact? Bible-believing Christians believe in special
creation and not the theory of evolution to explain the origin of man. Why so?
Is it because we have had scientific creationists prove the point, or because
the Bible has something to say on this issue? The Bible-believing Christian
begins his or her search for the truth with the Word of God (Rom 10:17). By
faith, we accept what God has said and then allow Him to prove it correct. It
would seem strange indeed for us to expect any less when it comes to the issues
of textual criticism, translational accuracy, and the preservation of scripture.
Unfortunately most Christians fail to take the time to see if God has anything
to say concerning these vital issues. However, like all truly important things
in life, He does. To begin with, God does not place much faith in the
credibility of man with regard to His Holy Word. In Rom 3:4 we are reminded, Let
God be true, but every man a liar. This being the final divine word on the
subject, we must conclude that every scholar, every professor, every teacher,
and every doctor is defined by God as a liar. This includes the good and godly
scholar, as it does the fair and careless one. This covers every man, woman and
child. This also includes me. None of our words are final, becausewe are defined
by God as liars. The only one who is true is God.

God proclaims that His words are true (John 17:17) and without error (Psa
119:140). He declares that His words are infallible proofs of truth (Acts 1:3).
He claims to have given us the scriptures by holy and divine inspiration (2Ti
3:16; 2Pe 1:21). And the Lord of Hosts states that He will keep and preserve His
words longer then the existence of either heaven or earth (Psa 12:6-7; Mat 5:18;
Mat 24:35). In fact, God says they are incorruptible (1Pe 1:23).

Man was not given the job of correcting God’s word. He is told not to add to or
take from the words of the Lord (Deu 4:2; Pro 30:6; Rev 22:18). The keeping of
God’s word is God’s job, not man’s. Concerning the words of the Lord, the
inspired writer reminds us that, Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt
preserve them from this generation for ever.(Psa 12:7).

Man can not be trusted with this job. He will think the can do a better job than
God and add to them. Or else, he will think that a passage would read better if
he takes something away. Man does so because he is a liar.

Further, God does not permit us to view His word as simply a good translation or
the best available text to-date. The scriptures are not to be seen as the work
of men, but instead as the word of God. Paul writes: For this cause also thank
we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard
of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of
God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. (1Th 2:13).

All of this provides the Bible-believing Christian with a different starting
point than the one which has influenced the thinking of modern Christendom. He
starts with the firm belief that God has inspired and given His word free from
all human error, and that this same God has kept and preserved His words. The
Bible-believing Christian begins with Scripture and ends with full assurance
that God was able to do what He proclaimed He would do. Where do the modern
scholars and translators begin? What is their view concerning the giving and
keeping of God’s words and what is their final conclusion? Note the following.
In his book, Dr. Alexander Souter defines the study of textual criticism in this
manner.

Textual criticism seeks, by the exercise of knowledge and trained judgment, to
restore the very words of some original document which has perished, and
survives only in copies complete or incomplete, accurate or inaccurate, ancient
or modern. If we possessed the twenty-seven documents now composing our New
Testament exactly in the form in which they were dictated or written by their
original authors, there would be no textual criticism of the New Testament. The
original documents, however, have long perished, and we have to make the best of
the copies which have survived, by howsoever many removes they may be distant
from their ultimate originals. (The Text and Canon of the New Testament, 1917;
p. 3. Dr. Souter was Professor of New Testament Greek and Exegesis in Mansfield
College, Oxford). From a human viewpoint, this definition seems logical. Dr.
Souter, nevertheless, does not look to Divine intervention for the preservation
and keeping of the Holy Script, but to knowledge and trained judgment.
Therefore, the preservation of the word of God, according to Souter, rests in
the hands of learned men.

Dr. Donald A. Carson carries the thought of copyist error to its earliest point,
making the writings which Paul had just finished subject to human errors.

Paul might write a letter to the church in Colossae while sitting under house
arrest in Rome. . .but that letter was soon copied by several within the church,
and by a few more in the sister church at nearby Laodicea. Perhaps one of the
members on a business trip to Macedonia took a copy with him; and while in
Philippi he copied out the Letter to the Phillippians at the same time someone
in the church at Philippi copied out the Letter to the Colossians. Of course any
error that the Colossian businessman inadvertently introduced into his own copy
of Paul’s letter to the Colossians would get picked up by the Philippians
copier. (D.A. Carson; The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism, 1979;
p. 16)

Drs. Geisler and Nix also depend upon the science of textual criticism to solve
various errata that have crept into the process of transmission.

Since the Scriptures have undergone some two thousand years of transmission, it
is only natural to ask: How much has the Bible suffered in the process? Or, to
put it more precisely: Is the twentieth century English Bible an accurate
reproduction of the first century Greek Testament and the Hebrew Old Testament?
The answer to this question comes from the science of textual criticism, (Norman
Geisler and William Nix in their book, A General Introduction to the Bible;
1968; p. 211) In his attempt to address the KJV Only movement, James R. White
compares the issues of textual criticism with errors in sports.

Men make mistakes, even when they are trying really hard. The greatest baseball
player still strikes out. The greatest basketball player will miss the clutch
free-throw and lose a game once in a while. The best archer will sometimes fire
an arrow wide of the target. To err is human. . .there is not a single
handwritten manuscript of the Bible, in Greek or Hebrew, that does not contain,
somewhere, an error, an oversight, a mistake. To err is human. (The King James
Only Controversy; 1995, p. 36) The conclusion of this, as set forth by modern
scholarship, can be seen in the first line of the closing paragraph in the
preface to the New International Version.

Like all translations of the Bible, made as they are by imperfect man, this one
undoubtedly falls short of its goals.

Thus, the judgments and insights of scholars, their desire to excel in the
discipline of textual criticism, will only provide imperfection that falls
short. As one can see, modern scholarship begins with the knowledge of men and
the science of textual criticism. Their final conclusion is not certainty, but
ambiguity. They are certain that they are right, but they are uncertain as to
the final product.

There is a three-fold process in the giving of Scripture. 1). Inspiration. 2).
Canonicity. 3). Transmission. The topic of inspiration is prone to objection by
scholarship in what is called higher criticism. This asks the question as to
what is meant by inspiration, and does this include inerrancy? The
Bible-believing Christian embraces the Scriptures as both inspired and inerrant.
The reason for doing so is because the Bible claims to be both. The canon of
Scripture differs among Protestants and Catholics as to what books are to be
considered part of the Holy Writ. Again, Bible-believing Christians accept the
sixty-six books which consists of our Old and New Testaments, and reject
apocrypha books as inspired. The issue of transmission is called lower criticism
or textual criticism. This covers both textual and translational issues
concerning the Scriptures. Not, is it inspired, but was it copied correctly
and/or translated correctly.

Here something needs to be stated about the words inerrant and infallible. In
his book, The Battle For The Bible, Dr. Harold Lindsell states these two words
are interchangeable and basically teach the Bible is without error (Lindsell, p.
27). There is, however, a slight difference to which the student of manuscript
evidence should be aware of. While they are synonyms for each other, there is a
variance. The word inerrant means without error. That is to say the Bible has no
error; it is truth without any mixture of error. This is the fundamental belief
among evangelical Christians, as pointed to by Lindsell, and applies to the
original autographs, the writers being inspired by the Holy Ghost. Infallible
carries the meaning further. Webster defines it as, "incapable of error."
Therefore, infallibility would mean the Scriptures were not only given without
error, but are incapable of becoming errant. That is to say, they are
incorruptible (1Pe 1:23). And, if they are truly infallible (incorruptible),
then the Church of God has always had these inerrant words and still possesses
them today; without the fallibility of human error interjected into their
content.

It seems rather amazing, from a Scriptural point of view, that God was able to
give His words without error and provide us with the knowledge as to which books
were His words, only to lose them in the process of transmission. Yet, this is
what modern scholarship expects us to believe as demonstrated by the earlier
quotations. Thus, according to those listed above, the Bible (all sixty-six
books) was given by inspiration of God, but must depend upon the integrity and
intelligence of scholarship to provide for us the best and most accurate copy of
what was initially given. At this point, the Bible-believing Christian must
insist that God did not profess to give us His words and allow them to be lost
or tainted. The references given at the beginning of this lesson show that our
Lord has stated otherwise (Psa 12:6-7; Mat 5:18; Mat 24:35; 1Pe 1:23). He gave
us His words (inspiration and canonicity) and He has kept His words
(transmission and preservation). They are both inerrant and infallible. The
final authority rests with God, not with scholarship (Heb 4:12-13). However, man
likes to assert this role. When the claim is made that two or more translations
or texts are the final authority, and they differ in subject or content; then an
additional authority must be introduced to resolve the conflict. Scholarship has
reserved for itself this role. It judges which translation or text is the
correct one. In so doing, it has made itself the final authority. In his
explanation of preservation, James R. White notes the differences in various
translations and texts and states,

You see, if readings could just disappear without a trace, we would have to face
the fact that the original reading may have fallen through the cracks as well.
But the tenacity of the New Testament text, while forcing us to deal with
textual variants, also provides us with the assurance that our work is not in
vain. One of those variant readings is indeed the original. We are called to
invest our energies in discovering which one it is. (The King James Only
Controversy; p. 48).

However, scholarship DOES claim that some readings have disappeared. For
example, Dr. Charles Ryrie states in his Study Bible concerning the reading of
1Sa 13:1, The original numbers in this verse have apparently been lost in
transmission. (Ryrie Study Bible, p. 432).

White, himself, does not believe the ending of Mark 16:9-20 to be the proper
ending of that gospel, but was added at some later date. Have we lost the real
ending to Mark’s gospel? If not, where is it? As one can see, redefining
preservation leaves us on shaky ground. The Scriptures remind us that It is
better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man. (Psa 118:8); and, As
for God, His way is perfect; the word of the LORD is tried: He is a buckler to
all them that trust in Him. (2Sa 22:31).

We can not trust man, for he will lie (Rom 3:4). The arm of flesh will fail us
(2Ch 32:8). But we can be assured that God is quite able and has kept and
preserved His words without error and that we still have these preserved words
today.

One additional note by Mr. White concerning the issue of preservation. On page
47 of his book, The King James Only Controversy, he states:

KJV Only advocates are quick to assert that those who do not join them in making
the KJV the final authority in all things do not believe in the preservation of
the Scriptures. Almost all KJV Only books will contain a section on how God has
promised to preserve His words, and they will, of course, assume that these
words are found in the KJV. At this point they believe themselves to be holding
the high ground in the debate, fighting for a belief that all Christians would
naturally defend: the idea that God has revealed himself, and has done so in
such a way that we can continue to know that revelation perfectly today.

I quote from Bro. White for this reason: I have not stated in the above lesson
which translation, if any, is the preserved word of God. Only that we are forced
to believe that God has kept and preserved His words without error, if we are to
believe the Scriptures. God simply said He would keep and preserve His words,
now and forever. I have not insisted that you believe that this preserved word
of God is the King James Bible (although I do and will give reason as to why in
later lessons). I have insisted that God said He would preserve His words, and
that modern scholarship ultimately denies Biblical preservation and replaces it
with human uncertainty. Our Biblical starting point is the assurance that God
gave us His words and has preserved them, "from this generation for ever." For
ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. (Psa 119:89).

PROBLEM PASSAGES: The question was asked: "When Jesus confronted Peter and
thrice asked, ’Do you love me?’ he used two different words in Greek, why wasn’t
this captured in the English translation? Of the two occurrences which do use
the same word, does the voice change or is it constant." The passage is found in
John 21:15-17 which reads as follows.

15: So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas,
lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that
I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.

16: He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me?
He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him,
Feed my sheep.

17: He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter
was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said
unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus
saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

There are two different Greek words translated as love in this passage. One is
agape and the other is phileo. According to the Greek text (and this is true of
all Greek texts) the first two times Jesus uses the word love He uses the Greek
word agape. Both of these times Peter responds with phileo. On the third time,
when Jesus speaks the word love, the word phileo is used by Christ. To this,
Peter responds with phileo. Some suggest that the Greek word agape means a
deeper love, while the Greek word phileo means friendship or affection. The King
James Bible is not alone in translating both words the same way. The standard
Spanish translation is the Valera. What the KJV is to the English-speaking
world, the Valera is to the Spanish- speaking world. Each time the Lord asks,
"me amas?" to which Peter replies, "Si, Senor; tu sabes que te amo." In every
case, the Spanish word for love is used, not two different words. The standard
French Bible is the Louis Segond. All three times the Lord uses the word,
"m’aimes-tu," and Peter replies with "t’aime." It is the same French word for
love. The Italian Bible is the Giovanni Diodati. In the gospel according to
Giovanni (John), the Italian word "amo" is used throughout the passage.

And, of course, Luther’s German Bible uses the German word for love, which is,
"lieber."

Even the NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, TEV, and NEB translated both Greek words as love
in this passage. So the KJV is not at all alone in its translation. Leaving the
Greek to use two different words.

Or, is it? Most scholars teach the two different Greek words agape and phileo,
mean two different things, or at the very least, two different types of love
(such as, I love my wife and I love pizza). However, this does not bear itself
out in the Greek New Testament. The simple fact is that these two words are used
interchangeably, both meaning love. If phileo means friendship and not godly
love, then why does Christ use it in Rev 3:19? "As many as I love, I rebuke."

Read John 20:2. Is it agape or phileo? How about John 16:27? Is this agape or
phileo? How about John 5:20 or 11:3,36? Reading the context of these passages
and being told that agape means godly love one might think this is the Greek
word used in these passages. However, the word phileo is used in all. Both words
mean love and are used interchangeably.

There is also another dimension of this argument which most scholars and Bible
teachers ignore. We do not know that this passage was originally spoken in
Greek. It may have been spoken in Hebrew or Aramaic. And, for that matter, we do
not know what the original Greek manuscript had. We only know how the copies
read.

Finally, the real issues here was not the change of Greek words. Peter was not
grieved because Christ had changed Greek words. He was grieved because he asked
three times. It was not the change in words or tense that disturbed Peter. It
was, "because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me?" Does not this
passage in John 21:1-25 prove the point that agape and phileo are
interchangeable? Jesus asks, "lovest (agape) thou me" (vs. 15), "lovest (agape)
thou me" (vs. 16), and "lovest (phileo) thou me" (vs. 17). When Christ asks this
last time, the texts states, "He saith unto him THE THIRD TIME" (vs.17). This is
true only if these two words are interchangeable. If they are not
interchangeable and carry different meanings, the text is in error, for it was
not the third time. If the two words carry the same meaning, the text would be
correct as it stands in the Greek manuscripts.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 2: 02 LESSON TWO
========================================================================

LESSON TWO: Presenting Some Basics In our first lesson we began with a Biblical
starting point for the study of textual criticism and a proper understanding of
the doctrine of preservation. Our conclusion consequently agrees with the
Psalmist in saying "Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it." ().

We can see this principle of preservation of both the text and the translation
of the New Testament itself. In Paul’s letter to Timothy, the Apostle makes
reference to the holy scriptures: And that from a child thou hast known the holy
scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which
is in Christ Jesus.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine,
for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of
God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works (2Ti 3:15-17).

Here, Paul tells Timothy that he has known the holy scriptures ever since he was
a child. Yet, we must recognize that all Timothy had were copies and
translations of the original Hebrew texts. Young Timothy did not have access to
the original autographs of any of the Old Testament writers. In the preservation
of God, Paul refers to these copies as holy scriptures. It would be unbiblical
of us to think less of the word of God today.

How unfortunate that we find ourselves in a debate over this issuewith
born-again Christian scholars and teachers. When we say, "Thy word is very
pure," the born-again translator says of translations, "None is perfect, but the
poorest is better than none." (Jack Lewis, The English Bible, 1981, p. 365). The
real difference lies in the approach taken. The passage in Timothy states, "All
scripture is given by inspiration of God." The tense of this verse demonstrates
the difference between the Bible-believing Christian and modern scholarship. The
Bible-believer agrees that all scripture IS given. The modern conservative
scholar believes it WAS given. It is our conviction that God used the correct
tense, and that the modern scholar is incorrect.

There are many issues which arise concerning the preservation of Scripture.
Several of these will be covered in the upcoming lessons. We will look at the
various lines of manuscripts and a history of both Biblical preservation and
those who sought to correct it (2Co 2:17). We will also note several of the
differences between modern versions and the Authorized Version. We will discuss
text types and bring to light the debate concerning the differences in texts. We
will also observe some of the argumentation raised by modern scholars and
address their concerns. However, we must first lay a foundation of basic
understanding in regard to textual criticism. It is with that purpose in mind
that we begin this lesson.

ANCIENT TEXTS: The Bible was not originally written in English. The Old
Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic. The New Testament was written in
Greek. However, we no longer have any of these original manuscripts. The attempt
to reconstruct what was originally given is the study of textual criticism.

There are more manuscripts of the New Testament than any other ancient writing.
To date, we have over 5,000 Greek manuscripts, and over 9,000 manuscripts of
ancient translations of the New Testament. Where these manuscripts disagree, it
is called a textual variance. For the purpose of this class, we are concerned
with the manuscripts and their variance as they relate to the New Testament.

It is important to make basic definitions of terms. This will allow the student
to comprehend what is communicated and recognize when others are using terms
improperly. By originals or autographs we do not mean copies. We mean what was
originally penned by the original writers of the Old and New Testaments. We no
longer have any of these autographs. Only copies remain. By manuscripts we mean
handwritten copies of the originals or copies of copies. They are written by
hand and thus called manuscripts. They may be whole books, portion of books, or
fragments.

Greek Texts does not mean the original Greek nor does it mean the Greek
manuscripts. It means a Greek New Testament that has been reconstructed by
various manuscripts and other sources. Since manuscripts differ, and sources
disagree, we have a variety of Greek Texts. Some of these are Stephanus Greek
Text, Beza’s Greek Text, Elzevir’s Greek Text, Westcott and Hort Greek Text,
Nestle’s Greek Text, and the United Bible Society’s Greek Text. The history of
New Testament manuscripts is divided, roughly, into three periods: papyrus,
vellum, and paper. The manuscripts we have were written on one of these three,
and often reflect the date of the manuscript.

Papyrus is made from the papyrus plants, which grew in abundance in Egypt. The
inner bark of the plant was cut into thin strips and were laid side by side and
then crossed with other strips. They were then pressed together and sun dried.
The papyrus was, for the most part, written only on one side and bound together
in rolls. The custom was to write in very narrow columns that had no separation
of words, accents marks, or punctuation. So, Php 1:1-2 would read something like
this:

PAULANDTIMOTHEUSTHESERVANTSOFJESUSCHRIST
TOALLTHESAINTSINCHRISTJESUSWHICHAREATPHIPIPPI
WITHTHEBISHOPSANDDEACONSGRACEBEUNTOYOU ANDPEACEFROMGODOURFATHERANDFROMTHE

LORDJESUSCHRIST

(Just as a side note, one can see from this example that the early scribes were
not concerned with making an easy to read translation or text of the Bible.)

Paragraphs were marked with a line in the margin of the text. A line in the
margin meant a new paragraph was beginning. (The Greek word para means beside,
and the Greek word graph means writing. Thus, paragraph.) The papyrus
manuscripts are very fragile. Most of what we have are fragments. This period
lasted until the seventh century.

Next, we have the manuscripts written on vellum (or in some cases on parchment).
This covers the period from about the end of the third century to the fifteenth
century. The narrow columns that were used in the papyrus manuscripts were
maintained in the vellum manuscripts. Vellum are dried animal skins which were
cut into leaves and formed into a book. In textual criticism, a book is called a
codex. Some vellum manuscripts maintain the same style of writing used in
papyrus manuscripts. This style is referred to as uncials, which consists of all
capital letters written without accent marks, punctuation, or separation of
words or sentences. Later, around the ninth century, the use of small letters
with spacing between words was used. These manuscripts are referred to as
minuscules or cursive.

Manuscripts written on paper cover from about the fourteenth century to the
present. Up until this period, it was rare to have a complete Bible in one book.
Most of the papyrus and vellum manuscripts are fragments, passages, or maybe a
book of the New Testament. But, in the thirteenth century whole books containing
all or most of the New Testament became common.

SOURCES FOR NEW TESTAMENT TEXTS:

There are three classes of evidence used by textual critics in the
reconstruction of the New Testament. (I use the term reconstruction because it
is a term used by textual critics. However, I personally do not believe the New
Testament needs to be reconstructed in the common use of the word because I do
not believe it was ever lost.)

First, the main source for reconstructing the New Testament comes from Greek
manuscripts. These manuscripts exist in the forms listed above. There are
variances in all Greek manuscripts. These manuscripts are classified into one of
four families, or textual types.

1) The Byzantine Text. The name is derived from the Byzantine Empire because it
is the type of text copied by Byzantine monks. Most manuscripts are of this
family. In fact, there are far more manuscripts of this type than of the other
three combined. For this reason the family is sometimes called the Majority
Text. This line of manuscripts would also reflect the Greek Texts used to
translate the King James Bible. This textual line is also called the Traditional
Text.

2) The Alexandrian Text. The name comes from Alexandria, Egypt, where most of
these texts were prepared by scribes. It is from this family of manuscripts most
modern version are based. The three main manuscripts of this family are
Alexandrinus (5th century), Sinaiticus (4th century), and Vaticanus (4th
century).

3) The Western Text. There is a debate among scholars if this is a real family
of manuscripts or not. Some believe it reflects a different family. Others
believe the differences are so minor that they do not deserve a classification
of their own.

4) The Caesarean Text. This family seems to be a mixture of the above family of
manuscripts. Some believe it was derived in Egypt by Origen and brought to
Caesarea. Because it is a mixture, some question if this also should be
classified as a family. For the most part, therefore, there are two main
families of manuscripts. It is the differences between these two lines that make
for the majority of the difference in modern translations and the King James
Version. When one takes the Textus Receptus, which was based on the Byzantine
line of manuscripts, and compares it with the Westcott and Hort Greek New
Testament, which was based on the Alexandrian line of manuscripts, there are
close to 6,000 differences within the two Greek Texts. This is roughly 10% of
the text. The second source for making a Greek Text comes from ancient versions.
Since these versions were translated from something, they are used as a source
for establishing a Greek Text. Like the Greek manuscripts, there are a variety
of ancient versions, and not all of these agree. Among these are the Old Latin
versions (including both the Old Latin and Jerome’s Latin Vulgate), Syrian
(including the Old Syriac and the Peshitta), Coptic (Egyptian), Gothic (early
German), Armenian, Ethiopic, and others. These are useful because they not only
had to have a source for their translation, but also show what the non-Greek
reading world used. The third source comes form the quotations of the early
Church Fathers. These are called Patristic citations. When the theological
writers of the first few centuries quoted scripture, their quotations are used.
Again, we have a difference in several of the quotations, showing that from the
very start there were differences in New Testament texts. More will be given
about some of the early Church Fathers in later lessons. Of course, this is
something the Bible-believer recognizes. Paul warned that "For we are not as
many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the
sight of God speak we in Christ." (2Co 2:17). And again, "But have renounced the
hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of
God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every
man’s conscience in the sight of God." (2Co 4:2). There have always been those
who sought to corrupt the incorruptible word of God. And, like Satan, questions
and quotes scripture dishonestly for their own gain (Gen 3:1; Mat 4:6). This is
not to say all the early church theologians or manuscripts are corrupt. It is to
say that we can not trust any one of these sources as the final authority.
Instead, we must depend upon the providence of God to preserve His words without
error and then demonstrate where this preserved word is.

Other sources would be lectionaries and apocryphal writings. Lectionaries were
books used by the early church which contained lessons and hymns. There were
also citations from passages of scripture. These would show that certain
scriptures were in use at a given time, and substantiate a questioned text.

Apocryphal writings would be citations from books contemporary with the New
Testament but were not inspired. Often they quote scripture. Allow me to
illustrate with a few examples. The King James Bible reads, "For we shall all
stand before the judgment seat of Christ" (Rom 14:10). Most modern versions read
as the New American Standard Version: "For we shall all stand before the
judgment seat of God." The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians quotes the
verse, "And must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ." (2:18). Rather
Polycarp wrote this letter or not we do not know. We do know that manuscripts of
the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians date to 150 AD. Thus we have a second
century reading supporting the textual variant in favor of the Traditional Text
and the Authorized Version of 1611. The same is true of 1Jn 4:3 --"And every
spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God:
and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should
come; and even now already is it in the world." Modern versions leave out the
phrase "is come in the flesh." Again, in Polycarp to the Php 3:1 we read, "For
whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, he is
antichrist." We can see that the writer of this book agreed with the rendering
of the King James Bible.

Another example using Polycarp comes form 1Ti 6:10 : "For the love of money is
the root of all evil." Modern versions read,"a root." But Polycarp’s letter to
the Philippians, 2:5, reads, "But the love of money is the root of all evil."
There are many other examples, but these illustrate the point.

VIEWS OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM: For the purposes of this class, there are three main
views concerning textual criticism. They are listed as follows. 1) Modern
Textual Criticism. 2) The Traditional Text. 3) The King James Bible as the
Preserved Word of God for the English-speaking people.

Modern Textual Criticism: To say most textual critics hold to modern textual
theories would be a vast understatement. Almost all who study textual criticism
support the modern approach. Thus, this is the view of modern scholars, rather
conservative, moderate, or liberal. Basically there are two fundamental
principles to this approach of textual criticism; the age of known existing
manuscripts and the use of eclecticism. In the past 150 years several
manuscripts have been found which pre-dated existing manuscripts. The famed
manuscripts of Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus date to the forth century.
They were discovered and used in the 1800’s. Some papyrus date before the forth
century. For example P52 dates to early second century, and P66 dates to around
200 AD.

Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus are questionable as they have added
passages and books to the contexts of both the Old Testament and New Testament,
while omitting other portions of scripture. Sinaiticus contains most of the Old
Testament and all of the New (except for Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53; John 8:1-11;
and some other verses). The Old Testament Apocrypha books are contained in
Sinaiticus laced within the Testament as part of the sacred text. It also
contains some New Testament Apocrypha books as part of the New Testament text.
For example it contains the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermans as
scripture. Vaticanus does likewise with Apocrypha books in both Testaments as
part of the Biblical text. (Vaticanus has Matthew through Heb 9:14. The
remainder of the NT is missing.)

Codex Bezae (which is also called D and dates between 450 to 550 AD) adds to the
text. One, of the many exampes, is found in Luk 6:5, "On that day, seeing a
certain man working on the Sabbath, he (i.e. Jesus) said to him, Man, if you
know what you are doing, blessed are you. But if not, cursed are you and a
transgressor of the law." (Dr. Kenneth Clark, The Transmission of the New
Testament as found in The Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 12; 1980, p. 623). These
type of additions are found throughout various manuscripts within the
Alexandrian and Western line. And, it is from these manuscripts that many of the
changes and revisions within both the Greek and English New Testament are based.

Age may not be the determining factor in the authenticity of a given manuscript.
Manuscripts which are not used would naturally last longer than manuscripts
where were used. Also, most of the papyrus manuscripts we have come from Egypt
and reflect the Alexandrian Text. The climate of Egypt is more conducive than
the climate of other places in the world for keeping old documents. Most of the
Gnostic Gospels come from manuscripts found in Egypt. Many of the supporters of
the Traditional Text (such as Edward F. Hills, Zane Hodges, Robert Wilson, Peter
Ruckman, and David Otis Fuller) have stated or suggested that Gnosticism
influenced the philosophy of the scribes copying the manuscripts in Egypt.
Gnosticism is known as an ancient heresy, teaching that all that is spiritual is
good and all that is physical is evil. The heresy also suggests that since Jesus
was created, and all that is physical is evil, Christ was not coming back in the
flesh. This is the false doctrine which John addresses in his first epistle.
Thus manuscripts coming from Egypt are questionable. The Traditional Text:

What has been called the Majority Text is based on this view of textual
criticism, as is the Received Text (also called the Textus Receptus ). Until the
publishing of textual scholars, such as Westcott and Hort, this view was the
main view. In fact, one could argue until the early 1800’s it was the only view,
at least where Protestant scholarship is concerned. Dr. Kurt Aland (of the Aland
Greek NT and the Institute for NT Textual Research) wrote:

Finally it is undisputed that from the 16th to the 18th century orthodoxy’s
doctrine of verbal inspiration assumed this Textus Receptus. It was the only
Greek text they knew, and they regarded it as the ’original text.’ Close beside
it there was Luther’s translation of the New Testament which in practice
frequently enjoyed the same esteem, although there were differences between its
various editions, just as there were for the Greek text. ("The Text of the
Church?" in Trinity Journal, Fall, 1987. p.131).

Critics of the Traditional Text cite that this lane of manuscripts is recent and
not reflective of early manuscripts. It is true that the majority of all Greek
manuscripts date after 1000 AD, but to insinuate that there is no textual
support for this line before 1000 AD is absurd and without informative
substance. The Chester Beatty Papyri (P. 45, 46, and 66) all have readings that
reflect the Traditional Text against all other line of manuscripts. These papyri
date to the early third century. Codex W dates from the fourth to early fifth
century. It contains the Gospels, yet uses several of the various lines of
manuscripts. While most of Mark and part of John reflect the Alexandrian and
Western lines, "(all of) Matthew and Luk 8:13-56; Luk 9:1-62; Luk 10:1-42; Luk
11:1-54; Luk 12:1-59; Luk 13:1-35; Luk 14:1-35; Luk 15:1-32; Luk 16:1-31; Luk
17:1-37; Luk 18:1-43; Luk 19:1-48; Luk 20:1-47; Luk 21:1-38; Luk 22:1-71; Luk
23:1-56; Luk 24:1-25 are Byzantine (Traditional text)" (Geisler and Nix, A
General Introduction to the Bible, p. 281). Even Codex A (i.e. Codex
Alexandrinus, dating around 450 AD) reflects the Traditional Text in the
Gospels, leaving the Epistles to reflect the Alexandrian line. And, of course,
the early translations such as the Peshitta (second century) and the Gothic
(dating around 350 AD) also reflect the Traditional Text over against the
Alexrandian Text. In fact, Sir Fredric Kenyon, noted textual scholar, has stated
that the Gothic version represents the type of text, "which is found in the
majority of Greek manuscripts" (Handbook To The Textual Criticism Of The New
Testament by Kenyon, p. 240). The best manuscripts are the ones which have been
traditionally used by Bible believing Christians throughout the years, and the
vast majority of all existing manuscripts reflect this type of manuscript. These
manuscripts were used to produce the King James Bible and reflects the history
of early Protestantism and Reformation. Additionally, many of the old early
translations agree with this line of manuscripts, as do some very early papyrus
manuscripts. The question has been asked, why would God allow the majority of
manuscripts to be of this line if it is incorrect, while only a handful of
manuscripts reflect the views of modern textual critics? (Such was the question
raised by Dr. John Burgon). We would also ask; If this line is the wrong line of
manuscripts, why would God allow born-again Christians to use this line and
suffer persecution, while giving to those who were persecuting the true Church
the correct line? Is that consistent with the nature of God? If those who were
persecuting the Church had the correct line of manuscripts, why did they
prohibit it from being translated for so many years, even hiding it from their
own people? If the Traditional line of manuscripts is not the correct line, why
has God so greatly blessed this line and the translations of the Traditional
Text throughout the history of the Church? Would not God bear witness to which
is good and which is corrupt? (Mat 7:15-20) The King James Version View: This
view draws most of its textual support form the Traditional Text, since the
Greek Text which underlined the King James Version came from the Traditional
Text. The view covers preservation, final authority, and the Sovereignty of God.
The view states that the Authorized Version is the preserved word of God for the
English-speaking people. It stands as the final authority for all matters of
faith and practice without any proven error. The Sovereign hand of God can be
seen in using this version to bring revival and reform. This view begins with a
basis of Scriptural promises. Namely, that God would keep and preserve His
words. (Psa 12:6-7; Mat 4:4; Mat 5:18; Mat 24:35; 1Pe 1:23). Preservation would
mean more than a general term. It would mean that God kept all of His words
without error, and that these words are preserved in a book which can be read
and tested. Throughout church history God has kept His words, and since 1611 for
English-speaking people, it is found in the Authorized Version. The information
in this lesson will provide the student with a basic munderstanding of some of
the terms used in the study of textual criticism, and in our study of the King
James Bible and its text. Additional information will be provided in time as we
look more closely at opposing views in this study. In our next lesson we will
cover some of the differences in the Greek texts as reflected in various English
translations.

QUESTIONS FROM STUDENTS: In our first lesson, I called this section Problem
Passages. I think it would be better to call this section Questions From
Students, in that some of the questions received deal with areas other than
problem passages. Such is the following question.

"I love the KJV of the Bible and it’s all I use. My one question would be about
the new KJ21 ... do you know about it ... what do you think ... are there any
specific problems with it? Thank you."

All I can offer is my opinion. I do not own a copy of the KJ21, so I had to
borrow one from my library. My observations, therefore, are not in-depth. KJ21
stands for the 21st Century King James Version. It was published in 1994 by
Deuel Enterprises, Inc. in Gary, SD. This is not a new translation or revision
of the King James Bible. Instead, it takes the text of the KJV and seeks to
update some of the words considered outdated. This was the same thing Porter
Barrington did with his Christian Life New Testament.Words like minish become
diminish and prevent become precede.It keeps archaic words which are still
understandable to modern readers, such as "thee, thou, hath, art, cometh, and
hast." The text is not presented in column verse form as most King James
Version’s of the Bible are. Instead it is presented in paragraph form like many
modern versions have been. Some verses are placed in bold print because they
denote "the most powerful, most familiar, best loved, and most often quoted and
memorized." (from KJ21, p. v). It also contains an appendix which I was glad to
see. The KJ21 has added the original Preface to the KJV entitled The Translators
to the Reader (presented in an updated and abridged form). The editors of the
KJ21 states: For your ease of reading, we have replaced obsolete and archaic
words by the most exact modern synonyms, painstakingly chosen so as to insure no
change in meaning. For example, the word gins has been replaced by traps; bewray
by betray; stablish by establish; dehort by dissuade; reins by inmost being;
minish by diminish; wist by knew; listed by pleased; carefully by intricately.
These are only a few examples among many. (Preface, p. ix)

I can say that this statement, and the examples used, cause me some alarm.
First, if these are "only a few examples among many" I wonder what the other
changes are. What are the "many"? It is my nature to be skeptical when men take
it upon themselves to alter God’s word. Even when the motivation is to clarify,
sometimes context is compromised. In times past, I have been told that modern
version simply revise the "obsolete and archaic words" in the Authorized
Version; only to find that the text has been changed or words and verses
omitted. I was told the New Scofield Reference Bible simply updated many of the
"archaic words" of the King James, but did not change the text; then discovered
that this was not true. (Such as in Dan 3:25 where the KJV states "and the form
of the fourth is like the Son of God." The NSRB reads "a son of the gods," thus
taking Christ out of the fiery furnace). And so it was with the New King James
Version, changing the text while claiming it was a King James Bible. I alway
become skeptical when I am lied to.

Secondly, I have noticed that when others care for my "ease of reading" and
revise the text with "no change in meaning," that it does in fact change. Even
though it may surprise some, God is not concerned with my "ease of reading."
Instead, He expects me to study and search it out for myself (2Ti 2:15; Pro
25:2; John 5:39). Otherwise, our Lord never would have taught in parables. He
did not do so to make it easy or to illustrate, He did it, "because they seeing
see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand." (Mat 13:13 and
context).

Thirdly, once the words have been changed, the meaning is changed. We approach
our study of the Bible with the attitude of "what does it mean?". God’s attitude
in scripture has always been, "what does it say." What God says is more
important than what we think it means.

Finally, once you change the words, you have destroyed the cross-reference. We
study and understand scripture in light of scripture. The word sheds light on
the word. If words are replaced with modern words, our cross-reference has been
rendered ineffective. One of the examples given by the editors of the KJ21 is
that reins has been changed to inmost being. The word reins appears 15 times in
the KJV. Of these, only 6 times has it been changed to inmost being (Psa 26:2;
Psa 73:21; Pro 23:16; Jer 12:2; Jer 17:10; Jer 20:12. Instead it appears as
loins (Job 16:13), heart (Job 19:27), souls (Psa 7:9), inner self (Psa 16:7),
reins (Psa 139:13; and Isa 11:5), passions (Jer 11:20), inmost parts (Lam 3:13),
and thoughts (Rev 2:23). One could argue that these words mean the same thing
most of the time. But then we are back to "what it means" instead of "what it
says." If I want to see how God uses the English word reins in His Book, I will
have trouble doing so in the KJ21.

Another concern is found in Acts 7:45. The King James Bible reads, "Which also
our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the
Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of
David;" Here, the KJ21 has changed the text to read "which also our fathers, who
came later, brought with Joshua into the territory of the Gentiles, whom God
drove out before the face of our fathers until the days of David." This is an
example of the editors disregarding what the text says, and translating what
they think it means. This is not updating "obsolete and archaic words," unless
they think Jesus is either obsolete or archaic in this passage. Nor is this a
clarification of Greek. The Greek word used is Iesou (which is the genitive form
of Iesous; the Greek word for Jesus. ) If one is reading the Greek text (any
Greek text) it would read just as the King James Bible reads. Nor, is the KJ21
consistent in its changing of the text when the editors believe the word Iesou
should be Joshua. In Heb 4:8 the same Greek word is used and revised as Joshua
in modern versions of the Bible (such as the NASV, NIV, and NRSV). Yet, the KJ21
renders the passage "For if Jesus had given them rest, then He would not
afterwards have spoken of another day." If Iesou in Acts 7:45 means Joshua, then
why not translate it as Joshua in Heb 4:8? (The real truth is that the Holy
Spirit, in Greek or in the English of the KJV, shows no difference because
Joshua of old is a picture of Jesus; in that Joshua is a type of the second
coming of Jesus Christ leading the nation of Israel into the promised land).

I am sure there are other examples and passages where the KJ21 falls short of
its predecessor. However, that will be up to the student to research and locate
additional examples.

I am not sure that the KJ21 will make a great deal of difference. Those who wish
to revise or change the Authorized Version are never satisfied with what they
have accomplished. This is why we have had so many versions and revisions over
the past one hundred years. We have been told that some versions are given to
make the Bible stronger in its text. So out comes the RV, ASV, RSV, ASV, Amp.,
NASV, and so on, only to fall out of favor within a few years and replaced with
a newer version or revision. We have also been told that some versions are given
to simplify the meaning of the Bible. So out comes the TEV, NIV, NRSV, TLB,
Phillips, and so on. One wonders how many times it needs to be made simple.

I do not believe the KJ21 will be effective. Those who stand for the
preservation of the word of God will not use it as their main Bible. Those
wishing for an easy to read version will still use the NIV (which is revised
every five years) or one of its kind. Sooner or later we will begin to
understand that the Bible is God’s Book, and if there is to be any revision or
retranslating, it will be up to God to bring it to pass. And if He ever does, He
will testify to it as He has the Authorized Version for the past four hundred
years.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 3: 03 LESSON THREE
========================================================================

LESSON THREE: Listing some differences Know ye not that a little leaven
leaveneth the whole lump? (1Co 5:6) In the past two lessons we have laid a
Biblical foundation for the study of manuscript evidence and discussed some
basic terms and principles in the study of textual criticism. The focus of this
lesson will deal with some of the differences found in translations of the
Bible. It would be rather fallacious of us to discuss the topics and discoveries
of textual criticism if we provided no evidence of any textual changes.
Therefore, in this lesson we will list several of the textual changes between
the Authorized Version and modern translations.

Those who claim that modern versions of the Bible and the King James Version
differ only in that the modern versions update the archaic language found in the
Authorized Version are either ill-informed or dishonest. Yet, this seems to be
the major conception of many who use or support modern translations. All one
need do to verify this point is ask the layperson who uses a modern version why
they use it. A common response will be that the King James is to hard to
understand and the modern version uses today’s language.

There are those who are more informed on the subject and recognize that there
are in fact translational and textual differences as well. However, these
differences are either disregarded as unimportant or downplayed as extremely
limited in nature. This can be illustrated in the following quotation by John R.
Kohlenberger III.

First of all, and perhaps most important, is the reassurance that the number of
possible variations in the text of the Bible is very small and does not affect
any major teaching of Christianity. Many variations, in fact, are trivial. In
1Co 7:15, for instance, some manuscripts read, "For God has called us to peace,"
and others read, "For God has called you to peace." This change of person (in
Greek only one letter’s difference) does not affect Paul’s point at all. (All
About Bible, Oxford University Press, 1985. p.14). The point he makes is
two-fold. First, no major doctrine is affected in any major translation of the
Bible. Second, textual variations are small and trivial. Neither of these two
points are correct.

First of all, one can prove major fundamental doctrine from any translation of
the Bible. That does not mean that the doctrine is unaffected. For example, one
can prove the Deity of Jesus Christ and the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity
using the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (the official translation
of the Jehovah’s Witnesses), yet both of these Biblical truths are affected and
changed in the NWT. The doctrines can be established, but are weakened in the
NWT. Again, the virgin birth can be proven using the Revised Standard Version of
the Bible. Yet it is rejected by many conservatives because the doctrine of the
virgin birth is compromised in Isa 7:14 in the RSV (and NRSV). The doctrine of
the blood atonement is impaired in the Today’s English Version by changing blood
to death in many references. Yet, the doctrine can be established using the TEV.
The question is not, can we prove the doctrine? The question is, has the word of
God been compromised? (Mat 16:12; 1Co 5:6).

Secondly, the textual variations are not simply small or trivial. True, many of
the variations in the differing Greek texts and manuscripts are not of major
importance, but many others are. And the variance is by no means small but
reflect a large portion of the New Testament. All one needs to do to verify this
point is secure a copy of the United Bible Society’s Greek New Testament (any
edition) and notice the textual variances on almost every page of this critical
text. As stated in lesson two, the Greek text which underlined the King James
Bible and the Greek text of Westcott and Hort (used for the Revised Version of
1881) differ over 5,000 times. Additionally, the number of changes which have
occurred in the English translation of the Westcott and Hort text number well
over 30,000.

Both of these points are established by Dr. Jack Lewis in his book, The English
Bible From KJV to NIV: A History and Evaluation published by Baker Book House,
1981. It should be noted that Dr. Lewis helped with the translation of the New
International Version and is not a King James only advocate. Concerning the
Greek text of the Revised Version of 1881, Dr. Lewis writes, but the project
ended with 5,788 changes in the underlying Greek text of the New Testament which
was followed. About one-fourth of these are said to alter the subject matter.
(Lewis, pp. 69-70. The are said comes from a book by Sir Frederick G. Kenyon
entitled, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts. ) Dr. Lewis goes on to state
about the American Standard Version of 1901 that, The instruction stated that
the style and language of the KJV were to be maintained; nevertheless, in the
end more than 36,191 corrections of various sorts were made in the New
Testament. These included changes resulting from alterations in the Greek text
itself, changes where the KJV appears to have chosen the poorer of two readings,
changes where the KJV is ambiguous or obscure, changes where the KJV is not
consistent with itself in rendering phrases or passages that are alike or
paralleled, and changes that are required because of the other changes made.
(Lewis, p. 70).

While I differ with Dr. Lewis’ conclusions, his citation provides proof that the
changes made in modern versions reflect more than the updating of language.
Further, Dr. Lewis not only gives us a total of changes made in the two
differing Greek texts (5,788) but establishes that additional changes have been
made in the English translations (36,191 in the ASV). And these changes do not
account for the thee’s and thou’s found in the KJV because the ASV also uses
thee and thou in its text. Thus, we see the changes are by no means small.

One notable difference deals with the number of verses omitted from modern
versions of the Bible. While there are many places where phrases or words have
been either changed or omitted, here we see whole verses omitted or bracketed in
modern versions as compared with the KJV. For example, both the New American
Standard Version (NASV) and the New International Version (NIV) omit the
following verses.

Mat 17:21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.

Mark 7:16 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

Mark 9:44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. (Also true
of verse 46 which reads the same).

Mark 11:26 But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven
forgive your trespasses.

Mark 15:28 And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And hewas numbered with
the transgressors.

Luk 17:36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other
left.

Luk 23:17 (For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)

John 5:4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled
the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was
made whole of whatsoever disease he had.

Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.
And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Acts 15:34 Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.

Acts 24:7 But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence
took him away out of our hands, Acts 28:29 And when he had said these words, the
Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves.

Rom 16:24 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

1Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word,
and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

These same conservative translations (NASV and NIV) also bracket Mark 16:9-20
(the ending to the Gospel of Mark) and John 7:53; John 8:1-11 (about the woman
caught in adultery). They footnote these two passages stating "The earliest and
most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark
16:9-20/Joh 7:53; John 8:1-11" (NIV), thus calling into question the scriptural
authority of these two passages. The Revised Standard Version (RSV), New Revised
Standard Version (NRSV), and New English Version (NEV) go further by not only
omitting the above references from their text, but also omit the following
verses.

Mat 12:47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand
without, desiring to speak with thee.

Mat 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

Mat 21:44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on
whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

Mat 23:14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’
houses, and for a pretence make long prayer:

Luk 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new
testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

Luk 24:12 Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he
beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself
at that which was come to pass.

Luk 24:40 nd when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. By
confining these verses to footnotes, these translations demonstrate that the
Greek text from which they are translated from do not contain these verses as
part of their text. As Bible-believing Christians, this leaves us with a
dilemma. Three times the Bible warns against adding to or taking from the word
of God (Deu 4:2; Pro 30:6; and Rev 22:18). Therefore, we must conclude that the
Greek texts which underline modern translations are corrupt in removing these
verses from the text, or else the Greek text which underlined the KJV is corrupt
for adding these verses to the text. Either way, one cannot be Biblical and
believe that the KJV and modern versions are both the word of God. It is obvious
that one of these lines has either added to or taken from the word of God, which
is a violation of scripture. Which ever one is shown in error, is corrupt and
must be rejected by the Bible-believing Christian.

Differences may be noted by comparing the KJV with the NIV. These are the two
best selling versions of the English Bible, and are both considered conservative
translations.

KJV RENDERING

NIV RENDERING

Mat 6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is
the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

Mat 6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.

Mat 9:13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not
sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Mat 9:13 But go and learn what this means: I desire mercy, not sacrifice. For I
have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.

Mat 20:23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be
baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand,
and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it
is prepared of my Father.

Mat 20:23 Jesus said to them, You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at
my right or left is not for me to grant. These places, belong to those for whom
they have been prepared by my Father.

Mark 1:2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before
thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

Mark 1:2 It is written in Isaiah the prophet: I will send my messenger ahead of
you who will prepare your way.

Mark 6:11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart
thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily
I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of
judgment, than for that city.

Mark 6:11 And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, shake the dust
off your feet when you leave, as a testimony against them.

Luk 2:33 And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken
of him.

Luk 2:33 The child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about him.

Luk 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live
by bread alone, but by every word of God.

Luk 4:4 Jesus answered, It is written: Man does not live on bread alone.

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in
the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

John 1:18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the
Father’s side, has made him known. (The NASV reads, "No man has seen God at any
time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained
Him.")

Acts 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath
to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise
up Christ to sit on his throne;

Acts 2:30 But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that
he would place one of his descendants on his throne.

Acts 9:6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to
do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be
told thee what thou must do.

Acts 9:6 Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of
God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to
the Greek.

Rom 1:16 I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the
salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ
Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Rom 8:1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ
Jesus,

Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of
sins:

Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was
manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto
the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

1Ti 3:16 Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in
a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the
nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.

Rev 1:6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be
glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Rev 1:6 And has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and
Father--to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.

Rev 1:11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou
seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia;
unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto
Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

Rev 1:11 Which said: Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven
churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and
Laodicea.

If these few examples do not suffice, the student is free to compare any of the
following references with any major modern translation of the Bible. Again,
these are only a few of the many changes found within the two line of Greek
texts as reflected in English translations.

Mat 5:27; Mat 5:44; Mat 13:51; Mat 15:6; Mat 15:8; Mat 19:9; Mat 19:20; Mat
20:7; Mat 20:16; Mat 20:22; Mat 22:13; Mat 23:4-5; Mat 25:13; Mat 26:3; Mat
26:60; Mat 27:35; Mat 28:2; Mat 28:9.

Mark 1:1; Mark 1:14; Mark 1:42; Mark 3:5; Mark 3:15; Mark 6:33; Mark 6:36; Mark
7:2; Mark 7:8; Mark 8:9; Mark 8:26; Mark 9:38; Mark 9:45; Mark 9:49; Mark 10:7;
Mark 10:21; Mark 10:24; Mark 11:8; Mark 11:10; Mark 11:23; Mark 12:23; Mark
12:29-30; Mark 12:33; Mark 13:11; Mark 13:14; Mark 14:19; Mark 14:27; Mark
14:68; Mark 14:70; Mark 15:3.

Luk 1:28-29; Luk 2:42; Luk 4:5; Luk 4:8; Luk 4:18; Luk 5:38; Luk 6:45; Luk 7:31;
Luk 8:43; Luk 8:45; Luk 8:48; Luk 8:54; Luk 9:10; Luk 9:54-56; Luk 10:38; Luk
11:2; Luk 11:4; Luk 11:11; Luk 11:44; Luk 11:54; Luk 12:39; Luk 17:9; Luk 17:24;
Luk 18:24; Luk 19:45; Luk 20:13; Luk 20:23; Luk 20:30; Luk 22:31; Luk 22:64; Luk
22:68; Luk 23:23; Luk 23:38; Luk 24:1; Luk 24:36; Luk 24:42; Luk 24:46; Luk
24:51-52.

John 1:27; John 3:13; John 3:15; John 5:3; John 5:16; John 6:11; John 6:22; John
6:47; John 6:51; John 7:46; John 8:9-10; John 8:59; John 9:6; John 10:13; John
10:26; John 11:41; John 12:1; John 13:32; John 16:16; John 17:12; John 19:16.

Acts 2:47; Acts 3:11; Acts 7:37; Acts 9:5; Acts 10:6; Acts 10:12; Acts 10:21;
Acts 10:32; Acts 13:42; Acts 15:18; Acts 15:24; Acts 18:21; Acts 20:15; Acts
21:8; Acts 21:22; Acts 21:25; Acts 22:9; Acts 22:20; Acts 23:9; Acts 24:6; Acts
24:8; Acts 24:26; Acts 26:30; Acts 28:16.

Rom 9:28; Rom 9:32; Rom 10:15; Rom 11:6; Rom 13:9; Rom 14:6; Rom 14:21; Rom
15:24; Rom 15:29.

1Co 6:20; 1Co 10:28; 1Co 11:24; 1Co 15:54.

2Co 5:17; 2Co 12:9; 2Co 13:2 Gal 3:1; Gal 4:15; Gal 5:19; Gal 5:21.

Eph 1:15; Eph 3:14; Eph 5:30.

Php 3:16; Php 3:21; Php 4:23.

Col 1:2; Col 2:18; Col 3:6.

1Th 1:1; 1Th 2:15; 1Th 3:2.

1Ti 1:17; 1Ti 3:3; 1Ti 5:4; 1Ti 5:16; 1Ti 6:5; 1Ti 6:7.

Heb 2:7; Heb 3:6; Heb 7:21; Heb 8:12; Heb 10:30; Heb 10:34; Heb 11:11; Heb
11:13; Heb 12:20.

1Pe 1:22; 1Pe 4:3; 1Pe 4:14; 1Pe 5:2; 1Pe 5:5; 1Pe 5:11.

2Pe 1:21; 2Pe 3:10.

1Jn 4:3; 1Jn 5:13.

Rev 1:8; Rev 5:14; Rev 11:1; Rev 11:17; Rev 14:5; Rev 15:2; Rev 21:24; Rev
22:14; Rev 22:19.

There are also places where translations differ among themselves which do not
acount for the differences in the Greek texts.

KJV RENDERING

MODERN RENDERING(S)

1Co 7:36 But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his
virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what
he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.

1Co 7:36 If anyone thinks his is acting improperly toward the virgin he is
engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry,
he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. (NIV) But
if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter, if
she should be of full age, and if it must be so, let him do what he wishes, he
does not sin; let her marry. (NASB)

There are three differing translations of the same Greek phrase,ten parthenon
autou(the virgin of him).

2Co 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of
sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

2Co 2:17 Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit. On the
contrary, in Christ we speak before God with sincerity, like men sent from God.
(NIV)

The same Greek wordkapeleuontesis translated ascorruptandpeddle, which are two
different meanings.

Tit 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

Tit 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men, (RSV)

The same Greek phrase can be translated either way, and thus convey two
different meanings.

While I have limited the discussion to the differences in translationof the New
Testament, the same can be seen in how modern versions differ in the Old
Testament.

KJV RENDERING

MODERN RENDERING(S)

1Sa 13:1 Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel,

1Sa 13:1 Saul was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned over
Israel forty two years. (NIV) Saul was forty years old when he began to reign,
and he reigned thrity-two years over Israel. (NASB) Saul was . . . years old
when he began to reign; and he reigned . . . and two years over Israel. (NRSV)

2Sa 21:19 And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where
Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the
Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.

2Sa 21:19 Then there was another battle with the Philistines at Gob; and Elhanan
son of Jaare-oregim, the Bethlehemite, killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of
whose spear was like a weaver’s beam. (NRSV)

Dan 3:25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in The midst of
the fire and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of
God.

Dan 3:25 He answered and said, Look! I see four men loosed and walking about in
the midst of the fire without harm, and the appearance of the fourth is like a
son of the gods. (NASB)

There are also many places where names referring to Deity are either removed or
not fully used. To counter this, James R. White has developed what he calls an
expansion of piety theory. He states, "It led people to naturally expand the
titles used of the Lord, possibly even without their conscious effort to change
the text." (The King James Only Controversy, p. 46). Thus, according to White,
phrases such as Lord Jesus Christ were really Lord Jesus. White offers 23
examples. The truth is that there are far more than 23 times in the New
Testament where the names of Deity are omitted by modern versions and their
Greek texts. The Nestle Greek text has 230 such omissions while the United Bible
Society’s Greek text has 212. This is reflected in the modern translation as
well. The NASV has 210 such omissions, the NIV has 173, and the RSV has 213. The
shear number of such omissions demonstrate the White’s expansion of piety theory
is erroneous. It is possible to conceive that somewhere in the process of
transmission a scribe unconsciously added Christ to Lord Jesus or Lord to Jesus
Christ. But to have this occur over 200 times would be a deliberate act, not an
unconscious expansion as White suggests.

Further, some of these omissions consists of more than a partial removal of a
phrase. Divine names and titles are omitted such as Spirit, Father, God, Son of
Man, Master, the Son, The Beginning, The Ending, as well as, Lord, Christ, and
Jesus. Since the Bible says of Christ, "that in all things he might have the
preeminence." (Col 1:18), it might do us well to have a Bible that maintains the
names and titles of Deity over 200 times more than modern versions do. So that
the student may "search the scriptures" to see if these things are so, the
following are the references where the names and titles of Deity are omitted.

Mat 4:12; Mat 4:18; Mat 4:23; Mat 6:33; Mat 8:3; Mat 8:5; Mat 8:7; Mat 8:29; Mat
9:12; Mat 12:25; Mat 13:36; Mat 13:51; Mat 14:14; Mat 14:22; Mat 14:25; Mat
15:16; Mat 15:30; Mat 16:20; Mat 17:11; Mat 17:20; Mat 18:2; Mat 18:11; Mat
19:17; Mat 21:12; Mat 22:30; Mat 22:32; Mat 22:37; Mat 23:8; Mat 24:2; Mat
25:13; Mat 28:6.

Mark 1:1; Mark 1:41; Mark 5:13; Mark 5:19; Mark 6:34; Mark 7:27; Mark 8:1; Mark
8:17; Mark 9:24; Mark 10:6; Mark 10:52; Mark 11:10-11; Mark 11:14-15; Mark
11:26; Mark 12:27; Mark 12:32; Mark 12:41; Mark 14:22; Mark 14:45.

Luk 2:40Luk 4:4; Luk 4:41; Luk 7:22; Luk 7:31; Luk 8:38; Luk 9:43; Luk 9:56-57;
Luk 9:59-60; Luk 10:21; Luk 12:31; Luk 13:2; Luk 13:25; Luk 21:4; Luk 22:31; Luk
22:63; Luk 23:42-43; Luke 24:36 24:36.

John 3:2; John 3:34; John 4:16; John 4:42; John 4:46; John 5:17; John 5:30; John
6:14; John 6:39; John 6:69; John 8:1; John 8:4; John 8:6; John 8:9-11; John
8:16; John 8:20-21; John 8:29; John 9:35; John 11:45; John 13:3; John 13:32;
John 16:16; John 18:5; John 19:38-39.

Acts 2:30; Acts 3:26; Acts 4:24; Acts 7:30; Acts 7:32; Acts 7:37; Acts 7:46;
Acts 8:37; Acts 9:5-6; Acts 9:29; Acts 15:11; Acts 15:18; Acts 16:31; Acts 19:4;
Acts 19:10; Acts 20:21; Acts 20:25; Acts 22:16; Acts 23:9.

Rom 1:16; Rom 6:11; Rom 8:1; Rom 14:6; Rom 15:8; Rom 15:19; Rom 16:18; Rom
16:20; Rom 16:24.

1Co 1:14; 1Co 5:4-5; 1Co 6:20; 1Co 9:1; 1Co 9:18; 1Co 10:28; 1Co 11:29; 1Co
15:47; 1Co 16:22-23.

2Co 4:6; 2Co 4:10; 2Co 5:18; 2Co 10:7; 2Co 11:31.

Gal 1:15; Gal 3:17; Gal 4:7; Gal 6:15; Gal 6:17.

Eph 3:9; Eph 3:14; Eph 5:9.

Php 4:13.

Col 1:2; Col 1:28; Col 2:2.

1Th 1:1; 1Th 2:19; 1Th 3:11; 1Th 3:13.

2Th 1:8; 2Th 1:12; 2Th 2:4 1Ti 1:1; 1Ti 2:7; 1Ti 3:16; 1Ti 5:21.

2Ti 4:1; 2Ti 4:22.

Tit 1:4.

Philemon verse 6.

Heb 3:1; Heb 10:9; Heb 10:30.

Jas 1:12.

1Pe 1:22; 1Pe 5:10; 1Pe 5:14.

1Jn 1:7; 1Jn 3:16; 1Jn 4:3; 1Jn 5:7; 1Jn 5:13.

2 John verses 3,9.

Jude verse 4.

Rev 1:8-9; Rev 1:11; Rev 12:17; Rev 14:5; Rev 16:5; Rev 19:1; Rev 20:9; Rev
20:12; Rev 21:3-4; Rev 22:21. As the student studies all of these examples,
which are only a few of the 5,788 differences in the two Greek texts, the
conclusion must be that the two texts do differ and do so substantially. The
claims, therefore, that all a modern version does is update the outdated
language of the Authorized Version, or that the changes made are small in number
and trivial in content, are obviously erroneous. In our next two lessons we will
cover the history of these two lines of manuscripts and account for the cause of
perversion as well as preservation.

QUESTIONS FROM STUDENTS:

How do manuscripts support Paul’s discussion of the "Baptism for the Dead". It
is only mentioned once in the KJB and I can find no doctrine to support it. The
passage comes from 1Co 15:29 and reads as follows, "Else what shall they do
which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then
baptized for the dead?"

It is mentioned only once in the KJB, but than it is also mentioned only once in
the NASV and the NIV (and other modern versions). This is not a limited
translation of the King James, nor is it a variance in the wording of the Greek.
Both the Greek text of the King James and the Greek text of modern versions have
the same Greek words. The only variation deals with punctuation. The King James
places the question after the second clause, "if the dead rise not at all?".
Modern versions and their Greek texts place the question after the first clause,
"Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are
not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?" (NASV). The student
will recall that old Greek manuscripts (uncials on either papyrus or vellum) did
not have word separation or punctuation. And, the minuscules did not always use
punctuation either. Since we no longer have any of the autographs, it is hard to
say how they were written or where the punctuation was placed. This verse has
been used to support the Mormon doctrine of baptizing for the dead (which was
not limited to the modern Mormon). The question here is theological and not one
dealing with textual criticism. I do not believe the answer to this problem
passage will be found in where the proper placement of the question mark
belongs. I believe the context sheds light on the text. As one reads the
context, it is obvious that Paul is building a case about the resurrection (both
of Christ and of the saints). It is important to notice how the persons are used
in this passage. The verse states, "Else what shall they do" and "why are they
then baptized for the dead?". The next verse reads, "And why stand we in
jeopardy every hour?". Notice how the text changes persons from third person
plural to first person plural. The text changes from they to we. If baptism for
the dead were a part of Christian doctrine and needful in the church, Paul would
have included himself and other believers in the act of baptizing for the dead
(i.e. "Else what shall we do" and "why are we then baptized for the dead?").
Also, he and others would have mentioned this doctrine elsewhere in scripture if
it were to be a Christian practice. Instead it is limited to one passage, which
is offered to discuss the resurrection.

Personally, I believe Paul was using an example. Cults and heretics in Paul’s
day were practicing the doctrine of baptizing for the dead in hope of saving the
souls of the departed. Paul’s point is, if there is no resurrection, then why do
we see non-Christians practicing a doctrine in hope of saving those who have
already died? Even the heathen, in their false worship, recognize there is a
resurrection, which is why they baptize for the dead. The resurrection is,
therefore, a universal belief among all religions. This would not be the first
time Paul compared the false practices of the heathen with Biblical truths to
illustrate scriptual teachings (Acts 17:22-34; Rom 1:18-23).

Yours in Christ Jesus,

Thomas Holland

Psa 118:8

Additionally, Dr. Thomas Cassady and Brother Thomas Hubeart sent me e-mail on
the topic of Baptism for the Dead. Although this [class] deals with theology and
not manuscript evidence, I thought it might be of interest to those wishing to
read other views concerning this subject. I thank these two brothers for sending
me the attached points of view. ... I hope this information is a blessing to
all.

Subj: Re: Lesson Three Date: 96-02-07 13:14:52 EST From: tcassidy@sisna.com
From: tcassidy@sisna.com (Dr. Thomas Cassidy) To: User192905@aol.com At 03:23Amo
2:1-16/7/96 -0500, User192905@aol.com wrote: May I offer a different view of the
passage in question?

Paul begins talking about the resurrection in verse 20, and spends the next 8
verses making it very plain that not only Chirst rose from the dead, but that
the Apostles and Prophets will also rise physically on that coming ressurrection
day. In verses 29 through 34 Paul asks some questions concerning Christian
practice (not doctrine). If Christ, the Apostles, the Prophets, are all dead,
why be baptized on the basis of their teaching, for their teaching was obviously
wrong. Baptism pictures the death, burial, and RESURRECTION. If there is no
resurrection, baptism does not make any sense, and to be baptized because a
bunch of dead guys said so is just plain silly. Paul then says the same thing
about preaching and missions work. If all the guys that said to do that are dead
forever, why take orders from a bunch of dead guys?

Why put my life in danger for nothing? Why fight with beasts (and men!) if the
Gospel of the Resurrection (see verse 4) is not true. He then says in verse 34,
"Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I
speak this to your shame." Because some of these Corinthian believers did not
believe in the ressurrection, they were not keeping the great commission, and
many of their friends and neighbors had not heard the Gospel from them. Paul
says "Shame on you and your unbelief."

Seems to fit the context of the truth of the ressurrection.

Thomas Cassidy tcassidy@sisna.com Subj: Re: Lesson Three (Baptism for the Dead)
Date: 96-02-07 19:50:29 EST

From: BasFawlty

To: User192905

Doc: Your "questions from students" section this time reminded me of something I
had posted in one of the download libraries of the religion forum, giving the
exposition of Thomas Scott on the passage. Perhaps you will find it of interest.
:) (I would circulate it among the class, but I find that with all the changes
that have been made and the "BCC" we are doing to keep everyone from getting a
bunch of names on each transmission, I don’t have an updated class list! :O
Well, perhaps if you find it adds anything to what you’ve already said so well,
you can cite it in your next installment.)

Best in Christ,

(The other) TH.

******

"1Co 15:29 (KJV) Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the
dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?" This passage has
given rise to many novel and bizarre interpretations by groups attempting to
claim scriptural justification for "baptism for the dead"--a justification, let
it be noted, that cannot be built on any clear doctrinal passage in the Bible.
As many Christians consider it a problematic passage, and because many groups
such as the Mormons exploit the misunderstanding of this passage by Christians
(see, for example, Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christians?, Salt Lake City:
Bookcraft, 1991, p. 19), I thought it would be useful to circulate the comments
of Rev. Thomas Scott on it.

I do not have any other information on Rev. Scott other than that found in an
old (1832) copy of Vol. 3 of his commentary on the Bible, but it appears from
this that he was "Rector of Aston Sanford, Bucks." (according to the title
page), indicating that he was British. Also, he was active toward the close of
the 18th century, since he quotes from his own answer to Thomas Paine’s Age of
Reason. However, Scott’s work is of such quality that it recommends itself, and
his treatment of this verse may be found especially helpful by Christians.

Here are Scott’s comments on the verse: The expression "baptized for the dead,"
has given occasion to a variety of ingenious conjectures and learned
discussions. Some argue that [it] only means, ’baptized in the name of one who
certainly died, and who, "if the dead rise not," ’still remains among the dead.’
But the word rendered "dead" is plural, and all the labour bestowed to remove
that difficulty is to no purpose. Others suppose, that the apostle refers to a
practice, which, it seems, at one time prevailed in the church, of baptizing a
living person in the stead, and for the supposed benefit, of one who had died
unbaptized. But who can imagine, that so absurd and gross a superstition was
customary, when the apostle wrote? Or that, if it were, he should sanction it?

Beza, rather triumphantly, concludes that he has discovered and fixed the true
interpretation; and that the apostle meant the washing of the dead bodies, among
the Jews and Christians, before burial; (Acts 9:37.) which he thinks was a
profession that they expected a resurrection. But the use of the word baptize,
in such a connexion, could hardly be expected; and the words will not bear that
sense, by any fair interpretation.

Hammond contends, that it means the profession of faith, concerning the
resurrection of the dead, which was required of persons at their baptism, which
represented, as he thinks, the burial and resurrection of Christ. ’Why did they
profess this, if they did not believe it?’ But this is far from satisfactory:
for the peculiar circumstances of some persons, when they were baptized, seem
evidently intended. ’What this baptizing for the dead was, I confess I know not;
but it seems by the following verses, to be something, wherein they exposed
themselves to the danger of death.’ [says John] Locke. The following
interpretation, however, suggested by Dr. Doddridge, who received it from Sir
Richard Ellis, appears the true one. The apostle refers to the case of those,
who presented themselves for baptism, immediately after the martyrdom of their
brethren, or at their funerals; as if fresh soldiers should enlist and press
forward to the assault, to supply the places of those who had fallen in battle.
Thus they professed their faith in Christ, and ventured the rage of their
enemies, at the very time when others had been put to death for the gospel. But
what advantage could they propose to themselves from such a conduct, if there
were no resurrection? Or what wisdom could there be in so doing? For in this
case, Christianity itself would lose the great evidence of its truth; even the
immortality of the soul might be called in question; believers were yet "in
their sins;" and they who died as martyrs had lost their souls, as well as their
lives. This might show the Corinthian speculators how greatly their notions
tended to discourage men from professing the gospel in times of persecution, and
to make them afraid and ashamed to own the cause of Christ. If this were the
case, why did Christians in general, or the apostles and evangelists in
particular, live in continual and imminent danger of suffering and death, by
their open profession of the gospel, and their zeal in promoting it? They could
have no sufficient encouragement for so doing, if the dead should never arise.

(SOURCE: Thomas Scott, The Holy Bible . . . with Explanatory Notes, Practical
Observations, and Copious Marginal References, Vol. 3 [New Testament], New York:
Collins & Hannay, 1832, pp. 601-2. Paragraph divisions added.)


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 4: 04 LESSON FOUR
========================================================================

LESSON 4: Early heresies and the Western and Alexandrian line

(NOTE: The student should be forewarned that the material in these next two
lessons is lengthy but essential in the understanding of textual criticism and
our approach to that study.)

Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth
forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a
corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good
fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall
know them. (Mat 7:17-20)

EARLY HERESIES The Bible warns that there would be those who would "corrupt the
word of God" (2Co 2:17) and handle it "deceitfully" (2Co 4:2). There would arise
false gospels with false epistles (2Th 2:2), along with false prophets and
teachers who would not only bring in "damnable heresies" but would seek to "make
merchandise" of the true believer through their own "feigned words" (2Pe 2:1-3).
It did not take long for this to occur. In the days of the Apostles, and shortly
afterwards, several doctrinal heresies arose. Docetism, Marcionism, Gnosticism
and Allegoricalism were four of these heresies. Their early beginnings are
referred to in the New Testament in such places as Gal 1:6-8; 1Jn 4:3; 2Jn 1:7;
and Jude 1:3-4. These heresies not only plagued the early Church, but are still
with us today, in modern form, in many contemporary Christian cults. These false
doctrines had an influence on the transmission of scripture and account for some
of the differences in the line of manuscripts.

DOCETISM This was a form of Gnosticism which taught that Christ’s body was a
phantom and not physical. Only the spiritual was good, while the physical was
evil. The nature of Christ was two-fold, spiritual and physical. Jesus was the
physical, Christ was the spiritual. The Christ departed Jesus at the
crucifixion, and left him on the cross to suffer and die. The Docetics (and
Gnostics) wrote their own Gospels including The Acts of John and The Gospel of
Peter. The Gospel of Peter was cited by Justin Martyr, Origen, and Eusebius, but
was not discovered by scholars until 1886. While excavating the grave of a monk,
a French archaeological team discovered this manuscript in Egypt. Only a small
portion of it remains, but what does gives a differing account of the
crucifixion than the four Gospels. This separation of the Christ from Jesus is
seen in the following quotation. And many went about with lamps, supposing that
is was night, and fell down. And the Lord cried out, saying, My power, my power,
thou hast forsaken me. And when he had said it he was taken up. And in that hour
the veil of the temple of Jerusalem was rent in twain. (Gospel of Peter, verse
5).

Thus, according to the Docetics, the power of Jesus, the Christ, left him while
he was on the cross. The account of the resurrection is also Docetic. And in the
night in which the Lord’s day was drawing on, as the soldiers kept guard two by
two in a watch, there was a great voice in the heaven; and they saw the heavens
opened, and two men descend from thence with great light and approach the tomb.
And that stone which was put at the door rolled of itself and made way in part;
and the tomb was opened, and both the young men entered in. When therefore those
soldiers saw it, they awakened the centurion and the elders; for they too were
hard by keeping guard. And as they declared what things they had seen, again
they see three men come forth from the tomb, and two of them supporting one, and
a cross following them: and of the two the head reached unto the heaven, but the
head of him who was lead by them overpassed the heavens. And they heard a voice
form the heavens saying, Thou has preached to them that sleep. And a response
was heard from the cross, Yea. (Gospel of Peter, verses 9-10). The Docetics used
and corrected the Gospel of Mark as demonstrated by Irenaeus,

Those who separate Jesus from Christ and say that Christ remained impassible
while Jesus suffered, and try to bring forward the Gospel According to Mark, can
be corrected out of that, if they will read it with a love of the truth.
(Ireaneus’ Against Heresies, cited from Early Christian Fathers Vol 1;
translated by Cyril C. Richardson and published by The Westminster Press, page
382). The Latin manuscript k may reflect such tampering and has been suggested
so by Dr. Edward F. Hills. Mark 16:4 reads as follows in k,

Suddenly, moreover, at the third hour of the day, darkness fell upon the whole
world, and angels descended from heaven, and as the Son of God was rising in
brightness, they ascended at the same time with him, and straightway it was
light. This citation from k matches the citation from the Gospel of Peter about
the resurrection. It also contains the short ending to Mark and omits verses
9-20, as many modern translations and their Greek texts do. We can conclude from
this that the Docetics used a copy of Mark which would read like many
contemporary translations.

MARCIONISM

Marcion was influenced by the Gnostic, but not to the degree of fully embracing
Gnosticism. Instead, he developed his own religious following, vowing to
complete the work of St. Paul and separate Judaism from Christian teachings.
However, he did so in a very anti-Semitic way. In 140 AD he went to Rome and
established his doctrines, teaching that the God of the Old Testament could not
have been the Father of Jesus Christ, because Christ speaks of His Father as a
God of love and the God of the Jews was a God of wrath. Marcion taught that
Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, created the world, but that all created
flesh was evil. The soul was created by a greater god over Jehovah. This other
god created the spiritual realm and was the true Father of Jesus Christ. To
release man’s soul from his flesh, this greater god sent Christ. Christ
appeared, in the form of a thirty-year-old man, in an unreal-spiritual body, not
a physical one. Salvation was gained by renouncing Jehovah and all things
physical. Marcion rejected the Hebrew Scriptures, and their quotations in the
New Testament. The followers of Marcion issued their own New Testament composed
of Luke and Paul’s letters. This would account for some of the variations in
these books among the manuscripts, seeing that the followers of Marcion would
want these books to reflect their doctrines. The same is true today when
contemporary cults slightly alter scripture to reflect their own private
interpretation.

Again, Irenaeus points out that "Marcion cut up that According to Luke"
(Ireaneus’ Against Heresies, p. 382). This would account for the large number of
changes found in varying manuscripts of Luke and the large number of verses
omitted (as shown in lesson three). It is, for example, understandable why the
phrase "And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet."
(Luk 24:40) would be omitted by Marcion, since he did not believe in the
physical resurrection of Jesus but only in a spiritual resurrection. In fact,
the apparatus of the United Bible Society’s Greek text points out that this
verse is omitted by both Marcion and Codex D (UBS, 2nd ed., p. 317). This verse
is omitted from the text of the NEB and RSV. Thus we see that Codex D, which is
a Western line of manuscripts in the Gospels, and the RSV reflect some of the
tampering done by Marcion and his followers.

GNOSTICISM

Gnosticism was by far the most influential heresy faced by the early Church. Not
only did the Gnostic corrupt many readings found in the New Testament, but
offered their own writings as inspired scriptures, such as the The Gospel of
Thomas, The Gospel of the Ebionites, The Acts of Andrew, and The Gospel of Mary
(Magdalene). Gnosticism had a variety of forms and sects which broadened its
base and growth. Historian Will Durant calls Gnosticism "the quest of godlike
knowledge (gnosis) through mystic means" (The Story Of Civilization Vol. III, p.
604). As in Docetism and Marcionism, the Gnostics taught that the physical was
evil and the spiritual was good. Thus, a good god (spiritual) could not have
created a physical world, because good can not create evil (that is the
spiritual would not create the physical). So the Gnostic god created a being (or
a line of beings called aeons) removing himself from direct creation. One of
these aeons, or gods, created the world. The so-called Christian Gnostics
believed that Jesus was one of these aeons who created the world. Some Gnostic
taught that Jesus did not have a physical body. When he walked on the earth, he
left not footprints because he never really touched the earth (he being
spiritual and the world physical). Others taught that only our spiritual bodies
were important, so the physical body could engage in whatever acts they desired
because only the spiritual body would be saved. Still other Gnostics taught that
the physical body was so evil that it must be denied in order for the spiritual
body to gain salvation, thus shunning marriage and certain foods (1Ti 4:1-3).
The influence of Gnosticism can be seen in some of the heresies of today. For
example, many of the teachings stated above are found, in revised form, in the
teachings of the Watchtower of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. To the Jehovah’s
Witness, Jesus is a created god, not God manifest in the flesh. It is no wonder
that the Watchtower’s New World Translation omits "God manifest in the flesh" in
1Ti 3:16 and replaces it with "He was made manifest in flesh." The Greek text
which underlines the NWT has made the change, so it is natural for the
Watchtower to prefer the reading which reflects its doctrine. The same is true
of John 1:18 where the NWT reads, "the only-begotten god" (Gk. monogenes theos).
Again, this is because the Greek text of the NWT reads differently from the
Greek text of the KJV, "only begotten Son" (Gk. monogenes heios). What is
amazing is that in both of these examples, the NASV agrees with the NWT because
they are both based on the same Greek text. Thus, false doctrine has influenced
the various manuscripts, just as it influences translations today. The phrase
"only begotten god" is supported by Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Jerome,
papyrus 66 and the Alexandrian line of manuscripts. The phrase "only begotten
Son" is quoted by Chrysostom, Tertullian, Basil, the Old Latin and Old Syrian
translations and the majority of all Greek manuscripts.

Another example of some Gnostics teachings concerns the dual sexual nature of
God. In her book, The Gnostic Gospels, Elaine Pagels points out that the some
Gnostic taught that God was both Father and Mother. Pagels writes,

One group of gnostic (sic) sources claims to have received a secret tradition
from Jesus through James and through Mary Magdalene. Members of this group
prayed to both the divine Father and Mother. . .Since the Genesis account goes
on to say that humanity was created male and female (1:27), some concluded that
the God in whose image we are made must also be both masculine and
feminine--both Father and Mother. (pp. 58-59).

Pagels also points out that Clement of Alexandria was influenced by this false
doctrine of a masculo-feminine God. "Clement," writes Pagels, "characterized God
in feminine as well as masculine terms" (p.81). She then cites Clement as
writing, The Word is everything to the child, both father and mother, teacher
and nurse. . . .The nutriment is the milk of the Father. . .and the Word alone
supplies us children with the milk of love, and only those who suck at this
breast are truly happy. For this reason, seeking is called sucking; to those
infants who seek the Word, the Father’s loving breasts supply milk. (p. 81).

It would seem that both Clement and the Gnostics would be pleased with the
modern politically correct Inclusive Version (published by Oxford Press). The
Lord’s prayer reads, "Our Father-Mother in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your
dominion come, Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." All references
to God in this translation reflect the masculo-feminine doctrine of the Gnostics
and Clement of Alexandria.

ALLEGORICALISM The majority of early Church Fathers, especially from the
Alexandrian and Western line, relied heavily upon Allegoricalism. This is not an
organized heresy, as the other three are; instead it is a general interpretation
of the scriptures. To allegorize scripture means to interpret the word
spiritually and not literally. To the Allegoricalist, the words of scripture are
not as important as the meaning or teaching of scripture. The word is not to be
taken literally, but carries a deeper, spiritual message. This is why many of
the early Church Fathers did not use precise quotations from the New Testament,
as much as they did allusions and loose citations. What the Bible means, to
them, was more important than what it said. This form of spirtualizing the
scriptures is not only reflected in many of the writings of the early Church
Fathers, but is a prominent view of Biblical interpretation today. It is the
primary view of both moderate and liberal theologians, and the developed
interpretation of the Roman Catholic Church. It is also reflective of how one
translates the scriptures as well as interprets. If the message is more
important than the words, than all we need to do is translate the message and
not the words. This is the difference between two methods of translation, the
formal equivalent (that is, word for word translation), and dynamic equivalent
(that is, thought for thought translation). Examples of formal equivalent
translations would be the KJV (of the Traditional text) and the NASV (of the
Alexandrian text). Dynamic equivalent translations would be illustrated by
versions like the NIV, TEV, and NRSV. THE LINE OF MODERN TRANSLATIONS

Jesus taught us that if a tree is corrupt, the fruit will be corrupt. Likewise,
if a tree is good, the fruit will be good (Mat 7:17). He was speaking of false
prophets. False prophets and false teachers corrupt the scriptures (2Pe 2:1-3).
We are told we can recognize these false prophets and teachers by their fruits.
An apple tree produces apples, a fig tree brings forth figs. So the fruit of the
false prophet is false prophecies and the fruit of the false teacher is false
doctrine. If a man’s doctrine is in suspect of being corrupt, we must conclude
that he will do the same to the scriptures (2Co 2:17). So, if a man’s teachings
are good and sound, we can expect that those sound teachings came from sound
scriptures. The two go hand in hand. In the transmission of scripture, we must
understand that there will always be a line of perversion as there will be of
preservation. According to our Lord, we must become fruit inspectors. The
remainder of this lesson and the next will demonstrate both lines in operation.
The following are a few of the Western (Rome) and Alexandrian (Egypt) Church
Fathers stating some of their doctrines and influences upon the study of textual
criticism. Additionally, the same is shown concerning a few contemporary
scholars who have likewise influenced the study of textual criticism and laid
the foundation for modern translations of the Bible.

TATIAN (110-180 AD)

Tatian, a disciple of Justin Martyr, was a doctrinal apologist and textual
scholar. In 170 AD he produced a harmony of the Gospels known as the Diatessaron
(Greek meaning, through the four). It is thought that this harmony was written
in Greek and translated into Syriac, but it is possible that it was originally
written in Syriac. The Bishop of Syria, Theodoret, thought it so corrupt that he
had all 200 known copies destroyed. Today, we only have a fragment of Tatian’s
Diatessaron along with two Arabic translations and a commentary on it.

Geisler and Nix point out that Tatian "came under the influence of Gnosticism
after the death of Justin." (A General Introduction To The Bible, p. 351).
Eusebius records several of Tatian’s heretical views in his Ecclesiastical
History. Eusebius writes,

He (Tatian) established his own type of doctrine, telling stories of invisible
Aeons (the line of gods the Gnostics believed in), like the followers of
Valentinus, and rejecting marriage as corruption and fornication similarly to
Marcion and Saturninus. And as his own contribution, denied the salvation of
Adam. . . .Tatian composed in some way a combination and collection of the
gospels, and gave this the name of The Diatessaron, and this is still extant in
some places. . . (from the Loeb edition, Vol. I p. 397. The still extant would
show that the Diatessaron was still in use in the fourth century when Eusebius
wrote).

Tatian’s harmony omits verses such as Mat 21:44; Luk 23:17; Luk 24:12; and John
7:53; John 8:1-11. However, since we do not have the original Diatessaron, but
only two Arabic translations and one commentary, it is hard to say how much
influence the Diatessaron had on any line of manuscript. Nevertheless, in the
Diatessaron, we see that Gnosticism had an influence on the transmission of
scripture within the first hundred years of the completion of the New Testament.

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (150-215 AD)

Titus Flavius Clement was born of pagan parents in Athens, Greece. He was
influenced by Christian doctrine, yet held that the Greek poets were likewise
inspired by God but in a diminutive sense. He went to Alexandria, Egypt, and
became head of the Catechetical School located there in about 200 AD. A few
years later he was forced to leave Egypt under the persecution of Septimius
Severus. He died in Cappadocia around 215 AD.

There are approximately 2,400 New Testament quotations by Clement in his
writings. Alexander Souter states that Clement "is not a very careful quoter of
Scripture, but . . . it is known that in the Gospels he used a text closely
related to Codex Bezae (D)." (The Text and Canon of the New Testament, p. 81).
Dr. Kurt Aland states that Clement’s citations disagree with the Traditional
text (from which the KJV came from) 56% of the time. Twenty-four percent of the
time his citations agree with the Alexandrian line of manuscripts, with 29%
being in common with both. Only 15% of the time does Clement choose the reading
of the Traditional text. ("The Text of the Church" from the Trinity Journal;
Fall 1987, p. 139). The point here is that Clement is quoted with authority for
his citations of scriptures by modern textual scholars, and that Clement uses a
text which is not in alignment with the Traditional text. The question we must
ask ourselves is, what were the teachings of Clement and do they agree with
Biblical doctrines found in the New Testament?

We have already learned that Clement was influenced by the Gnostics in his view
of God as both Father and Mother. Below are a few additional teachings of
Clement as cited from his The Instructor Of Children (about 202 AD). All
quotations are cited in The Faith of the Early Fathers, edited by W. A. Jurgens
and published by the Liturgical Press of Collegeville, Minnesota. Many of the
dogmas of the Roman Catholic church can be found in the teachings of Clement of
Alexandra.

Baptism: "When we are baptized, we are enlightened. Being enlightened, we are
adopted as sons. Adopted as sons, we are made perfect. Made perfect, we are
become immortal. . .It is a washing by which we are cleansed of sins; a gift of
grace by which the punishment due our sins are remitted; an illumination by
which we behold that holy light of salvation--that is, by which we see God
clearly." (p.178). Thus, salvation follows baptism.

Eucharist: "(The Church is) calling her children about her, she nourishes them
with holy milk, that is, with the Infant Word. . .The Word is everything to a
child: both Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse. ’Eat My Flesh,’ He
says, ’and drink My Blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutriments.
He delivers over His Flesh, and pours out His Blood; and nothing is lacking for
the growth of His children. O incredible mystery!" (p.179) That is to say, to
drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His immortality. The strength of the
Word is the Spirit, just as the blood is the strength of the body. Similarly, as
wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. The one, the Watered
Wine, nourishes in flesh, while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to
immortality. The union of both, however, --of the drink and of the Word,--is
called the Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it
in faith are sanctified in body and in soul. By the will of the Father, the
divine mixture, man, is mystically united to the Spirit and to the Word." (p.
179). Therefore, the Eucharist is necessary for salvation, it is the receiving
of Christ, as taught by Clement.

Scripture: "Divine Scripture, addressing itself to those who love themselves and
to the boastful, somewhere says most excellently: ’Where are the princes of the
nations, and those who rule over the beasts which are upon the earth; they that
take their diversion among the birds of the air; they that hoard up silver, and
the gold in which men trust--and there is no end to their acquiring it; they
that work in silver and in gold and are solicitous? There is no searching of
their works; they have vanished and have gone down into Hades.’ " (p.179). What
Clement calls "Divine Scripture" is the Old Testament Apocrypha book of Baruch
3:16-19. Thus he believed it to be inspired.

Deity of Man: "That which is true is beautiful; for it, too, is God. Such a man
becomes God because God wills it. Rightly, indeed, did Heraclitus say: ’Men are
gods, and gods are men; for the same reason is in both.’ "(p.179). Like
Mormonism, Clement taught man becomes a god.

Nature of God: "Nothing exists except that which God causes to be. There is
nothing, therefore, which is hated by God; nor is there anything hated by the
Word. Both are one." (p.179) How does this align with Luk 14:26; John 12:25; Rom
9:13; Heb 1:9 and Rev 2:6? Clement sounds like he is quoting the doctrine of
Marcion in rejecting the fact that God can hate.

ORIGEN (185-254 AD) When Clement left Alexandria because of the persecution,
Origen succeeded him as head master at the Catechetical School. Origen developed
the allegorical interpretation of scripture. He took the Bible symbolically, yet
what is clearly symbolic he took literally. For example, upon reading Mat 19:12,
he castrated himself. As a textual scholar, he produced the Hexapla which was a
Bible containing six translations of the Old Testament, including the famous
Septuagint (also known as the LXX). He considered the Old Testament Apocrypha as
inspired scripture and included them in his Hexapla. Additionally, Origen
considered some New Testament Apocrypha books as inspired, such as The Shepherd
of Herman and The Epistle of Barnabas (see The Lost Books of the Bible, World
Bible Publishers; pp.145 & 197).

Historian Will Durant notes that: The literal meaning of Scripture, argued
Origen, overlay two deeper layers of meaning--the moral and the spiritual--to
which only the esoteric and educated few could penetrate. He questioned the
truth of Genesis as literally understood: he explained away as symbols the
unpleasant aspects of Yahveh’s (Jehovah) dealings with Israel; and he dismissed
as legends such stories as that of Satan taking Jesus up to a high mountain and
offering him the kingdoms of the world. (The Story Of Civilization, Vol. III;
p.614) Thus Origen held to this same doctrine as proclaimed by the heresy of
Marcion.

Further, Durant quotes Origen as saying, "Who is so foolish as to believe that
God, like a husbandman, planted a garden in Eden, and placed in it a tree of
life. . .so that one who tasted of the fruit obtained life?" (Ibid., p. 614).

Additional doctrines of Origen can be seen in the following quotations from his
work, The Fundamental Doctrines. As with Clement, the citations come form
Jurgens’ The Faith of the Early Fathers.

Jesus Christ: "Secondly, that Jesus Christ Himself, who came, was born of the
Father before all creatures; and after He had ministered to the Father in the
creation of all things,--for through Him were all things made."(p. 191). Thus
Christ is a created being. This follows the teachings of the Gnostics, the
Docetics, and is seen today in the teachings of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

"For it is just as unsuitable to say that the Son is able to see the Father, as
it is unbecoming to suppose that the Holy Spirit is able to see the Son. It is
one thing to see, another to know. To see and to be seen belongs to bodies. To
know and to be known belongs to an intellectual being. That, therefore, which is
proper to bodies, is not to be attributed to either the Father or to the Son;
but that which pertains to deity is common to the Father and the Son." (p. 193).
Again, the influence of Gnosticism can be seen in this citation. This is the
same heresy which John warns against in both 1st and 2nd John. The Holy Ghost:
"Third, they handed it down that the Holy Spirit is associated in honor and
dignity with the Father and the Son. In His case, however, it is not clearly
distinguished whether or not He was born or even whether He is or is not to be
regarded as a Son of God." (p. 191). Thus, the Holy Ghost becomes one of the
aeons of Gnosticism.

Salvation: "After these points, it is taught also that the soul, having a
substance and life proper to itself, shall, after its departure from this world,
be rewarded according to its merits. It is distend to obtain either an
inheritance of eternal life and blessedness, if its deeds shall have procured
this for it, or to be delivered up to eternal fire and punishment, if the guilt
of its crimes shall have brought it down to this." (p. 191). This is teaching
another gospel (Gal 1:8) which claims salvation by works.

Restoration from Eternal Fire: "Now let us see what is meant by the threatening
with eternal fire. . .It seems to be indicated by these words that every sinner
kindles for himself the flame of his own fire and is not plunged into some fire
which was kindled beforehand by someone else or which already existed before
him. . .And when this dissolution and tearing asunder of the soul shall have
been accomplished by means of the application of fire, no doubt it will
afterwards be solidified into a firmer structure and into a restoration of
itself." (p.196). Much like the teachings of Mormonism, Origen believed in
restoration for those in eternal fire (hell). The Sun and Stars: "In regard to
the sun, however, and the moon and the stars, as to whether they are living
beings or are without life, there is not clear tradition." (p. 192). Again,
early Mormonism taught that the planets, moons, and stars were alive.

Here is a man of questionable doctrine. This is not a matter if differing
interpretations of scriptures; this is a matter of false teaching. Like the
current teaching of the Watchtower, Origen believed in the dualistic nature of
Jesus Christ. Like the teachings of the Mormons, Origen believed in a
restoration for those in hell, and wonders if the sun, stars, and moon have
life. If someone had the beliefs of Origen, we surely would not be content to
have him revising or editing our Bibles. Yet this is what has happened. And, if
one does not believe that personal doctrine will interfere with translation,
make a close examination of the NWT produced by the Watchtower. Or, for that
matter, why do we classify translations of the Bible as *liberal* and
*conserverative?* Does this not show that theological bias still enters into the
process of current translations of the Bible? If it does so today, then it did
so in the days of Origen as well.

Origen’s position as a textual critic is unquestionable. Not only because of the
Hexapla, but because of his many scriptural quotations. Origen was one of the
most prolific writers of his day, writing over 6,000 items and books. In these
he makes almost 18,000 quotations and allusions from the New Testament. His
citations are both Alexandrian and Western in nature. Dr. Aland shows that
Origen’s scriptural citations are mostly Alexandrian just like modern
translations of the Bible are (The Text of the Church, p. 139).

Further, we can see the influence Origen had on other manuscripts. One of the
subscriptions in Codex Sinaiticus (which we discussed in lesson two, and will
expand on later in this lesson) states, "Taken and corrected according to the
Hexapla of Origen. Antonius collated: I, Pamhilus, corrected." (Souter, The Text
and Canon of the New Testament, p.23). Pamhilus, along with Eusebius, was a
disciple of Origen. Therefore, we can see the influence Origen had on Codex
Sinaiticus as stated in a footnote of that codex.

EUSEBIUS (263-340 AD)

Eusebius Pamphili, Bishop of Caesarea, was a church historian and textual critic
who was responsible for writing the Ecclesiastical History of the church in 325
AD. His work provides us with many accounts of what was occurring in the early
church, and especially during the canonization of Scripture. However, as noted
by Historian Will Durant, Eusebius sometimes glossed over some facts, as he did
in his work on the Life of Constantine. Durant calls it, "honest dishonesty"
(The Story of Cilvilzation, Vol. III; p.663) and says, "One would never guess
from this book that Constantine had killed his son, his nephew, and his wife."
(Ibid.) Additionally, Durant states that, "Some exaggeration may have crept into
the report" (Ibid., p. 649) concerning Eusebius’ account of early Christian
martyrs. For example, in recording the martyrdom of Polycarp, Eusebius states
that when Polycarp was stabbed that, "there came out a dove" from the wound.

He also produced a form of the Gospels dividing them into paragraphs and
numbering them for cross-reference (they were not divided as we have verse and
chapter divisions today in our Bibles, but did provide a basis of division).
Concerning the canon of Scripture, Eusebius questioned the authencity of James,
2Pe 2:1-22 and 3 John, and the book of Jude. In regard to 2 Peter, he noted,
"But the so-called second Epistle we have not received as canonical, but
nevertheless it has appeared useful to many" (Ecclesiastical History, Vol. I; p.
193). To Eusebius, these scriptures were good books, but not inspired.

Emperor Constantine ordered Eusebius to produce fifty copies of the Bible.
Constantine stated these copies were to "be written on prepared parchment in a
legible manner" (Geisler and Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, p. 181).
Some have suggested that the famous manuscripts Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were
two of these fifty copies, and these two manuscripts provide the basis of many
of the changes in modern translations today. This was the view of Tischendorf,
Hort, and Souter as they comment on the subject. If this is true, than Eusebius
not only produced the famous Alexandrian manuscripts, but also advocated a text
type that supports this same line of manuscripts. And from the many citations of
Eusebius, it is certain that he did favor the Alexandrian family.

Eusebius was influenced by Origen of Alexandria. He and Pamphilus "founded at
Caesarea a library of biblical and patristic writings on papyrus rolls, the
nucleus of which consisted of Origen’s voluminous writings, especially his
editions and interpretations of biblical books." (Souter, The Text and Canon of
the New Testament, p. 23). Pamphilus was educated at Alexandria and was a
disciple of Origen; Eusebius was Pamphilus’ "pupil and protege" (Ibid. p.84). No
doubt, the views and textual changes of Origen found their way into the textual
work of Eusebius.

JEROME (340-420 AD)

Sophronius Eusebius Hieronymus, known to us as St. Jerome, was responsible for
producing the Latin Vulgate. Pope Damasus requested Jerome to produce a new
Latin Version of the Old and New Testament in 383 AD. Reluctantly, Jerome agreed
knowing that his version would not be welcomed considering that Christendom had
already begun to divided itself in regard to which line of manuscript, and which
translation, best reflected the original autographs. In 405 AD Jerome finished
the Latin Vulgate and gave the Roman Catholic Church its official Latin Bible.

Most textual scholars believe that Jerome revised the Old Latin manuscripts
according to his knowledge of Hebrew and Greek. (Jerome was one of the first
scholars to be fluent in both Biblical languages). However, we do not possess
many Latin versions which predate the Vulgate of Jerome and what we do have are
fragmentary. As illustrated in the citations of Tertullian, Alexander Souter
wrote, "It is perfectly clear from references in Tertullian, who wrote at
Carthage (mainly in Latin, but also in Greek) between AD 195 and 218, that Latin
translations of at least some parts of Scripture existed in his time." (The Text
and Canon of the New Testament, p.35). The vast majority of Old Latin
manuscripts which we now possess were written after the Vulgate and are divided
into two groups, African and European.

Jerome was influenced by the work of Eusebius. Again, Souter notes, "It would
seem, therefore, that we must look to Egypt for the origin of (Codex Sinaiticus)
also. St. Jerome at Bethlehem had a MS.(i.e. manuscript) closely related to
(Sinaiticus), in St. Matthew’s Gospel, as we learn from his references in his
commentary on that Gospel." (Ibid., p. 23). Sir Frederic Kenyon agrees and adds,
"[Jerome] did so with reference to the oldest and best Greek manuscripts he
could find, most of which seem to have belonged to what we have called the
Alexandrian family. Indeed, the Codex Sinaiticus is the Greek manuscript which
most conspicuously agrees with the Vulgate." (The Story of the Bible, p. 110).

It should be noted, however, that Jerome was more willing to reach a compromise
and not make as many changes to the text as one finds in the Alexandrian line.
Kenyon continues and notes, "Jerome, however, more cautious than our own
Revisers (i.e. the RV of 1881) was sparing in his alterations; he tells us
himself that he often left passages untouched which he might have corrected, in
order to preserve the familiar form, and only made changes where he thought them
material." (Ibid.) This would account for several verses in the Vulgate which
follow the Traditional text instead of the Alexandrian. This is also noted by
Dr. Edward F. Hills in his book, The King James Version Defended, regarding the
Vulgate as a possible "movement toward the Traditional (Byzantine) Text"
(p.187).

One thing is certain; the Latin Vulgate of Jerome became the standard Bible of
the Roman Catholic Church and remained so for centuries. It is a clear
connection between the Alexandrian line of manuscripts and the Westcott and Hort
theory of textual criticism which will be discussed shortly. Despite that it
sometimes reads in favor of the Traditional text, it is an early official
translation which supported the Alexandrian line, and only agrees with the
Traditional text as a compromise. In 1546 at the Council of Trent, the Roman
Catholic Church made the Vulgate the official Bible of Catholicism. As far as
the Catholic Church was concerned, there was therefore no need for additional
textual studies or translations in the language of the people. This was a Latin
Church and it had its Latin Bible with the mass in Latin. For the centuries that
followed, all that was necessary was the Vulgate. And this remained the position
of the Roman Catholic Church until the 1960’s with the Second Vatican Council.

TISCHENDORF (1815-1874 AD)

Constantin von Tischendorf is responsible for providing the Protestant world
with two of the oldest known uncials, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus.
These two manuscripts date somewhere between 325-350 AD. In lesson two we
briefly discussed the contents of these two manuscripts. It is important to
understand that both Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are two of the best
examples of the Alexandrian line of manuscripts, and are responsible for a
number of changes found in modern versions of the Bible. "These two manuscripts
formed the basis of the text prepared by the 19th century scholars Westcott and
Hort, and the parallel text used by the editors of the Revised Version."
(Eerdmans’ Handbook to the Bible, p.73). Tischendorf, along John Anthony Hort
and later Alexander Souter, believed these two codices to be part of the 50
scriptures ordered by Constantine and produced by Eusebius.

Tischendorf "edited more New Testament documents and more editions of the New
Testament than any other scholar (of his day)" (Souter, The Text and Canon of
the New Testament, p.102). By the age of twenty-nine, he had already produced
three editions of the Greek New Testament. Believing the Alexandrian line of
manuscripts reflected the better readings, Tischendorf set off in search for
additional manuscripts. In 1844 he visited the monastery of St. Catherine
located at Mt. Sinai. While there he "saw in a basket a number of leaves of
vellum with fine and obviously very early uncial writing on them, which he was
informed were about to be destroyed, as many similar leaves had already been."
(Kenyon, The Story of the Bible, pp. 57-58). He was allowed to keep forty-three
leaves which he noted were from the Greek Septuagint. He recognized that these
were of the same line as Codex Alexandrinus, but about a hundred years older
then that manuscript. A second visit to the monastery occurred in 1853 with
nothing found. However on his third visit, in 1859, on the last night of his
stay, Tischendorf was shown the codex which has come to be known as Sinaiticus.
He was denied custody of the manuscript at that time. He went to Cairo to speak
to the Superior who granted him the codex. A camel-rider was sent to the
monastery and retrieved the manuscript, but it was not until nine months later,
after Tischendorf paid a good sum, that he was given the codex. As the student
recalls, Sinaiticus contains over half of the Old Testament and all of the New
except for large passages such as Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53; John 8:1-11, along
with several other verses as demonstrated in lesson three. It has the Old
Testament Apocrypha laced within it as scripture and the New Testament Apocrypha
books of the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas, also listed as
inspired scripture.

Codex Vaticanus, which was known to have been in the Vatican Library since 1475,
receives its name because it is the property of the Vatican. No Protestant
minister or scholar was permitted to view this codex for four hundred years
until a facsimile was produced by Rome in 1890. There were two exceptions to
this rule. They are S.P. Tregelles, who viewed it in 1845 and reproduced a
memorized copy of it. And Constantin Tischendorf who viewed it between 1843 and
1866. Vaticanus is missing Gen 1:1-31; Gen 2:1-25; Gen 3:1-24; Gen 4:1-26; Gen
5:1-32; Gen 6:1-22; Gen 7:1-24; Gen 8:1-22; Gen 9:1-29; Gen 10:1-32; Gen
11:1-32; Gen 12:1-20; Gen 13:1-18; Gen 14:1-24; Gen 15:1-21; Gen 16:1-16; Gen
17:1-27; Gen 18:1-33; Gen 19:1-38; Gen 20:1-18; Gen 21:1-34; Gen 22:1-24; Gen
23:1-20; Gen 24:1-67; Gen 25:1-34; Gen 26:1-35; Gen 27:1-46; Gen 28:1-22; Gen
29:1-35; Gen 30:1-43; Gen 31:1-55; Gen 32:1-32; Gen 33:1-20; Gen 34:1-31; Gen
35:1-29; Gen 36:1-43; Gen 37:1-36; Gen 38:1-30; Gen 39:1-23; Gen 40:1-23 w:1-23;
Gen 41:1-57; Gen 42:1-38; Gen 43:1-34; Gen 44:1-34; Gen 45:1-28; Gen 46:1-28;
2Ki 2:5-7; 2Ki 2:10-13; Psa 106:27-48; Psa 107:1-43; Psa 108:1-13; Psa 109:1-31;
Psa 110:1-7; Psa 111:1-10; Psa 112:1-10; Psa 113:1-9; Psa 114:1-8; Psa 115:1-18;
Psa 116:1-19; Psa 117:1-2; Psa 118:1-29; Psa 119:1-176; Psa 120:1-7; Psa
121:1-8; Psa 122:1-9; Psa 123:1-4; Psa 124:1-8; Psa 125:1-5; Psa 126:1-6; Psa
127:1-5; Psa 128:1-6; Psa 129:1-8; Psa 130:1-8; Psa 131:1-3; Psa 132:1-18; Psa
133:1-3; Psa 134:1-3; Psa 135:1-21; Psa 136:1-26; Psa 137:1-9; Psa 138:1-6; Mark
16:9-20; John 7:53; John 8:1-11; and Heb 9:14 to the end of Revelation. Both
Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are of the Alexandrian line of manuscripts.

WESTCOTT AND HORT

Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892)
produced a Greek New Testament in 1881 based on the findings of Tischendorf.
This Greek NT was the basis for the Revised Version of that same year. They also
developed a theory of textual criticism which underlined their Greek NT and
several other Greek NT since (such as the Nestle’s text and the United Bible
Society’s text). Greek New Testaments such as these produced the modern English
translations of the Bible we have today. So it is important for us to know the
theory of Westcott and Hort as well as something about the two men who have so
greatly influenced modern textual criticism. In short, the Westcott and Hort
theory states that the Bible is to be treated as any other book would be. Sir
Frederic Kenyon sets forth the idea as follows: Where alternative reading exist
he (i.e. the textual scholar) will therefore tend to choose the harder rather
than the easier, the shorter rather than the longer, the reading that differs
from that in another Gospel rather than one which coincides; because, if
alteration has taken place, it is likely to have been in the direction of the
easier, longer, and harmonized readings. Such seems in particular to be the
character of the Alexandrian text. (The Story of the Bible, p.111). The Bible is
therefore looked upon as a naturalistic book without Divine intervention
preserving the text from corruption. In fact, according to Kenyon, where the
text does not harmonize with the rest of the Bible is probably the correct
reading. In such logic we can see the seeds of humanism replacing the
spirituality of the Bible.

Westcott and Hort believed the Greek text which underlined the KJV was perverse
and corrupt. Hort called the Textus Receptus vile and villainous (Life and
Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p.211). They believed the
Traditional text did not exist until the fourth century and was created by
Lucian of Antioch as an act of the Church council to unify the Western and
Alexandrian line of manuscripts. This mixing of the two lines and filling them
with additional texts is called conflation. The manuscripts of Sinaiticus and
Vaticanus are considered neutral by Westcott and Hort as stated in their book,
The New Testament in the Original Greek. So, according to this theory, the text
of the KJV is conflated by using both the Western and Alexandrian line, and adds
to the Bible with its own additions. The manuscripts of Sinaiticus and
Vaticanus, which is suppose to be a neutral text, would reflect what the
original autographs said.

There are several problems with the theory. First, as will be seen [in Lesson
Five], many of the early Church Fathers’ citations reflect the Traditional text
with the fuller readings long before the forth century. Second, there is no
evidence that there ever was a council or even a conference of scholars in
Antioch to produce this "conflated" text. Even Kenyon, who supports modern
versions, wrote, "We know the names of several revisers of the Septuagint and
Vulgate, and it would be strange if historians and Church writers had all
omitted to record or mention such an event" (Handbook to the Textual Criticism
of the New Testament, p.302). Thirdly, since God has told us that we are not to
add to His word, it would be a strange thing indeed for Him to support a Greek
line of manuscripts and bless an English translations of the Bible that added to
His word. Yet the line of manuscripts which Bible-believing Christians have
read, used, and believed for almost two thousand years is of the Traditional
text. And no English translation has been so greatly used and blessed by God as
the KJV has. If the KJV has so grossly added to the word of God as claimed by
Westcott and Hort, why has God blessed it so richly for the past 400 years?
Additionally, if Westcott and Hort are the fathers of modern textual criticism
and the restorers of the true text, should we not know something of their
beliefs to see if they are consistent with scripture? This would be harmonious
with the teaching found in Mat 7:17.

Scriptures:

"I reject the word infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly." (Westcott,
The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207).

"Our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise." (Westcott, On the Canon
of the New Testament, p.vii).

"Evangelicals seem to me perverted. . .There are, I fear, still more serious
differences between us on the subject of authority, especially the authority of
the Bible." (Hort, The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I,
p.400)

Dr. Wilbur Pickering writes that, "Hort did not hold to a high view of
inspiration." (The Identity of the New Testament Text, p.212)

Perhaps this is why both the RV (which Westcott and Hort helped to translate)
and the American edition of it, the ASV, translated 2Ti 3:16 as, "Every
scripture inspired of God" instead of "All scripture is given by inspiration of
God," (KJV).

Deity of Christ:

"He never speaks of Himself directly as God, but the aim of His revelation was
to lead men to see God in Him." (Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, p.
297).

"(John) does not expressly affirm the identification of the Word with Jesus
Christ." (Westcott, Ibid., p. 16).

"(Rev 3:15) might no doubt bear the Arian meaning, the first thing
created.<<(Hort, Revelation, p.36).

Perhaps this is why their Greek text makes Jesus a created god (John 1:18) and
their American translation had a footnote concerning John 9:38 "And he said,
Lord I believe and he worshipped him." which said, "The Greek word denotes an
act of reverence, whether paid to a creature, as here, or to the Creator." Thus
calling Christ "a creature."

Salvation:

"The thought (of John 10:29) is here traced back to its most absolute form as
resting on the essential power of God in His relation of Universal Fatherhood."
(Westcott, St. John, p. 159).

"I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to
Satan. I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at
all tenable; anything is better than the doctrine of a ransom to the father."
(Hort, The First Epistle of St. Peter 1:1-2:17, p. 77).

Perhaps this is why their Greek text adds "to salvation" in 1Pe 2:2. And why
their English version teaches universal salvation in Tit 2:11 "For the grace of
God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men," (ASV).

Hell:

"(Hell is) not the place of punishment of the guilty, (it is) the common abode
of departed spirits." (Westcott, Historic Faith, pp.77-78).

"We have no sure knowledge of future punishment, and the word eternal has a far
higher meaning." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p.149).

Perhaps this is why their Greek text does not have Mark 9:44, and their English
translation replaces "everlasting fire" [Mat 18:8] with "eternal fire" and
change the meaning of eternal as cited by Hort in the above quote.

Creation:

"No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for
example, give a literal history--I could never understand how anyone reading
them with open eyes could think they did." (Westcott, cited from Which Bible?,
p. 191).

"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." (Hort, cited from Which Bible?, p. 189)

Romanism:

"I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry (the worship of the
Virgin Mary) bears witness." (Westcott, Ibid.)

"The pure Romanish view seems to be nearer, and more likely to lead to the truth
than the Evangelical." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p. 77) In defending
Westcott and Hort, James R. White writes:

Anglican piety, especially in the context of the times in which Westcott and
Hort lived, provided all sorts of ammunition for demonstration that neither of
these men was a fundamentalist Baptist, a point that Westcott and Hort would
certainly have admitted. The fact that the KJV was translated by
’baby-sprinkling’ Anglicans does not seem to bother those who bring up Westcott
and Hort, however." (The King James Only Controversy, pp. 122-123 fn).

It is one thing to have doctrinal differences on baby-sprinkling and perhaps a
few other interpretations. It is another to be a Darwin-believing theologian who
rejects the authority of scriptures, Biblical salvation, the reality of hell,
and makes Christ a created being to be worship with Mary his mother. Yet, these
were the views of both Westcott and Hort.

SINCE 1881:

James R. White is correct in stating, "modern textual criticism has gone far
beyond Westcott and Hort" (Ibid., p.122). While Westcott and Hort may be
considered the parents of modern textual criticism, we must also recognize the
efforts produced by their children. We have had several Greek New Testaments
appear, such as the Nestle text, Aland text, and the United Bible Society’s text
all with various editions.

There have been several findings since the discovery of Vaticanus and
Sinaiticus. Perhaps the most famous deals with textual criticism of the Old
Testament with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Concerning the New
Testament there is the John Rylands fragments known as papyrus 52 (P52), a Greek
manuscript which some date between 117 and 138 AD. They were discovered in Egypt
and contain five verses from the gospel of John. They now reside at the John
Rylands Library in Manchester, England.

Sir Alfred Chester Beatty provided several papyrus manuscripts known as P45,
P46, and P47. They date to around 250 AD or later and are a mixture of Western
and Alexandrian readings. Also we have the findings of M. Martin Bodmer with
P66, P72, and P75. These also date to around the same time as the Beatty
manuscripts and have a mixture of Western and Alexandrian readings. Although
with both, there are times when these papyrus "shows frequent independence" (A
General Introduction to the Bible, p.270) and have Traditional text readings in
them. Dr. Wilbur N. Pickering has provided us with statistical evidence by
quoting Dr. G. D. Fee findings, which show that these manuscripts do support the
Traditional line at times and stand in opposition to the Western and
Alexandrian, information which the modern textual scholar somehow forgets to
provide us with.

Pickering notes a comparison of John 1:1-51; John 2:1-25; John 3:1-36; John
4:1-54; John 5:1-47; John 6:1-71; John 7:1-53; John 8:1-59; John 9:1-41; John
10:1-42; John 11:1-57; John 12:1-50; John 13:1-38; John 14:1-31 and states, "P66
agrees with the TR (i.e. the Textus Receptus Greek text) 315 times out of 663
(47.5%), with P75 280 out of 547 (51.2%)" (The Identity of the New Testament
Text, p. 56). He also noted that out of 43 places where all these manuscripts
have the same passages of scripture, P45 agreed with the Traditional text 32
times, P66 agreed 33 times, and P75 agreed 29 times (Ibid. p. 55). This being
the case, these manuscripts are a mixture of textual families.

Modern scholars are quick to point to these manuscripts as proof that the
Alexandrian line is the oldest and closest to the original autographs. However,
this is no surprise to the Bible-believing student as we are aware that
corruption of scripture date much earlier then 200 AD. As stated at the
beginning of this lesson, even at the time of the Apostles, there were those who
sought to corrupt the word of God. All these Greek manuscripts mentioned were
discovered in Egypt and have more to do with Clement of Alexandria and Origen
than the original autographs, and they show how textual critics of the second
and third century were willing to alter the word of God.

We have now discussed the line which has produced the modern versions of the
Bible. In our next lesson we will do the same with the line that produced the
Authorized King James Version of 1611. It will then be left to the student to
decide which tree he or she will partake when digesting God’s infallible Word.

QUESTIONS FROM STUDENTS:

One student writes concerning the difference in readings between the KJV and the
NIV inRom 9:5.

"Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is
over all, God blessed for ever. Amen." (KJV).

"Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of
Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen." (NIV). The question had to
do with which one is the better translation. Some, such as D. A. Carson (The
King James Version Debate, p.64) and James R. White (The King James Only
Controversy, p.196) use this verse to show that modern versions such as the NIV
have a stronger reference to the Deity of Christ than the KJV, because the NIV
claims Christ is "God over all" while the KJV says Christ is "over all." Yet,
the NASV reads much like the KJV in this passage. This is, therefore, a very
weak argument expounded by these two scholars.

First of all, the Deity of Christ is firmly attested to in the KJV and lacking
in the NIV in 1Ti 3:16 and Rev 1:6. The passage in 1 Timothy calls Christ "God
manifest in the flesh" in the KJV, while the NIV simply says, "He appeared in a
body," leaving the reader to guess who the He is. The same is true with the
passage in Revelation. The KJV says "unto God and his Father" thus clearly
calling Christ God, for who is the Father of God the Son except for God the
Father? The NIV, like all other modern versions, reads, "to serve his God and
Father," thus removing the Deity of Christ in this passage altogether. And, of
course, there is the proof text for the doctrine of the Trinity as found in 1Jn
5:7, which is omitted in the NIV. "For there are three that bear record in
heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." All
the NIV has in this verse is, "For there are three that testify:" and then
footnotes the reference to the Trinity questioning its validly by stating, "Late
manuscripts of the Vulgate (read)" and then quotes the verse followed with, "not
found in any Greek manuscripts before the sixteenth century." (The student
should note that 1Jn 5:7 will be discussed in more detail in the following
lesson).

Secondly, this is not a matter of textual difference, nor of translation since
the text reads the same in either the Alexandrian or the Traditional texts. The
Greek simply says, "o on epi panton Theos eulogetos eis tous aionas amen" (the
one who is over all God blessed for ever amen). It is a matter of where one
places the comma, and the Greek manuscripts, as the student will remember, do
not have punctuation marks. It would be difficult to debate the cultist who
denies the Deity of Christ using an NIV reading of Rom 9:5 based solely upon the
placement of the comma, considering the Greek manuscripts did not have commas.

There is no question that Jesus Christ is God (John 1:1). The Bible reveals God
as one God in three persons (Mat 28:19; 1Jn 5:7). All three persons are one God.
This is the doctrine of the Trinity. Within the Trinity, there is not only
unity, but order. Paul illustrates the headship of the husband over the wife by
stating that, "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ;
and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (1Co 11:3)
Thus the Father is the head of the Son, not the Son over the Father. Jesus even
refers to the Father as "my God" in John 20:17. The Father does call the Son
"God" in Heb 1:8, but the Father does not call Christ his God. In fact, the next
verse says, "therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of
gladness above thy fellows," again calling the Father the God of the Son. They
are separate persons in one Godhead and in Christ, "dwelleth all the fullness of
the Godhead bodily." (Col 2:9) Thus, there is an order within the Trinity.

If the NIV is correct in its translation of Rom 9:5, than Christ is God over
all, including the Father. He becomes the God of the Father, and the order
within the Trinity is broken. However, if Christ is "over all," then He is still
God, still equal to the Father (Php 2:6) but not God over the Father.

I hope that this answers the question concerning Rom 9:5, and that this whole
lesson has aided the student in their understanding of textual criticism and the
preservation of scripture by God as He promised He would do.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 5: 05 LESSON FIVE
========================================================================

LESSON FIVE: The Traditional Text Line For this cause also thank we God without
ceasing, because when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye
received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God,
which effectually worketh also in you that believe. (1Th 2:13) INSPIRATION AND
PRESERVATION The Biblical approach to textual criticism stands in direct
contrast to the concepts and theories of modern textual scholars and their
accepted texts and translations. While textual evidence and studies is by no
means to be ignored, neither is the guiding presence of the Author of Holy Writ.
The pure naturalist approach only considers the physical evidence and man’s
intellectual understanding of that limited evidence. The Biblical approach not
only considers the physical evidence, but also looks beyond to see the spiritual
evidence as well. Without Divine intervention, there is no preservation (Psa
12:6-7). And, unless we are unfairly accused, intervention differs from
inspiration.

Here, we shall take a brief pause to define the difference. Too often those who
believe the KJV to be the preserved word of God for the English-speaking people
without proven error are said to believe that the KJV translators were inspired
in the same sense that the original writers were inspired. Some have even
suggested we must additionally believe that men, such as Erasmus, who produced
Greek texts that were the bases for the KJV must likewise be inspired, and that
even the copyist who copied the Traditional text in Greek (called the Byzantine
text) were also Divinely inspired. This tendency to overstate the view of the
Bible-believer has recently been dogmatically expressed by James R. White in his
book, The King James Only Controversy. "Most King James Only advocates. .
.believe that the KJV itself, as an English language translation, is inspired
and therefore inerrant." (p.3). And that some "truly believes that God
supernaturally inspired the King James Version in such a way that the English
text itself in inerrant revelation." (p.4). Additionally, concerning the Greek
Textus Receptus, White writes, "Anyone who believes the TR to be infallible must
believe that Erasmus, and the other men who later edited the same text in their
own editions (Stephanus and Beza), were somehow inspired, or at the very least
providentially guided in their work. Yet, none of these men ever claimed such
inspiration." (p.58). The last statement comes closest to the truth, for there
is a difference between being guided by God and being inspired by God. An
illustration of this can be seen in any publication of the KJV. A publisher may
or may not be guided by God in publishing the text of the KJV; however, this
does not indicate that he was Biblically inspired. Simply because one copied the
Traditional Text does not mean he was Biblically inspired to do so. This may
indicate providential guidance, but is not indicative of scriptural inspiration.
It is also of interest that White consistently associates inspiration with
inerrancy or infallibility. While it is true that the inspired word of God is
inerrant, it does not mean that just because something is inerrant it is
therefore inspired. Because a person or position Isaiah 100% correct does not
mean that either one is Biblically inspired. A child may finish a test without
error, but this does not mean the child was inspired supernaturally. Yet because
God is truth and does not err, when He inspires as He did the writers of Holy
Scripture, He did so without the intervention of human mistakes and errors.

Webster defines inspiration as "Any influence (that) . . .inspires," and that
inspires means to, "stimulate to activity" ( New American Webster Handy College
Dictionary, 1981 ed.). In a general sense of the word, therefore, we must say
that the translators were inspired only in that they were moved to produce the
work. However, that is not how the word is used in the theological and Biblical
sense. Biblical inspiration means "that the writers were so empowered and
controlled by the Holy Spirit in the PRODUCTION (the emphasis is mine) of the
Scripture as to give them divine and infallible authority." (Dr. Emery Bancroft,
Elemental Theology, Zondervan Pub. 1960, p.8). Preservation, on the other hand,
has to do with the keeping of what has already been divinely produced. It is the
assurance that the God who gave the word without error in the first place was
able to keep the word without error for us today.

Admittedly the differences between the two may at first seem indistinguishable,
especially when we arrive at the same answers to the following questions. Is the
Bible inspired by God? The Biblical answer is yes (2Ti 3:16). Has the Bible been
preserved by God? Again, the Biblical answer is yes (Psa 12:6-7). According to
the verses just given, was the Bible inspired by God with error? Of course not
since God is not a God of error. Was the Bible preserved by God with error?
Again, the verses would tell us no because the context of Psa 12:1-8 says the
preserved word is pure. Both inspiration and preservation start with God and end
with inerrancy. The difference is this: inspiration deals with inception, or
what was originally given and produced by God. Preservation is a process of God
taking what He gave and keeping it for all generations. The Bible-believing
Christian believes his Bible was both inspired by God without error and
preserved by God without error. It was infallibly given and remains that way
today (1Pe 1:23). It is, therefore, not only the work of man, but the very word
of God.

Such was the attitude of the New Testament Christian as stated by the Apostle
Paul in 1Th 2:13. The word which was preached and received among them was
considered not just the word of man, but as it is in truth, the word of God.
This attitude is essential for at least two reasons. First, it excludes the
approach that all texts and or translations are simply a work produced by good
men. It demands that we recognize the ongoing providence of God in preserving
what He has given and is able to provide us with His word without error. It
requires us to ask ourselves if the Bible we received is the word of God? If so,
is it truth without any mixture of error, or does it contain copyist and
translational errors that have crept in throughout the centuries? Is it the very
word of God, or the best translation available from the very best manuscripts?
If it has textual, copyist, or translational error, it fails the test as set up
by the Holy Scriptures themselves. Second, this passage offers evidence in
helping us to see where this preserved word is. The proof is two-fold, in that
it is not only RECEIVED by the born-again believer, but it EFFECTUALLY WORKS in
the born-again believer. THE APOSTLES The Biblical approach by the Apostles
differs from that of the modern textual critic. Their attitude in the citation
of scripture is one of "thus sayeth the Lord," and, "it is written." Not "the
older manuscripts read," or "a better translation would be." They believed that
the scriptures of both testaments were not only divinely inspired but kept and
preserved by the guiding hand of the living Lord. They also warn against those
who would change and corrupt the word of God. And that the purpose of those who
would do so was to make merchandise of the believers faith. The Bible, to the
Apostles, is incorruptible (1Pe 1:23) in spite of the many who would seek to
corrupt it (2Co 2:17). THE BELIEVERS IN ANTIOCH The Church at Antioch has a
noteworthy position in scriptures. It is the first place where the born- again
believer is called a Christian, "And the disciples were called Christians first
in Antioch." (Acts 11:26). It is also interesting to see that where both Antioch
and Alexandria are mentioned in the same passage, Antioch is listed as a place
of service, while Alexandria is listed as a place of disruption. And the saying
pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of
the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas,
and Nicolas a proselyte of ANTIOCH: Whom they set before the apostles: and when
they had prayed, they laid their hands on them. And the word of God increased;
and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great
company of the priests were obedient to the faith. And Stephen, full of faith
and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people. Then there arose
certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and
Cyrenians, and ALEXANDRIANS, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with
Stephen. And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he
spake. (Acts 6:5-10) The Bible-believer finds this rather interesting in that
the line of modern translations has its source in Alexandria, while the
Traditional Text has its source in Antioch of Syria where the disciples were
first called Christians. And, as we examine the Biblical text of these believers
in Antioch we find that it reflects the same text as found in our English
Authorized Version of 1611.

IGNATIUS (d. 107 AD)

Saint Ignatius (or Theophorus) was the bishop of Antioch, Syria. Historian Will
Durant states that with Ignatius, "began the powerful dynasty of the
post-apostolic Fathers " (The Story of Civilization, Vol. III, p. 611).
Additionally, Church Historian Earle Cairns informs us that Ignatius "was
arrested by the authorities because of his Christian testimony and sent to Rome
to be killed by beasts in the imperial games." (Christianity Through the
Centuries, Zondervan Pub., 1967 ed., p. 78). While on route to his martyrdom,
this wonderful saint wrote seven letters, six to different churches (Ephesians,
Magnesians, Trallians, Romans, Philadelphians, and Smyrnaeans), and one epistle
to Saint Polycarp.

Ignatius was both sound in doctrine and spirit. He knew several of the Apostles
personally and sought to follow their examples as believers in Christ. Dr.
Michael Green states, "There was a conscious attempt by Ignatius and Polycarp,
for instance, to imitate (St.) Paul. . ." ( Evangelism in the Early Church,
Eerdmans Pub. 1970, p.133). Green further states that, "Something indeed of St.
John’s theology can be traced through Ignatius. . ." ( Ibid. ). And, in his
epistle to the Romans, Ignatius himself makes reference to both Peter and Paul
stating, "I do not, as Peter and Paul, command you." (2:6). Paul wrote,
"Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me." (1Co 4:16) Ignatius lived this
admonition. His doctrine is Biblical. The Trinity is proclaimed by Ignatius. He
states that Christians should be found, "in the Son, and in the Father and in
the Holy Ghost" (Magn. 4:4). He refers to Christ as, "our God" (Roma.1:13 and
Smyr. 1:2), thus repeatedly affirming the Deity of Jesus Christ. Concerning
Biblical salvation he writes, "Let not man deceive himself; both the things
which are in heaven and the glorious angels, and princes, whether visible or
invisible, if they believe not in the blood of Christ, it shall be to them to
condemnation." (Smyr. 2:12). His personal profession of faith is found
throughout all of his epistles, but eloquently and scriptually stated in his
letter to the Trallians: "Stop your ears therefore, as often as any one shall
speak contrary to Jesus Christ; who was of the race of David, of the Virgin
Mary. Who was truly born and did eat and drink; was truly persecuted under
Pontius Pilate; was truly crucified and dead; both those in heaven and on earth,
being spectators of it. Who was also truly raised from the dead by his Father,
after the same manner as he will also raise up us who believe in him by Christ
Jesus; without whom we have no true life." (Trall.2:10-12).

Ignatius reflects a Christian attitude in regard to others and rejects the
anti-Semitism that was reflected by the heretic Marcion, and even from some of
the comments later made by Origen. Instead, Ignatius agrees with scripture and
brakes the walls of racism in a day when the Jews were despised by the Gentile
nations. He writes, "That he (Christ) might set up a token for all ages through
his resurrection, to all his holy and faithful servants, whether they be Jew or
Gentiles, in one body of his church." (Smyr. 1:6). As he reflects his death,
Ignatius writes, "For I am the wheat of God and I shall be ground by the teeth
of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ. Rather
encourage the beasts that they may become my sepulcher; and may leave nothing of
my body; that being dead I may not be troublesome to any." (Roma.2:3-4). In
fact, he seemed concern that the believers in Rome would somehow try to stop his
execution and states, "Suffer me to be food to the wild beasts; by whom I shall
attain unto God." (Roma. 2:2). He firmly proclaims, "I would rather die for
Jesus Christ, than rule to the utmost ends of the earth." (Roma.2:14).

Sadly, the scriptural citations made by Ignatius are often ignored or belittled
as unimportant in the study of textual criticism. Geisler and Nix simply write,
"Although (Ignatius) did not give references to particular citations from the
Scriptures, he did make many loose quotations and allusions to them." (A General
Introduction to the Bible, p.100). It is true that Ignatius does not cite
chapter and verse (nor did any of the other Church Fathers or Apostles for that
matter) and often simply makes allusions. However, it should be remembered that
he was not writing a theological dissertation. He was on his way to be martyred
and was most likely citing scriptures from memory. What is often overlooked is
the content of these Biblical citations and allusions. In reference to his
writings, Souter says, "[It] hardly [has] any bearing on the choice between
variants in the passages of the New Testament." (The Text and Canon of the New
Testament, p.76). With this brief statement, the writings of Ignatius are
dismissed as having no impact on the study of textual criticism. Perhaps this is
because the Biblical citations used by this early Church Father does not
disagree with the text of the Authorized Version. In fact, the text of Ignatius
reflects the reading found in the Traditional Text. An example of this is found
in Ignatius’ letter to the Ephesians. It will be remembered by the student that
there is a textual variant of great importance found in 1Ti 3:16. The KJV reads,
"God was manifest in the flesh." Modern versions, using the Alexandrian Text,
read, "He was revealed in flesh" (NRSV). There is a difference between saying He
and saying God . The KJV makes a clear proclamation of the Deity of Jesus Christ
in this verse. What is important here is that Ignatius apparently used a Bible
which reflected the reading found in the KJV. He writes, "There is one
physician, both fleshly and spiritual; made and not made; God in the flesh" (Eph
2:7) and "God himself being made manifest in the form of a man." (Eph 4:13).
Ignatius uses the Greek word for God (Theos), and for flesh (sarki) in the first
citation and the Greek word for manifest (using the form phanerosas) in the
second, as does the Greek text of the KJV in 1Ti 3:16. If Ignatius had used the
Greek word ieos (he), the supporters of modern versions would no doubt have
claimed that Ignatius was using a Greek text which supported the reading found
in the Alexandrian and Western line of manuscripts. The fact is that Ignatius’
text reflects the Traditional reading, found in the KJV and the Majority Text,
and not the Alexandrian found in Codices Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and modern
translations.

It is also interesting to read the phraseology of Ignatius in reference to the
person of Jesus Christ. Over and over he refers to the Second Person of the
Trinity as the "Lord Jesus Christ." This full use of the title and person of
Christ is found in almost every letter of Ignatius and used several times over
in those letters. I state this because the student will remember that James
White (and others who would call the Traditional Text a fuller text) raised a
theory called the expansion of piety. As stated in lesson three, modern versions
often shorten the phrase to Christ, or Jesus Christ, or Lord, while the KJV more
often uses the whole phrase, Lord Jesus Christ. It would seem from the writings
of Ignatius that he had been influenced by the fuller text as it is found in our
KJV.

POLYCARP (70 to 155 AD)

Polycarp was not only the Bishop of Smyrna but also, "had special opportunities
to know the mind of the disciples because he had been a disciple of (St.) John."
(Cairns, Christianity Through the Centuries, p.79). His martyrdom in 155 AD is
recorded by both Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History and John Foxe in hisBook
of Martyrs. He was first placed at the stake to be burned, and he sang hymns
waiting for the fire to consume him. However, the fire burned around him but did
not burn Polycarp. He was then ordered to be stabbed until dead and his remains
burned. The witness of Polycarp is important in the study of textual criticism
for the following reasons. First of all, he cites about sixty New Testament
quotations in his one letter, Polycarp to the Philippians. Over half of these
are citations from Paul’s epistles, showing his acquaintance with the Apostle
and the acceptance of Paul’s letters as scripture in the early Church. Second,
he was a contemporary of the Apostles and would have had access to either the
original writings of the Apostles or copies that were written shortly after the
originals. Thirdly, like Ignatius, the Biblical citations do not differ with the
Traditional Text in favor of the Alexandrian or Western readings. In fact, even
more so than Ignatius, the citations of Polycarp reflect the readings found in
the Traditional Text as it differs with the Alexandrian Text.

Most of what Polycarp writes deals with Christian living, yet he does state his
profession of faith early in his letter: "knowing that by grace ye are saved;
not by works, but by the will of God through Jesus Christ" (Phili. 1:5), and,
"he that raised up Christ from the dead, shall also raise up us in like manner"
(Phili. 1:8). He makes a good profession and stands against the dualism of the
Gnostics in stating:

"For whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, he is
Antichrist: and whoever does not confess his suffering upon the cross, is from
the devil. And whosoever perverts the oracles of the Lord to his own lusts; and
say that there shall neither be any resurrection, nor judgment, he is the
first-born of Satan. Wherefore leaving the vanity of many, and their false
doctrines; let us return to the word that was delivered to us from the
beginning" (Phili. 3:1-3).

1Jn 4:3 The Biblical quotation from Polycarp to confront Gnosticism is a
citation from the Traditional Text. 1Jn 4:3 reads, "And every spirit that
confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is
that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even
now already is it in the world." The Alexandrian line omits the phrase "is come
in the flesh" in verse three. The verse deals with the lack of confession, not
the Believer’s profession that is found in verse two. As quoted above, Polycarp
writes, "whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh,"
matches what John wrote, "And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ
is come in the flesh." In fairness to the verse, some have suggested that
Polycarp is really citing 2Jn 1:7 and not 1Jn 4:3. This, however, does not seem
to be the view of Dr. J. B. Lightfoot. In his book, The Apostolic Father,
Lightfoot cites the quotation is from 1Jn 4:3 (Macmillan and Comp. Pub., p.
171), as does Archbishop Wake in his translation of Polycarp (The Lost Books of
the Bible, World Pub., p. 194). Their observations are well taken as that the
Greek of 1Jn 4:3 matches the Greek citation of Polycarp. However, the Greek of
2Jn 1:7 does not match Polycarp. The Greek phrase as it stands in the
Traditional Text reads, "en sarke eleluthota" (in flesh come). Polycarp writes,
"en sarke eleluthenai" (in flesh come). Both use the same tense of the Greek
participle. 2 John reads, "epxomenon en sarki" (coming or is come in flesh). The
Greek tense differs from that of Polycarp. 1 John and Polycarp use the perfect
tense, 2 John uses the present tense. English does not have a perfect tense, but
in Greek in means a present state resulting from a past action (i.e. because
Christ came in the flesh, He is now in the flesh). It is therefore clear in both
the Greek and English that Polycarp was citing 1Jn 4:3, and that his citation
matches the KJV and opposes the modern versions which omit this phrase.

Rom 14:10

Polycarp writes, "and must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ; and
shall every one give an account of himself." (Phili. 2:18) The allusion comes
from Rom 14:10 which reads, "But why doest thou judge thy brother? or why doest
thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat
of Christ." (KJV) This passage, therefore, confirms the Deity of Christ because
verse twelve informs us that, "every one of us shall give account of himself to
God." (KJV). The Alexandrian line changes "judgment seat of Christ" to "judgment
seat of God." This not only leave out the cross- reference concerning the Deity
of Christ, but it is obviously not the Greek text used by Polycarp in the very
first few years of the second century. Both the KJV and Polycarp use the Greek
word "Kristou" (of Christ). The Alexandrian line of manuscripts, which stand in
the minority, use the Greek word "Theou" (of God). Since this passage is the
only passage that speaks of the judgment seat of Christ, Polycarp must have
received his reading from a text which read like the Traditional Text. This
again shows that the older reading, closest to the original autographs, reads
like that found in the majority of Greek and other manuscripts as translated in
the KJV.

Gal 4:26

Here we find the phrase, "which is the mother of us all" in the KJV. The
Alexandrian line of manuscripts simply reads, "and she is our mother." (NIV).
The Greek word "panton" (of us all) is omitted from the Alexandrian manuscripts,
while the majority of all Greek manuscripts has it in them. Polycarp writes,
"which is the mother of us all" and uses the Greek word "panton." Geisler and
Nix list Gal 4:26 as a citation by Polycarp (A General Introduction to the
Bible, p.349), as does Lightfoot (The Apostolic Fathers, p. 169). Where did
Polycarp get the phrase if not from the Traditional Text? Plainly, the disciple
of St. John, and friend of St. Paul, was using a Greek text like the Traditional
Text. The Expansion of Piety

Once again, the expansion of piety theory falls short in the light of Polycarp’s
Epistle to the Philippians. In this short letter consisting of only four
chapters, Polycarp uses the triune phrase, "Lord Jesus Christ" seven times (1:1,
2, 3, 6; 4:10, 11, 20). This seems rather amazing since the Apostle Paul in his
letter to the Philippians used the phrase only three times (1:2; 3:20; 4:23).
However, in his letter to the Ephesians, Paul uses "Lord Jesus Christ" the same
number of times as Polycarp. In this light, the thought that the multiple use of
"Lord Jesus Christ" from a shorter version was added by the Byzantine monks
around 1,000 AD seems rather far fetched. It is obvious from Polycarp that the
expanded phrase was in common use at the time of the New Testament and shortly
thereafter. Further, because of the expansion used by Polycarp, it seem more
likely that this was the common expression used in reference to our Lord. Not
only is the theory invalid, but the common text used by first century Christians
reflected that which would be found in the Traditional Text throughout the
centuries. Thus the admonition found in 1Th 2:13 remains intact.

EARLY TRANSLATIONS In addition to the Traditional Text, we have many early and
old translations of the Bible which are either classified as Byzantine (i.e.
Traditional Text) or have readings which differ from the Alexandrian Text in
favor of the Traditional Text. After Kurt and Barbara Aland point to around 180
AD as the beginning of when these translations began, they state, "It must be
emphasized that the value of the early versions for establishing the original
Greek text and for the history of the text has frequently been misconceived,
i.e., they have been considerably overrated." ( The Text of the New Testament,
Eerdmans Pub., 1987 p.182). Yet, one could say the same about copies of copies
of copies of Greek manuscripts as well. Perhaps the concern stated by the Alands
is because so many of the early translations have readings which match the KJV
and its Majority Text in Greek. An early translation must have had a source. If
the early translation has a certain reading, and later Greek manuscripts have
the same reading, we can conclude that the source for the early translation had
the reading as well, even if we no longer have that source.

Old Syrian

There are several old translations which are called Syrian because they are in
the Aramaic language. The history of the Syrian versions is a rich history, much
like the history of the Latin translations. Dr. Bruce Metzger writes, "Until the
middle of the nineteenth century the Peshitta held the field as the earliest
Syriac version of the New Testament." ( The Early Version of the New Testament,
Clarendon Press, 1977 p. 36). This is important because Antioch in Syria, the
birth place of the word Christian, produced an early translation of the Bible
which agreed with the Traditional Text. The Peshitta (which means clear or
simple) is the standard Syriac version. Geisler and Nix state, "It is important
to note at this point that the Peshitta was ’the authorized version’ of the two
main opposed branches of Syriac Christianity, the Nestorians and the Jacobites,
indicating that it must have been firmly established by the time of their final
cleavage, well before the fifth century." ( A General Introduction to the Bible,
p.318). In fact, the chart they give on page 265 of their book dates the
Peshitta close to the year 200 AD. They also note that the Peshitta was,
"brought into conformity with the Byzantine text type." ( Ibid., p.318). Thus
the Peshitta bears testimony to the Traditional Text from which the KJV was
translated. Aland justly states, "The Peshitta version as it is presented in the
British and Foreign Bible Society edition is the most widely attested and most
consistently transmitted of the Syriac New Testament versions. The Syriac church
still preserves it and holds it in reverence in this form today." ( The Text of
the New Testament, p. 190). In fact, the tradition of the Syrian church is that
the Peshitta was the work of St. Mark while others claim the Apostle Thaddeus
(Jude) translated it. In 1901 textual scholar F. C. Burkitt questioned the early
date of the Peshitta and assigned it as the work of the bishop of Edessa,
Rabbula, in the fifth century. Metzger notes, "The hypothesis of the Rabbulan
authorship of the Peshitta New Testament soon came to be adopted by almost all
scholars, being persuaded perhaps more by the confidence with which Burkitt
propounded it than by any proof other than circumstantial evidence." ( The Early
Versions of the New Testament, pp. 55-56). The view of Burkitt has been attacked
by other scholars such as Arthur Voobus who compared Rabbula’s citations with
the Peshitta and found several differences. It has also been argued by Edward
Hills that Rabbula could not have been the translator because the division
within the Syrian church took place during the time of Rabbula with Rabbula
being the leader of one of these sects. Yet both sides claim the Peshitta as
holy scripture. Hills writes, "It is impossible to suppose that the Peshitta was
his (Rabbula’s) handiwork, for if it had been produced under his auspices, his
opponents would never have adopted it as their received New Testament text." (
The King James Version Defended, p.174). To this Metzger adds: The question who
it was that produced the Peshitta version of the New Testament will perhaps
never be answered. That it was not Rubbula has been proved by Voobus’s
researches. . .In any case, however, in view of the adoption of the same version
of the Scriptures by both the Eastern (Nestorian) and Western (Jacobite)
branches of Syrian Christendom, we must conclude that it had attained a
considerable degree of status before the division of the Syrian Church in AD
431. (Metzger, pp.59-60).

If the Peshitta does date to around 200 AD, or before, we have an answer to
those who wonder about the text of the New Testament early in its transmission.
James R. White asks, "If we were to transport ourselves to the year AD 200 and
look at the text of the New Testament at that time, ignoring for the moment what
was to come later, what would we find?" ( The King James Only Controversy,
p.152). According to the Peshitta translation, we would find a text like the
Authorized Version produced in 1611. This is confirmed by Souter who writes,
"Thus it happens that the Peshitta Syriac rarely witnesses to anything different
from what we find in the great bulk of Greek manuscripts." ( The Text and Canon
of the New Testament, p.60). And, based upon our lesson so far, we would find
early Christians, like Ignatius and Polycarp, using a Bible with 1Ti 3:16, Rom
14:10; Gal 4:26, and 1Jn 4:3 reading just like the KJV, the Traditional Text,
and the Peshitta.

Old Latin

Bruce Metzger writes, "At the close of the nineteenth century several scholars
suggested that Antioch in Syria was the place where the Old Latin version(s)
originated. . .scholars today are inclined to look to North Africa as the home
of the first Latin version of the New Testament." ( The Early Versions of the
New Testament, p. 288). The Old Latin versions are divided into two camps,
African and European. Within the Old Latin there are "variants among the
manuscripts (which) make a coherent history of the text all but impossible to
determine." ( A General Introduction to the Bible, p.334). Today, the earliest
manuscripts we have in the Old Latin date to the fourth century.

Regardless of the history of the varying Old Latin manuscripts, there are
readings within the Old Latin which support the Traditional Text. For example,
Mark 1:2 reads, "As it is written in the prophets," and then quotes two
prophets, Malachi and Isaiah. The Alexandrian line reads, "As it is written in
the Prophet Isaiah" and then quotes from two prophets. The first reading is
found in the KJV and the Traditional Greek Text. It is also found in the
Peshitta. Among the Old Latin manuscripts (which are classified with small Roman
letters for the most part), we find the same reading as in the Traditional Text
in the Old Latin manuscripts a (4th century), aur (7th cen.), b (5th cen.), c
(12th cen.), d (5th cen.), f (6th cen.), ff2 (5th cen.), and q (7th cen.). The
same is true of the longer ending to Mark. While the Alexandrian line omits
verses 9-20 of chapter sixteen, it is found in the majority of Greek
manuscripts, the Peshitta, and almost all Old Latin manuscripts. In fact, the
Old Latin manuscript k is the only one which has the shorter ending, and it was
k which added the Gnostic reading about the resurrection which read like the
Gospel of Peter (see lesson four). The same is also true to the passage in John
7:52-53; John 8:1-11 concerning the woman caught in the act of adultery. The
majority of Old Latin witnesses contain this passage and read like the KJV and
the Traditional Text.

Ethiopic Version This version dates to the beginning of the fourth century.
While it does contain a mixed reading at times, it is classified as being
basically Byzantine in origin. Thus the witness to Africa was also of the
Traditional Text. Geisler and Nix state, "This translation adheres closely,
almost literally, to the Greek text of the Byzantine type" ( Ibid., p. 324).
They also classify the Armenian Version, Georgian Version, and the Slavonic
Version of the same textual family, that of the Traditional Text ( Ibid.,
pp.323-328).

Gothic Version This early Germanic version dates to the first part of the fourth
century. It was translated by Wulfilas who "made use of a manuscript of the
early Byzantine text differing little from what we find in the Greek
manuscripts." (Aland, The Text of the New Testament, p.206). Alexander Souter
says of the Gothic Version, "The translation of the New Testament was made from
Greek MSS. such as Chrysostom used, of the official Constantinopolitan (i.e.
Traditional Text) type." ( The Text and Canon of the New Testament, p.69). Thus
the Gothic version reflects the Traditional Text and the English KJV.

Hence, we can see from the old early translations that they reflect the
Traditional Text from which came the King James Version. The early translations
which these believers received as the word of God, which effectually worked in
them, was like our Authorized Version of today.

CHRYSOSTOM (345-407 AD)

John Chrysostom was both a great Biblical expositor and preacher. His parents
were Christians and came from Antioch. Chrysostom began his career as a lawyer,
until his conversion in 368 AD. He then began to preach to gospel of Jesus
Christ. He was ordained in 386 AD and preached in Antioch until 398. It was then
that he became Bishop of Constantinople. (The student should note that there is
in the study of textual criticism a clear connection between Antioch and
Constantinople, and that manuscripts coming from these two places bear a
remarkable resemblance). The Bible he used was of the Traditional text.

Even though Cairns describes him as courteous, affectionate, and kindly natured
(Christianity Through the Centuries, p.152); he was not ashamed to boldly
proclaim the truth, no matter who was offended. While at Constantinople, one he
offended was the wife of emperor Arcadius, empress Eudoxia. He had preached
against her manner of dress and that she placed silver statures of herself
throughout the city. And, like the preaching of John the Baptist, his sermon
came at a personal cost. He was banished from the city in 404 AD, and while in
exile, he died in 407.

Chrysostom left about 640 sermons which are still in existence. Church Historian
Ross MacKenzie states that Chrysostom was, "A writer of pure, almost Attic
style, John is one of the most attractive of the Greek preachers, and his
eloquence gained him the name of Chrysostom (Golden Mouth)." (The New Grolier
Multimedia Encyclopedia, 1993 ed.) Cairns adds to this by simply stating, "It is
little wonder that he was and still is hailed as the greatest pulpit orator the
Eastern Church ever had." (Christianity Through the Centuries, p.152).

Because of the massive amount of homilies left by Chrysostom, and because of his
expository style of preaching, it is very easy to see the text type used by him.
Souter states that the type of text Chrysostom used is reflected by Codex K,
which is of the Byzantine line. However, it should be noted that K dates to
several hundred years after Chrysostom, thus showing its continued use through
the centuries. Souter writes that Chrysostom Greek text, "is roughly that of the
great bulk of our manuscripts." (The Text and Canon of the New Testament, p.85).
Thus, the Greek text of John Chrysostom is the Traditional Text from which came
the KJV. This is clearly seen in his writings, but for purpose of illustration I
have chosen to compare his homilies on the Sermon on the Mount with the focus on
Matthew chapter 6:1-15. There are, within this passage, two very notable
differences between the two major lines of manuscripts. They are found in verses
1 and 13.

Verse 1

Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye
have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. (KJV).

Take heed that you do not your justice before men, to be seen by them: otherwise
you shall not have a reward of your Father who is in heaven. (Douay-Rheims
Version).

Be careful not to do you ’acts of righteousness’ before men, to be seen by them.
If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. (NIV).

The Authorized Version uses the word alms (Gk. eleemosunen), while the NIV uses
the phrase acts of righteousness (Gk. dikaiosunen), and the DRV justice . As one
can see from either the English or the Greek, these are two different words,
with two different meanings. They are also reflective of the two textual lines,
in that the Alexandrian reading uses righteousness while the Traditional line
uses alms . There is no question as to which one Chrysostom uses. He comments on
the text by saying, "And mark how Christ began, as though he were speaking of
some wild beast, hard to catch, and crafty to deceive him who was not very
watchful. Thus, ’take heed,’ saith he, ’as to your alms.’ So Paul also speaks to
the Philippians, ’Beware of dogs.’ " (Jaroslav Pelikan edition, The Preaching of
Chrysostom, Fortress Press, p.130). He then quotes the passage "For which same
cause he saith, ’Take heed that ye do not your alms before men,’ for that which
was before mentioned, is God’s almsgiving." (Ibid., p.131).

Verse 13

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the
kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. (KJV).

And lead us not into temptation. But deliver us from evil. (DRV)

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. (NIV).

For years the omission of the phrase "For thine is the kingdom, and the power,
and the glory, for ever. Amen." marked the difference between Protestant and
Catholic versions of the Lord’s prayer. However, today, even conservative
translations such as the NIV and NASV have chosen the Alexandrian reading of
Catholicism instead of the Traditional text which is supported by the majority
of all Greek uncials and minuscules.

Chrysostom, in the late fourth century, plainly used the reading as it is found
in the majority of all Greek and Syrian manuscripts. He writes, "Having then
made us anxious as before conflict, by putting us in mind of the enemy, and
having cut away from us all our remissness; he again encourages and raises our
spirits, by bringing to our remembrance the King under whom we are arrayed, and
signifying him to be more powerful than all. ’For thine,’ saith he, ’is the
kingdom, and the power, and the glory.’ " (Ibid., p.145). He then expounds the
phrases "the power" and "the glory," which would be rather hard to do if his
Bible did not contain them. Once again we see the Bible of this great preacher
was like the one translated into English in 1611. THE THREE CAPPADOCIAN FATHERS

John Chrysostom was not alone in his use of the Traditional text. Basil of
Caesarea (329-379 AD); Gregory of Nazianzus (330-389 AD) and Gregory of Nyssa
(330-395 AD, the brother of Basil) used the same text line. These three Church
Fathers are called the Cappadocian Fathers. These three men are noted for their
strength in doctrine and opposition to the heresy of Arianism (which denied the
Trinity). All three strongly supported the doctrine of the Trinity and were
noted as strong theologians. All are also associated with the Orthodox Church of
Constantinople. All three had Christian parents, and Gregory of Nazianzus’
father was a bishop. The Greek and Old Latin manuscripts used by these men
reflect the text of the Traditional line. Souter states that their Greek text
originated "probably in Constantinople" while the Latin "in North Italy." (The
Text and Canon of the New Testament, p. 9). Souter lists the Gospel manuscripts
of N, O, Sigma, and Phi, reflecting "the text used by the great Cappadocian
Fathers. . .in the last third of the fourth century." (Ibid., p. 30). These
manuscripts (N, O, Sigma, and Phi) are from the sixth century and reflect the
readings found in the Traditional text.

It is little wonder then, that when we find differences between the Traditional
text and the Alexandrian text, that the Cappadocian choose the readings as they
are found in the KJV and not the ones reflected in the NIV or NRSV. The
following are a few examples.

Mat 17:21 is omitted in the NIV and NASV, but is in the KJV and supported by the
Traditional Text and the Cappodocian Fathers.

Mark 1:2 the KJV reads "prophets" as does the citations of the Cappodocian
Fathers. Modern versions choose the Alexandrian reading of "Isaiah the prophet"
and then quote form Malachi.

Mark 16:9-20. The longer ending, as it is found in the KJV, is also in the Greek
Gospels of the Cappodocian Fathers.

Luk 2:14. While the Nestle Text of the Alexandrian line renders the phrase as,
"men of goodwill," the KJV and the Cappodocian Fathers render it as, "good will
toward men."

John 5:4 is omitted in the Alexandrian Text, but found in the Greek text of the
Cappodocian Fathers. This siding with the Traditional Text is not just limited
to the Gospels, although there are several examples. It should also be noted
that, like Ignatius, the Cappodocian Fathers used God (Gk. Theos) in 1Ti 3:16.
THE CHURCH UNDER FIRE

Throughout the centuries there have been those strong in the faith who were
willing to suffer and die for the cause of Christ. Their histories have been
written with honor by men like John Foxe in his book of Martyrs; their names
have been reduced to that of heretic by those who persecuted them. Among such
groups of Bible-believers were the Paulicians, the Bogomiles, the Anabaptists,
the Waldenses, and the Albigenses to name a few. They are mentioned here only
because the scriptures they used were those of the Traditional Text or a
translation which reflected the readings found in the Traditional Text. They
received the word of God, as it is in truth the word of God, and it worked
effectually within them (1Th 2:13).

Most of those mentioned above were and are labeled as heretics in order to
justify their mass murders. A case in point would be the Albigenses, so named
because they originated in southern France near the old city of Albiga. To this
date they are listed in most histories of the Church as a heretical sect which
practiced dualism. It has been claimed that the Albigenses believed in two gods,
one good and one evil, much like the old Gnostic heresy. However, this is simply
not the case. Historian for the American Baptist Converntion, Henry C. Vedder,
writes, "The (Roman) church was not at all careful to distinguish between them,
and they were often included under the name of Albigenses in one sweeping
general condemnation. That name, however, does not properly denote the
evangelical heretics, who never confounded themselves with these dualistic
heretics, and indeed sympathized with them as little as they did with Rome." (A
Short History of the Baptist, Judson Press, 1907, p.103). The true "heresy" of
these Bible-believing French folk was that they would not conform to Rome and
its teachings. They believed each Christian had the right to read the Bible in
their own language for themselves. Pope Innocent III declared war on them and
began what was infamously known as the Inquisition. Edward Peter notes, "The
severity and frequent brutality with which the northern French waged the
Albigensian Crusade led to the killing of many heretics without formal trial or
hearing." (Inquisition, The Free Press; 1988, p. 50). In this dark period of
time, unnamed thousands died at the hand of Rome because they wished to place
the Bible into the hands of the common man.

Catholic historians and theologians today argue that this simply is not so. The
Right Reverend Henry Graham (Where We Got The Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic
Church ), Rev. Dr. L. Rumble, and Fr. Charles Carty (Bible Quizzes To A Street
Preacher ) state that most people in the Middle Ages could not read, so there
was no need for the Bible in the language of the common man because he could not
read it if he had it. They further state that since those who could read all
read Latin, there was no need to have any other translation other than the Latin
Vulgate by Jerome. This, however, by no means justifies the mass torture and
murder of thousands of people. Additionally, it overlooks several simple truths.
First, just because someone could not read for themselves would not stop them
from wanting a Bible in their own language so someone else could read it to
them. If there were only Latin Bibles, those who could not understand Latin were
without hope of even hearing the word of God. Second, history has shown that
once the Bible is translated into the language of the people, the people learn
to read. Time and again the Bible has been the basic text book for individuals
to learn their own language in written form.

Another example are the Waldenses, who are often linked in history with the
Albigensians. Some have suggested that the name Waldenses came from Peter Waldo,
around 1176 AD. Waldo was a Bible-believing merchant turned preacher. Others
believe the name comes from the Italian or Spanish word for valley, thus stating
they originated in the valley region of northern Italy. Regardless of where they
derived their name, they strongly stood against many of the teachings of the
Roman Catholic Church.

Catholic and Orthodox historians David Knowles and Dimitri Obolensky list for us
the "heresies" of which the Waldenses were guilty: "[The Waldenses] became
definitely heterodox, regarding the Bible as the supreme authority and denying
the real presence in the Eucharist. . .the Waldenses, the ’proto-Protestants’,
continued to influence religious history throughout the middle ages and despite
persecution remain in existence at the present day." The Christian Centuries,
Vol. 2, Paulist Press, 1969, p. 369). What they did believe in was that the
Bible was the final authority for the born-again believer. That any one who was
called of God could preach the word without authority from Rome. That salvation
was not by works, but by the grace of God alone, and that baptism should follow
belief and not applied to infants. Thus, the principles of 1Th 2:13 were
established in their lives.

Knowles and Obolensky further state, "Already in Milan and Lyons the Humiliati
and the Waldenses were beginning to show the characteristics of their class:
desire for associations of prayer and good works outside the liturgical
framework; love of preaching and Bible-reading in the vernacular; dislike of . .
.(the) sacramental aspects of religion; disputes about the Eucharist; praise of
poverty; impatiences of hierarchical control." (Ibid., p.224.) In addition they
"believed that every man should have the Bible in his own tongue and that it
should be the final authority for faith and life." (Cairns,Christianity Through
the Centuries, p.248). Thus, they copied and translated the Bible in the
vernacular and freely published these manuscripts. Therefore, their aid in using
the Traditional Text and providing vernacular translations of it must not go
unnoticed in the Biblical study of textual criticism.

Because of Believers like the Albigenses, the Waldenses and others, the Bible
was translated into Provencial or Old French, Old High German, Slavonic, Old and
Middle English, and other languages as well as Old Latin and Gothic. Through
them, and others, we can see the Traditional Text not only translated into the
language of the people, but translated into the lives of those who read it.

One such translation is the West Saxon Gospels which date to this period of
time. This is the oldest version of the Gospels in English (that is in Old
English which differs from that which we use today). The following example comes
from Luk 15:16 and shows that this version of the common man followed the
Traditional Text which later produced the Authorized Version.

And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat:
and no man gave unto him. (KJV).

And he would gladly have fed on the pods that the swine ate, and no one gave him
anything. (RSV).

Da gewilnode he his wambe gefyllan of pam beancoddum be oa swyn aeton; and him
man ne sealde. (West Saxon)

The subtle difference comes from the variance between the two line of
manuscripts. The Greek Textus Receptus reads, "gemisai ten kailian autou apo"
(to fill his belly with). The United Bible Societies’ Text reads, "xortasthenai
ek" (fed out of). This reading is supported by P75, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus.
All the Byzantine manuscripts, most Old Latin manuscripts, the Peshitta, and the
Armenian, support the Traditional Text. It is plan from the reading of the West
Saxon Gospels which one they follow. The words "wambe gefyllan" mean "stomach
filled" which matches the text of the KJV. THE MAJORITY TEXT By the Majority
Text, we mean the Traditional Text which has been used by Bible-believing
Christians throughout the centuries and is reflected in the majority of Greek
manuscripts. This Text has also been called the Syrian Text, the Constantinople
Text, and is usually referred to as the Byzantine Text. It is this text which
produced what has commonly been called the Textus Receptus or Received Text. It
was this type of Greek Text which underlined the Authorized King James Version.
We have already seen that this text type was used by early Christians and was
the basis for early translations. It is the text which has predominated the
history of Bible based Christianity and, for that matter, the majority of
Christendom throughout the ages. The main objection to the Majority Text is that
it is a late text, of which most of the manuscripts within this textual family
date after the ninth century. However, as we have already seen, the readings
found within the Traditional Text date to manuscripts of the second century and
some even to the first century. Additionally, the earliest citations made
shortly after the completion of the New Testament reflect the readings found in
the Traditional Text, and not the Alexandrian. The question may be asked, Why do
we have so many copies which have such a late date? There are several reasons of
which I shall name three. First, because it is the Traditional Text. It was the
one received by the early Church and the body of believers. Naturally, it would
be the one to endure throughout the centuries and be massively copied and
translated. Second, the reason why we do not have as many old manuscripts of
this type is simply because it was the one used. Those manuscripts which were
corrupted would not be used by the early born-again believers. They would see
the corruptions and reject them. However, the Bibles which they did use would
reflect that use. Just as the Bible you use today is quickly worn by use, so
would the early manuscripts used by Bible-believing Christians. Third, the
climate where the Traditional Text was formed is not as conducive for
maintaining manuscripts as the climate in Egypt. Nevertheless, on this point it
must also be noted that the origin and keeping of the New Testament did not lay
in Egypt but elsewhere. Places such as Asia Minor, Palestine, Greece, and Rome
would be where the New Testament originated and was kept. Alexandria originated
none of the autographs nor was it the caretaker of any New Testament book or
epistle. It therefore lays with the majority of manuscripts which were received
and used by born-again believers (1Th 2:13).

We now have over 5,000 manuscripts of the New Testament. A manuscript may be the
whole New Testament, or it may only be a few books. At times it may even be a
portion of a book or even a fragment. But all together we have well over 5,000
of these manuscripts. Dr. Zane Hodges, of Dallas Theological Seminary, has
pointed out that "somewhere between 80-90 percent- -contain a Greek text which
in most respects closely resembles the kind of text which was the basis of our
King James Version." ("The Greek Text of the King James Version," found in
Bibliotheca Sacra 124 (1968) p.335). Dr. Wilbur Pickering states, ". . . one may
reasonably speak of up to 90% of the extant MSS belonging to the Majority
text-type." (The Identity of the New Testament Text, Nelson Pub., 1980 ed.,
p.118). The agreement within this vast host of manuscripts is astounding. It
becomes even more astounding as one recognizes that the Traditional Text has
been with us throughout the history of the New Testament Church, and that this
text is represented in various locations throughout the world. Yet this text has
few variances within the bulk of its witnesses. This is, of course, in direct
opposition to the Alexandrian Text which is the minority text. The Alexandrian
Text, with only a few Greek manuscripts "disagree as much (or more) among
themselves as they do with the majority (text). For any two of them to agree so
closely as do P75 and B is an oddity." (Ibid. ) In the Biblical definition of
things, this is itself evidence that the Alexandrian Text is not the instrument
God used in preserving His word. Namely, because there is a higher degree of
variance within its own family based upon a much smaller portion of manuscripts.
Since God is not the Author of confusion (1Co 14:33), we can conclude that God
is not responsible for this line.

It is from this wealth of manuscripts that men such as Desiderius Erasmus
(1466-1536), Robert Stephanus (1503-1559), Theodore Beza (1519-1605), and
Bonaventure and Matthew Elzevirs (1624) produced Greek Texts which were greatly
used by God and His Church. The Greek Text produced by Erasmus was the text
which Martin Luther used to produce his German Bible. This text, along with
those produced by Stephanus, were the basis for the Italian Bible of Giovanni
Diodati (1576-1649) and the French Bible of Louis Second. They were also used by
Casidoro de Reina (1520-1594) and Cipriano de Valera (1531-1602) and their
Reina/Valera Spanish Bible. These texts and translations, along with earlier
English translations and the Greek Text of Beza, formed the basis of our KJV.

These texts and their translations did not go unrewarded by God. The Greek text
of the Reformers was that of the Traditional Text. Every Protestant Church which
was formed during this period of Church history, used the Traditional Text or a
translation based on it. The underground Church which did not need to leave Rome
because it was never a part of it, used the Traditional Text as its Bible. The
Traditional Text produced reform and revival. It has proven itself to have
worked effectually within the community of believers who have received it as the
very word of God. And, consequently, it has affected history and culture itself.
Dr. Fred Craddock and Dr. Gene Tucker of Emory University have corrected stated,
"Translations of the Bible, such as the Authorized Version (or King James
Version, 1611) and Martin Luther’s translation of the Bible into German (first
completed in 1534) not only influenced literature, but also shaped the
development of languages." (cited from Encarta by Microsoft, 1995 ed).

Thus we have briefly seen the history of the Traditional Text and how God has
used it throughout the Church. In lessons to come we will explore this period of
time which produced the KJV in order to better understand the history of the KJV
itself. Also, we will be looking at the Greek Septuagint of the Old Testament
and its citations in the New. Plus, we will study those missing verses listed in
lesson three to find the textual and doctrinal support for them.

QUESTIONS FROM STUDENTS

One student writes, "I would really enjoy seeing something aboutPsa 12:6-7. I
have a copy of James White’s book somewhere, and it would be nice to see a
refutation of each supposed ’problem’ passage of the KJB he lists. (Of course
that may be a bit much. :-)" Not really. In fact, I plan to respond to many of
the verses that Brother White raises in his book,The King James Only
Controversy, simply because he does such a fine job of stating the point of view
reflected by the supporters of modern versions, and because his book is popular
and in use with many. However, for now let us focus briefly on Psa 12:6-7. The
verse reads, "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace
of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt
preserve them from this generation for ever." (KJV).

Brother White responds to this passage twice in his book. Once in a footnote on
page 6, and then again on page 243. He writes, "Many KJV Only advocates prefer
to speak of the "words of God" when they refer to the KJV, drawing from Psa
12:6." (p.6). To me, this is a very interesting footnote given by Brother White.
Time and again, White says he believes the KJV is the word of God, as is the
NIV, RSV, NASV and NRSV. If this is so, why would he footnote what he himself
claims to believe? The difference here is that I do not believe the NIV, RSV,
NASV, or the NRSV are the words of the LORD. I believe they are translations
made by men which reflect a certain line of manuscripts. I believe that they
contain God’s word only when they agree with it. But containing God’s word and
being the word of God are two different things. I do not believe that God’s word
has error in it, and I believe that these translations have error. What I do
believe is that God promised to keep and preserve His words. That is what the
verse says. If I am to believe God, I must believe this verse. If I do not
believe this verse, why should I believe anything else that God says? However, I
do believe it and I have the assurance that God has not lied to me concerning
the keeping of His words. Further, I believe that for those of us who speak
English these preserved words are in the KJV. So I have a book I believe
fulfills Psa 12:6-7 and it can be held and tested. Brother White does not. The
question is asked by White, "Doesn’t Psa 12:6-7 promise that God will preserve
His WORDS?" To this White responds with, "My first question is, Where does Psa
12:1-8 say that the ’words of the LORD’ refer to the King James Version of the
Bible? Of course, it doesn’t. Secondly, nowhere does this passage tell us how
God will preserve His words. Does this mean He will do so by ensuring that no
one can ever change the substance of those words, or does it mean that He will
always make sure that there is one infallible version in one or more languages
or translations? The passage does not even begin to address such things. And
finally, noting the NIV translation, it is quite possible that verse 7 does not
refer back to ’the words of the LORD’ in verse 6, but instead to those in verse
5 of whom the Lord says, ’I will set him in the safety for which he yearns’
(NKJV)." (pp. 243-244). The passage in Psa 12:6-7 in the NIV reads, "And the
words of the LORD are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay,
purified seven times. O LORD, you will keep us safe and protect us from such
people forever."

So, in his chapter on ’Questions and Answers’ (chapter 10) his very first
question, which is the one listed above, gives no answers at all. Instead, he
raises more questions himself.

White’s first question is, "Where does Psa 12:1-8 say that the words of the LORD
refer to the KJV of the Bible?" This is not an answer, it is a question.
However, the answer is that it does not. If it had, then there would be no word
of God until 1611. If there was no word of God until 1611, then Psa 12:1-8 could
not possibly be true because the claim is to keep the words of the LORD from
THIS generation for ever. This generation predates 1611, however it also
includes 1611. This is the difference between the Bible-believer and modern
scholarship. Where is this preserved word today? Where was it at any time? Have
we lost it or misplaced it? The modern scholar does not have an answer, at least
not one that agrees with the verses found in Psa 12:1-8. The "KJV Only
advocates" (to cite Brother White) do not advocate the KJV only for everyone
throughout Church history. I think the above lesson is proof of this. We
advocate the KJV as the preserved word of God, for the English-speaking people,
without any proven error. His second question is what did God mean by
"preservation"? Well, the best answer is He meant what He said. He said He would
keep and preserve His words from this generation for ever. Either He did this or
He did not. If He did, the modern scholar is at a loss to find where these
preserved words are. If He did not, then He lied, which is impossible for God to
do. Please notice that the text does not say that God would preserve the
substance of His words, as White suggests. He says He will preserve His
W-O-R-D-S. Now, did He or didn’t He? Once again, the Bible-believer says He did
and not only see the evidence that He did, but has a copy he can hold and read
for himself. The third question Brother White raises is one he plants in your
mind. Is Psa 12:7 translated correctly? Does it refer back to verse 5 and not
verse 6? This is the same argument Dr. John Durham of Southeastern Baptist
Seminary raised. Durham writes, "Verse 6 interrupts the development of the Psalm
with an aside on the purity of the utterances of Yahweh. . .It is. . . an
interruption and could very well have been added at a period subsequent to the
composition of the Psalm." (Boardman Bible Commentary, pp. 192-193) So now it
becomes either a mistranslation, an interruption, or an addition. Anything
except for what it is, the promise of God to keep and preserve His Words. The
mark of the Holy Ghost is to assure the Believer concerning the word of God (1Jn
5:13). The mark of Satan is to question the word of God (Gen 3:1).

Dr. G. Campbell Morgan agreed with the rendering. He writes, "The psalmist
breaks out into praise of the purity of His words, and declares that Jehovah
will ’keep them’ and ’preserve them.’ The ’them’ here refers to the words. There
is no promise made of widespread revival or renewal. It is the salvation of a
remnant and the preservation of His own words which Jehovah promises." (Notes on
the Psalms, Revell Comp., p.32).

Brother White quoted the NKJV to support his view that verse 7 refers back to
verse 5 and not to verse 6. However, this is not how the NKJV is versed. In the
Psalms, the NKJV lends itself to poetic form and groups verses together. It is
very plain to see that the editors of this translation have grouped verses 6 and
7 together and not verses 5-7. Brother White would have done better to have
stayed with the NIV instead of switching to the NKJV.

It should also be noted that the KJV is not alone in its translation of verse 7
as "them" instead of "us." The ASV of 1901 reads, "Thou wilt keep them, O
Jehovah, Thou wilt preserve them from this generation for ever." Well, I guess
that this only proves the old saying that even a blind squirrel can find a nut.
:-)


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 6: 06 LESSON SIX
========================================================================

LESSON SIX: German, Spanish, and Early English Versions The Lord gave the word:
great was the company of those that published it. (Psa 68:11)

It has been argued that if the KJV is the word of God, what about the time
before 1611? Were believers who spoke English without the preserved word of God
until the KJV was published? Is the word of God limited only to the
English-speaking people? Such argumentation is clearly either a misunderstanding
or misrepresentation of the views of Bible believers who hold to the KJV as the
preserved word of God for the English-speaking people. Our view, as has been
stated before, is that there has always been the preserved word of God ever
since God gave it. This has been demonstrated in lesson five. He inspired it
through the original writers, and He keeps it through His promise to do so. When
the translators of the KJV set forth to do their task, they had before them
several texts and translations. In addition to the original languages, they also
had various foreign translations based on the Traditional Texts of both the Old
and New Testaments. In the original preface to the KJV, which was entitled The
Translators to the Reader, Dr. Miles Smith wrote: "Neither did we think much to
consult the translators or commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or
Latin. No, nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch." In the course of our
studies of NT textual criticism, we have considered the manuscripts and texts of
the Syrian, Greek, and Latin. The four foreign translations mentioned by Dr.
Smith were the Spanish (Reina/Valera Version), the French (Louis Segond
Version), the Italian (Giovanni Diodati Version), and the Dutch (Luther’s German
Version). All of these were based on the Traditional Text used by
Bible-believing Christians throughout the history of the New Testament Church.
For the purpose of our studies, we shall consider two of them; the German and
the Spanish. THE GERMAN

Perhaps no other translation of the Bible, apart from the KJV, has had a greater
impact upon its people and their culture than the German Bible of Martin Luther.
As was stated in our last lesson by Dr. Fred Craddock and Dr. Gene Tucker of
Emory University, "Translations of the Bible, such as the Authorized Version (or
King James Version, 1611) and Martin Luther’s translation of the Bible into
German (first completed in 1534) not only influenced literature, but also shaped
the development of languages." (cited from Encarta by Microsoft, 1995 ed). Not
only has this version affected the history and language of Germany, but many
immigrants and early settlers to the United States carried a copy of Die Heilige
Schrift (the Holy Scriptures) by Martin Luther.

Students of Church History can not but recognize the great contribution made to
the common Faith by Martin Luther (1483-1546). It was Luther who echoed the cry
of justification by faith, and brought Reformation to Germany. He was born on
November 10th, 1483. He began to study law in 1505, but after a narrow escape
from a storm, he decided to become a monk. He was ordained in 1507 and in 1510
visited Rome. It was there he found corruption within the hierarchy of the
Catholic Church and began to question its authority. After his study in
Scripture on justification through faith and salvation by grace, Luther
published his 95 theses and nailed it on the door of the church at Wittenberg in
1517. He spent the next few years defending his charges, only to be
excommunicated in 1521. In April of that same year, Luther was summoned before
the Holy Roman Emperor at the Diet of Worms. There Luther refused to recant and
was banished from the empire. He fled to Wartburg, and for the next eight months
worked on his translation of the New Testament into German. The Greek text used
by Luther was that of Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536). This text was based on the
Traditional Text and later became known as the Textus Receptus. Church Historian
Earle Cairns wrote,

Making use of Erasmus’ edition of the Greek New Testament, he (Luther) completed
his German translation of the New Testament in less than a year. The whole Bible
wastranslated from the original into German by 1534. When it was published, it
not only gave the German people the Bible in their own tongue, but it set the
standard form of the German language. (Christianity Through the Centuries,
Zondervan Pub., p. 318).

Thus, we see that this line of Text was used by God to provide the Bible in the
language of the people and provided the basis for believers during the
Reformation. It should be noted that the Bible of the Reformers was based on the
Traditional Text, and not the Alexandrian or Western line of manuscripts. THE
SPANISH The standard Spanish Bible is the Reina-Valera Version. The American
Bible Society refers to it as "the King James Version of the
Spanish-speakingworld." ("Remembering Casiodoro De Reina" in the Bible Society
Record, New York. 1969). Dr. Wilton Nelson writes, "(1969) marked the 400th
anniversaryof the Reina-Valera version of the Spanish Bible, which can be
thought of as the Hispanic-American counterpart of the King James Version."
("New Light from the Old Lamp" in the Latin American Evangelist; published by
the American Bible Society, Jan/Feb. 1970, p. 9). What the KJV is to the
English-speaking world, the Reina-Valera is to the Spanish-speaking world. It is
not the KJV translated into Spanish, for it was translated before 1611. It is
the labor of two men, Casidoro de Reina and Cipriano de Valera, who used the
Traditional Text to provide the Spanish-speaking world the word of God.

Casidoro de Reina (1520-1594) was the first to translate the Bible into Spanish.
His work took twelve years to complete at the cost of much personal sacrifice.
He was born in Seville and became a Roman Catholic monk. While at the San Isidro
Monastery of Seville, he heard the lectures of the Superior of the monastery,
Dr. Blanco Garcia Arias, who had been influenced by the preaching of the
Albigenses. Being exposed to the writings of the Reformers and reading the Old
Latin Bible of the Waldenses, Reina was converted to Protestantism.

Upon his conversion to the faith persecution fell on Reina, who had fled Spain
never to return in order to escape the claws of the Inquisition. Along with ten
of his friends, Reina arrived in Frankfurt, Germany in 1557. Two years later, he
moved to London and became the pastor of a group of Spanish Protestants who also
had escaped Spain and the Inquisition. Later, because of persecution found in
England, Reina and his wife fled to Antwerp in the Netherlands. During this
time, he worked on his Spanish Bible. In 1569 he published 2,600 copies of the
entire Bible in Spanish. It was nicknamed the "Bear Bible" because it used as
its symbol a bear retrieving honey from a tree. The Inquisition soon seized as
many copies of this version as possible and had them destroyed, calling it the
"most dangerous edition of the Bible." (The Cambridge History of the Bible by
Dr. S.L. Greenslade. Cambridge University Press, 1983, p.126). The Roman Church
had issued a decree stating "(The) Bible in Castilian (Spanish) romance or in
any other vulgar tongue (is prohibited)" (Ibid. p.125). This order came from the
Council of the Holy General Inquisition. Consequently, few copies of Reina’s
Spanish Version ever made it into Spain. However, it was greatly used by
Spanish-speaking refugees who fled Spain because of the persecution.

After the publication of his Bible, Reina organized a church which became noted
for its zeal and street evangelistic outreach in Frankfurt. He remained the
pastor of this church until his death on March 16th, 1594. To Spanish
Christians, Casiodoro de Reina was more than a Bible translator. He was a hero
in the Faith.

Cipriano de Valera (1531-1602) was one of Reina’s friends who fled Spain in
1557. Like Reina, Valera had been a monk at the San Isidro Monastery in Seville.
And, like Reina, it was there he first heard the gospel of redemption and was
converted. Soon after he arrived in Frankfurt, Valera moved to Geneva where he
became a follower of John Calvin. He became a street preacher and later moved to
England to study at the University of Cambridge. Afterwards, he taught at the
University of Oxford.

While in England, he translated Calvin’s Institutes into Spanish and wrote a
book entitled El Papa y la Misa (The Pope and the Mass). In it, he condemned the
service of the mass calling it pagan in origin, and the authority of the Pope.
While in England, he married and began a ministry to seamen as well as a
ministry to those who were imprisoned. In 1582, Valera began to revise the work
of Reina. His revision was very slight but thorough. At the age of 70, after 20
long years of working on his revision, Valera published what has become known as
the Reina-Valera Version. Valera wrote, "The reason that has motivated me to
make this edition was the same that motivated Casidoro de Reina. Who was
motivated by the pious Person, the Lord himself, and wanted to spread the glory
of God and make a clear service to his nation" (translated from Versiones
Castellanas De La Biblia. Published in Mexico by Casa De Publicasciones.
pp.38-39).

Valera believed his Bible was the perfect word of God for the Spanish-speaking
people. This is reflected in the Spanish History of the Bible stating, "The
authors(Reina and Valera) claim to have penetrated to the depths of Holy
Scriptures andhave translated with perfection the Greek and Hebrew languages."
(Ibid. p.19).

Since 1602, however, this Spanish version has undergone a few major revisions.
The two most noteworthy were done in 1909 and 1960.

Like Reina, Valera is a hero in the Faith. Because of his belief in personal
salvation by grace alone through faith, and his desire to see the word of God
published in Spanish, "Valera sufiro grande miseria" (Valera suffered great
misery) (Ibid. p.39). This book further states, "El Señor recompense a
sussiervos, Cipriano de Valera recibira un muy grande galardon de maños de su
Salvador. (When the Lord rewards his servants, Cipriano de Valera will receive a
great prize from the hand of the Saviour.) (Ibid.). THE EARLY ENGLISH BIBLES In
order to better understand the KJV, we must understand something about the
translations which preceded it into English, and the times in which the
translators of these versions lived.

There was no English Bible until 1382. In order to better understand this, we
must clarify two points. First of all the study of our language is divided into
three periods. They are Old English which dates from about 700 to 1100 AD. Next
comes Middle English which dates from 1100 to 1500 AD. Finally, we have Modern
English which dates from 1500 to the present (This is attested to by Dr.
Marjorie Anderson and Dr. Blanche Williams, both from Hunter College in New York
City, in their book Old English Handbook, pp.6-7). This is important because
some of these early versions date to Middle English. This leaves the date of the
KJV clearly in the Modern English era. Thus, we can understand why there was a
need for revision as the language changed in form, and we can also see that the
KJV is in fact a modern English translation and not an Old English one as some
have claimed.

Secondly, we must understand that during this time the right to translate the
Bible into English was prohibited by the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, to have
the Bible in any language other than Latin was forbidden. The belief of the
Church was that men would misunderstand and mistranslate the scriptures, and
they had the power of the state to enforce this belief. Their view was that
those who could read, read Latin. Those who could not read would not need a
Bible in their language. However, as stated in lesson five, simply because one
could not read would not stop others from reading to him. It would do that
person little good if all he heard was Latin and not the Bible in his own
language. Also, history has proven that once the Bible is in the language of the
people, they learn to read. For these and other reasons, there have been those
who were willing to risk their lives in order to provide the common man the word
of God.

WILLIAM TYNDALE (1494-1536) The name of William Tyndale has bore the slander of
the Roman Catholic Church. Catholic historian Rev. Henry G. Graham refers to
Tyndale as an inept rebellious priest who "was utterly unfitted for such a great
work (i.e. translating the NT into English)...a mediocre scholar, and could not
boast of anything above the average intellect." (Where We Got the Bible: Our
Debt to the Catholic Church, Tan Books and Pub., p. 123) And yet despite the
defamation of some, God saw fit to use William Tyndale to give us the first
English Bible printed on the printing press. And to set the stage for the
translations which followed.

John Foxe, in his Book of Martyrs, provides us with a differing picture of this
saint of God. Foxe informs us of his early training at the Universities of
Oxford and Cambridge, and as the schoolmaster who taught the children of the
Knight of Gloucestershire. Foxe also points out it was in this capacity that
Tyndale earned himself a reputation for being contentious with local priests who
would visit the Knight and his family. In reference to this, Foxe writes: And
when they (i.e. Catholic priests) at any time did vary from Tyndale in opinions,
he would show them in the book, and lay plainly before them the open and
manifest places of the Scriptures, to confute their errors, and confirm his
sayings. And thus continued they for a certain season, reasoning and contending
together divers times, till at length they waxed weary, and bare a secret grudge
in their hearts against him. (Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, p.136).

Despite his leanings towards Biblical debate, Foxe describes Tyndale as a
gracious man who opened his heart and home to strangers and offered fellowship
to all who wished it.

It was his openness and generosity that led to his demise. While in Antwerp,
Tyndale befriended a fellow Englishman, Henry Philips. Tyndale showed Philips
all his works, translations, plans, and personal theology. He trusted Philips as
a good man and fellow believer. Philips was neither. Like Judas of old, Philips
arranged with officers for the arrest of William Tyndale and then while in the
public street, pointed to Tyndale so the officials knew who to arrest. His crime
was the publishing of God’s word in the language of the people. Tyndale was
charged with heresy and sentenced to death by burning. While tied to the stake
and awaiting his fiery death, William Tyndale offered his final prayer before
being ushered into eternity; "Lord! Open the King of England’s eyes." (Foxe,
p.15). Thus once again the English Bible was purchased with the blood of the
saints.

Tyndale used the Traditional Text and laid the foundation for the KJV which
followed in the years to come. Although Tyndale translated a few Old Testament
books, his work was on the New Testament. The following passages are from
Tyndale’s New Testament and compared with the KJV. The spelling has been
modified to match the spelling found in the KJV. It is evident the work of
William Tyndale lives on, both in copies of his translations and in those who
used his New Testament as a basis for their labors.

TYNDALE

KJV

Mat 6:9-13 O our father which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Let thy
kingdom come. Thy will be fulfilled, as well in earth, as it is in heaven. Give
us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, even as we forgive
our trespassers. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For
thine is the kingdom and power, and the glory for ever. Amen.

Mat 6:9-13 Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom
come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily
bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into
temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power,
and the glory, for ever. Amen.

Mat 11:28-30 Come unto me all ye that labor and are laden and I will ease you.
Take my yoke on you and learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye
shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

Mat 11:28-30 Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will
give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly
in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my
burden is light.

Rom 12:1-2 I, beseech you therefore brethren, by the mercifulness of God, that
ye make your bodies a quick sacrifice, holy and acceptable unto God: which is
your reasonable serving of God and fashion not yourselves like unto this world:
but be ye changed in your shape, by the renewing of your wits that ye may feel
what thing that good, that acceptable, and perfect will of God is.

Rom 12:1-2 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye
present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your
reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by
the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable,
and perfect, will of God.

MILES COVERDALE (1488-1569)

William Tyndale had prayed that God would open the King of England’s eyes. The
King was Henry VIII. The prayer was answered in the work of Miles Coverdale.
Coverdale had befriended Anne Boleyn, the second wife of King Henry. In
addition, the chief minister to Henry was Thomas Cranmer the Archbishop of
Canterbury who encouraged Coverdale in his translational work. Thus, the Lord
was providing England and the English-speaking world with it first translation
with the approval of the King.

Biblical historian, F.F. Bruce correctly stated, "Next to Tyndale, the man to
whom lovers of the English Bible owe the greatest debt is Miles Coverdale." (The
English Bible, p. 53). God used Miles Coverdale in an unique way because
Coverdale labored with three early English translations. His own Coverdale’s
Bible (1535), the Great Bible (1539), and the Geneva Bible (1560). Indirectly he
helped with the Matthew’s Bible (1537), and the Bishops’ Bible (1568), as these
were revisions of his works. All of these early translations, along with
Tyndale’s Bible, were based on the Traditional Text and used by the translators
of the KJV in their work. These were the translations referred to by the KJV
translators when they wrote:

Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should
need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one,...but
to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not
justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavour, that our mark. (The
Translators to the Reader original Preface in the KJV by Dr. Miles Smith)

Miles Coverdale was born in Yorkshire, the birthplace of John Wycliffe, in 1488.
He was educated at Cambridge and became an Augustinian friar. In 1528, after
embracing the teachings of Martin Luther, Coverdale left the priesthood and was
forced to leave England. Coverdale soon became a disciple of William Tyndale and
took up his work of translating the Bible in the English language. His first
translation of the Old Testament as it is found in the Coverdale’s Bible was not
translated from Hebrew, but from German and Latin. His New Testament was a
revision of Tyndale’s New Testament. When he published his Bible in 1535 it
became the first complete Bible printed in English.

MATTHEW’S BIBLE (1537)

Thomas Matthew was the pseudonym of John Rogers (1500-1555). Rogers received his
degree from Cambridge in 1525 and became a priest in London. In 1534 he went to
Antwerp as chaplain to the Merchant Adventurers. There, he became associated
with William Tyndale and was converted to Protestantism. Rogers then went to
Wittenberg where he pastored a church with his wife and eight children. Under
the reign of Queen Mary, Rogers was charged with heresy and was burned alive for
the sake of the gospel. Once again the trail of the English Bible was covered
with blood. His work is a mixture of Tyndale and Coverdale. The NT is that of
William Tyndale’s as are the first five books of the OT and a never before
published copy of Tyndale’s translation of Joshua to 2 Chronicles. The rest of
the OT is the work of Coverdale. THE GREAT BIBLE (1539) This was the second
major work done by Miles Coverdale. It was called the Great Bible because of its
size. It is a very thick Bible with its pages measuring nine inches wide and
fifteen inches long. It was produced for English Churches with full approval by
the king, Henry VIII, in response to the prayer of William Tyndale. To some,
this is considered the first "authorized" Bible, because the king approved it
and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer, oversaw it. This version was
based on the Traditional Text of the NT, and was compared with the Old Latin
Text. It never became great with the public and ceased publication within thirty
years. The desire for an English Bible still remained, one the average
Englishman could hold in his hands and read in his home. Not one that was the
size of the Great Bible, which was chained to the alter of English churches.
This need was met with the Geneva Bible which followed. THE GENEVA BIBLE (1560)
In 1553, Mary became Queen of England and began a fiery persecution against
Protestants. The Great Bible was removed from churches, and many Christians fled
the country in order to escape her religious wrath. Many of these found refuge
in Geneva. Knowing the need of preserving God’s word in English, many scholars
who had either suffered persecution under Mary, or had fled because of the
persecution she produced, translated the NT in 1557 and the whole Bible in 1560.
This translation became known as the Geneva Bible. This version was produced in
a handy size using Roman type which made it easier to carry and read. It also
contained several notations which the Catholic Church found offensive. For
example, the notation found in Rev 9:3, which describes the locust coming out of
the pit, reads, "Locust are false teachers, heretics and worldly, subtle
prelates, with monks, friars, cardinals, archbishops, bishops, doctors,
bachelors, and masters, which forsake Christ to maintain false doctrine." The
Geneva Bible made use of not only the Traditional Text in the NT, but also the
Hebrew Masoretic Text in the OT. And, unlike the previous translations, it was
the work of a committee and not the work of one man or a revision of one man’s
work. THE BISHOPS’ BIBLE (1568)

Perhaps the loveliest Bible printed was the Bishops’ Bible, being endowed with a
plethora of woodcuttings throughout its edition. It was produced after the
terror of Queen Mary by the Church of England with the aid of many English
Bishops, hence its name. It had fewer notes than the Geneva Bible, and was given
for the purpose of standardizing the British subjects with one standard Bible.
However, it was not successful in this task. Because this version was issued
under the authority of Queen Elizabeth, it is considered the second authorized
Bible for the English-speaking world. A GOOD ONE BETTER

One line from the Preface to the KJV is often cited by supporters of modern
versions. It has to do with the goal of the KJV translators in making a good
translation better. In his tract entitled, Pick a Bible, Any Bible, Mr. Terry
Alverson cites Dr. Miles Smith of the KJV translation committee and states,
"Obviously Smith and his co-workers did not undertake the task of translating
the KJV with the intent that it was to be the only Bible. Quite the contrary. It
appears the 1611 KJV translators would be the first to applaud a modern day
effort to ’make a good translation better.’ "(p.2).

One wonders if the claim that the KJV translators would be the first to applaud
a modern day effort is correct in light of their full statement. The context of
Dr. Smith’s citation is given below:

Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should
need to make a new translation, nor yet to make a bad one a good one, (for then
the imputation of Sixtus had been true in some sort, that our people had been
fed with gall of dragons instead of wine, with whey instead of milk:) but to
make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principle good one, not
justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavour, that our mark. The
history of all the "good ones" which predated the KJV shows that they were all
based upon the same Greek line of manuscripts; the Traditional Text. Further, it
should be noted that the translators said their goal was NOT to make a bad one
good, else the accusation from the Pope that the translators were feeding their
people with "gall of dragons" might have some basis. Their goal was to make "one
principle one" from the good ones which predated the KJV. Clearly, this is not
an affirmation to alter the text based on either the Alexandrian or Western line
of manuscripts.

Likewise, the KJV translators spoke of the need for many translations. Some have
used this to justify the use of modern versions based on a differing line of
manuscripts. Jame R. White writes, "When the very preface to the KJV says,
’variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the
Scriptures,’ it is obvious that the KJV Only position is proven utterly
ahistorical thereby. The position requires the translator to be something its
own authors never intended it to be." (The King James Only Controversy, pp.
76-77). The context of this statement was the use of marginal notes to explain
the meaning of some Hebrew and Greek words which either carry several meanings
or for rare animals. Please note the full context of the phrase in question:

There be many words in the Scriptures which be never found there but once,
(having neither brother nor neighbour, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot
be holpen by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain
birds, beasts, and precious stones, &c., concerning which the Hebrews themselves
are so divided among themselves for judgement . . .Now in such a case, doth not
a margin do well to admonish the reader to seek further, and not to conclude or
dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity,
to doubt of those things that are evident, so to determine of such things as the
Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgement of the judicious) questionable,
can be no less than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety
of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the
Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin where the text
is not so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.
With these thoughts in mind, let us consider for a moment the content of these
early English versions as they compare with any one of the modern versions based
on the theories of modern textual scholars.

Mat 6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is
the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. (KJV). And leade us
not into temptation: but delyver us from evyll. For thyne is the kyngedome and
the power, and the glorye for ever. Amen. (Tyndale) And leade us not into
temptacyon: but delyver us from evyll. For thyne is the kyngdome and the power,
and the glorye for ever. Amen. (Great Bible) And lead us not into tentation, but
deliver us from evill: for thyne is the kyngdome, and the power, and the glory
for ever. Amen. (Geneva) And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from
evill: for thine is the kingdome, and the power and the glory, for ever, Amen.
(Bishops’) And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.
(ASV) And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil. (RSV) And lead
us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. (NIV) Did you notice
something is missing? But I thought that all they were doing is following in the
line of the KJV and making a good one better? Or perhaps, they are doing more
than that. Consider some further examples.

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in
the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (KJV) No man hath sene God at eny
tyme. The only begotten sonne, which is in the bosome of the father, he hath
declared him. (Tyndale) No man hath sene God at eny tyme. The onely begotten
sonne, whych is in the bosome of the father, he hath declared hym. (Great Bible)
No man hathe sene God at any time: the onlely begotten Sonne, which is in the
bosome of the Father, he hathe declared him. (Geneva) No man hath seene God at
any time, the onely begotten Sonne, which is in the bosome of the Father, he
hath declared him. (Bishop’s) No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten
God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. (NASV) No one has
ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made
him known. (NIV) No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is
in the bossom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him.
(NWT)

Luk 9:56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save
them. And they went to another village. (KJV) The sonne of man is not come to
destroye mennes lives, but to save them. And they went to another toune.
(Tyndale: note in this version the verse is found in verses 55 and 56) For the
sonne of man is not come to destroye mennes lyves, but to save them. And they
went to another towne. (Great Bible) For the Sonne of man is not come to
destroye mens lives, but to save them. Then they went to another towne. (Geneva)
For the sonne of man is not come to destroy mens lives, but to save them. And
they went to another village.(Bishop’s) And they went on to another village.
(RSV: Note the phrase missing is not found in verse 55, as it was in Tyndales.
It is removed altogether.) and they went on to another village. (NEV) And they
went on to another village. (NASV)

Col 1:14 in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of
sins: (KJV) in whom we have redempcion thorow his bloud, that is to saye the
forgevens of synnes. (Tyndale) by whom we have redemcion thorowe his bloude even
the forgevenes of sinnes. (Great Bible) In whom we have redemption through his
bloode, (that is,) the forgiveness of sinnes. (Geneva) In whom we have
redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sinnes: (Bishop’s) in whom
we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. (NIV) by whom we are set free, that
is, our sins are forgiven. (TEV) Through him we have redemption, the forgiveness
of our sins. (NAV) in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. (NRSV)

Rom 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no
more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is
no more work. (KJV)

Yf it be of grace, then is it not of works. For then were grace no moare grace.
Yf it be of works, then is it no moare grace. For then were deservinge no lenger
deservinge. (Tyndale)

If it be of grace, then is it not now of workes. For then grace is no more
grace. But If it be of workes, then is it now no grace. For then were deservynge
nomore deservynge. (Great Bible) And if (it be) of grace, it is no more of
workes; or els were grace no more grace: but if it be of workes, it is no more
grace: or els were worke no more worke. (Geneva)

If it bee of grace, then is it not nowe of workes: for then grace is no more
grace. But if it be of workes, then is it now no grace, for then worke is no
more worke. (Bishop’s) But if it is by grace, it is no more of works: otherwise
grace is no more grace. (Revelation, 1881) And if by grace, then it is no longer
by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace. (NIV) But if it is by
grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace would no longer be
grace. (NRSV)

Mark 1:1-2 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is
written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before they face, which
shall prepare thy way before thee. (KJV) The beginnynge of the Gospell of Jesu
Christ the sonne of God, as it is written in the Prophets: beholde I sende my
messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy waye befoe the. (Tyndale) The
begynnynge of the Gospell of Jesu Chryst the sonne of God, as it is written in
the Prophets, behold, I sende my messenger before thy face which shall prepare
thy waye before the. (Great Bible) The begynnynge of the Gospell of Jesus
Christe, the Sonne of God: As it is written in the Prophetes, Behold, I send my
messenger before thy face, whiche shal prepare thy way before thee. (Geneva) The
beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Sonne of God, As it hath bene
written in the Prophets, Bhholde, I sende my messenger before they face, which
shall prepare thy way before thee. (Bishops’) The beginning of the gospel of
Jesus Christ, the Son of God. As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold, I
send My messenger before Your face, Who will prepare Your way; (NASV. The OT
citation comes from Mal 3:1 in verse two of Mark. It is not until verse three
that there is a citation from Isaiah) The beginning of the gospel about Jesus
Christ, the Son of God. It is written in Isaiah the prophet: I will send my
messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way (NIV)

[The] beginning of the good news about Jesus Christ: Just as it is written in
Isaiah the prophet: (Look! I am sending forth my messenger before your face, who
will prepare your way;)<<(NWT)

These are but a few examples of the many changes made in modern versions. In
each case the early English translations agreed with the KJV. To claim that what
the KJV did in 1611 to the early English versions which predated it, is what
modern versions are doing to the KJV simply is untrue. Dr. Miles Smith stated
that their goal as translators in 1611 was NOT to make a BAD one good. Instead,
from the many good ones based on the Traditional Text, to make one better. This
they accomplished only by the good grace of God upon them. In our next lesson we
will look deeper into the history and text of the greatest version the world has
ever seen; the Authorized King James Version of 1611.

QUESTIONS FROM STUDENTS

One student writes, "If the KJV is the only real Bible for Christians then why
does it have errors in it? A book about different translations by Lewis points
out more than quite a few. And I’ve found that inRom 1:1the word ’doulos’ is
translated as ’servant’ when it should be ’slave.’ And inRom 1:3the words ’Jesus
Christ our Lord’ appear when they should be at the end of verse 4." The question
begins with two false assumptions. First that the KJV is the only real Bible for
Christians. Second that it has error in it. As we have stated time and again
throughout these lessons, my belief is that the KJV is the preserved word of God
for the English-speaking people without any proven error. Lessons one, two,
five, and this one all state that I have not claimed the KJV to be the Bible for
all the world, or the only Bible ever given. There were Bibles before the KJV
and in languages other than English which were the preserved word of God without
any proven error. I simply believe the KJV is for the English-speaking people. I
further believe it stands without any proven error, and have for several years
now been looking to see if anyone could prove an error in it. To date, they have
not. In lessons to come we will cover many of the so-called errors as given by
James R. White, D. A. Carson, Jack Lewis, and others. In fact, a few lessons
will be dedicated to the issues raised by these men. But for now, please allow
me to address the issue at hand. In Rom 1:1 Paul uses the Greek word "doulos."
The claim is made that the KJV is in error because it translates the word as
servant instead of slave. However, the claim is without warrant because "doulos"
means both. One of the standard texts for learning NT Greek is J. Gresham
Machen’s New Testament Greek For Beginners. It was my first year Greek book when
I attended Cedarville College. In the building of vocabularies under
Greek-English Vocabulary, Machen states, "doulos, o; a slave, a servant." (p.
258).

Machen is not alone. In Dr. Ray Summers’ book, Essentials of New Testament
Greek, he translates "doulos, o, slave, servant" (Broadman Press, p.157). Both
Machen and Summers are first year Greek studies. Dr. Harold Moulton expands on
this in his Analytical Greek Lexicon: "doulos; enslaved, enthralled,
subservient, a male slave, or servant, of various degrees" (Zondervan, p. 106).
In An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, by W. E. Vine, he states
"Doulos, an adjective, signifying ’in bondage,’. . .is used as a noun, and as
the most common and general word for ’servant,’ frequently indicating subjection
without the idea of bondage" (Revell Company, p. 347). And finally, Dr. Jack
Lewis in his book, The English Bible: KJV to NIV, states that the NASV
translates "doulos" four different ways including both slave and servant (p.
343).

It would seem from this information that the objection is without substance. The
second part of the question deals with Rom 1:3-4.

Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David
according to the flesh; And declared to be the Son of God with power, according
to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: (KJV) concerning
His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, who was
declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according
to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord, (NASV) The student is correct
in stating that in the Greek the phrase "Jesus Christ our Lord" appears at the
end of verse four and not in verse three in the Greek text. This is not,
however, an error. It is the form of translation. The question is a good one;
why does the KJV read "his Son Jesus Christ our Lord" when the Greek has "tou
uiou autou" (his Son) several words before "Iesou Cristou tou keriou emon"
(Jesus Christ our Lord)? The answer has to do with the understanding of how
Greeks worded sentences. In Greek the phrase "his Son" and "Jesus Christ our
Lord" both have endings in "ou." Greeks tied word order together by the endings
of Greek words. All of these stand in what is called the (masculine, singular)
genative case. They are the same endings, showing they are to be tied together.
Again, citing from Machen, The normal order of the sentence in Greek is like
that in English--subject, verb, object. There is no special tendency, as in
Latin, to put the verb at the end. But Greek can vary the order for purposes of
emphasis or euphony much more freely than English. . .The English translation
must be determined by observing the endings, not by observing the order. (New
Testament Greek for Beginners, pp.26-27).

It is a matter of choice, not an issue of mistranslation. The NASV is neither
less correct nor more correct in translating the phrase at the end of verse
four. It is a choice. As long as the reader understands that "Jesus Christ our
Lord" has to do with "his Son" the translation is correct. The NASV, NIV, RSV,
NRSV (and most all others) simply tie the thought together by having the phrase
at the end. The KJV ties the thought together as a Greek reading it would. Both
are correct translations.

There is one final thought. At least the whole phrase "Jesus Christ our Lord"
appears in both translations in this passage. This is not true of either Acts
8:37 or Rom 16:24. In both of these passages the NASV, along with most modern
versions, omit the verse and Jesus Christ our Lord altogether. In fact the NASV
omits the name "Jesus" 58 times in the NT (such as in Mat 4:12; Mat 4:18; Mat
4:23; John 3:2; Acts 9:29; and 1Pe 5:10; 1Pe 5:14). "Christ" is removed from the
NASV 38 times (such as in Mat 23:8; John 6:69; 1Co 16:22-23; 1Ti 2:7; and 1Jn
4:3). And "Lord" is missing 35 times from the NASV (such as in Mark 11:10; Luk
9:57; Luk 9:59; Rom 6:11; Gal 6:17; Col 1:2; and Rev 16:5). Even in Romans
chaper one there is an omission. Notice verse sixteen states, "For I am not
ashamed of the gospel of Christ: . . ." (KJV). Modern versions omit "of Christ."
I would think that the omission of "Jesus," "Christ," and "Lord," are of a
greater impact than the word order as it appears in the Greek NT; especially
when that word order is in full agreement with the thinking, writing, and
reading of Greek believers.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 7: 07 LESSON SEVEN
========================================================================

LESSON SEVEN: The Authorized Version Where the word of a king is, there is
power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou? (Ecc 8:4) The Authorized King
James Version is the word of the King. It not only contains the name of the
monarch who ruled England in 1611, but it speaks with royal majesty proclaiming
the words of the King of Kings. No translation of the Bible has had a greater
impact on the English-speaking people as has the KJV. This is not opinion, but
fact. In literature, it stands immortal with the writings of Shakespeare and
other great poets, even though its translators were not poets. In history, it
has affected English-speaking nations as no other book has, and for many was the
basis for learning to read and write. It has shaped our culture and thinking
about ourselves and our God. In theology, it has stood as the very words of our
God. Of late, it has fallen under attack. Not by the skeptic who has always
doubted God and His word, but by the scholar. Because of this, many have built
faulty argumentation in order to discredit the KJV as the preserved words of
God. It is, therefore, essential for us to understand the history of the
Authorized Version in order to disavow the contentions of those who wish to
discredit the work and word of God among the English peoples.

JAMES I OF ENGLAND (1566-1625):

Some have falsely thought that the King James Bible was the translation of King
James I of England. Others have tried to discredit the KJV because of the King
himself. One has nothing to do with the other. James did not translate the
Bible, and his character has little to do with the translation which bears his
name. He was the King of England in 1611 when the Authorized Version was
completed, and it was under his authority that the translators began their
endeavor.

James was born in Scotland and was the only son of Mary, Queen of Scots. His
famous mother was a strict Roman Catholic; however, James was raised a staunch
Protestant. He had a love for sports as well as for scholarship. King Henry IV
of France referred to James as "the wisest fool in Christendom" (King James VI
of Scotland: I of England by Lady Antonia Fraser, 1974. p. 9). And yet, the
Christian should keep in mind the words found in 1Co 1:25-29.

Dr. Charles Ryrie says of King James, "Now this was. . . an odd king. By eight,
it was said, he could translate any chapter of the Bible from Latin to French to
English. He knew Italian, Hebrew, Greek, and had learned large portions of the
Word. He was apparently an effeminate man; so one writer has called him, ’Queen
James who succeeded King Elizabeth’. He was undoubtedly a vain man, not really
popular because he held to the absolute superiority of the king, and not the
Parliament." ("Oddities of the King James Bible," cited from The Christian
Librarian Vol. 18, No. 1 & 2 in Oct-Dec., 1974. p.14)

British author Caroline Bingham provides an interesting assessment of this
English monarch. "At seventeen he was a remarkable youth who had already
achieved an intellectual and political maturity; already he was recognizable as
the canny and learned King who never achieved wisdom, who committed follies but
was not a fool." (The Making of a King, Doubleday and Comp., 1969. p.15).

Lady Antonia Fraser adds to our understanding of King James in the conclusion of
her book. She writes, "Let us assess James by his own sonnet at the start of
Basilikon Doron, when he laid down the precepts for a King: ’God gives not Kings
the style of Gods in vain, For on his throne his Scepter do they sway: And as
their subject ought them to obey, So Kings should fear and serve their God
again.’ Perhaps James did not have the style of a God, and erred in thinking
that it had been granted to him. Nor did he create it for himself as Elizabeth
had created the style of a Goddess. But he did fear God and attempt to serve Him
by his own lights. As a result, his subject, even if they did not always obey
him, were not so badly served by him after all." (Fraser, p. 214). Of his
legacy, Sir Frederic Kenyon has written, "The Authorized Version may be put down
as the best deed ever done by James I. . ." (The Story of the Bible, p. 40) THE
TRANSLATION:

Shortly after James became King of England, he was approached by Dr. John
Rainolds concerning various issues facing the English Church. Rainolds, a
Puritan and later one of the translators, made the following proposal within his
address to the king. He stated, "May your Majesty be pleased to direct that the
Bible be now translated, such versions as are extant not answering to the
original." This delighted James, who responded with, "I profess, I could never
yet see a Bible well translated in English, but I think that of Geneva is the
worst." This discourse occurred at Hampton Court on Monday, January 16th, 1604.
Within a few short months Bishop Richard Bancroft was notified to appoint
certain learned men, numbering about fifty-four for the purpose of translating
the word of God. Although the actual number of translators who worked on the KJV
remains a mystery (because some died before the work was completed), the
following list of names survives as known translators. These men were divided
into three groups located at Westminster, Oxford, and Cambridge. Each group was
divided into two sections; one worked on the Old Testament, the other on the New
Testament. Only the group at Cambridge had a team working on the Jewish
Apocrypha.

WESTMINSTER OT (Genesis-Kings)

Dr. Lancelot Andrewes, Dean of Westminster. Mr. William Bedwell, St. John’s
College, Cambridge. Dr. Francis Burleigh, Pembroke Hall, Cambridge. Dr. Richard
Clarke, Fellow of Christ’s College, Cambridge. Mr. Jeffrey King, Fellow of
King’s College, Cambridge. Dr. John Layfield, Fellow of Trinity College. Dr.
John Overall, Dean of St. Paul’s.

Dr. Hadrian Saravia, Canon of Canterbury. Dr. Robert Tigue, Archdeacon of
Middlesex. Mr. Richard Thomson, Clare Hall, Cambridge.

NT (Romans-Jude) Dr. William Barlow, Dean of Chester.

Mr. William Dakins, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. Dr. Roger Fenton,
Fellow of Pembroke Hall, Cambridge. Dr. Ralph Hutchinson, Archbishop of St.
Alban’s. Mr. Michael Rabbett, Trinity College, Cambridge. Dr. Thomas Sanderson,
Balliol College, Oxford. Dr. John Spenser, President of Corpus Christi College,
Oxford.

OXFORD OT (Isaiah-Malachi)

Dr. Richard Brett, Fellow of Lincoln College. Dr. Daniel Featley (also know as
Daniel Fairclough), Fellow of New College. Dr. John Harding, President of
Magdalen College. Dr. Thomas Holland (no known relation), Rector of Exeter
College. Mr. Richard Kilby, Rector of Lincoln College. Dr. John Rainolds,
President of Corpus Christi College. Dr. Miles Smith, Canon of Hereford.

NT (Matt.-Acts and Revelation) Dr. George Abbot, Dean of Winchester.

Dr. John Aglionby, Rector of Blechindon.

Dr. John Harmer, Fellow of New College.

Dr. Leonard Hutton, Bishop of Gloucester. Dr. John Perin, Fellow of St. John’s
College. Dr. Thomas Ravis, Fellow of St. John’s College. Sir Hanry Savile,
Provost of Eaton.

Dr. Giles Thomson, Dean of Windsor.

CAMBRIDGE OT (1 Chron.- Ecc.)

Mr. Roger Andrews, Master of Jesus College. Mr. Andrew Bing, Fellow of St.
Peter’s College. Mr. Laurence Chaderton, Master of Emmanuel College. Mr. Francis
Dillingham, Fellow of Christ’s College. Mr. Thomas Harrison, Vice-Master of
Trinity College. Mr. Edward Lively, Fellow of Trinity College. Mr. John
Richardson, Master of Trinity College. Mr. Robert Spalding, Fellow of St. John’s
College.

Apocrypha

Dr. John Bois, Fellow of St. John’s College (later he edited Rom-Rev.). Dr.
William Branthwaite, Master of Caius College. Mr. Andrew Downes, Fellow of St.
John’s College. Dr. John Duport, Master of Jesus College. Dr. Jeremy Radcliffe,
Fellow of Trinity College. Dr. Samuel Ward, Master of Sidney College. Mr. Robert
Ward, Fellow of King’s College.

These translators were great scholars. Many laid the foundation for linguistical
studies which followed. They spent most of their time in pursuit of knowledge
and the development of Biblical languages. Some, while waxing eloquent in Latin
or Greek, fared rather poorly with their native English. Gustavus S. Paine noted
in his book, The Men Behind the King James Version, that these "men were minor
writers, though great scholars, doing superb writing. Their task lifted them
above themselves, while they learned firmly on their subject." (p. vii).
Alexander Whyte also notes about Dr. Lancelot Andrewes, who was the chairman of
the translation committee, "All his days Andrewes never could write the English
language with any beauty or purity or good taste," (Lancelot Andrews and his
Private Devotions, p. 3). Yet, they were able to reach beyond themselves. Again
Paine makes the following assessment:

Though we may challenge the idea of word-by-word inspiration, we surely must
conclude that these were men able, in their profound moods, to transcend their
human limits. In their own words, they spake as no other men spake because they
were filled with the Holy Ghost. Or, in the clumsier language of our time, they
so adjusted themselves to each other and to the work as to achieve a unique
coordination and balance, functioning thereafter as an organic entity--no mere
mechanism equal to the sum of its parts, but a whole greater than all of them.
(p. 173). The translation went through a series of committees, all consisting of
the translators themselves. Upon finishing the assigned portion given to him, a
translator would meet with the first committee and read the work he translated.
Those within the committee followed the reading from various sources, such as
the original languages, early English translations, and foreign translations
including German, French, Italian, and Spanish. If there were no differences
concerning the translation the reader read on. If there were differences, the
committee would reach a consensus before proceeding. The findings were then
presented to the other two companies for their committees to review in like
fashion. If these committees differed at any given point, the differences were
compounded and presented to a third committee consisting of twelve members. This
committee (known as the General Meeting) reviewed what the previous committees
had produced and agreed upon the finished translation before presenting the work
to two final editors, Bishop Thomas Bilson and Dr. Miles Smith.

TRUE REWARDS:

Some have erroneously stated that the translators were paid for their efforts or
rewarded with political advancements. This is, however, simply not the case. Dr.
Jack Lewis has correctly stated that, "Though the king contributed no money to
its production, and though no record of an official authorization of the
finished product survives (if such were ever given), the Bible came to be known
as the King James Bible." (The English Bible: From KJV to NIV, p.29). This is in
direct opposition to those, such as James White, who have claimed that the King
paid for the translation and offered political advancement for those who worked
on it. "Technically the KJV belongs to the English crown, which authorized and
paid for its translation nearly four hundred years ago." (The King James Only
Controversy, p. 244). "Some, in fact, may have harbored less than perfect
motivations for their work. Some hoped to gain favor with the king and
advancement in their positions through their work on the translation itself.
Some were far too enamored with the idea of royalty, a problem not too uncommon
in that day." (Ibid. pp. 70-71). The only evidence offered is a misstating of G.
S. Paine’s book, The Men Behind the King James Version. At no time does Paine
suggest the translators had any such motives. White tries to prove his claim
with the example of William Barlow (White, p. 88) as one who sought the kings
favor. However, this is not what Paine wrote. Instead Paine states, "About kings
and queens, Barlow was always sound," and that "King James greatly approved of
him." (Paine, p. 43). There is no hint in Paine’s book that Barlow, or any of
the translators, sought to be on the translational committee in order to gain
favor with the King. The historical truth is that payment did not come from the
crown, but from the Church. Funds were raised and received for the purpose of
sustaining the translators during their work on the translation, but they were
not given financial reward (John Dore, Old Bibles: An Account of the Early
Versions of the English Bible, 1888, p. 325). It is true that several of the
translators did advance within the Church after the translation was complete,
but this was due to their ability, not as a reward for their effort. These
advancement came from within the Church, not from the crown. Their greatest
reward was in the fruit of their labor, the KJV itself. The translators wrote,
"But among all our joys, there was no one that more filled our heart than the
blessed continuance of the preaching of God’s sacred Word among us, which is
that inestimable treasure which excelleth all the riches of earth; because the
fruit thereof extendeth itself, not only to the time spent in this transitory
world, but directeth and disposeth men unto that eternal happiness which is
above in heaven." (From the Dedicatory of the KJV). THE CUM PRIVILEGIO:

Another common myth concerning the KJV is that it was under the sole printing
authority of the crown. There were no copyrights in those days, but some have
suggested that the KJV was the Cum Privilegio (i.e. with privilege) of King
James and the English crown, and that only the royal printer could publish the
KJV. In addressing the KJV Only advocates, James White states, "But we should
point out that the KJV carries what is called the Cum Privilegio. Technically
the KJV belongs to the English crown, . . .the KJV was first printed by the
royal printer, and that for a hundred years no one else could print it. Does
this not sound pretty much like a modern copyright? It would seem so. So again
we find the KJV Only argument to be inconsistent, involving a double standard."
(White, p. 244). This statement is totally in error. The Royal Printer was
Robert Barker. However, we find that the KJV was printed both in England and
outside the country by others, not counting Barker. Consider the following
statements: In the year 1642, a folio edition of King James’s Version was
printed at Amsterdam by "Joost Broersz, dwelling in the Pijlsteegh, in the
Druckerije.". . . The notes of the King James’s Bible are omitted, and the
arguments and annotations of the "Breeches" Bible are inserted in their place.
(John R. Dore, Old Bibles: An Account of the Early Versions of the English
Bible, p. 345) In fact, Bibles with the KJV text but with Geneva notes were
printed in Holland in 1642, 1672, 1683, 1708, 1715 and in England in 1649. (Jack
Lewis, The English Bible: From KJV to NIV, p. 29). A small octavo Testament was
issued at Edinburgh, by the Heirs of Hart, in 1628 (the Anfro Hart whose
"Breeches" Bible were so highly esteemed). This is the first Testament printed
in Scotland of King James’s Version. (Dore, pp. 338- 339).

Although the Universities always claimed the right to print the Bible, Cambridge
had not exercised that right since the year 1589; but in 1628 a duodecimo
Testament was published at Cambridge, by the printers to the University, and the
following year Thomas and John Buck issued the first Cambridge Bible. (Dore, p.
339). The University of Oxford did not begin to print Bibles until the year
1675, when the first was issued in quarto size; the spelling was revised by Dr.
John Fell, Dean of Oxford. (Dore, p. 346). In England, the printing of the
Authorized or King James Version of the Bible (KJV) and the Book of Common
Prayer (BCP) of 1662 is the monopoly of the Royal Printer, by virtue of a patent
first granted to Christopher Barker in 1577. Only the University Presses of
Cambridge and Oxford are permitted by royal charter to override this monopoly;
one other publisher, originally Scottish, is an accepted interloper. (M. H.
Black, The Oxford Companion to the Bible, 1993, p. 617). By its royal charter of
1534, the University of Cambridge had acquired the perpetual right to appoint
three printers, who could print "all manner of books." The right preexisted
Barker’s patent, and was taken to cover Bibles, so Cambridge printed a Geneva
Bible in 1591 and its first KJV in 1629. Oxford acquired a similar charter in
1636, and in the 1670s printed Bibles. (Black, p.618).

Once again, the evidence shows that the attacks against the KJV are unwarranted.
THE APOCRYPHA: An objection to the KJV which often arises today is that when
first printed the KJV contained the Apocrypha. It was placed between the Old and
New Testament, which was common for English Bibles in those days. However, they
did not consider the Apocrypha inspired scripture. They placed it between the
Testaments as historical record and Jewish poetry. This is noted in the Preface
to the Geneva Bible:

These books that follow in order after the Prophets unto the New Testament, are
called Apocrypha, that is books, which were not received by a common consent to
be read and expounded publicly in the Church, neither yet served to prove any
point of Christian religion, save in as much as they had the consent of the
other Scriptures called Canonical to confirm the same, or rather whereon they
were grounded: but as books preceding from godly men, were received to be read
for the advancement and furtherance of the knowledge of the history, and for the
insurrection of godly manners: which books declare that at all times God had an
especial care of his Church and left them not utterly destitute to teachers and
means to confirm them in the hope of the promised Messiah, and also witness that
those calamities that God sent to his Church, were according to his providence,
who had both so threatened by his Prophets, and so brought it to pass for the
destruction of their enemies, and for the trial of his children.

Likewise, the translators of the Authorized Version did not give the Apocrypha
the respect they had given the Holy Scriptures. In addition to placing the
Apocrypha between the testaments, the translators did not entitle it on the
cover page as they had the Old and New Testaments. The cover page in the 1611
edition makes no mention of the Apocrypha whatever. The statement reads, "The
Holy Bible, Conteyning the Old Testament, and the New." When the Apocrypha is
introduced between the two testaments, the introduction simply reads, "Books
called Apocrypha." Additionally, both the Old and New Testaments have elaborate
engravings placed at the beginning of each testaments; the Apocrypha does not.

Furthermore, the translators of the Authorized Version did not malign the
canonical books the way they did the Apocrypha. At 1 Esdras 5:5 the margin
states, "This place is corrupt," a marginal reading nowhere found in either of
the testaments. In the addition to the book of Esther they noted, "The rest of
the Chapters of the Booke of Esther, which are found neither in the Hebrew, nor
in the Calde."

REVISIONS: A popular argument used to oppose the KJV is to ask which edition of
the KJV is the preserved word of God. The thought is to assume that the text of
the Authorized Version has been changed. If changes in the text have occurred,
then there would be justification for additional revisions such as we have
today. The truth of this is that the text has not really been changed at all.
The revisions of the KJV dealt with the correction of early printing errors, or
the formation of the text to reflect today’s style of writing and spelling. The
verses, however, have remained the same.

There have been four major revisions of the Authorized Version. They took place
in 1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769. Our current editions reflect the revision of
1769. The 1762 revision was the work of Dr. Paris of the University at
Cambridge. The work of this revision laid the foundation for most modern
editions of the text. He made extensive use of the italics and modernized most
of the spelling. His edition also added several marginal references. The 1769
edition came from Oxford, and was the work of Dr. Balyney. In this edition
several additional revisions were made in correcting earlier printing errors,
spelling, and expanding marginal and introductory notes. This edition has become
the standard by which modern texts are printed. This can be illustrated by the
following example from Gal 1:1-5. However, some of the style of printing cannot
be illustrated in the class as e-mail will not permit such changes in fonts.

King James Version 1612 edition

King James Version current edition

1. Paul an Apostle not of men, neither by man, but by Iesus Christ, and God the
Father, who reised him from the dead,

1. Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God
the Father, who raised him from the dead;)

2. And all the brethren which are with me, vnto the Churches of Galatia: 3.
Grace be to you and peace, from God the Father, and from our Lord Iesus Christ;

2. And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia: 3.
Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,

4. Who gaue himself for our fins, that he might deliuer vs fro this present euil
world, according to the will of God,&our Father. 5. To whom be glory for euer
and euer, Amen.

4. Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present
evil world, according to the will of God and our Father: 5. To whom be glory for
ever and ever. Amen.

The difference between the early editions of the King James Bible and current
ones would reflect the differences in both spelling and the way a word was
written, and minor adjustments to the text. Thus *fro* becomes *from,* and
*God,&our Father* becomes *God and our Father.* *Iesus Christ* becomes *Jesus
Christ,* and *deliuer vs* is changed to *deliver us*. There are also changes in
certain words as to capitalization. *Apostle* or *apostle,* and *Churches* or
*churches.* Likewise, some words are italicized that were not italicized before;
such as *be* and *from* in verse 3. The text, however, has not been altered.

Other revisions sought to correct printing errors. Sometimes a word was omitted
by the printer, or words were printed twice. These were corrected in order to
produce the text as the translators gave it. One edition, for example, left out
the word *not* in a few of the Ten Commandments, thus earning it the nickname of
*The Wicked Bible.* Even today with computerized checking of the text, printing
errors can occur. This does not mean that there is no preserved word of God, nor
does this mean that the text of the KJV is corrupt. It does mean that sometimes
printers have made mistakes, and the four major revisions of the KJV have sought
to correct such errors.

Again, it must be asserted that the text of the KJV has come to us unaltered.
What has changed is the correction of printing errors, changes in punctuation
and italics, orthography and calligraphy. This was verified by the American
Bible Society in a report published in 1852 (after the fourth major revision of
the KJV took place) entitled Committee on Versions to the Board of Managers. An
additional report was issued in 1858 by the ABS entitled, Report of the
Committee on Versions to the Board of Managers of the American Bible Society.
Apart from the changes just listed, the reports stated that, "The English Bible
as left by the translators has come down to us unaltered in respect to its
text." (1852, p.7. Also see the 1858 report, pp. 1-20). This is further attested
to by scholar and collector of early English Bibles, John R. Dore. In a study
published by the Royal Printers in 1888, Dore stated, "That pearl of great
price, the English Bible of 1611, remained so long without alteration, that many
of us had forgotten that it was only one of a series of versions." (Dore,
p.iii). Notice that Dore stated that in all the revisions of the KJV, it has
remained so long without alteration. It is with confidence that the
Bible-believer can say that their Authorized Version is the same as it was in
1611. For almost four-hundred years now God has blessed the King James Bible. It
taught many of our forefathers to read, and most how to live. It was the Bible
that united God’s people, regardless of their denomination. And, it has been
responsible for sending more souls to heaven than any of its predecessors. Even
though the NIV is reported to have outsold the KJV for the past few years, the
Authorized Version still remains the Bible of the people. A recent poll
conducted by the American Bible Society stated that nearly all Americans own at
least one version of the Bible. Even with the variety of modern versions
available to the English reader, approximately two-thirds of those surveyed
claim the Authorized Version as their Bible. The King James Version still
remains the most reproduced translation for the purpose of evangelistic
outreach.

I close this section of the lesson with a listing of a few testimonies
concerning the richness and value of this, the preserved word of God. The Right
Rev. Henry G. Graham (Catholic Historian): "Hence a large band of translators
was appointed and in 1611 there was finished and published what has proved to be
the best Protestant version that ever appeared--one which has exercised an
enormous influence not only on the minds of its readers, but also on English
literature throughout the world." (Where We Got The Bible: Our Debt to the
Catholic Church ; Tan Books and Publishers, Inc.; Rockford, Ill.;1911; 22ed.
1987, ; p. 140)

Alexander Geddes (Catholic scholar; 1786): "If accuracy and strictest attention
to the letter of the text be supposed to constitute an excellent version, this
is of all versions the most excellent." (as quoted from the preface of the New
King James Version; 1982; Thomas Nelson Publishers)

Sir Frederic Kenyon (Textual Scholar): "It is the simple truth that, as
literature, the English Authorized Version is superior to the original Greek. It
was the good fortune of the English nation that its Bible was produced at a time
when the genius of the language for noble prose was at its height, and when a
natural sense of style was not infected by self-conscious scholarship. The
beauty of the language commended the teaching of the sacred books and make them
dear to the heart of the people, while it made an indelible and enduring
impression alike on literature and on popular speech." (The Story of the Bible,
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.; Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1936; 1967 ed. pp.
Matthew,42).

Dr. Andrew Graham (Theologian): In reference to the Revised Version of 1881
"...the Authorized Version has probably sent more souls to heaven than its more
accurate successors. The Revised Version is undoubtedly of help in the
interpretation of its predecessor, but it has never superseded it." ("The
English Bible" from The Bible Companion, edited by William Neil; McGraw-Hill
Book Company, Inc. New York; 1960; p. 430)

Dr. F. F. Bruce (Biblical Scholar): "In literary quality it surpasses all its
successors; for this reason it has maintained its popularity for over 350 years.
The translators had an instinctive appreciation of prose rhythm and general
euphony, hence it has been excellent for reading aloud." ("Which Bible Is Best
For You?" Eternity, April, 1974 ).

Dr. Charles C. Ryrie (Theologian): "Well, there are some odd things about what
is still the greatest translation. And isn’t it amazing, after 360 years with
all the good new translations, really none has supplanted the King James.
Someday, someone will, perhaps, but I wouldn’t want to bet on which one, yet,
because no one has really come to the fore. Still the work that these men did,
started in the very peculiar way, by this rather peculiar king, has survived and
became the cornerstone of our language, really. And it’s a great, great book."
("Oddities of the King James Bible" in The Christian Librarian, Vol. 18, No. 1 &
2, October, December, 1974, p. 16).

Revised Version (1881): "...its simplicity, its dignity, its power, its happy
turns of expression...the music of its cadences, and the felicities of its
rhythm." (Preface)

American Standard Version: "We are not insensible to the justly lauded beauty
and vigor of the style of the Authorized Version, nor do we forget that it has
been no part of our task to modernize the diction of the Bible." (Preface) The
Modern Language Bible (New Berkeley Version): "We are in turn with the
’Authorized Version’ of 1611 in fidelity to the Messianic Promise,.." (Preface)

New King James Version: "For nearly four hundred years, and throughout several
revisions of its English form, the King James Bible has been deeply revered
among the English-speaking peoples of the world. The precision of translation
for which it is historically renowned, and its majesty of style, have enabled
that monumental version of the Word of God to become the mainspring of the
religion, language, and legal foundations of our civilization." (Preface)

New Revised Standard Version: "In the course of time, the King James Version
came to be regarded as ’The Authorized Version’. With good reason it has been
termed ’the noblest monument of English prose’, and it has entered, as no other
book has, into the making of the personal character and the public institutions
of the English-speaking peoples. We owe to it an incalculable debt."(Preface)

Dr. Bruce M. Metzger (Bible Scholar/Translator): "An outstanding merit of the
King James Version is the music of its cadences. The translators were men
experienced in the public reading of the Scriptures and in the conduct of public
worship. Their choice of the final wording of a passage was often determined by
a marvelously sure instinct for what would sound well when read aloud. Take as
an example the...translation of Pro 3:17...The King James Version gives to the
verse a perfect melody:.." ("English Versions of the Bible"; The New Oxford
Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha; RSV, Oxford University Press, Inc.; 1962; p.
1553)

Bishop Benjamin Westcott (of Westcott and Hort): "From the middle of the
seventeenth century, the King’s Bible has been the acknowledged Bible of the
English-speaking nations throughout the world simply because it is the best."
("English Versions of the Bible"; RSV)

Dr. Keith R. Crim (OT Translator for TEV): "Another point of excellence is the
natural rhythm of the great prose passages, a feature that made the King James
Version especially well-suited for public reading. Sound and sense were blended
in a happy combination. And so when the Bible Societies were founded in the
early years of the nineteenth century there was a great translation ready for
them to distribute, a translation that had proved its value." ("Translating The
Bible Into English: The First Thousand Years"; The Bible Translator; Vol. 25,
No. 2; April 1974; p. 220) The New Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia: "Early
Jacobean prose is seen at its best in the Authorized Version of the Old and New
Testaments (1611), the joint work of 47 scholars, which was not only the
mainstay of the Protestant faith but a rich resource from which innumerable
Englishmen have learned to use their native language." (Grolier Electronic
Publishing, Inc., 1993 under English Literature, The 17th Century)

Compton’s Encyclopedia: "One of the supreme achievements of the English
Renaissance came at its close, in the King James Bible...It is rightly regarded
as the most influential book in the history of English civilization...the King
James Version combined homely, dignified phrases into a style of great richness
and loveliness. It has been a model of writing for generations of
English-speaking people." (Compton’s Encyclopedia, Online Edition. Downloaded
from America Online, May 26, 1995)

Merit Students Encyclopedia: "The greatest English Bible is the Authorized, or
King James, Version. Based on Tyndale’s translation and original texts, it was
produced in 1611 by six groups of churchmen at the command of King James I. The
King James Bible became the traditional Bible of English-speaking Protestants.
Its dignified and beautiful style strongly influenced the development of
literature in the English language. The influence can be seen in the works of
John Bunyan, John Milton, Herman Melville, and many other writers." (Merit
Students Encyclopedia; Vol. 3; Crowell-Collier Educational Corporation; 1967,
1972 ed. p.p. 137, 138 Rev. Holt H. Graham; Rev. Joseph M. Petulla; Mr. Cecil
Roth)

Ernest Sutherland Bates (Literary Editor): "As far as literary value is
concerned, however, the King James Version, produced when the language was
younger and more flexible, is unlikely ever to be superseded. Its position as a
world classic seems to be as secure as that of Homer, Dante, or Shakespeare, and
it is the only translation in all literature of which that can be said." (The
Bible: Designed To Be Read As Living Literature; Simon and Schuster Publishing,
New York, NY.; 1936; 21st ed. 1965; p. 1236)

George Bernard Shaw (Author): "The translation was extraordinarily well done
because to the translators what they were translating was not merely a curious
collection of ancient books written by different authors in different stages of
culture, but the word of God divinely revealed through His chosen and expressly
inspired scribes. In this conviction they carried out their work with boundless
reverence and care and achieved a beautifully artistic result...they made a
translation so magnificent that to this day the common human Britisher or
citizen of the United States of North America accepts and worships it as a
single book by a single author, the book being the Book of Books and the author
being God." (The Men Behind the King James Version, by G. S. Paine; Baker Book
House; Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1959, 1977ed., pp. 182-183).

Amy Clampitt (Poet): "If one lives to a sufficient age, the day is bound to
arrive in discovering a kind of bedrock delight in the curmudgeonly
I-told-you-so of the Hebrews prophets, when the rhetoric of the King James
Version has the aspect not of a stumbling block but rather of a bulwark, and the
ring of it becomes almost contemporary." (Essay "The Poetry of Isaiah" from Out
of the Garden: Women Writers on the Bible, ed. by Christina Buchmann and Alima
Celina Spiegel; New York: Fawcett Columbine, 1994)

Lew Sarett (Author): "I have studied the Bible, King James Version, carefully. I
was interested in its literary beauty, in the factors that contribute to the
nobility, power, and economy of its expression." (Our Roving Bible: Tracking Its
Influence Through English and American Life, by Lawrence E. Nelson, Nashville,
Tennessee: Abingdon Press, p. 262)

Maurice Hindus (Newsman of Russian-Jewish descent): "I have traveled far and
wide over this earth, and I have never been without a King James Version of the
Bible. Like thousands of men in my profession, I have found its lucid and
majestic prose an inestimable help in my work." (Ibid. p. 227).

Dr. James W. Peebles (African-American Theologian): "Many slaves who learned to
read and write did so by using the King James Version as a basic textbook. This
held true even after the slaves were freed. Most Blacks who were not able to
attend school, which was the majority of the black population, especially in the
South, learned to read by studying the words from the King James Version. .
.Considering these momentous thoughts and occasions that have been for so long
in the hearts and minds of black people is the reason why the King James Version
was used for this translation. It is the most respected version among black
people in the African diaspora. Regardless of its weaknesses and inadequacies,
it is far more effective at addressing Africa than most of the newly revised
modern editions." (The Original African Heritage Study Bible)

Eudoro Welty (Southern Author): "How many of us, the South’s writers-to-be of my
generation, were blessed in not having gone deprived of the King James Version
of the Bible? Its cadence entered into our ears and our memories for good. The
ghost of it lingers in all our books." (cited by Barbara Binswanger and Jim
Charlton, "Songs of the South," from the July 1995 issue of Reader’s Digest; p.
73)

Sir Winston Churchill: "The scholars who produced this masterpiece are mostly
unknown and unremembered. But they forged an enduring link, literary and
religious, between the English-speaking people of the world." (The King James
Bible Translators; Olga S. Opfell; Jefferson and London: McFarland, 1982)

General Colin Powell (as cited by David Roth): " ’I’m a dyed-in-the wool,
unreformed Episcopalian of the 1928 Prayer Book,’ Powell told an interviewer
recently. For Powell this statement packs a lot of meaning. His point is not
that he likes his religion dusty and old, without feeling, and steeped in hollow
ritual. Rather it is a nostalgic comment. Powell finds recent reforms in the
ancient, deeply rooted church of his childhood troubling. Yes, he loves the
cadence of the King James translation. He finds the seemingly timeless and
transcendent worship and traditional hymns spiritually stirring." (Sacred Honor,
pp. 132-133)

Charlton Heston (Actor; Moses in the 10 Commandments): "And of course there’s
the King James translation itself. It’s been described as ’the monument of
English prose’ as well as ’the only great work of art ever created by a
committee.’ Both statements are true. Fifty-four scholars worked seven years to
produce the work from the extant texts in Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and
English. Such an undertaking can be expected to produce great scholarship, but
hardly writing as spare and sublime as the King James. . .The authors of several
boring translations that have followed over the last fifty years mumble that the
K.J.V. is ’difficult,’ filled with long words. Have a look at the difficult long
words that begin the Old Testament, and end the Gospels: ’In the beginning God
created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void;
darkness was upon the face of the deep.’ and ’Now, of the other things which
Jesus did, if they should be written every one, I suppose the world itself could
not contain the books that would be written.’ Shakespeare aside, there’s no
comparable writing in the language, as has been observed by wiser men than I.
Over the past several centuries, it’s been the single book in most households,
an enormous force in shaping the development of the English language. Carried
around the world by missionaries, it provided the base by which English is about
to become the lingua franca of the world in the next century. Exploring it
during this shoot was one of the most rewarding creative experiences of my
life." (In the Arena: An Autobiography, pp. 554-555) QUESTIONS FROM STUDENTS Dr.
Holland, Could you please supply me with some information and verses about the
New King James Versions?

During the course of these lessons I have received several questions from
students, as the one listed above, concerning the NKJV. It would seem
appropriate to make comments about that translation at this time. In 1979 the
NKJV was released in the New Testament by Thomas Nelson Publishers. The whole
Bible was published in 1982. Its goal was unique from other modern versions in
that the NT was translated from the Textus Receptus, instead of the Critical
Text as most modern versions are. Thus, many of the verses which have been
omitted from modern versions can be found in the NKJV. Therefore, many who
reject modern translations and favor the TR find the NKJV an acceptable modern
version of the Bible. When first published, the translators claimed the NKJV was
the fifth revision of the KJV of 1611. Even the name, New King James, shows an
association with the Authorized Version. However, as we have seen in this
lesson, the revisions of the KJV which predate the NKJV were proper revisions
which did not change the text. This cannot be said of the NKJV. In fact, it is
not a revision at all. Instead, it is a new translation of the OT Masoretic
Hebrew Text and the NT Traditional Greek Text based on the findings of modern
linguistical scholarship from a conservative theological basis. A few
differences between the NKJV and its predecessor are listed below.

KJV

NKJV

Son or Servant

The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath
glorified his Son Jesus; . . . (Acts 3:13 KJV)

The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified His
Servant Jesus, . . . (NKJV. Also in Acts 3:26; Acts 4:27; Acts 4:30)

Deity Changed

And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; ... (Rev 1:6 KJV)

and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, . . . (NKJV)

God or Rock

Art thou not from everlasting, O LORD my God, mine Holy One? we shall not die. O
LORD, thou hast ordained them for judgment; and, O mighty God, thou hast
established them for correction. (Hab 1:12 KJV)

Are You not from everlasting, O LORD my God, my Holy One? We shall not die. O
LORD, You have appointed them for judgment; O Rock, You have marked them for
correction. (NKJV)

Godhead or Divine Nature

Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the
Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, . . . (Acts 17:29 KJV)

Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the
Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, . . . (NKJV. However in Rom 1:20
and Col 2:9 the NKJV switches back to Godhead)

Comforter or Helper

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may
abide with you for ever; (John 14:16 KJV)

And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may
abide with you forever, (NKJV. Also in John 14:26; John 15:26; John 16:7)

Corrupt or Peddle

For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: . . . (2Co 2:17 KJV)

For we are not, as so many, peddling the word of God; . . . (NKJV)

Satan or Accuser

Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand. (Psa
109:6 KJV)

Set a wicked man over him, And let an accuser stand at his right hand. (NKJV)

Saved or Being Saved

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us
which are saved it is the power of God. (1Co 1:18 KJV)

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to
us who are being saved it is the power of God. (NKJV. Also in 2Co 2:15)

Jesus or He

And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, . . . (Mark 2:15
KJV)

Now it happened, as He was dining in Levi’s house, . . .<<(NKJV)

The NKJV is suppose to be easier to read than the KJV. Of the following verses,
which do you find harder?

Numb. 21:14

Wherefore it is said in the book of the wars of the LORD, What he did in the Red
sea, and in the brooks of Arnon,

Therefore it is said in the Book of the Wars of the LORD: Waheb in Suphah, The
brooks of the Arnon.

Acts 17:22

Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars’ hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I
perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.

And Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, Men of Athens, I perceive
that in all things you are very religious;

Mat 27:27

Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the common hall, and gathered
unto him the whole band of soldiers.

Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the Praetorium and gathered
the whole garrison around Him.

Mat 20:2

And when he had agreed with the labourers for a penny a day, he sent them into
his vineyard.

Now when he had agreed with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into
his vineyard.

1Ki 10:28

And Solomon had horses brought out of Egypt, and linen yarn: the king’s
merchants received the linen yarn at a price.

And Solomon had horses imported from Egypt and Keveh; the king’s merchants
bought them in Keveh at the current price.

Psa 43:1

Judge me, O God, and plead my cause against an ungodly nation: O deliver me from
the deceitful and unjust man.

Vindicate me, O God, And plead my cause against an ungodly nation: Oh, deliver
me from the deceitful and unjust man!

Acts 27:17

Which when they had taken up, they used helps, undergirding the ship; and,
fearing lest they should fall into the quicksands, strake sail, and so were
driven.

When they had taken it on board, they used cables to undergird the ship; and
fearing lest they should run aground on the Syrtis Sands, they struck sail and
so were driven.

These are only a few examples of the differences between the KJV and NKJV. It
should become clear that the NKJV is not truly the fifth revision of the
Authorized Version, but is a retranslation of the texts.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 8: 08 LESSON EIGHT
========================================================================

LESSON EIGHT: The Hebrew Masoretic Text and Greek Septuagint

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.
(Rom 3:1-2)

According to the Bible, the Hebrews were given charge of keeping and copying
God’s word. The word oracle means revelation, prophecy, canon, or edict. It was
unto the Jew, that the Old Testament revelation and canon were committed. This
is why twice in the Old Testament they were instructed not to add to or take
from the word of God. "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you,
neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of
the LORD your God which I command you." (Deu 4:2). "Add thou not unto his words,
lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." (Pro 30:6). The faithful Hebrew
scribe took this task very seriously. Precise steps were taken by the scribes in
preparing both the parchment upon which they wrote, and in preparing themselves
in order to copy God’s Holy word. According to the Hebrew Talmud, the rules of
the scribe consisted of the following:

1) The skins of the parchments had to be prepared in a special way and dedicated
to God so that they would be clean in order to have God’s words written on them.

2) The ink which was used was black and made in accordance to a special recipe
used only for writing scripture.

3) The words written could not be duplicated by memory but must be reproduced
from an authentic copy which the scribe had before him. And, the scribe had to
say each word aloud when he wrote them.

4) Each time the scribe came across the Hebrew word for God, he had to wipe his
pen clean. And when he came across the name of God, Jehovah (YHWH), he had to
wash his whole body before he could write it.

5) If a sheet of parchment had one mistake on it, the sheet was condemned. If
there were three mistakes found on any page, the whole manuscript was condemned.
Each scroll had to be checked within thirty days of its writing, or it was
considered unholy.

6) Every word and every letter was counted. If a letter or word were omitted,
the manuscript was condemned.

7) There were explicit rules for how many letters and words allowed on any given
parchment. A column must have at least 48 lines and no more than 60. Letters and
words had to be spaced at a certain distance and no word could touch another.

Commenting on these rules, Dr. H.S. Miller writes, "Some of these rules may
appear extreme and absurd, yet they show how sacred the Holy Word of the Old
Testament was to its custodians, the Jews (Rom 3:2), and they gave us strong
encouragement to believe that we have the real Old Testament, the same on which
our Lord had and which was originally given by inspiration of God." (General
Biblical Introduction, p. 185). In his book, The Text of the Old Testament, Dr.
Ernst Wurthwein writes, "This was the purpose of the scribes’ meticulous work.
They counted the verses, words, and letters of the Law and other parts of the
Scriptures as a procedural aid in preparing manuscripts and in checking their
accuracy." (Eerdmans Publishing, 1979, p. 19). The Jewish historian Josephus
(37-95 AD) comments on the preciseness of the Jewish scribes and their
faithfulness in copying the Old Testament scriptures. "...for during so many
ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add anything
to them; but it becomes natural to all Jews, immediately and from their very
birth, to esteem those books to contain divine doctrines, and to persist in
them, and, if occasion be, willingly to die for them." (Flavius Josephus Against
Apion 1:8). Some have taken Josephus’ statement to mean the contents of the Old
Testament. Other have understood it to mean the canon of the Old Testament.
Either way, his statement affirms the sacredness the Hebrews have for Holy
Scripture. For years it had been thought that the Bible which Christ used was
the Greek Septuagint (also known as the LXX). The common thought was that the
Jews at the time of Christ had all but lost their use of Hebrew. Since the
international language of that day was Greek, the hypothesis was that Christ did
not use the Hebrew scriptures, but read from the Greek LXX. However, with the
discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (which will be discussed in greater detail in
lesson nine) it has been established that the Jews did not lose there use of
Hebrew. In fact, most of their writings (both sacred and otherwise) were written
in Hebrew.

Alan Millard has written the following about the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) and
their relation to ancient languages.

"Aramaic, Greek, Latin... was Hebrew spoken too? For years scholars believed
not, or that it was restricted to religious circles, synagogue readings and
prayers, and the Temple. Counting in favor of a wider knowledge is the presence
of Hebrew inscriptions on the other side of Hasmonean coins. That might mean no
more than Latin legends on coins of recent times--a grand style which the
educated could understand. However, recent discoveries have thrown new light on
the question. Books in a style of Hebrew imitating the Old Testament yet
distinct from it, and some in Hebrew more like that of the Mishnah make up a
larger section of the Dead Sea Scrolls." (Discoveries From the Time of Jesus,
Lion Pub., Oxford; p. 35. Professor Millard has served with the British Museum
in the Department of Western Asiatic Antiquities and is Rankin Reader in Hebrew
and Ancient Semitic languages at the University of Liverpool). This discovery
confirms what we find in the Gospels concerning the Hebrew Old Testament used by
Christ. In Matthew, Jesus proclaims; "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and
earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all
be fulfilled." (Mat 5:18). It is interesting that He used the words jot and
tittle. In the Wycliffe Bible Commentary, Dr. Homer Kent of Grace Theological
Seminary writes, "Jot. Smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet (yodh). Tittle.
Tiny projection on certain Hebrew letters." (p.937). The smallest part of the
letters Jesus used to describe the fact that the law would not pass until all
was fulfilled, were Hebrew. This would be odd if Christ were reading from a
Greek Old Testament.

Further, Jesus says in Luk 11:51; "From the blood of Abel unto the blood of
Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto
you, It shall be required of this generation." . This statement attests that
Christ used the Hebrew canon of scripture. The order of books found in our Old
Testament run from Genesis to Malachi. The Greek LXX has the same order but adds
additional books (the Apocrypha). The Hebrew canon, while containing the same
books as our Old Testament, places the order of the books differently. The
Hebrew Bible runs from Genesis to 2 Chronicles with the minor prophets in the
middle and not the end as in our Old Testament. We know that Abel was killed by
his brother according to Gen 4:8. Zacharias was killed in 2Ch 24:20-22. Thus
showing the first and last to die according to the Jewish Bible. Dr. Merrill
Tenney agrees by simply stating, "Able was the first martyr of the OT history.
Zacharias was the last, according to the order of books in the Hebrew Bible,
which, unlike the English Bible, ends with Chronicles." (Ibid. p. 1049). With
these things in mind, we can safely say the Bible of our Lord was a Hebrew
Bible. THE MASORETIC TEXT: The Masoretic Text is the traditional Hebrew Old
Testament text of both Judaism and Protestantism (The Catholic Church,
historically, used the Latin translation of Jerome based on the Greek LXX).
Masoretic comes from the word Masora which usually refers to the notes printed
beside the Hebrew text by Jewish scribes and scholars.

Until recently, the oldest manuscripts of the Hebrew Old Testament dated from
the ninth century and onward. These Hebrew manuscripts of the middle ages are in
general agreement. The Biblia Hebraica by Kittel is the basic Hebrew Old
Testament used by scholars and translators and is based on the Masoretic Text
from this time period. However, with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls
(which will be discussed in our next lesson) manuscripts which date from around
168 BC to about 68 AD. Thus providing us with Hebrew manuscripts which outdate
the previous manuscripts by about 1,000 years. What is interesting to the
student of textual criticism and the believer in Biblical preservation, is the
fact that a large number of the DSS agree with the Masoretic Text. Although
there are manuscripts within the findings of the DSS which agree with the LXX
and also reflect a differing Hebrew Text with a number of variants, the fact
remains that we now have manuscripts dating from the time of Christ or before
which agree with the Masoretic Text. This give additional credence to the
preciseness and integrity of the Hebrew scribes in their accuracy of reproducing
the manuscripts throughout the ages. And, most importantly, it shows the
preservation of the Old Testament Text in Hebrew by God.

Dr. Emanuel Tov of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and one of the editors of
the DSS writes:

" Of similar importance are the new data about the context of the biblical
scrolls, since different texts are recognizable. Some texts reflect precisely
the consonantal framework of the medieval MT (Masoretic Text). Others reflect
the basic framework of the MT, although their spelling is different. Still
others differ in many details from the MT, while agreeing with the Septuagint or
Samaritan Pentateuch. Some texts do not agree with any previously known text at
all, and should be considered independent textual traditions. Thus, the textual
picture presented by the Qumran scrolls represents a textual variety that was
probably typical for the period." (The Oxford Companion to the Bible, edited by
Bruce Metzger and Michael Coogan, 1993; p.160)

Norman Geisler and William Nix attest to most of the DSS reflecting the
Masoretic Text. In their book, A General Introduction to the Bible, they write,
" The (Dead Sea) scrolls give an overwhelming confirmation of the fidelity of
the Masoretic text." (p. 261). They go on to cite Millar Burrows’ work, The Dead
Sea Scrolls, " It is a matter of wonder, " states Burrows, " 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 Masoretic tradition.’" (Ibid.). Ernst Wurthwein
cites R. de Vaux as saying, " The script is more developed, the Biblical text is
definitely that of the Masora, and it must be concluded from this that the
documents from Qumran (i.e. DSS) are older, earlier than the second century."
(Wurthwein, p. 31). Concerning the scrolls of Isaiah found in Cave 1 at Qumran,
Wurthwein writes, " The scrolls (1QIsa. a.) has a popular type text which
supports (the Masoretic Text) essentially, but which also offers a great number
of variants. . .A second Isaiah manuscripts (1QIsa. b.) is fragmentary, but
stands much closer to the Masoretic text." (Ibid. p. 32).

Fragments of Leviticus in Old Hebrew script (1QLev. a) add support to the
antiquity of the Masoretic Text. These fragments cover Lev 19:31-34; Lev
20:20-23. Concerning these Wurthwein states, " These fragments are the earliest
of the Old Hebrew script written on leather. . .(only) one variant from (MT) is
found in 20:21" (Ibid. p.148). The one variant referred to by Wurthwein deals
with one letter in a word, which does not change the meaning of the word. If the
student has a Stong’s Exhaustive Concordance they can see for themselves the
minor difference in this word. Strong list the word as #1931 in his Hebrew and
Chaldee Dictionary. Both forms are listed together. The Masoretic Text uses the
Hebrew word hoo while the DSS uses the Hebrew word he. It is the same Hebrew
word and is a personal pronoun meaning he, she, or it. The two seem to be used
interchangeably throughout the Hebrew Old Testament.

Additional manuscripts have also been found which support the Masoretic Text.
Again Wurthwein informs us of the following: " Also important are the remains of
fourteen scrolls with Biblical texts from the period before AD 73, discovered
while excavating the rock fortress of Masada in the Judean desert in 1963-1965.
These agree extensively with the traditional Biblical texts--only in the text of
Ezekiel are there a few insignificant variants." (Ibid. p. 31). To these we can
also add the Geniza Fragments which date from the fifth century AD. These
manuscripts were discovered in 1890 at Cairo, Egypt. They were located in a type
of storage room for worn or faulty manuscripts, which was called the Geniza. The
fragments number around 200,000 and reflect Biblical texts in Hebrew, Aramaic,
and Arabic. The Biblical texts discovered support the Masoretic Text. In one
sense, the Masoretic Text may be thought of as the Textus Receptus of the Old
Testament. In fact, some scholars have referred to it as such. Like the Textus
Receptus of the New Testament, the Masoretic Text is based on the majority of
manuscripts and reflects the traditional text used. Although there are
differences found in some Masoretic Texts, these differences are minor and
usually deal with, orthography, vowel points, accents, and divisions of the
text. In 1524/25, Daniel Bomberg published an edition of the Masoretic Text
based on the tradition of Jacob ben Chayyim. Jacob ben Chayyim was a Jewish
refugee who later became a Christian. It was his text which was used by the
translators of the King James Bible for their work in the Old Testament, and it
was the basis of Kittel’s first two editions of his Hebrew text. Wurthwein notes
that the text of ben Chayyim, " enjoyed an almost canonical authority up to our
own time." (Ibid. p. 37). For about six generations the Masoretic Text was
reproduced by the ben Asher family. Moses ben Asher produced a text in 895 AD
known as Codex Cairensis containing the writing of the Prophets. Codex
Leningradensis dates to 1008 AD and was based on the work of Aaron ben Moses ben
Asher, the son of Moses ben Asher. This Codex is the oldest manuscript
containing the complete Bible. Some of the differences found within this family
of manuscripts are the basis of Kittel’s third edition of his Biblia Hebraica
and has been used by scholars in producing modern translations of the Bible,
such as the New International Version (1978), the New King James Version (1982),
and the New Revised Standard Version (1989).

One example which shows the difference between the text of ben Chayyim and that
of ben Asher, is found in Jer 3:7. The KJV reads, " And I said after she had
done all these things, Turn thou unto me. But she returned not. And her
treacherous sister Judah saw it." The phrase, " And I said" is also used by the
ASV of 1901 and the LXX. However, modern versions such as the NIV use the
textual variant and render the verse as, " I thought that after she had done all
this she would return to me but she did not, and her unfaithful sister Judah saw
it.". This is also the reading of the RSV and NRSV, changing the opening phrase
to " I thought". Even though the NKJV is based on the text of ben Asher, they
elected to keep the reading as it is found in the KJV and the Masoretic Text of
ben Chayyim. Contextually, the reading of the KJV is unquestionably superior. It
is one thing for God to claim that Israel should return to Him, as stated in the
text. It is quite another for God to have thought something would happen which
did not. The reading as it is found in most modern versions seems to question
the omniscience of God. For the most part, scholarship agrees that the Masoretic
Text became the standard authorized Hebrew text around 100 AD in connection with
the completion of the New Testament. Thus we see that the Masoretic Text existed
prior to the writings of the New Testament, was used as the official Hebrew Old
Testament at the time of the establishing of the Biblical canon, and has been
used since as the official representation of the Hebrew originals. Hence we can
see in the Masoretic Text the preservation of Scripture in the Hebrew Old
Testament, as we can in the Textus Receptus the preservation of Scripture in the
Greek New Testament. THE GREEK SEPTUAGINT: The most noted Old Testament
translated into Greek is the Septuagint (also known as the LXX). The
conventional thought is that the LXX was translated from the Hebrew text by
Hellenistic Jews during the period from 275 to 100 BC at Alexandria, Egypt. And,
as pointed out by scholars such as Ralph W. Klein, the LXX used a differing
Hebrew text and not that of the Masorictic Text type, as reflected in some of
the finding among the DSS. The LXX was used by Jerome in producing his Old
Testament of the Latin Vulgate used by the Roman Catholic Church, and the LXX
remains the official Old Testament of the Greek Orthodox Church. This accounts
for the additional books found in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches known as
the Apocrypha, because they are contained in the text of the LXX. The
association of the Latin numbers LXX (meaning 70) with the Septuagint comes from
the legend concerning the origin of this Greek translation. According to the
Letter of Aristeas seventy Jewish scholars were chosen to translate the Law of
Moses into Greek so that it could be added to the great library of Ptolemy
Philadelphus in Alexandria, Egypt. The letter states that the High Priest in
Jerusalem sent 72 scholars to the Egyptian king. The High Priest writes, " In
the presence of all the people I selected six elders from each tribe, good men
and true, and I have sent them to you with a copy of our law. It will be a
kindness, O righteous king, if you will give instruction that as soon as the
translation of the law is completed, the men shall be restored again to us in
safety." (Letter of Aristeas 2:34-35). Thus six scholars from the twelve tribes
number seventy-two (it is to be assumed that the 70 is merely a rounding off of
the 72).

One wide-spread myth concerning the LXX is an old story which states that the
translators worked on their translation alone and compared their work each
morning, only to find that each had translated the passage exactly the same.
This, of course, has no historical foundation and some have falsely applied this
story to the translators of the King James Bible. However, stories such as this
one caused some to claim inspiration for the LXX. Dr. Karlfried Froehlich notes
this and writes, " Inspiration was also claimed for the Greek translation of the
’Seventy’, which was endorsed by Alexandrian Jewish authorities. In Christian
eyes, the legend of the Septuagint’s miraculous origin, first told in the Letter
of Aristeas, then elaborated by Philo, and further embellished by Christian
authors such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, Tertullian, and Augustine,
even rendered the Septuagint superior to the Hebrew original." (The Oxford
Companion to the Bible, p. 310).

Even if the story given in the Letter of Aristeas were true, the Greek
translation deals only with the first five books of the Old Testament. Most
scholars note that there are differences in style and quality of translation
within the LXX and assign a much greater time frame than the seventy-two days
allotted in the Letter of Aristeas. In his book, Textual Criticism of the Old
Testament: The Septuagint after Qumran, Ralph Klein notes, " the Letter of
Aristeas is riddled with many historical improbabilities and errors. . .And yet,
however legendary and improbable the details, many still believe that some
accurate historical facts about the LXX can be distilled from Aristeas: (1) the
translation began in the third century BC; (2) Egypt was the place of origin;
and (3) the Pentateuch was done first." (p. 2).

Dr. F. F. Bruce correctly points out that, strictly speaking, the LXX deals only
with the Law and not the whole Old Testament. Bruce writes, " The Jews might
have gone on at a later time to authorize a standard text of the rest of the
Septuagint, but . . . lost interest in the Septuagint altogether. With but few
exceptions, every manuscript of the Septuagint which has come down to our day
was copied and preserved in Christian, not Jewish, circles." (The Books and the
Parchments, p.150). This is important to note because the manuscripts which
consist of our LXX today date to the third century AD. Although there are
fragments which pre-date Christianity and some of the Hebrew DSS agree with the
LXX, the majority of manuscripts we have of the LXX date well into the Christian
era. And, not all of these agree. The most noted copy of the LXX is that found
in the Hexapla by Origen. Origen produced an Old Testament with six translations
paralleled together, called the Hexapla which means sixfold. The fifth column
was the LXX. (The columns of the Hexapla were as follows: 1. The Hebrew text. 2.
The Hebrew transliterated into Greek. 3. The Greek translation of Aquila. 4. The
Greek translation of Symmachus. 5. The LXX. 6. The Greek translation of
Theodotion.) However, we do not have Origen’s Hexapla (with the exception of a
few limited fragments). Sir Frederic Kenyon wrote, " A considerable number of
MSS. exist which give information as to Origen’s Hexaplaric text and particular
passages in the other columns, but these do not go far towards enabling us to
recover the LXX text as it existed before Origen; and this remains the greatest
problem which confronts the textual student of the Septuagint. Until we can do
that, we are not in a position fully to utilize the evidence of the Greek for
the recovery of the pre-Masoretic Hebrew." (The Text of the Greek Bible, p.35).
In other words, we cannot fully reconstruct Origen’s fifth column, let alone a
pre-Origenian Septuagint.

Origen’s LXX was revised and edited by two of his disciples, Pamphilus and
Eusebius. There were additional Greek translations of the Old Testament during
this time which were also contained in the Hexapla, such as the work by Aquila
and Theodotion. Some scholars believe that the translation produced by
Theodotion replaced the LXX in the book of Daniel so that the readings there are
really that of Theodotion and not of the LXX. However, others have claimed that
this is not the case. Therefore, concerning Origen’s Hexapla and the LXX the
best scholars can say is that cited by Ernst Wurthwein, " Although no authentic
manuscript of the Hexaplaric Septuagint has survived, there are manuscripts
which represent the text of Origen more or less closely." (The Text of the Old
Testament, p.57). Two such manuscripts which represent the text of Origen are
Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, which the student will recall from our
study of New Testament textual criticism. THE LXX AND THE KJV TRANSLATORS:

It is interesting to note in our study of manuscript evidence and the King James
Bible, how the translators of the KJV viewed the LXX. This Greek work did not go
unnoticed by these men as can be seen in the original preface to the KJV written
by Dr. Miles Smith. The following are a few paragraphs from the KJV preface for
the student to consider. Afterwards, comments will be made.

1) " Notwithstanding, though it was commended generally, yet it did not fully
content the learned, no not of the Jews. For not long after Christ, Aquila fell
in hand with a new Translation, and after him Theodotion, and after him
Symmachus; yea, there was a fifth and a sixth edition, the Authors whereof were
not known. (Epiphan. de mensur. et ponderibus.) These with the Seventy made up
the Hexapla and were worthily and to great purpose compiled together by Origen."

2) " Yet for all that, as the Egyptians are said of the Prophet to be men and
not God, and their horses flesh and not spirit (Isa 31:3); so it is evident,
(and Saint Jerome affirmeth as much) (S. Jerome. de optimo genere interpret.)
that the Seventy were Interpreters, they were not Prophets; they did many things
well, as learned men; but yet as men they stumbled and fell, one while through
oversight, another while through ignorance, yea, sometimes they may be noted to
add to the Original, and sometimes to take from it; which made the Apostles to
leave them many times, when they left the Hebrew, and to deliver the sense
thereof according to the truth of the word, as the spirit gave them utterance.
This may suffice touching the Greek Translations of the Old Testament."

3) " Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow,
that the translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our
profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet)
containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King’s speech, which
he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and
Latin, is still the King’s speech, though it be not interpreted by every
Translator with the like graadventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for
sense, everywhere. . The Romanists therefore in refusing to hear, and daring to
burn the Word translated, did no less than despite the spirit of grace, from
whom originally it proceeded, and whose sense and meaning, as well as man’s
weakness would able, it did express. . .The like we are to think of
Translations. The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the Original in
many places, neither doth it come near it, for perspicuity, gravity, majesty;
yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it, . . .To
be short, Origen, and the whole Church of God for certain hundred years, were of
another mind: for they were so far from treading under foot, (much more from
burning) the Translation of Aquila a Proselyte, that is, one that had turned
Jew; of Symmachus, and Theodotion, both Ebionites, that is, most vile heretics,
that they joined together with the Hebrew Original, and the Translation of the
Seventy (as hath been before signified out of Epiphanius) and set them forth
openly to be considered of and perused by all. But we weary the unlearned, who
need not know so much, and trouble the learned, who know it already." In the
first paragraph we find that the KJV translators attest to Origen’s Hexapla and
early Greek translations of the Old Testament which post-date the birth of
Christianity. These translations, along with the LXX, paralleled in the Hexapla.
The second paragraph shows that the KJV translators saw some of the limitations
of the LXX. They recognized that the LXX was produced by Interpreters and not by
inspired Prophets. Although the LXX translates many things well, it also failed
many times and departed from the original Hebrew (i.e. Masoretic Text).
Sometimes the LXX adds to the Hebrew, and at other times it omits. Which,
according the KJV translators, made the New Testament writers to, " leave them
many times, when they left the Hebrew, and to deliver the sense thereof
according to the truth of the word, as the spirit gave them utterance." This
simply means that when a New Testament writer cites the LXX, they freely
corrected the LXX when it differed from the Hebrew, or as they were moved by
inspiration. The third paragraph is lengthy to show the context. The KJV
translators promoted the use of translations. Not as we have come to understand
it with a variety of versions differing from one another, but the importance of
having the word of God translated into the language of those who cannot read
Hebrew or Greek. Their argument was against the Catholic Church which at that
time made it a practice of burning Bibles which were in any language other than
Latin. The Catholic Church considered such translations as corrupt and worthy of
burning. The KJV translators are arguing that the history of the Church
demonstrates that even when a translation is poorly done, God can still use it
and it should not be burned, as the Catholic Church had a practice of doing.
They illustrate their point with the Greek translations of Aquila and
Theodotion, which were translated by non-believers and yet their work was not
burned by believers. They claim the same with the LXX. THE LXX AND THE NEW
TESTAMENT:

There are several places where the New Testament quotations of the Old Testament
are said to be citations of the LXX. Several of these passages will agree simply
because there is a limited way of translating Hebrew into Greek.

Such would be the case in Gen 5:24 as compared with Heb 11:5. The writer of
Hebrews and the LXX both use the phrase God translated him in reference to
Enoch. The phrase in Greek is metetheken auton o Theos in both the NT and the
LXX. The English translations are as follows:

" And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him." (Gen 5:24 KJV) "
And Enoch was well-pleasing to God, and was not found, because God translated
him." (Gen 5:24 LXX)

" By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found
because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this
testimony, that he please God." (Heb 11:5) At first glance it would seem that
the NT passage in Hebrews chapter eleven is closer to the LXX than the OT Hebrew
of Genesis chapter five. As we know, the NT was written in Greek, the OT in
Hebrew. However, the Hebrew word for took in this passage is lawkakh which means
to take or move from one place to another. The Greek way of saying the Hebrew
lawkakh is methetheken which means translated. Dr. Charles Ryrie seems to agree
with this. He writes, " He (Enoch) walked (lit., walked about, i.e. lived) with
God, and instead of letting him die, God took him (the same Hebrew word is used
for the translation of Elijah, 2Ki 2:3; 2Ki 2:5; cf. Heb 11:5)." (Ryrie Study
Bible, p.15). This is not a citation of the LXX, but a Greek translation of the
Hebrew word for took. Further, the student should notice that this verse is a
statement of EVENTS found in Genesis five, not a QUOTATION of Gen 5:24.

Another example is that of Heb 1:6, " And again, when he bringeth in the
firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship
him." The problem here is that there is no passage in the Old Testament which
reads as it is cited in Hebrews chapter one. However, the LXX does have the
phrase, Let all the angels of God worship him, in Deu 32:43 as does one of the
Hebrew fragments found among the DSS. Therefore some claim that the writer of
Hebrews is citing either the LXX, or the Hebrew variant found in the DSS.

There is, however, another explanation. Psa 97:7 reads, " Confounded be all they
that serve graven images, that boast themselves of idols: worship him, all ye
gods." The Hebrew word translated as gods is Elohim which is also translated as
angels (the DSS fragment of Deu 32:43 also uses the Hebrew word Elohim). One way
to translate Elohim into English is to use the word gods. One way to translate
Elohim into Greek is to use the word angelos. This being the case, the Greek way
of saying Psa 97:7 would be, proskuneton auto pantes angeloi Theou.

Additionally, Thomas Hewitt, writes, " There is no Hebrew equivalent for Let all
the angles of God worship him in our existing text. It may be derived from Psalm
xcvii. 7 ’worship him, all ye gods’ (Heb. elohim). The LXX has ’angels’ instead
of ’gods’. The quotation, however, is exactly found in Deuteronomy xxxii. 43
(LXX), though this may be an addition by a later hand." (Tyndale NT Commentaries
in Hebrews, p. 55). It is interesting that Hewitt states that the passage found
in Deu 32:43 of the LXX may have been added by a later hand. If this is true,
there very well may be additional places where the LXX simply adds to the OT by
citing the NT. The following is a list provided by the American Bible Society
(ABS) of LXX readings in the NT. The OT passage is given first, followed by the
NT citation of it in parentheses.

Gen 5:24 (Heb 11:5) Gen 46:27 (Acts 7:14) Gen 47:31 (Heb 11:21) Exo 9:16 (Rom
9:17) Deu 17:7 (1Co 5:13) Deu 18:15 (Acts 3:22) Deu 27:26 (Gal 3:10) Deu 29:18
(Heb 12:15) Deu 32:17 (1Co 10:20) Deu 32:43 (Heb 1:6) Psa 2:1-2 (Acts 4:25-26)
Psa 2:9 (Rev 2:27) Psa 4:4 (Eph 4:26) Psa 5:9 (Rom 3:13) Psa 8:2 (Mat 21:16) Psa
8:5 (Heb 2:7) Psa 10:7 (Rom 3:14) Psa 14:3 or 53:3 (Rom 3:12) Psa 16:8-11 (Acts
2:25-28) Psa 19:4 (Rom 10:18) Psa 34:12 (1Pe 3:10) Psa 40:6 thew:6 hew:6 (Heb
10:5) Psa 51:4 (Rom 3:4) Psa 69:22-23 (Rom 11:9-10) Psa 95:7-8 (Heb 3:15; Heb
4:7) Psa 102:25-27 (Heb 1:10-12) Psa 104:4 (Heb 1:7) Psa 116:10 (2Co 4:13) Psa
118:6 (Heb 13:6) Pro 3:4 (2Co 8:21) Pro 3:34 (Jas 4:6; 1Pe 5:5) Pro 3:11-12 (Heb
12:5-6) Pro 4:26 (Heb 12:13) Pro 11:31 (1Pe 4:18) Pro 25:21-22 (Rom 12:20) Isa
1:9 (Rom 9:29) Isa 6:9-10 (Mat 13:14-15; Mark 4:12; Luk 8:10; John 12:40Acts
28:26-27) Isa 7:14 (Mat 1:23) Isa 10:22-23 (Rom 9:27-28) Isa 11:10 (Rom 15:12)
Isa 26:11 (Heb 10:27) Isa 28:16 (Rom 9:33; Rom 10:11; 1Pe 2:6) Isa 29:13 (Mat
15:8-9;Mark 7:6-7) Isa 29:14 (1Co 1:19) Isa 40:3-5 ew:3-5 w:3-5 (Mat 3:3; Mark
1:3; Luk 3:4-6) Isa 40:6-7 ew:6-7 w:6-7 (Jas 1:10-11; 1Pe 1:24) Isa 40:13 hew:13
ew:13 (Rom 11:34; 1Co 2:16) Isa 42:4 (Mat 12:21) Isa 43:20 (1Pe 2:9) Isa 45:23
(Rom 14:11; Php 2:11) Isa 52:5 (Rom 2:24) Isa 52:15 (Rom 15:21) Isa 53:1 (John
12:38; John 12:40Rom 10:16) Isa 59:20-21 (Rom 11:26-27) Isa 61:1 (Luk 4:18) Isa
65:1-2 (Rom 10:20-21) Jer 31:32 (Heb 8:9) Eze 28:13 (Rev 2:7) Hos 13:14 (1Co
15:55) Joe 2:30-31 (Acts 2:19-20) Amo 5:25-27 (Acts 13:34) Amo 9:11-12 (Acts
15:16-18) Hab 1:5 (Acts 13:41) Hab 2:4 (Heb 10:38) Hag 2:5 (Heb 12:26) As one
can see, the list is rather lengthy (and I might add incomplete). It would be
rather tedious to compare all the verses in this list. I have, however, provided
the student with a few examples which follow. There are many times when the
Greek of the LXX and the NT match word perfectly. Such would be the case of Deu
17:7 with 1Co 5:13, for a short citation; and Psa 2:1-2 with Acts 4:25-26 for a
much longer citation. Despite the verses which match, there are many places
which do not. Sometimes these are translated the same, but they are not the same
Greek words or word order. To explain this the ABS states, " The writers of the
New Testament generally quoted or paraphrased the ancient Greek translation of
the Old Testament, commonly known as the Septuagint Version," (New Testament
Passages Quoted or Paraphrased from the Septuagint, found in the TEV, Thomas
Nelson Pub. 1976 ed. p. 367). The problem here is that once we open the
possibility that many of the citations are not quotations but paraphrases of the
LXX, we cannot be certain that it was in fact the LXX that was paraphrased. In
addition, many of these citations reflect only a few words differing. This would
not constitute a paraphrase. Consider the following examples.

______________

Exo 9:16

" And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to shew in thee my
power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth."

" And for this purpose hast thou been preserved, that I might display in thee my
strength, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth." (LXX)

" For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised
thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared
throughout all the earth." (Rom 9:17) The last phrase, and that my name might be
declared throughtout all the earth is a perfect match in between the NT and the
LXX, as is the phrase that I might shew. . .in thee. However, there are
differences at the very beginning and in the middle. The Greek NT begins with
Oti eis auto touto exegeipa se opos (For this purpose have I raised out thee, so
that). The LXX begins with Kai eneken toutou dietepethes, ina (And for this
purpose hast thou been preserved, that). These are two differing readings in
both Greek and English. Moreover, the NT uses the Greek word dunamin (power),
while the LXX uses the Greek word isxun (strength).

______________ Deu 18:15; Deu 18:19

" 15: The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee,
of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; . . .19: And it shall
come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak
in my name, I will require it of him."

" 15: The Lord thy God shall raise up to thee a prophet of thy brethren, like
me; him shall ye hear: . . .19: And whatever man shall not hearken to whatsoever
words that prophet shall speak in my name, I will take vengeance on him." (LXX)

" For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise
up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things
whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul,
which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people."
(Acts 3:22-23)

Acts 3:22-23 quotes Deu 18:15; Deu 19:1-21. This is a lengthy portion of
Scripture, but demonstrates that Luke was not citing the LXX word for word in
Acts chapter 3. While the literal translations may be close, we are here
examining the usage of the LXX in the Greek NT. The Greek of both is given
below. If Luke were using the LXX we would expect the passage in Acts 3:22-23 to
match the passage in Deu 18:15; Deu 18:19. One does not have to read Greek to
see that the two passages are not a perfect match.

LXX (Deu 18:1-22 :)" 15: Propheten ek ton adelphon sou, os eme, anastnsei soi
Kupios o Theos sou: autou akousesthe: . . .19:Kai o anthropos os ean me akouse
osa an lalese o prophetes ekeivos epi to onomati mon, ego ekdiknso ek autou."

Greek NT (Acts 3:1-26 :)" 22: Oti propheten umin anastesei kupios o Theos umon
ek ton adelphon umon, os eme: autou akousesthe kata panta osa an lalese pros
umas. 23: estai de pasa psuxe etes an me akouse tou prophetou ekeinou
exolothpeuthesetai ek tou laou." For those who wish a literal translation of
each Greek word, the following is provided:

LXX (Deu 18:1-22 :)" 15: Propheten(Prophet) ek(out) ton adelphon sou(the
brothern of you), os eme(like me), anastnsei soi(shall raise up) Kupios o
Theos(the Lord God) sou(of you): autou(him) akousesthe(shall ye hear): . .
.19:Kai(And) o anthropos(the man) os ean me akouse(if he shall not hear) osa
an(whatsoever) lalese(he may say) o prophetes(the prophet) ekeivos(that person)
epi to onomati mon(in the name of me), ego(I) ekdiknso(vengeance) ek autou(out
of him)."

Greek NT (Acts 3:1-26 :)" 22: Oti propheten(A prophet) umin(to you)
anastesei(will raise up) kupios o Theos(the Lord God) umon(your) ek(out of) ton
adelphon(the brethren) umon(of you), os eme(like me): autou(him)
akousesthe(shall ye hear) kata(in) panta(all things) osa an(whatsoever)
lalese(he may say) pros(to) umas(you). 23: estai de(and it shall be) pasa(every)
psuxe(soul) etes(which) an me akouse(may not hear) tou prophetou ekeinou (of
that prophet) exolothpeuthesetai(shall be destoryed) ek(out) tou laou(of the
people)."

______________

Psa 69:22-23

" Let their table become a snare before them: and that which should have been
for their welfare, let it become a trap. Let their eyes be darkened, that they
see not; and make their loins continually to shake"

" Let their table before them be for a snare, and for a recompence, and for a
stumbling-block. Let their eyes be darkened that they should not see; and bow
down their back continually." (LXX)

" And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a
stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them: Let their eyes be darkened, that
they may not see, and bow down their back alway." (Rom 11:9-10) The NT passage
is close to the reading found in the LXX. Yet there are differences. The LXX
adds the Greek phrase enopion auton (before them) in the first part of the
phrase. Also, at the end of verse nine, the NT has the phrase kai eis antapodoma
autois (and a recompence unto them). However, the LXX places the same phrase in
the middle of the verse and not at the end.

______________

Isa 6:9-10

" And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and
see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make
their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear
with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed."

" Ye shall hear indeed, but ye shall not understand; and ye shall see indeed,
but ye shall not perceive. For the heart of this people has become gross, and
their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they
should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and undersatnd with their
heart, and be converted, and I should heal them." (LXX)

" And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye
shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not
perceive: For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of
hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with
their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart,
and should be converted, and I should heal them." (Mat 13:14-15) In the citation
given by Matthew the passage is almost a perfect match. The only difference is
that the LXX has the word auton (their) after ears while the NT has it after
eyes. Again, one wonders why the switch. However, the same passage cited by Mark
is quite different.

" That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not
understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be
forgiven them." (Mark 4:12) The citation is very free. Once we interject the
usage of freely citing OT passages (as we find many times in the NT), we can no
longer be dogmatic that the translation which was used as the base translation
was in fact the LXX. It becomes an assumption.

______________

Isa 7:14

" Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall
conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (KJV).

" Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall
conceive in the womb, and shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name
Emmanuel." (LXX).

" Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they
shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." (Mat
1:23) The verse as it reads in the Greek NT is almost a match of the Greek LXX.
The difference is that the LXX uses the word lepsetai (shall be) while Matthew
uses the Greek word ekzie (shall be).

______________

Isa 29:13

" Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their
mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from
me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:"

Mat 15:7-9

" Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth
nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart
is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the
commandments of men." The LXX does have some alterations of the Greek NT in this
passage. What is even more astounding here is that the Alexandrian Text of the
NT has some omitions which are found in the LXX and TR. Both the TR and LXX
begin with Eggizie moi (Draw near to me), but it is omitted in the UBS Text.
Also verse eight in the LXX and TR reads to stomati auton, kai (with their
mouth, and), which is not in the UBS Text.

There are likewise some differences between the LXX and the Greek NT. The LXX
adds en (in) before with their mouth. The NT uses the pharse me tima (honours
me). The LXX reads, auton timosi me (they honour me). The NT has didaskalias
(doctrines) after didaskontes (teaching). The LXX reads kai didaskalias (and
doctrines) and places it after anthrpon (of men).

Mark 7:6-7

" He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites,
as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is
far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the
commandments of men." This has been covered in Mat 15:7-9. The literal
translation of the LXX reads, " And the Lord has said, This people draw nigh to
me whith their mouth, and they honour me with their lips, but their heart is far
from me: but in vain do they worship me, teaching the commandments and doctrines
of men" (Isa 29:13 LXX). The citation is rather loose if coming from the LXX as
we have it.

______________

Isa 42:1-4

" Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I
have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. He
shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. A
bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he
shall bring forth judgment unto truth. He shall not fail nor be discouraged,
till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law."

Mat 12:18-21

" Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well
pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the
Gentiles. He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in
the streets. A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not
quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory. And in his name shall the
Gentiles trust." The LXX reads, " Jacob is my servant, I will help him: Isarel
is my chosen, my soul has accepted him; I have put my Spirit upon him; he shall
bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not cry, nor lift up (his voice),
nor shall his voice be heard without. A bruised reed shall he not break, and
smoking flax shall he not quench; but he shall bring forth judgment to truth. He
shall shine out, and shall not be discouraged, until he have set judgment on the
earth: and in his name shall the Gentiles trust." With the exception of a word
here or there, the only part which matches is the last phrase And in his name
shall the Gentiles trust. One must conclude that Matthew is either taking
liberities with the LXX, or taking liberities with his translation of the Hebrew
into Greek.

______________

Since there are differences between the NT citations and both the LXX and the
Masoretic Text, the question arises as to what translation the writers of the NT
used. At times it seems as if they are using the traditional Hebrew text, at
other times it seems as if they are taking great liberties with the Hebrew text.
Sometimes their quote matches the LXX, and at other times their citation differs
from the LXX. As Bible believing Christians, how do we resolve this dilemma?

1). It should also be noted that not every passage cited as an Old Testament
quotation is in fact a quotation. Many times they are allusions or simply a
general reference, but not an excerpt from an OT passage. For example, in Acts
7:14 Stephen states, " Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and
all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls." The number which Stephen gives
Isaiah 75. However, the passage in Gen 46:27 totals 70. There we read, " And the
sons of Joseph, which were born him in Egypt, were two souls: all the souls of
the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were threescore and ten." The Greek
LXX agrees with Stephen in Gen 46:27 and lists the number as 75 souls. This
passage is often used as an example of a NT saint citing the LXX. The truth is
that Stephen is not quoting anything, he is referring to something.

Dr. George Ladd writes, " These two texts reflect two ways of numbering Jacob’s
family." (The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p.1136). Although Dr. Ladd was
commenting on how the LXX and the Hebrew text derived their totals, the same may
be said at how the passage in Gen 46:1-34 and Stephen derived theirs. In his
book, Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, Dr. John W. Haley lays out the
differences without referencing the LXX. Haley writes, " Jacob’s children,
grandchildren, and great-grandchildren amounted to sixty-six (Gen 46:8-26).
Adding Jacob himself, and Joseph with his two sons, we have seventy. If to the
sixty-six we add the nine wives of Jacob’s sons (Judah’s and simeon’s wives were
dead; Joseph could not be said to call himself, his own wife, or his two sons
into Egypt; and Jacob is specified separately by Stephen), we have seventy-five
persons, as in Acts." (Baker Book House, 1983 ed., p.389). Therefore the
difference in number can be clarified by an examination of the Biblical texts
and not referencing the citation to that of the LXX. Further, scrutiny of the
passage in Acts clearly shows that Stephen was referring to events in Gen
46:1-34 and not quoting the passage.

2). Because one quotes from a source does not mean they are fully endorsing that
source. We find, for example, Paul citing from the philosophies of the Greeks in
order to reach the Greeks (Acts 17:23; Tit 1:12). This did not mean that he
accepted their philosophies. The same is true today. In order to reach someone
with the gospel we will use whatever translation the person has. Those who have
ministered to Roman Catholics will cite the gospel from either the Douay-Rheims
Version or the New American Version. Those laboring on various fields through
out the world will use whatever translation is in use by the people they are
ministering to in order to reach them. Therefore, it would not be unthinkable to
realize that when reaching the Greek speaking world, the NT writer was moved to
use a Greek version. However, this does not mean that they thought that source
was inspired or infallible.

3). Finally, we must remember that the writers of the NT had a unique position
which we are not allotted today. They wrote under inspiration. They had the
right to change the text, for it was in reality God who was doing the changing
in that it is His word. This was recognized by the translators of the KJV. They
understood that the Biblical writers would sometimes use a certain text and
alter it, " as the spirit gave them utterance". Thus the writers of the NT had a
unique liberty, and an awesome responsibly.

CLEMENT AND THE LXX: In his Epistle to the Corinthians, Clement of Rome (30-100
AD) uses a multitude of citations from the Old Testament. From the following few
examples, the student can see some of the differences between the Greek of
Clement and the LXX. In each of the following examples the student will find the
following: 1) The OT reference allude to by Clement. 2) The English translation
of Clement’s epistle to the Corinthians (by Archbishop Wake). 3) The quote Greek
in which Clement wrote. 4) The Greek of the LXX. Thus the student can compare
for himself the Greek of both Clement and the LXX. 5) Last of all, the English
translation of the LXX as provided by Sir Lancelot Brenton.

______________

Deu 32:8-9

" When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated
the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the
children of Israel. For the LORD’s portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of
his inheritance."

Clement writes:

"For so it is written, When the Most High divided the nations, when he separated
the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the nations, according to the number of
his angels; his people Jacob became the portion of the Lord, and Israel the lot
of his inheritance." (1 Clem. 13:7) The Greek Clement used:

"Ote diemerizen o upsistos ethne, os diespeiren uious Adam, estesen oria ethnwn
kata arithmon angelon Theou. Egenethe meris kuriou laos autou Iakwb, sxoinisma
kleronomias autou Isranl." The Greek of the LXX:

"Ote diemerizen o upsistos ethne, os diespeiren uious Adam, estesen oria ethnwn
kata arithmon angelon Theou. Kai egenethe meris kuriou laos autou Iakwb,
sxoinisma kleronomias autou Isranl." The English of the LXX:

"When the Most High divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, he
set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels of God. And
his people Jacob became the portion of the Lord, Israel was the line of his
inheritance." With the exception of the Greek word kai (and), the two are a
perfect match. Yet notice that in verse 15 the match is not so perfect, as is so
with the following examples.

______________

Deu 32:15

"But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick,
thou art covered with fatness; then he forsook God which made him, and lightly
esteemed the Rock of his salvation."

Clement writes:

"All honour and enlargement was given unto you; and so was fulfilled that which
is written, my beloved did eat and drink, he was enlarged and waxed fat, and he
kicked." (1 Clem. 2:1). The Greek that Clement used:

"Ethagen kai epien, kai eplatunte kai epaxunte, kai apelaxtisen o egapemenos."
The Greek of the LXX:

"Ethagen Iakob kai eneplesthe, kai apelaktisen o egapemenos, elipanthe,
epaxaunthe, eplatunthe " The English of the LXX:

"So Jacob ate and was filled, and the beloved one kicked; he grew fat, he became
thick and broad."

______________

Gen 15:5-6

" And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell
the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy
seed be. And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for
righteousness."

Clement writes:

"And again he saith: and God brought forth Abraham, and said unto him; Look now
toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: so shall thy
seed be. And Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness."
(1 Clem. 5:10-11). The Greek that Clement used:

"Eksegagen o Thos ton Abraam kai eipen, Anablepson eis ton ouranon kai
arithmeson tous asteras, ei dunese eksarithmesai autous, outos estai to sperma
sou. Episteusen de Abraam to Theo, kai elogisthe auto eis dikaiosunen." The
Greek of the LXX:

"Eksegage de auton ekso, kai eipen auto anablepson de eis ton ouranon, kai
arithmeson tous asteras, ei dunese eksarithmesai autous; kai eipen, outos estai
to sperma sou. Kai episteusen Abram to Theo, kai elogisthe auto eis
dikaiosunen." The English of the LXX:

"And he brought him out and said to him, Look up now to heaven, and count the
stars, if thou shalt be able to number them fully, and he said, Thus shall thy
seed be. And Abram believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness."

______________

Psa 37:9 " For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD,
they shall inherit the earth."

Clement writes:

"For it is written, The merciful shall inherit the earth; and they that are
without evil shall be left upon it:" (1 Clem. 7:10). The Greek Clement used:

"Xrestoi esontai oiketopes ges, akakoi de upoleiphthesontai ep autes:" The Greek
of the LXX:

"Oti oi ponereuomenoi eksolothreuthesontai, oi de upomenontes ton Kurion, autoi
kleronomesousi ten gen." The English of the LXX:

"For evil-doers shall be destroyed: but they that wait on the Lord, they shall
inherit the land."

______________ Dan 7:10 with Isa 6:3

"A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands
ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the
judgment was set, and the books were opened." (Dan 7:10)

"And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts:
the whole earth is full of his glory." (Isa 6:3)

Clement writes:

"As saith the scripture, thousands of thousands stood before him and ten
thousand times ten thousand ministered unto him. And they cried, saying, Holy,
holy, holy is the Lord of Sabaoth: The whole earth is full of his glory." (1
Clem. 16:6) The Greek Clement used:

"Muriai muriades pareitekeisan auto, kai xilia xiliades eleitourgoun auto, kai
ekekragon; Agios, agios, agios kurios sabaoth, pleres pasa e ktisis tes doxes
autou." The Greek of the LXX:

"xiliai xiliades eleitourgoun auto, kai muriai muriades pareistekeistekeisan
auto;" (Dan 7:10)

"Kai ekekragen eteros pros ton eteron, kai elegon, agios agios agios Kurios
sabaoth, pleres pasa e ge tes doxes autou." The English of the LXX:

>"thousands thousands ministered to him, and ten thousands of myriads attended
upon him:" (Dan 7:10)

"And one cried to the other, and they said, Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of
hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory."

______________

Isa 60:17

" For brass I will bring gold, and for iron I will bring silver, and for wood
brass, and for stones iron: I will also make thy officers peace, and thine
exactors righteousness."

Clement writes:

" For thus saith the Scripture, in a certain place: I will appoint their
overseers in righteousness, and their ministers in faith." (1 Clem. 19:6) The
Greek Clement used:

"Katasteso tous episkopous auton en dikaiosune kai tous diakonous auton en
pistei." The Greek of the LXX:

"Kai doso tous arxontas sou en eirene, kai tous episkopous sou en dikaiosune."
The English of the LXX:

"and I will make thy princes peacable, and thine overseers righteous."

______________

One can point to Clement and say that his citations do not match the King James
Version, nor do they always match the Masoretic Hebrew Text. This is to be
expected since Clement was not using the KJV. Further, whatever text he did use,
if it was not already translated into Greek he had to do so himself. And yet, if
we claim that Clement was not using the Masoretic Text because his citations do
not match, how can we claim that he was using the LXX since they likewise do not
match? The dogma that Clement and other early Church Father strictly used the
LXX seems rather remote. In accordance with this same historical time frame, Sir
Frederic Kenyon has pointed out that, " (The LXX) was not . . . accepted by the
stricter Jews, who in controversy repudiated arguments based on Septuagint
texts." (The Text of the Greek Bible p.29). This is also true of Josephus who
rejected the LXX because of its additions to the Hebrew canon of scripture.
Likewise, scholarship reconignize that the enhancement of the LXX in history
came not from the Jewish scribs, but from sources within Christiandom from
around the third century. As to its value in the study of textual criticism, Dr.
Ernst Wurthwein writes, "No other version has received as much attention for
textual criticism as [the LXX]. Not only was it valued highly in antiquity, but
in the nineteenth century many scholars practically preferred it over the
Masoretic text. They believed that because of its pre-Christian origins it could
assist in the recovery of an earlier, pre- Masoretic text that would be closer
to the original than [the Masoretic Text]. But today we recognize that [the LXX]
neither was nor was intended to be a precise scholarly translation." (The Text
of the Old Testament, pp 63-64). Later, Wurthwein quotes Dr. G. Bertram as
writing, "The Septuagint belongs to the history of Old Testament interpretation
rather than to the history of the Old Testament text. It can be used as a
textual witness only after its own understanding of the Old Testament text has
been made clear." (Ibid. pp. 67-68).

Therefore we can see that the LXX does not shed light on the text of the
original Hebrew, but only on how some interpreted the Hebrew text. Further, we
also can see that the Biblical guardians of the Old Testament, the Jews, were
not in favor of the readings found in the LXX, nor in the additions it made to
the Hebrew canon of scripture. Therefore, we can see the wisdom and spiritual
guidance provided for the translators of the KJV in using the Hebrew Masoretic
Text for their work on the Old Testament, as well as their use of the
Traditional Greek Text for the New Testament. Thus in both they were using the
Text Received (Textus Receptus).

QUESTIONS FROM STUDENTS:

"What is King James Onlyism?"

It often depends on who is asking the question and what they mean when they
refer to those who believe the KJV to be the preserved word of God for the
English-speaking people. I am called, for example, a KJV only advocate. I am
told that KJV only advocates such as myself believe the KJV is inspired. I have
been told that other KJV only advocates, such as Dr. Ruckman, believe the KJV is
inspired. However, I have never read where Dr. Ruckman has stated such, and I
know for a fact that I do not believe it. However, this does depend on what
someone means by the term. To me, Biblical inspiration as given in scripture, is
something given first hand. It was limited to Biblical writers and not copyist
and translators. Inspiration has to do with what " is given" (2Ti 3:16), as holy
men of God were moved by the Holy Ghost (2Pe 1:21). The problem in understanding
what was said is because those who misconstrue it do not differ between
inspiration and preservation. As has been stated in prior lessons, inspiration
has to do with the producing of scripture. Preservation has to do with the
keeping of scripture. It is God who inspired His words, and it is God who keeps
them.

James White lists five different groups of these he refers to as KJV only
advocates (The King James Only Controversy pp.1-4). I do not find myself in any
of these groups listed. Since I cannot speak for others, I am left to speak only
for myself in defining what I am. I believe that God gave His words without
error by inspiration. I believe that God preserved these words and watched over
them to keep them without error throughout all generations since their written
inception. The KJV, I believe, is the preserved word of God for the
English-speaking world since 1611 and stands without error. When I read the KJV
I believe that I am reading the very words of God which He has provided for me
through His care in keeping His words, so that they are in fact the very words
of God. So if by King James Only one means that only the King James Version is
the preserved words of God without error for those who speak English since 1611,
I would have to say that I am of that group.

However, some have concluded that KJV Onlyism means that this is the only
translation KJV advocates use or that there was no word of God before 1611. From
this comes such false arguments as stating that Psa 12:6-7 does not refer to the
KJV. Brother White is quick to point this out in stating, " My first question
is, ’Where does Psa 12:1-8 say that the words of the LORD refer to the King
James Version of the Bible?’" (Ibid. p. 243). Of course, it does not. It refers
to the fact that God said He would preserve His words, of which the KJV is
evidence that He has done so even to this day.

Anyone reading the lessons so far must admit that evidence has been provided of
the preservation of God’s words long before 1611. If not, I would suggest that
the student reread lesson five. And, if one insists that being a KJV only
advocate limits the Bible only to English-speaking people, I would again suggest
that the student reread the same lesson. The simple fact is that the preserved
word of God was here before 1611 and in other languages besides English. Any
statement otherwise is a perversion of the facts given and a misrepresentation
of those who support and believe the KJV. Nor does my belief in the KJV as the
preserved word of God prohibit me from reading additional translations, both in
English and other languages. I have freely used modern versions to support a
reading in a text and I have often read from modern versions for one reason or
another. If someone wishes to use a modern version, they are free to do so. I
believe what the translators of the NIV said about their version, that it was
made by imperfect men and would undoubtedly fall short of its goal. I think that
the NIV, as all Bible translations, contain the word of God and can be used by
God. This, however, does not free God from His obligation to keep and preserve
his words, to keep them incorruptible, as He promised. I believe that the KJV is
a fulfillment of that promise.

Yours in Christ Jesus,

Thomas Holland

Psa 118:8 To participate in Dr. Holland’s class, click on Dr. Holland’s e-mail
address, which is: logos1611@aol.com <<mailto:logos1611@aol.com>> and tell Dr.
Holland that you would like to participate in the class.

Back to Index <classes.htm>


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 9: 09 LESSON NINE
========================================================================

Lesson Nine: THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees,
hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go
in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.(Mat 23:13)

Jesus spoke many fiery words to the scribes and scholars of His day for not
believing and practicing the things they wrote. They "shut up the kingdom of
heaven" and thus shut themselves out of it. They wrote of the Messiah and yet
they did not recognize Him when He was among them. They rejected their King, His
Kingdom, and crucified the Lord of Glory. They copied the Law and the Prophets,
the Old Testament with all of its books. They also copied other ancient writings
which they considered either important or holy such as: Jewish history and
philosophy, instructions in how to live a godly and righteous life, concerns of
the day, and hopes for the future. They were ever writing, ever learning, but
never coming to the knowledge of the truth.

West of the northern half of the Dead Sea lies the ruins of Qumran. A fantastic
discovery was made in 1947 in the various caves throughout that region. Scrolls
and fragments of scrolls were found. These ancient writings became the center of
attention for both the media and students of the Bible and archaeology. Like
sheep desiring water, a Bedouin shepherd had lead a thirsty world to the most
acclaimed finding in the twentieth-century, the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Many claims have been made about the Scrolls. Some, while drinking at this newly
found fountain of knowledge, have seen the scrolls as a pool of Bethesda
offering spiritual or academic healing of some kind. Others have seen them as
the waters of Marah, bitter and full of corruption. Perhaps the best way to view
them is to see them for what they are--scrolls written by scribes. Like the many
writings of men, they offer things which are both sweet and bitter. At least
five hundred different scribes were responsible for writing the Dead Sea Scrolls
(see Who Wrote The Dead Sea Scrolls? by Norman Golb. Scribner Publishers, 1995.
p.154.). Most are dated before the time of Christ, while some are dated during
and after Christ. One cannot but wonder if any of the writers of the scrolls
heard the message of Jesus Christ and His condemnation for not practicing what
they had copied. What is certain, however, is that those scribes who heard the
Savior’s message had access to what became known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. THE
DEAD SEA SCROLLS IN KJV LITERATURE: The scrolls have found their way into the
literature of those who support the Traditional Text and the Authorized Version.
Dr. Edward F. Hills devotes three pages of his book, The King James Version
Defended, to the Dead Sea Scrolls. After correctly stating that the scrolls do
not always agree with themselves, he writes:

Thus we see that, despite the new discoveries, our confidence in the
trustworthiness of the Old Testament text must rest on some more solid
foundation than the opinions of naturalistic scholars. For as the Qumran studies
demonstrate, these scholars disagree with one another. What one scholar grants
another takes away. Instead of depending on such inconstant allies,
Bible-believing Christians should develop their own type of Old Testament
textual criticism, a textual criticism which takes its stand on the teachings of
the Old Testament itself and views the evidence in the light of these teachings.
Such a believing textual criticism leads us to full confidence in the Masoretic
(Traditional) Hebrew text which was preserved by the divinely appointed Old
Testament priesthood and the scribes and scholars grouped around it. (p. 102).

Giving claim that the scrolls were produced by the Essenes, a strict Jewish
sect, Dr. Donald A. Waite writes,

[The Essenes] left the Jewish beliefs their fathers had. They were an offshoot
and a false, heretical cult. There are two reasons for questioning these Dead
Sea Scrolls where they might differ with the Masoretic Hebrew text: (1) They
might have had corrupt Hebrew texts that they began with, at least in some
places; (2) They might have been careless in the transmission of these texts.
These are both unknown, hence, they should never be used to replace the
Masoretic Hebrew text. (Defending the King James Bible, p.30) When asked, "Do
the Dead Sea Scrolls render the King James Bible obsolete?" Dr. Samuel C. Gipp
responds with,"No, they support it." He then expands his response: Their text
actually agrees with the King James Bible. This fact makes them unattractive to
scholars desiring to overthrow the perfect Bible. So, other than commenting on
the irony of the way in which they were found, they are largely ignored. The
translators of the King James Bible did not need the Dead Sea Scrolls since they
already had the Textus Receptus which they match. (The Answer Book: A Helpful
Handbook for Christians. Shelbyville, TN: Bible and Literature Missionary
Foundation. 1989. p.102) The fact that information about the scrolls is somewhat
concise and limited is to be expected when examining the issue of the King James
Bible. The same may be said of most studies provided by supporters of modern
versions against the Traditional Text. The primary reason for this is that, for
the most part, the Dead Sea Scrolls do not deal with the issue of New Testament
textual criticism. The Bible believing scholars mentioned above are dealing with
the issues of reconstructing the text of the New Testament as it affects the
Biblical promise of preservation. However, supporters of the Traditional Text do
mention the affects of the scrolls, as do the supporters of the Alexandrian
Text. Since there is a general interest concerning the scrolls, and because a
study of the scrolls can reveal both the method and motives of modern
scholarship, it becomes appropriate to discuss these ancient manuscripts.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND The story tells of a shepherd boy, Muhammad adh-Dhib
(which means Muhammad the wolf), out seeking his lost goat (or sheep according
to some accounts). Thinking that the animal had wondered off into one of the
many nearby caves, Muhammad threw a stone into one of them hoping to hear the
sound of his lost goat scurrying off. Instead, he heard the sound of a jar
braking. Calling one of his friends, he entered the cave and found ancient
manuscripts laying in the cave, hidden in primitive jars. Thus was the discovery
of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

However, this story is not written in stone. There are other versions concerning
Muhammad adh-Dhib and his amazing discovery. Another account says the
fifteen-year-old shepherd was simply herding some goats when he found the cave.
Still other accounts say that Muhammad adh-Dhib and his friend were seeking
shelter from a storm in the cave when they came across the manuscripts. There is
also the story which says that the shepherd, along with a few of his friends,
were smuggling goods from Jordan to Bethlehem when they happened to come upon
the scrolls.

Regardless of which account of the story is true, the seven scrolls discovered
in this cave are very significant findings. The scrolls found in what was later
designated as Cave I were the two Isaiah Scrolls (1QIsa. a. and 1QIsa b.), The
Habakkuk Commentary, The Manual of Discipline, The Thanksgiving Scroll, The War
Scroll, and the Genesis Apocryphon. Later, additional manuscripts were
discovered revealing the vast majority of the Old Testament Books along with
additional religious and secular writings. These scrolls and fragments are
considered by scholars as the greatest manuscript discovery of modern times.

Cave I is located in the northwest corner of the Dead Sea, about a mile and a
half from the shore line in what was then the Wilderness of Jordan. It also
stands about a mile from the Khirbet Qumran, the old ruins believed to be the
dwelling place of the Essene sect by the majority of scholars. However, at the
time Qumran was thought of as an old fortress.

Three of the scrolls were taken to the Hebrew University in Jerusalem by Dr.
Eliezer Sukenik. The other scrolls were sold to St. Mark’s, a Syrian Orthodox
Church in Jerusalem, where the church’s head, called the Metropolitan, retained
them. The Metropolitan, Mar Samuel, took the scrolls to the American School of
Oriental Research, also in Jerusalem, for their examination. It was then that an
announcement was made to the world. In London’s, The Times, an article dated
April 12, 1948 read as follows:

Yale University announced yesterday the discovery in Palestine of the earliest
known manuscript of the Book of Isaiah. It was found in the Syrian monastery of
St. Mark in Jerusalem, where it had been preserved in a scroll of parchment
dating to about the first century BC. Recently it was identified by scholars of
the American School of Oriental Research at Jerusalem.

There were also examined at the school three other ancient Hebrew scrolls. One
was part of a commentary on the Book of Habakkuk; another seemed to be a manual
of discipline of some comparatively little-known sect or monastic order,
possibly the Essenes. The third scroll has not been identified. (The Dead Sea
Scrolls Today, p.6)

Dr. Sukenik’s son, Yigael Yadin (also noted as a Qumran expert), was in the
United States in 1954. Mar Samuel was visiting the United States at that same
time seeking to sell his scrolls. Yadin purchased the four scrolls from Mar
Samuel for $250,000 dollars, and gave them to the newly formed state of Israel.
The seven scrolls were united and placed in a special museum, shaped like a lid
of one of the jars in which the scrolls were kept. The museum is known as the
Shrine of the Book.

It was difficult to excavate the caves in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s, a
difficult chapter in Middle Eastern history. By the time the knowledge of the
scrolls was known, the state of Israel was being formed, and war raged in the
Middle East. Despite this unsettling interval, the Bedouins continued to search
the region and discovered additional scrolls. Eventually, eleven caves were
excavated and thousands of fragments were discovered. Throughout the years these
scrolls and scroll fragments have been published and translated. Many of the
manuscripts remained unpublished until the early 1990’s.

Dating the scrolls has always been a problem. Not all scholars agree on the
exact date. For the most part, the scrolls are dated from about the third
century BC to around 68 AD. The method of dating rests on several factors.
Findings among the scrolls or at Qumran, such as pots and coins, have helped fix
the date of the scrolls. Paleography, the science of dating manuscripts by the
shape of letters used in writing, also accounts for the dates of the scrolls.
Carbon-14 dating was used on the cloth which held one of the Isaiah scrolls, but
until recently Carbon-14 dating could not be used on the scrolls themselves
because it required a large section of the scrolls to be destroyed. However,
Carbon-14 dating methods have improved and now only a small fragment is needed
in this process. An article in the Biblical Archaeology Review has shown that
the dates fixed by paleography have been confirmed by Carbon-14 dating (see BAR,
November/December, 1991. p.72). For the most part, Carbon-14 dating was exactly
the same as the paleography dates given to the manuscripts. It is interesting to
note, however, that the Masada manuscript of Joshua, which is of the Masoretic
Text, had been dated by scholars as being written somewhere around 30 AD,
according to paleographic studies. However, Carbon-14 dating on the same
manuscript gave it a range of 150 to 75 BC.

TEXTUAL VARIANCE AMONG THE SCROLLS

Some have mistakenly assumed that the Dead Sea Scrolls only contain Biblical
writings. The truth is that the scrolls reflect a library scattered throughout
eleven caves. Some are still in scroll form, but most are fragmentary after
about two thousand years of aging. With the exceptions of Esther and Nehemiah,
every book of the Old Testament is represented in the findings at Qumran. It
should be noted, however, that representation and full representation are not
the same thing. Some books are represented with only fragmentary evidence in
very limited number, while other books are better and more fully represented
among the findings. For example, in the most current published lists of
manuscripts among the Dead Sea Scrolls there are thirty-six manuscripts which
represent the book of Psalms, making it the most represented Biblical book among
the scrolls. It is followed by Deuteronomy with twenty-nine manuscripts and
Isaiah with twenty-one. First and Second Chronicles are represented by only one
manuscript, as is Ezra. Most of the others have under ten manuscripts which
represent their writings. The exceptions are those previously listed; as well as
Genesis (with fifteen manuscripts), Exodus (with seventeen), and Leviticus (with
thirteen). There are about eight hundred manuscripts among the scrolls. Of
these, slightly over two hundred represent Biblical books, which means only
about one-forth of the Qumran library contained copies of the scriptures.

It should also be pointed out that not all of these Biblical books represent the
same textual history. The Biblical books found at Qumran are divided into three
textual categories. 1) Manuscripts which represent the Masoretic-Traditional
Text. 2) Manuscripts which represent the text of the Septuagint. 3) Manuscripts
which represent the Samaritan text. However, according to Dr. Emanuel Tov (who
became co-editor-in-chief of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1991) there are two
additional groups. 4) Texts which demonstrate a unique style of writing,
spelling, and grammar found only at Qumran. 5) Nonaligned texts which do not
show any allegiance to the four other groups. About 25% of the Biblical
manuscripts found at Qumran fall into the nonaligned category. (See, The Dead
Sea Scrolls Today, by James C. VanderKam. Eerdmans, 1994. pp.133-134). The
Proto-Masoretic Text:

These manuscripts are called *Proto-Masoretic* because they agree with the
Masoretic Text, yet date before the Masoretic Text became the official Hebrew
Bible, as recognized by scholarship. It should be noted that the Dead Sea
Scrolls were a great find in establishing the importance of the Masoretic Text
as the authoritative text. Up until the finds at Qumran (as well as findings at
Wadi Murabbaat) the oldest Masoretic Texts dated to the middle ages. With
Qumran, we now have manuscripts almost a thousand years older which are
Masoretic. Most of the scrolls which came from Cave IV are of this textual type
and represent Biblical books such as Isaiah, Ezekiel, the Minor Prophets, as
well as some fragments of the Law and Historical books. Geisler and Nix state
that the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls have

. . .dismiss(ed) any remaining doubts about the fidelity of the Masoretic text
by providing scholars with hundreds of manuscripts including almost every book
of the Old Testament, which antedate the extant Masoretic manuscripts by a
thousand years. The results of scholarly comparison reveal that the Masoretic
text and the various text types of the Dead Sea manuscripts are substantially
indentical. (A General Introduction to the Bible, p.266). The most noted is
perhaps the Isaiah Scrolls. Two scrolls containing the book of Isaiah were found
in Cave I. The first is sometimes called the St. Mark’s Manuscript (1QIsa a.)
because it was initially owned by St. Mark’s Monastery. The second is sometimes
called the Hebrew University manuscript of Isaiah (1QIsa b.) because it is owned
by that University. Both represent the Masoretic Hebrew Text, and are considered
a major victory for both the Masoretic Text and the King James Bible. Dr. James
C. VanderKam has recently pointed out that,

Once scholars had had opportunity to study the great Isaiah scroll from Cave 1
(1QIs a, copied in approximately 100 BC) and to compare it with the Masoretic
Text, they were impressed with the results. Despite the fact that the Isaiah
scroll was about a thousand years older than the Masoretic version of Isaiah,
the two were nearly identical except for small details that rarely affected the
meaning of the text (The Dead Sea Scrolls Today, p. 126)

One of these minor variants referred to by VanderKam, and noted in his book, is
found in Isa 6:3. The Masoretic Text and the King James Bible read, "Holy, holy,
holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory." However, the
St. Mark’s Isaiah text reads, "Holy, holy is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth
is full of his glory," thus omitting the word "holy." Nevertheless, with the
exception of some places such as the one given, the Isaiah scroll is a major
victory for the Masoretic Text, as stated by Dr. Mansoor, The text is by and
large the same as that of the traditional Book of Isaiah. Most of the deviations
from the Masoretic text are in details of spelling and grammar, but in some
instances there are very definite variant readings. . . Some of the differences
between the St. Mark’s Isaiah scroll and the Masoretic text are merely mistakes
in writing--omission or addition of one or more words, the confusion of words
and letters, the substitution of one word for another, the transposition of
words or of letters within a word, and various errors of other kinds. (The Dead
Sea Scrolls, p. 74-75)

And, as close as this scroll is to the Masoretic tradition, the Hebrew
University’s Isaiah scroll is still closer. Again, Mansoor writes, "Unlike the
St. Mark’s scroll, the Hebrew University scroll agrees closely with the
Masoretic text." (Ibid., p. 79). Dr. Ernst Wurthwein adds to this by writing,

. . . the agreement of the second Isaiah scroll (i.e. 1QIsa b.) with (the
Masoretic text) is striking . . . it has been taken by some as evidence for the
existence of the type of text we identify as Masoretic long before the Masoretic
period. Although the text of this scroll presents very few problems in itself,
it poses for us the basic and still unsolved problem of the age of the Masoretic
text. (The Text of the Old Testament, p.144).

About % of the Biblical texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls are Masoretic. Further,
the group of manuscripts listed by Dr. Tov as unique to Qumran also, "resemble
the later Masoretic Text." (VanderKam, p.143) These texts account for 25% of the
Dead Sea Scrolls. Thus, as one can see, among the Biblical books of Dead Sea
Scrolls, 65% reflect the Traditional Text of the Old Testament.

Adding additional support to the Masoretic readings among the Dead Sea Scrolls
we must also consider the findings at Wadi Murabbaat and Masada. In 1951 caves
at Wadi Murabbaat, which is south of Qumran near the Dead Sea, were discovered
which contained Biblical manuscripts. The difference here is that these Biblical
texts reflect the Masoretic Text and exclude other textual types. Dr. Menahem
Mansoor wrote, "The biblical manuscripts found at Wadi Murabbaat are important
in that, unlike the Qumran manuscripts, they uniformly exhibit a text coinciding
with the Masoretic text." (The Dead Sea Scrolls, Eerdmans, 1964. p.28). These
manuscripts, however, are slightly younger and are believed to have been written
between 132-135 AD. Concerning their content, Mansoor informs us that

Biblical fragments dating from the first and second centuries AD were found. The
fragments from the Murabbaat caves provide a text identical with that of the
Masoretes in the texts of the Pentateuch, Isaiah, Minor Prophets, and Psalms,
whereas this is not true of the biblical texts found at Qumran. (Ibid., p. 31).

Between 1963 and 1965 additional manuscripts were discovered while excavating
Masada, the famous rock fortress where Jewish nationalists withheld the advances
of the Roman army in 73 or 74 AD. Fourteen scrolls containing Biblical texts
were found which, "agree extensively with the traditional (i.e. Masoretic)
Biblical texts--only in the text of Ezekiel are there a few insignificant
variants." (Ernst Wurthwein, The Text of the Old Testament, Eerdmans; 1979.
p.31). Masada is even further south of Qumran than Wadi Murabbaat along the
western coast of the Dead Sea. These manuscripts must date before the fall of
the fortress, which places them before 74 AD. Yet, they reflect the Masoretic
Traditional Text of the Hebrew Old Testament. The Proto-Septuagint Text:

Only 5% of the Dead Sea Scrolls are Proto-Septuagint. These are texts written in
Hebrew which reflect a reading more like the Greek Septuagint than they do the
Traditional Text. For example, both the Greek Septuagint and the text of
Jeremiah found at Qumran (4QJer b.) agree in omitting a healthy portion of the
text. For example, in the passage from Jer 10:3-11, verses 6, 7, 8, and 10 are
omitted in both the Septuagint and 4QJer b. Also, as we discussed in our last
lesson, the Septuagint and Qumran text (4QExod a.) agree in stating the number
of the descendants of Jacob as seventy-five instead of the seventy listed in the
Masoretic Text. Thus, some have assumed that Stephen was citing either the
Septuagint or the Proto-Septuagint text of Qumran in giving the number as
seventy-five (Acts 7:14 and Exo 1:5). However, as we have already discussed,
this can be explained by the way the family was numbered and not the text
Stephen was citing. The same is true of the passages in Deu 32:43 and Heb 1:6
with the phrase, "let all the angels of God worship him." Again, both the
Septuagint and the Qumran text (4QDeut q.) have the phrase, while the
Traditional Text does not. Like the previous example, this has been discussed in
our last lesson. It is interesting to note the comment made by Ralph Klein in
his book, Textual Criticism of the Old Testament: The Septuagint after Qumran.
In discussing the differences found in the Qumran manuscripts, and their
relation to both the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text of Exo 1:1-6, he asks,
"Which reading is original, the MT or the Hebrew used by the LXX translators and
at Qumran? No final answer is possible." (p. 15). The statement is true only if
we concede that the original text can only be ascertained through the process of
textual criticism and not maintained by the Author of Holy Writ through Biblical
preservation. It is because of this truth, Biblical preservation, that we can
see additional resolutions to textual problems which seem to allude the majority
of modern scholarship. The Proto-Samaritan Text: As with the Proto-Septuagint
Textual Type of the Dead Sea Scrolls, only 5% of the manuscripts found make up
what is called the Proto-Samaritan Textual Type. The Samaritan Pentateuch, as
indicated by the name, consisted only of the five books of Moses. The Hebrew
text is often the same as the Masoretic Text with differences in spelling rather
than textual variants. However, there are nineteen hundred variants which agree
with the text of the Septuagint over that of the Masoretic. This text also has
some additions to it. Like the Masoretic Text, the copies of the Samaritan
Pentateuch we have date to the Middle Ages. The findings at Qumran show that
this textual type existed before 68 AD. The Proto-Samaritan text found at Qumran
did not have the special additions found in the Samaritian Pentateuch. The
information concerning the various textual types found among the Dead Sea
Scrolls, along with other findings in that area, should reveal something to the
Bible-believing Christian. First, as in any library, the library at Qumran shows
a diverse variation of material. Is this not to be expected? If a student were
to visit my personal library, they would discover a wide variety of textual
types and general information. Second, considering the wide use of the Masoretic
Text in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and its exclusive use in other manuscript findings
near the Dead Sea, the Traditional Hebrew Text must be unquestionably considered
as authoritative. In it, we see both the handiwork and blessing of God. Third,
as in the study of New Testament textual criticism, it should not surprise the
Believer to see the subtle hand of the Enemy corrupting and questioning the very
words of God (Gen 3:1). Thus we are to expect additional textual types, as we
have seen in the study of New Testament textual criticism, with the endorsement
of scholarship over Biblical preservation.

WITHIN THE LIBRARY AT QUMRAN As has been stated, only about one-fourth of the
scrolls are Biblical books. In addition to various books of the Old Testament,
there are also manuscripts which contain Jewish Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphal
texts as well as other texts. These manuscripts make up the greater bulk of the
writings among the Dead Sea Scrolls, accounting for about three-fourth of all
the manuscripts found at Qumran.

Apocryphal Books: As with the Septuagint, there are within the scrolls
historical and non-historical books which make up the Jewish Apocrypha. These
are books which are not recognized as canonical by Jews and Protestants. Instead
they are considered historical or inspirational, but not inspired. However, the
Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church consider the Apocrypha canonical.

Only four Apocryphal books are represented among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The book
of Tabit is represented in both Aramaic and Hebrew manuscripts. Five copies of
the book have been found in Cave IV (4Q196-200) and all but one of these is
written in Aramaic. The book of Sirach (or Ecclesiasticus or the Wisdom of Jesus
ben Sira) is also represented at Qumran. Fragments of this book were found in
Cave II and Cave XI. Cave VII yielded a chapter from the book of Baruch, the
Letter of Jeremiah. All the manuscripts found in Cave VII which can be read are
written in Greek. Psalms 151, which is found in the Septuagint, was included in
the Psalm Scroll from Cave XI.

Pseudepigraphal Books:

Pseudepigraphal books are religious books which are not considered canonical by
Protestants, Catholics, or Jews. Of these, only three which were previously
known were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. They are the books of Enoch,
Jubilees, and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. In addition, new
Pseudepigrapha books were discovered in the caves at Qumran. Dr. Robert Eisenman
and Dr. Michael Wise have made several of these available in their book, The
Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered.

One example would be the Joshua Apocryphon (4Q522). Although the first half of
the book consists of names and places, the second half does tell of the Rock of
Zion and the Davidic Kingdom in prophecy. The fragment consists of two columns
and is translated as follows:

Column 1

Column 2

. . . and en Qeber and . . .Valley, and Bet Zippor, with . . .all the Valley of
Mozza . . .and HeikhalYezed and Yapur and . . . and Mini and En Kober . . .Garim
and Hedita and Oshel . . . which . . .and Ashkalon . . .[G]alil, and the two . .
.and the Sharon . . .Judah, and Beer Sheba, and Baalot . . .and Qeilah and
Adullam and . . .Gezer and Thamni and Gamzon and . . . Hiqqar and Qittar and
Ephronim and Shakkoth . . .Bet Horon, the lower and the upper, and . . .and the
Upper and the Lower Gilat.

. . .to establish there the . . .the times, for a son is about to be born to
Jesse, son of Perez, son of Ju[dah] . . .the rock of Zion, and he will disposes
from there all the Amorites . . .to build the House of the Lord, the God of
Israel. Gold and silver . . . cedars and cypress will he bring from Lebanon to
build it, and the sons of Satan . . .he will do priestly service there and a man
. . .your . . . from the . . . And the Lord will establish David securely . . .
[He]aven will dwell with him forever. But now, the Amorites are there, and the
Canaanites . . .dwell where the Hittites, none of whom have I sought . . .from
you. And the Shilonite, and the . . .I have given him as a servant . . .And now,
let us establish . . .far from . . .Eleazar . . .forever, from the House . .
.army . . . (Ibid., pp.91-92)

Perhaps the most noted among the new Pseudepigrapha books is the Genesis
Apocryphon. This was one of the seven original scrolls discovered in 1947 in
Cave I. It consists of several stories, written in Aramaic, which are based on
characters found in the book of Genesis. Included are expansions on the lives of
Lamech, Enoch, Methuselah, Noah, Abraham, and Sarah. Each story is told in the
first person giving their personal account of events in their lives. For
example, it says of Noah that he was such a wondrous child that Lamech, Noah’s
father, thought his wife, Noah’s mother, had an affair with one of the fallen
angels of Genesis chapter six. Lamech seeks the advice of his father,
Methuselah, who seeks the counsel of his father, Enoch. The following is this
story as translated from the scrolls by Dr. Geza Vermes.

. . . Behold, I thought then within my heart that conception was (due) to the
Watchers and the Holy Ones . . .and to the Giants . . .and my heart was troubled
within me because of this child. Then I, Lamech, approached Bathenosh [my] wife
in haste and said to her, ’ . . . by the Most High, the Great Lord, the King of
all the worlds and Ruler of the Sons of Heaven, until you tell me all things
truthfully, if . . . Tell me [this truthfully] and not falsely . . . by the King
of all the worlds until you tell me truthfully and not falsely.’

Then Bathenosh my wife spoke to me with much heat [and] . . . and said, ’O my
brother, O my lord, remember my pleasure . . . they lying together and my soul
within its body. [And I tell you] all things truthfully.’

. . . Then she mastered her anger and spoke to me saying ’O my lord, O my
[brother, remember] my pleasure! I swear to you by the Holy Great One, the King
of [the heavens] . . . that this seed is yours and that [this] conception is
from you. This fruit was planted by you . . . and by no stranger or Watcher or
Son of Heaven . . . [Why] is your countenance thus changed and dismayed, and why
is your spirit thus distressed . . .I speak to you truthfully.’

Then I, Lamech, ran to Methuselah my father, and [I told] him all these things.
[And I asked him to go to Enoch] his father for he would surely learn all things
from him. For he was beloved, and he shared the lot [of the angels], who taught
him all things. And when Methuselah heard [my words . . . he went to] Enoch his
father to learn all things truthfully from him . . .his will.

He went at once to Parwain and he found him there . . .[and] he said to Enoch
his father, ’O my father, O my lord, to whom I . . .And I say to you, lest you
be angry with me because I come here . . . (The Dead Sea Scrolls in English,
1962. pp.216-216)

Other Texts:

There are other texts which should be considered. One of the original seven
scrolls is the Habakkuk Commentary. Other Old Testament commentaries were
discovered as well. These are called peshers, a Hebrew word meaning
"interpretations." The verse is given, followed by the interpretation or
commentary. The line is introduced, for the most part, with the phrase, "This
refers to . . ." or "The meaning of this is . . ." The following is an example
of such, as translated by Dr. Theodor H. Gaster. The pesher is based on Hab
1:12-13 :

’Him hast thou appointed, O Lord, to wreak the judgment: and him has thou
established, O Rock, to proffer the charge--him who has kept his vision pure,
that it could not look upon perverseness.’ This refers to the fact that God will
not exterminate His people by the hand of the heathen, but will place the
execution of judgment on all the heathen in the hands of His elect. Moreover, it
is through charges proffered by the latter that the wicked among His own people
will stand condemned--that is, the people who kept His commandments only when
they were in trouble. This is what the Scriptures means by the words, ’him who
has kept his vision pure that it could not look upon evil.’ The reference is to
the fact that [God’s elect] did not go a-whoring after (the lusts of) their eyes
during the Era of Wickedness. (The Dead Sea Scriptures in English Translation,
p.251) The Manual of Discipline was so named by Dr. Millar Burrows, who has
written what has become the standard work on the Scrolls. His book is simply
titled, The Dead Sea Scrolls. Dr. Burrows was one of the first to translate The
Manual of Discipline. He named it such because it reminded him of a Methodist
Discipline Manual. This manuscript is sometimes called The Community Rule. Dr.
Geza Vermes comments on this manuscript in saying,

There are, to my knowledge, no writings in ancient Jewish sources parallel to
the Community Rule, but a similar type of literature flourished among Christians
between the second and fourth centuries, the so-called ’Church Orders’
represented by the Didache, the Didascalia, the Apostolic Constitution, etc.
(The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, p. 71) The following comes from the Manual of
Discipline as translated by Dr. Burrows. The passage is but a small section
discussing the two spirits within man.

He created man to have dominion over the world and made for him two spirits,
that he might walk by them until the appointed time of his visitation; they are
the spirits of truth and of error. In the abode of light are the origins of
truth, and from the source of darkness are the origins of error. In the hand of
the prince of lights is dominion over all sons of righteousness; in the ways of
light they walk. And in the hand of the angel of darkness is all dominion over
the sons of error; and in the ways of darkness they walk. And by the angel of
darkness is the straying of all the sons of righteousness, and all their sins
and their iniquities and their guilt, and the transgressions of their works in
his dominion, according to the mysteries of God, until his time, and all their
afflictions and the appointed times of their distress in the dominion of his
enmity. And all the spirits of his lot try to make the sons of light stumble;
but the God of Israel and his angel of truth have helped all the sons of light.
For he created the spirits of light and of darkness, and upon them he founded
every work and upon their ways every service. One of the spirits God loves for
all the ages of eternity, and with all its deeds he is pleased forever; as for
the other, he abhors its company, and all its ways he hates forever. (The Dead
Sea Scrolls, p. 374)

It should be noted that the Manual of Discipline disregards the Old Testament
teaching of one Messiah with two comings. Instead, its teaches there will be two
Messiahs.

Until the coming of the Prophet and of both the priestly and the lay Messiah,
these men are not to depart from the clear intent of the Law to walk in any way
in the stubbornness of their own hearts. They shall judge by the original laws
in which the members of the community were schooled from the beginning. (The
Dead Sea Scriptures In English Translation, p.58)

Among the scrolls are praises and hymns to God, such as the Thanksgiving Scroll.
This also was one of the original seven scrolls found in 1947. The following is
an example of the reading found in this scroll.

Thou art long-suffering in Thy judgements and righteous in all Thy deeds. By Thy
wisdom [all things exist from] eternity, and before creating them Thou knewest
their works for ever and ever. [Nothing] is done [without Thee] and nothing is
known unless Thou desire it. (The Dead Sea Scrolls, p.150) The War Scroll was
originally entitled, The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons
of Darkness. The scroll contains both military and religious information. Dr.
Mansoor writes, The scroll is important for several reasons. It provides the
first comprehensive data on military regulations for the Jewish armies during
the late period of the Second Temple. The material also includes military and
technical terms hitherto unknown. Yigael Yadin of the Hebrew University, one of
the foremost authorities on the War Scroll, says that it contains, "the oldest
record of Hebrew military craft that we have extant, clearer and more precise
than anything on the subject by the best classical historians."(The Dead Sea
Scrolls, p. 57). The writers of the scroll saw the physical world as an example
of the spiritual. They believed that all humanity was divided into one of two
groups, the Sons of Light or the Sons of Darkness. They saw themselves as the
Sons of Light. They believed that if they, the Sons of Light, kept the
commandments and laws of God as God gave them, they would be victorious over
their enemies. They believed in a future battle, which some have mistakenly
assumed was Armageddon, in which men and angels would fight. The war would last
for a total of forty years, with the Sabbatical years as years of rest from war.
Thus, every seven years there would be a year of peace. The following is the
opening to the War Scroll. At the beginning of the undertaking of the sons of
light, they shall start against the lot of the sons of darkness, the army of
Belial, against the troop of Edom and Moab and the sons of Ammon, against the
people of Philistia, and against the troops of the Kittem of Assyria, and with
them as helpers the violators of the covenant. The sons of Levi, the sons of
Judah, and the sons of Benjamin, the exiles of the desert, shall fight against
them and their forces with all their troops, when the exiles of the sons of
light return from the desert of the peoples to encamp in the desert of
Jerusalem. And after the battle they shall go up from there against the king of
the Kittim in Egypt; and in his time he shall go forth with great wrath to fight
against the kings of the north; and his wrath shall destroy and cut off the horn
of their strength. That will be a time of salvation for the people of God, and a
period of dominion for all the men of his lot, but eternal destruction for all
the lot of Belial. And there shall be a great tumult against the sons of
Japheth; and Assyria shall fall with none to help him. And the dominion of the
Kittim shall come to an end, so that wickedness shall be laid low without any
remnant; and there shall be no survivor of the sons of darkness. (The Dead Sea
Scrolls, by Millar Burrows, p.390)

There are, of course, many other scrolls among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Some will
be discussed later. However, this will provide the student with information
about the original seven scrolls found in Cave I. WHO WROTE THE SCROLLS? The
vast majority of scholars answer this question by stating that the Dead Sea
Scrolls were written by a Jewish sect known as the Essenes. Like the Biblical
groups of the Pharisees and Sadducees, the Essenes were both religious and
political. Some have seen the Essenes as a strict splinter group of the
Pharisees.

Historian Will Durant tells us that, The most extreme of the Jewish sects was
that of the Essenes. They derived their piety from the Chasidim, their name
probably from the Chaldaic *aschai* (bather), their doctrine and practice from
the stream of ascetic theory and regimen circulating through the world of the
last century before Christ; possibly they were influenced by Brahmanic,
Buddhist, Paress, Pythagorean, and Cynic ideas that came to the crossroads of
trade at Jerusalem. Numbering some 4000 in Palestine, they organized themselves
into a distinct order, observed both the written and the oral Law with
passionate exactitude, and lived together as almost monastic celibates tilling
the soil in the oasis of Engadi amid the desert west of the Dead Sea. (The Story
of Civilization: Part III, p. 537) The Jewish philosopher Philo wrote that a
group of Essenes lived west of the Dead Sea in the wilderness. Some have used
this information to assume that the ruins found at Qumran must have been the
dwelling place of the Essenes because it fits the general location. Likewise,
since John the Baptist dwelt in this same wilderness, some have concluded the
John was part of the Essenes sect or influenced by the strict teachings of the
Essenes. However, such conclusions about John the Baptist overstep the Biblical
and historical facts.

Josephus provides us some additional information about the Essenes. In his
Antiquities Of The Jews, he informs us that the Essenes lived in groups, having
all things in common. They, "neither marry wives, nor are desirous to keep
servants; as thinking the latter tempts men to be unjust, and the former gives
the handle to domestic quarrels; but as they live by themselves, they minister
one to another." (Book XVIII: 1:5) They believed in the immortality of the soul
and that rewards awaited those who lived the righteous life.

Certainly many of the writings among the Dead Sea Scrolls reflect the views and
teachings of the Essenes. And the ruins found a mile away from Cave I at Qumran
most certainly could have been an Essenes community. Nevertheless, there are
those who have come to different conclusions as to who wrote the Dead Sea
Scrolls and about the community at Qumran.

One differing view is that of Dr. Norman Golb as shown in his book, Who Wrote
The Dead Sea Scrolls? Dr. Golb is a recognized Qumran scholar who believes that
the scrolls are the remains of the Jewish library located in Jerusalem. He
believes that these scrolls were hidden in the wilderness to protect the
Jerusalem library from the Romans when they destroyed the Second Temple and the
city in 70 AD. He claims that the city of Qumran was not the dwelling place of
the Essenes, but was a fortress against the Romans. He makes a comparison
between the structures at Qumran and the military rock fortress at Masada. He
points out that Josephus states that the Essenes were not limited to, "a single
settlement, but rather that they were found in every city of the Jews of
Palestine, the settlements within the cities formed cohesive, closed
communities." (Who Wrote The Dead Sea Scrolls? p.5)

Dr. Golb also points to evidence within the Dead Sea Scrolls themselves. One of
the scrolls found, which is unique from all other scrolls, is The Copper Scroll.
As the name implies, it was not written on leather, but on flatten copper plates
which were riveted together to form a scroll. The scroll speaks of treasure from
the Temple which was hidden so that the Romans would not pillage it. Part of the
Temple treasure includes its library. In accordance with this, Golb points to
the Apocrypha book of 2 Maccabees as evidence that the Jews historically hid
their books when enemies approached. The same things also were reported in the
writings and commentaries of Neemias; and how he founding a library gathered
together the acts of the kings, and the prophets, and of David, and the epistles
of the kings concerning the holy gifts. In like manner also Judas gathered
together all those things that were lost by reason of the war we had, and they
remain with us. Wherefore if ye have need thereof, send some to fetch them unto
you. (2 Maccabees 2:13-15)

Golb also points out that handwriting experts have detected that the Dead Sea
Scrolls were written by over five hundred various scribes. He states,

I began to see that the growing number of scripts was starting to pose still
another problem for the sectarian hypothesis (i.e. that the Essenes had lived
together and were responsible for writing the scrolls): How many scribes, after
all, could have lived together at Khirbet Qumran at any one time, or even over
three or four generations? . . .Had the scrolls been written by fewer than two
hundred scribes--a number that one might perhaps live with in defending the
notion of a sectarian scriptorium at Qumran--or by a much greater number of
copyists as I had begun to suspect? The matter was obviously of crucial
importance. . .I did not know that two more decades would elapse before
facsimiles of all the Cave 4 manuscripts would be published in the wake of an
acute controversy, and that they would confirm that at least five hundred
scribes had copied the scrolls. (Ibid., pp.151,153, 154).

Dr. Golb points out that his view is strongly rejected by the majority of modern
scholars, and that his hypothesis has caused him to be rejected by his
colleagues as well. He is, nontheless, not alone in his view. Back in the
1950’s, Professor K. H. Rengstorf of the University of Munster in Germany had
suggested that the Dead Sea Scrolls were the remains of the Jerusalem library.
Although Professor Rengstrof had arrived at his conclusion years before Golb and
did so with different reasons, their views still have a common centrality; the
scrolls must have come from Jerusalem and not the sectarian writings of the
Essenes. According to Rengstrof and Golb, the Essenes would not have had such a
variety of views within their writings, being as sectarian as they were. However
the library at Jerusalem would. Golb cites Rengstrof in this manner, This would
account for the mixture of leather and papyrus manuscripts; the presence of
Greek and Aramaic biblical texts; . . .For if the Temple of Jerusalem had a
large and important library--and this cannot be doubted--it will have contained
the whole Jewish literature that existed, so far as it was obtainable,
including, of course, heterodox writings. (Ibid., pp. 160-161).

I admit that I find Dr. Golb’s Jerusalem Library Theory very compelling. Dr.
Golb does a wonderful job in presenting his position. His views are logical and
well documented. And like Dr. Golb who has been disparaged for his view, those
of us who believe in the preservation of the word of God as found in the
Authorized Version have often been on the outside and found ourselves the
objects of ridicule from the scholastic world. In this, I can most certainly
sympathize with Dr. Golb. Despite his argumentation, I find Dr. Golb’s position
intriguing because it is a point of view which stands in the face of
self-assuring scholarship. However, the real truth is that we do not know who
wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls and we may never know who did.

CONTROVERSIES The Dead Sea Scrolls have been plagued with a variety of
theological, textual, and personal, controversies. Such controversies have kept
the Scrolls in the forefront among archaeological discoveries and tabloid news.

Extreme Interpretations:

One example of an extreme interpretation concerning the Dead Sea Scrolls can be
found in the teachings of Dr. Barbara Thiering of Sidney, Australia. In her
book, Redating the Teacher of Righteousness, Dr. Thiering has developed a view
regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls and their meaning which not only has attracted
some limited support among liberal scholars, but is an excellent example of
Biblical heresy. In short, Thiering’s view is that the Dead Sea Scrolls were
written by the Essenes and speak of both Jesus and John the Baptist. Further,
she claims that there are hidden teachings found in the scrolls which, when
applied to the New Testament, provide a completely differing interpretation than
what they plainly state. The Manual of Discipline speaks of the Teacher of
Righteousness and the Wicked Priest. Thiering believes that this scroll was
written during the time of Christ and refers to John the Baptist and Jesus
Christ. In her view, John was an Essene and is the Teacher of Righteousness.
This teacher proclaimed the coming doom for the wicked generation if they did
not repent and turn again to the God of Israel and a strict interpretation of
the Law. His preaching was harsh and judgmental. The one called the Wicked
Priest proclaimed a much easier view which differed with the staunch legalistic
views of the Teacher of Righteousness. For Thiering, this Wicked Priest was
Jesus Christ.

Thiering also believes that the Scrolls provide a means by which we can
reinterpret the writings of the New Testament. Among the Scrolls we find
Biblical commentaries, such as the one on Habakkuk. These commentaries are
called peshers, or interpretations on Biblical writings. Dr. Thiering carries
this to an extreme by using what she calls the pesher interpretation of the New
Testament. She rereads events in the New Testament in light of the teachings of
the Essenes at Qumran. Thus, the Dead Sea Scrolls with the Pesher-Method, ". . .
help to demystify the colorful stories and ancient rituals which still form on
integral part of Christian worship (with us) still today." (The Riddle Of The
Dead Sea Scrolls: Mysteries Of The Bible Unravelled, VHS, The Discovery Channel,
Discovery Program Enterprises, 1990.) With this now in place, Thiering (and
other scholars) dismiss the miracles of Jesus, his virgin birth, his death on
the cross, and his resurrection.

Using her Pesher-Method the raising of Lazarus is reinterpreted this way. In the
Essene community, when one was ostracized they were considered as dead. Some,
according to Thiering, even went as far as wrapping themselves in burial cloths
and laying in their own tombs, symbolically accepting their expulsion from the
Qumran community. With this now in place, Thiering interprets the raising of
Lazarus as an Essene who was so rejected. However, Jesus comes along and
liberates his friend Lazarus by letting him know that he is not dead in the
sight of God. Thus, with such scholastic heresy in place, Biblical miracles can
be denied. Moreover, like most heresy, it fails to explain the facts of the
passage in question. For one, there is no Biblical evidence that Lazarus was in
any way part of the community of Qumran. Jesus was first informed that Lazarus
was sick, and that his sickness was unto death (John 11:3; John 11:14-15). The
disciples plainly understood the sickness of Lazarus to mean physical sickness
because when Jesus informed them that Lazarus was sleeping (meaning dead) they
said, "Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well" (vs. 12). They knew that sleep is
good for those who are sick. However, Jesus referred to Lazarus being dead and
so stated. Also, we must note that the sisters of Lazarus believed this death to
be real and not symbolic of Qumranic rejection. When Jesus saw Mary, she said,
"Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died." (vs.32). And when
Christ gave the command to remove the stone, Martha said, "Lord, by this time he
stinketh: for he hath been dead four days." (vs. 39). Dr. Thiering’s theory does
not display the rejection of fallen souls from the Qumran community, but only
her rejection of Biblical truths.

Other examples of her method of interpreting the scrolls to redefine the New
Testament, are her attacks on the virgin birth, crucifixion, and resurrection of
Christ. Claiming the scrolls teach that a holy man was considered divine, and
that a woman was considered a virgin during her time of engagement, Thiering
teaches that Joseph had intercourse with Mary during their engagement. Thus, her
Pesher- Method teaches that Joseph is the Holy Spirit who had sex with Mary who
would still be considered a virgin. At the crucifixion, she claims, that Christ
was given poison and simply passed out. Later, while in the tomb, he was revived
by the spices in the burial cloth and left the tomb. Thiering is not alone in
her heresy here. This has long been called the "Swoon-Theory" and has been
expressed by others such as Hugh Schonfield in his book, The Passover Plot,
Donovan Joyce in The Jesus Scrolls, and Elaine Pagels in The Gnostic Gospels. In
fact, Thiering makes use of one of the Gnostic gospels, The Gospel of Philip,
which teaches that Christ did not die on the cross. In an interview for the
Discovery Channel, Dr. Thiering reveals her prejudice concerning the Gospels and
her views on the Dead Sea Scrolls:

I hadn’t been at it long when I realized that there was something really very
big here. Other people were realizing it at that time. It really did promise to
throw new light on the origin of Christianity and that was something that always
fascinated me. (The Riddle Of The Dead Sea Scrolls: Mysteries Of The Bible
Unravelled.)

Therefore, Thiering reveals that she had approached her studies of the scrolls
with an interpretation which she formed early in her studies based on a point of
liberal theology which had always fascinated her--namely the disproving of
revealed scripture and fundamental doctrines contained therein. Moreover,
Thiering is a prime example of the Biblical heretics who are, "Ever learning,
and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." (2Ti 3:7). And yet, she
is considered by some Qumran scholars as a leading contemporary scholar of the
Dead Sea Scrolls (Ibid.).

Other scholars associated with the Dead Sea Scrolls, or who are recognized for
their scholastic abilities in regard to the study of textual criticism, have
equally liberalistic views towards scripture. Speaking in support of Thiering,
Dr. George Brooke of the Manchester University in England and recognized scholar
in regard to the Dead Sea Scrolls, said of the virgin birth:

I think I myself side with those scholars and other Christians who would wish to
assert that Jesus had a natural father. And that what is significant in the
birth stories in Matthew and Luke is that the early Church believed very
strongly that there was more to this birth than it just being a natural birth.
And I would hold to the position that the more to this birth is very
significant. Not that the human paternity of Jesus is denied, but that the
divinity in all of us is encouraged. (Ibid.) Commenting on the virgin birth and
miracles in general, Dr. Matthew Black (St. Andrews University in Scotland)
stated,

We are now in the realm, not of history as we understand history, we are in the
realm of belief. Of pious legend, pious myths. That I think is universally
recognized by scholars in this connection. And pious myths which have formed a
very important part of our Christian tradition for centuries. Of which we must
have every respect.(Ibid.) The statement made by Dr. Black is extremely
insightful. Not only because of our study of the Dead Sea Scrolls, but because
of our study of modern scholarship and textual criticism as a whole. Dr. Black
refers to basic doctrines such as the virgin birth as "pious legend, pious
myths." It is this same Dr. Matthew Black (along with Kurt Aland, Bruce Metzger,
Allen Wikgren, and Carlo Martini) who produced the Greek New Testament text
published by the United Bible Societies. The UBS Greek text is considered the
standard critical Greek text and underlines a good percentage of modern
translational work, as well as carries a great deal of influence in the study of
modern textual criticism.

Differing Translations:

Another controversy, which may be found in almost all works of this nature,
deals with differences in translation. Not everyone translates the findings at
Qumran the same way. Perhaps the most noted example comes from 4Q285. Dr. Robert
Eisenman (California State University) and Dr. Michael Wise (University of
Chicago) translate this fragment showing the coming Messiah as one who is
wounded. The passage reads as follows in their translation:

(1). . .Isaiah the Prophet, [’The thickets of the forest] will be fell[ed with
an ace] (2) [and Lebanon shall f]all [by a mighty one.] A staff shall rise from
the root of Jesse, [and a Planting from his roots will bear fruit.’] (3) . .
.the Branch of David. They will enter into Judgement with. . .(4) and they will
put to death the Leader of the Community, the Bran[ch of David]. . .(5) and with
woundings, and the (high) priest will command. . .(6) [the sl]ai[n of the]
Kitti[m]. . . (The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, Barnes & Noble Books, New York;
1992. p.29)

Both Eisenman and Wise note an alternate reading, one which shows not a wounded
Messiah, but a Messiah who does the wounding. This translation is preferred by
Dr. Geza Vermes (Oxford University) in his translation of the same passage:

(1) ] Isaiah the prophet: [The thickets of the forest] will be cut [down (2)
with an axe and Bebanon by a majestic one will f]all. And there shall come forth
a shoot from the stump of Jesse [ ] (3) the Branch of David and they will enter
into judgement with [ ] (4) and the Prince of the Congregation, the Bran[ch of
David] will kill him [by stroke]s and by wounds. And a Priest [of renown (?)]
will command [ (6) the s] lai[n] of the Kitti[m]. (Downloaded from The War Rule
of the Dead Sea Scrolls Exhibit
<<http://sunsite.unc.edu/expo/deadsea.scrolls.exhibit/Library/warrule.html>>, on
4/27/96.
[<http://sunsite.unc.edu/expo/deadsea.scrolls.exhibit/Library/warrule.html>])

Another example of differing translations of the scrolls can be found in the
study of the Teacher of Righteousness. We have already seen the extreme view, as
set forth by Dr. Barbara Thiering. However the standard view among Qumran
scholars is that this Teacher of Righteousness was Jonathan Maccabees, the
second Maccabean brother (a theory invented by Dr. Geza Vermes). Or, perhaps, he
was some other Jewish priest who was in line to become the High Priest. However,
failing to become the High Priest the one who became High Priest became the
Wicked Priest. Thus it is a point of politics and not theology. Dr. Theodor H.
Gaster offers a different translation. In referring to the community living
among the Essenes, Dr. Gaster states, The community’s main purpose was to
exemplify and promulgate the true interpretation. It based that interpretation
on a kind of ’apostolic succession,’ begun by the prophets and continued by a
series of inspired leaders each of whom was known as ’the correct expositor’ or
’right- teacher’ (not ’Teacher of Righteousness,’ as many scholars have rendered
it)--that is, the orthodox expounder of the Word. (The Dead Sea Scriptures In
English Translation. New York: Doubleday, 1956. p. 5)

He further explains that, "It may be observed that the Hebrew word for ’teacher’
derives from the same verbal root as the word ’Torah.’ The ’right-teacher’ is
therefore, in this context, ’the man who expounds the Torah aright.’" (Ibid., p.
29.)

Hence, these two translations of the same Hebrew word can be reflected in
deferring translations of the Scrolls. This can been seen in Dr. Gaster’s
translation of the Commentary on Habakkuk and Dr. Vermes’ translation of the
same passage in the Scrolls. The passage from Hab 1:5 reads, "Behold ye among
the heathen, and regard, and wonder marvelously: for I will work a work in your
days, which ye will not believe, though it be told you." The two translations
are as follows:

This refers to the traitors who have aligned themselves with the man of lies.
For they did not believe what he who expounded the Law aright told them on the
authority of God. It refers also to those who betrayed the new covenant, for
they have not kept faith with the Covenant of God, but have profaned His holy
name. (Gaster, p. 249)

[Interpreted, this concerns] those who were unfaithful together with the Liar,
in that they [did] not [listen to the word received by] the Teacher of
Righteousness from the mouth of God. And it concerns the unfaithful of the New
[Covenant] in that they have not believed in the Covenant of God [and have
profaned] His holy Name. (The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, p.236)

Releasing Unpublished Scrolls: By the late 1980’s it was widely known that there
were still a healthy portion of manuscripts among the scrolls which had not been
published and hence remained untranslated. The concern was that those who were
in charge of the publication of the scrolls (John Strugnell, Frank M. Cross, J.
T. Milik, and Amir Drori) had been slow about releasing the unpublished
manuscripts. In 1992, Dr. Emanual Tov published a list of scroll fragments which
had not before been published (see Biblical Archaeologist, June, 1992. pp.
94-104). This followed the continued beseeching to release the unpublished
scrolls by Hershel Shanks (editor of the Biblical Archaelolgy Review). The
September 21 issue of Time magazine (pp. 56-57) also covered the concern among
scholars in regard to the unpublished scrolls, thus setting into motion a vocal
concern for the publication of unpublished manuscripts so that the remaining
scrolls would be forthcoming. In 1992 Dr. Robert Eisenman and Dr. Michael Wise
translated and published several of the fragments from Cave IV (The Dead Sea
Scrolls Uncovered).

Believing there had been a major conspiracy by the Vatican, Michael Baigent and
Richard Leigh published a book entitled, The Dead Sea Scroll Deception (New
York: Summit Books, 1991). The book asserts that the Vatican, or at the very
least some Catholic scholars, suppressed the unpublished manuscripts because
their teachings undermine the teachings of major Christian doctrine. For the
authors, the evidence for this rests in the delay of publishing the remaining
scrolls, and that the small group of editors who controlled the unpublished
manuscripts keep careful guard over their prized posession. At the time of
Baigent’s and Leigh’s book, these editors were for the most part Roman Catholic.
The book claims that Roland de Vaux, a Catholic priest who assembled the
editorial team which reviewed the findings in Cave IV, masterminded the
conspiracy. De Vaux is said to have joined forces with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
who also headed the Doctrine of the Faith for the Catholic Church. At one time
in history, the Doctrine of the Faith was known as the office of the Holy
Inquisition. To add to this conspiracy theory came the charges of John Allegro,
who was one of the original team members assigned to examine the texts of Cave
IV in 1953. The majority of Allegro’s team either were Roman Catholic (J. T.
Milik, Jean Starcky, and Patrick Skehan), or became Roman Catholic (John
Strugnell) with the exception of Frank Cross (Presbyterian), Claus-Hunno
Hunzinger (Lutheran), and Allegro himself (agnostic). This left Allegro the only
member who was not part of organized Christendom. Allegro claimed there was
evidence within the fragments of Cave IV which was damaging to Christianity and
thus covered-up by the Catholic Church.

However, charges that the scrolls contain damning evidence against historic
Christianity stand without merit, totally lacking any supporting documentation.
So far no verification from the fragments, which have now been published,
indicate such an outlandish claim. Hershel Shanks justly labeled this conspiracy
theory as, "hogwash" (Biblical Archaeology Review, November/December issue,
1991. p.68). Dr. James C. VanderKam refers to the claims of Baigent and Leigh
as, "a disgraceful display of yellow journalism." (The Dead Sea Scrolls Today,
p.198). As for the delay in publishing the remaining scrolls, when one considers
the turmoil in the Middle East, the lack of funds to have the fragments
published, the lack of manpower to undertake the project, and the delicate
conditions of the fragments themselves, we can begin to understand why it has
taken so long. Regardless of the reasons which delayed the publication of the
remaining scrolls, VanderKam has corrected stated, "Now that all the scrolls are
available for consultation, no one has been able to find anything damaging to
Christianity or anything that the Vatican would be interested in suppressing."
(Ibid.) With the release of the unpublished texts new charges were raised. Not
from those seeking to find a conspiracy theory, but from the editors of the Dead
Sea Scrolls. Their charge was that of simple thievery. Dr. John Strugnell, who
was the chief editor of the Dead Sea Scrolls publication team, claimed that
Hershel Shanks, editor of the Biblical Archaeology Review, and president of the
Biblical Archaeology Society, pilfered the unpublished texts and published them.
Thus Strugnell asks, "What else would you call it but stealing?" (Biblical
Archaeology Review, November/December, 1991. p.62).

However, Shanks defends himself by stating, The men who were entrusted with
these documents were not given title to them, although they act as if they own
them. In fact, several of them have died and bequeathed their ’publication
rights’ to faithful colleagues. . . It is they who are the lawbreakers. It is
they who are stealing from all of us, not we from them. (Ibid.)

These unpublished texts were "liberated" due to modern technology. In 1988 a
concordance was published of all the texts of the scrolls found in Cave IV by
the editors of the scrolls. Using a computer, Professors Ben-Zion Wacholder and
Martin Abegg, of the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati Ohio, recreated the text
of the unpublished scrolls. This happened on September 4, 1991. Later that same
month in California the director of the San Marino Huntington Library, William
Moffett, provided a complete set of photographs of all the scrolls from Cave IV.
These photographs had been furnished by Elizabeth Bechtel years before and had
simply been laying around the Huntington Library for anyone to review.

John Strugnell:

Among the ups and downs which seem to have besieged the publication of the Dead
Sea Scrolls, one low point concerns Dr. John Strugnell (Harvard University). Dr.
Strugnell was editor-in-chief for the Dead Sea Scrolls, and one of the original
editing team members appointed in 1953. In an interview with Avi Katzman, of the
Hebrew newspaper Ha-Aretz, Strugnell revealed his anti-Semitic views along with
several other points of character which may be questioned by someone in such a
high position. The article appeared in the Ha-Aretz on Novembe


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 10: 10 LESSON TEN
========================================================================

Lesson 10: TEXTUAL CONSIDERATIONS

Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This is the word of the LORD unto
Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD
of hosts. Zec 4:6

Contextually the above citation concerns the strengthening of Zerubbabel with
regard to building the Temple. The Almighty God informed his servant that the
accomplishment of this deed would not be fulfilled by the potency and purpose of
human authorities, but by His Spirit. For us, there is a deeper and continuous
meaning. Successful endeavors for God can auspiciously be completed without the
might and power of human ingenuity. It is the Spirit of God which brings such
things to fruition. The Believer lives his or her life with the undeniable
assurance that the unseen hand of the Lord gently intervenes in their daily
affairs. The Apostle Paul reminds us of this in writing, "For we walk by faith,
not by sight." (2Co 5:7). Therefore, assurance in the promises and abilities of
God outweigh the evidences and efforts of man. In regard to the study of textual
criticism, Dr. Edward F. Hills referred to the intervention of God and the
preservation of His words as the common faith. Hills writes:

It was out of this common faith, therefore, that the printed Textus Receptus was
born through the editorial labors of Erasmus and his successors under the
guiding hand of God. Hence during the Reformation Period the approach to the New
Testament text was theological and governed by the common faith in holy
Scripture, and for this reason even in those early days the textual criticism of
the New Testament was different from the textual criticism of other ancient
books. (Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended [1956; reprint, Des
Moines: The Christian Research Press, 1984], 62-63.) In expounding the guiding
hand of God in the efforts of Erasmus and his posterity, Hills presents the
three-fold foundation to this common faith. When we believe in Christ, the logic
of faith leads us first, to a belief in the infallible inspiration of the
original Scriptures, second, to a belief in the providential preservation of
this original text down through the ages, and third, to a belief in the Bible
text current among believers as the providentially preserved original text. This
is the common faith which has always been present among Christians. For Christ
and His Words are inseparable, and faith in Him and in the holy Scriptures has
been the common characteristic of all true believers from the beginning. (Ibid.,
193.) In today’s age of human enlightenment, this position is rejected and even
belittled. In reference to John Burgon and F. H. Scrivener, both defenders of
the Textus Receptus, Dr. Alexander Souter states that, "These writers appear to
have left few, if any, successors." (Alexander Souter, The Text And Canon Of The
New Testament [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1917], 102.) And yet, over
seventy years after Souter’s remark Kurt Aland had to address Burgon and the
supporters of the Traditional Text.

Despite their clamorous rhetoric, the champions of the Textus Receptus (led
primarily by Dean John William Burgon) were defending deserted ramparts. But
their battle was not conclusively lost until the Novum Testamentum Graece of
Eberhard Nestle (1815-1913) was published in 1893 . . .This signaled the retreat
of the Textus Receptus from both church and school. (Kurt and Barbara Aland, The
Text Of The New Testament, "trans." Erroll F. Rhodes [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1989], 19.)

Apparently the followers of the Traditional Text have in fact survived
theonslaught of textual critics. Otherwise James R. White would have had no need
to have written his book, The King James Only Controversy. In referencingthose
who generally hold to the preservation of the words of God through the
Traditional Text, and Edward Hills specifically, White states:

Anyone who believes the TR to be infallible must believe that Erasmus, and the
other men who later edited the same text in their own editions (Stephanus and
Beza), were somehow "inspired," or at the very least "providentially guided" in
their work. Yet, none of these men ever claimed such inspiration. (James R.
White, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?
[Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1995], 58.)

White is correct in stating that men such as Erasmus and his successors never
claimed to be inspired. However, one would be at a loss to find any who claim
that they were. Inspiration and providential guidance are not the same things;
confusing the two simply ignores the real arguments raised.

Support for the Traditional Text has not, as Souter and Aland had hoped,
disappeared. Nor, contrary to White and others, is it limited to independent
groups such as many Baptists and the King James Only movement. Recently the
Greek Orthodox Church released a Study Bible based on the text of the New King
James Version. In their preface they state:

Since the 1880s most contemporary translations of the New Testament 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, because of their greater age.
The Greek text obtained by using these sources and the related papyri (our most
ancient manuscripts) is known as the Alexandrian Text. However, some scholars
have grounds for doubting the faithfulness of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, since
they often disagree with one another, and Sinaiticus exhibits excessive
omission.

Another viewpoint of New Testament scholarship 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.

Today, scholars agree that the science of New Testament textual criticism is in
a state of flux. Very few scholars still favor the Textus Receptus as such, and
then often for its historical prestige. For about a century most have followed a
Critical Text which depends heavily upon the Alexandrian type of text, and more
recently many have abandoned this Critical Text for one that is more eclectic. A
small but growing number of scholars prefer the Majority Text, which is closer
to the traditional text except in the Revelation. . . (The Orthodox Study Bible,
1993 ed., s.v. "How to Use The Orthodox Study Bible," xi.)

We must further acknowledge that arguments raised by naturalistic textual
scholars do not lead to, nor are they based on, a solid Bibliology. They have
failed to lay a Biblical basis for their approach to the subject, and one is not
likely to be forth coming. In our first lesson we compared the foundational
approach of modern scholarship with that of the holy scriptures. The
naturalistic approach tends to lead to Biblical uncertainty even in regard to
the original autographs. Note, for example, the following comment: Not only are
there many manuscripts, and fragments thereof, of the NT, but the various
manuscripts have many differences among themselves. Presumably if we could ever
recover the original manuscript of a NT book it would be very close to what its
author intended. Even here, however, the text might not be completely correct.
If the author wrote it himself, he could have made mistakes; if he dictated it
to a scribe, the latter could have made mistakes. Even prior to the actual
writing on papyrus or parchment, error can enter. A scribe can hear incorrectly.
Particularly in Greek, the difference between a long vowel and a short vowel can
make a difference in the meaning of a word, and the difference between the two
when spoken can be difficult to catch. (Jack Finegan, Encounting New Testament
Manuscripts [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974], 54.)

Therefore, the trustworthiness, preservation, and even inspiration of scripture
can become ambiguous when solely approached in such fashion. This has not been
the focus of these studies. Instead we have sought to fortify the Biblical
foundation of scriptural preservation and therefore have complete confidence in
its accuracy not based on the power and might of modern scholarship, but by the
Spirit of the Living God.

There are, of course, several places in the Traditional Text that modern
scholarship considers non-authoritative and not part of the original.
Additionally, there are places which are considered mistranslated in the King
James Version. Since variance within textual considerations is enormous and
personal interpretation and translation is even more vastly defined, we cannot
look at every passage which has been questioned by textual scholars or inspect
every passage which someone claims to have been translated incorrectly. However,
we shall consider several passages which opponents of the Traditional Text have
denied as to their authenticity. Later, in our next lesson, we will consider
what some have deemed mistranslations. But for now, we will limit ourselves to
the textual considerations of the following passages. Mat 6:13; Mark 1:2; Mark
16:9-20; Luk 2:22; John 5:4; John 7:53; John 8:1-11; Acts 8:37; Rom 8:1; Eph
3:9; Eph 3:14; 1Jn 5:7; Rev 5:14; Rev 16:5; and Rev 22:19.

Additionally, we will also consider various texts and translations which agree
with the Authorized Version. The KJV translators wrote, "Neither did we think
much to consult the translators or commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek,
or Latin, no, nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Douch;" (Miles Smith, The
Translators To The Readers [1611; reprint, London: Trinitarian Bible Society,
1970], 31.) The first grouping refer to manuscripts and texts based on
manuscripts. The second group refers to foreign language translations which
pre-date the Authorized Version, namely the Spanish Reina-Valera Version, the
French Louis Segond Version, the Italian Giovanni Diodati Version, and the
German translation of Martin Luther. All four of these translations, based on
the Traditional Greek Text, became the authoritative/standard version for their
people. Also, it is known that the translators of the Authorized Version
considered early English translations such as Tyndale’s New Testament (1525),
the Great Bible (1539), the Geneva Bible (1560) and the Bishops’ Bible (1568).
In any case, such texts and translations will demonstrate that the passages we
are to consider are not unique to the King James Bible only.

Mat 6:13--And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine
is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. The argument
raised concerning this text centers around the last half of the verse, "For
thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." It has been
omitted from the Greek texts of the United Bible Societies and Eberhard Nestle.
And, since most modern translations of the New Testament are based on these
Greek texts, it is not part of the English text in most contemporary versions.
Modern scholarship argues the passage is not genuine because it exists in
various forms and is not harmonized in all of its citations. White states, "This
kind of ’variant cluster’ is a sure sign of a later addition." (White, 252.)
Bruce Metzger, as does White, argues the passage is a harmonistic corruption by
scribes to unify the text with Luk 11:2-4 (Bruce M. Metzger, The Text Of The New
Testament, 2nd ed. [Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1973], 197.).

Neither argument is substantive. To argue "variant clusters" is a lack of
authenticity is to argue against the critical texts supported by modern
scholarship. A review of either the United Bible Societies text or the
Nestle-Aland text reveal a vast host of variant readings which modern
scholarship supports. As was cited by the Greek Orthodox Study Bible, critical
texts depend greatly on Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus which, "often
disagree with one another." (The Orthodox Study Bible, xi.) The argument for
harmonization of Mat 6:1-34 with Luk 11:1-54 is conjectural. This is revealed by
Kurt Aland in his comment on the passage by asking, ". . . if the doxology
originally stood in the gospel of Matthew, who would have deleted it?" (Aland,
306.) Questions and speculations do not alter the textual facts on this passage.
While it is omitted in Alexandrian manuscripts such as Vaticanus, Sinaiticus,
and Cantabrigiensis, it is found in a host of other sources.

Among the Greek uncials it is found in K (ninth century), L (eighth century), W
(fifth century), DELTA (ninth century), THETA (ninth century), and PI (ninth
century). It is found in the following Greek minuscules: 28, 33, 565, 700, 892,
1009, 1010, 1071, 1079, 1195, 1216, 1230, 1241, 1242, 1365, 1546, 1646, 2174
(dating from the ninth to the twelfth century). However, it is not without early
witness. It is found in the Old Latin, the Old Syrian, and some Coptic versions
(such as Coptic Bohairic). Old Latin texts, such as Codices Monacensis
(q-seventh century) and Brixianus (f-sixth century), read, "et ne nos inducas in
temptationem. sed libera nos a malo. quoniam tuum est regnum. et uirtus. et
gloria in saecula. amen." The Syriac Peshitto (second to third century) reads,
"And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the
kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever: Amen." (James Murdock,
The Syriac New Testament from the Peshitto Version [Boston: H.L. Hastings,
1896], 9.)

John Chrysostom cites the verse in the fourth century. In his Homilies this
blessed Saint writes, ". . .by bringing to our remembrance the King under whom
we are arrayed, and signifying him to be more powerful than all. ’For thine,’
saith he, ’is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory.’ " (St. Chrysostom,
"Homily XIX," in The Preaching of Chrysostom, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan
[Philadelphia: Fortress Press], 145.) The oldest witness, which outdates all
Greek manuscripts on this passage, is the Didache. Otherwise known as the
Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, this ancient catechism dates to the early
second century, some dating it shortly after 100 AD. In it we have a form of the
Lord’s Payer which supports the reading found in the Traditional Text. Do not
let your fasts be with the hypocrites. They fast on Monday and Thursday; but you
shall fast on Wednesday and Friday. Do not pray as the hypocrites do, but as the
Lord commanded in His gospel, you shall pray thus: ’Our Father who art in
heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth, as it
is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our debts, as we
also forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from
evil. For thine is the power and the glory forever.’ Pray thus three times a
day. (W. A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers [Collegeville, MN: The
Liturgical Press, 1970], 3.)

It is also interesting to note that in his studies on old papyri, Dr. George
Milligan includes a sixth century prayer which incorporates the Lord’s prayer
from Mat 6:1-34. Despite the fact that this papyri is badly worn, it clearly
contains the phrase in question. Milligan notes, "a passage which some may be
tempted to quote in support of the A.V. rendering of Mt. vi 13." (George
Milligan, Selections From The Greek Papyri [Cambridge: University Press, 1912],
132-134.) He is correct, for the papyri shows that the verse as it stands in the
Traditional Text was commonly used by Christians. The passage stands in the
authoritative/standard foreign versions (Spanish, French, Italian, and German)
which pre-date the King James. For example, we read in the Reina-Valera Version,
"Y no nos metas en tentacion, mas libranos del mal: porque tuyo es el reino, y
el poder, y la gloria, por todos los siglos. Amen." While one who does not read
Spanish may not recognize "reino" for kingdom, or "poder" for power, the word
"gloria" is easily recognized as glory. Additionally, the verse stands in all
the early English versions which the KJV translators used such as the New
Testament of William Tyndale (1525). "And leade us not into temptacion: but
delyver us from evyll. For thyne is the kingdome and the power, and the glorye
for ever. Amen."

Mark 1:2-3--As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before
thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. The voice of one crying in
the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

Modern scholarship declares that the passage should read, "en to Isaia to
profete" (in the Isaiah the Prophet). This is supported by uncials Vaticanus
(fourth century), Sinaiticus (fourth century), along with L and DELTA. The same
reading is found in the minuscules 33, 565, 892, and 1241. There is a slight
variant to this reading found in uncials D and THETA, and minuscules 700, 1071,
2174. In these the text reads, "en Isaia to profete." (in Isaiah the Prophet).
If we were to impose White’s variant cluster rule to this passage, we would have
to excuse the reading which is supported by modern scholarship. Not only is
there a variant in the readings of the Alexandrian texts (Isaiah the Prophet or
the Isaiah the Prophet), but there is also a variant reading in verse one.
Sinaiticus simply reads, "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ" and omits
the phrase, "the Son of God" which is found in Codex Vaticanus. In support of
the Traditional Text, "Os gegraptai en tois profetais" (as it is written in the
prophets) we have uncials A, K, P, W, PI and minuscules 28, 1009, 1010, 1079,
1195, 1216, 1230, 1242, 1252, 1344, 1365, 1546, 1646, 2148. Thus the Greek
support dates from the fourth century onward. Additionally we also find the same
reading in the Syriac Harclean version (616 AD), the Armenian version (fourth to
fifth century) and the Ethiopic versions of the sixth century.

It also receives Patristic citations from Church Fathers such as Irenaeus (202
AD), Photius (895 AD), and Theophylact (1077 AD). In Against Heresies, Irenaeus
writes:

Wherefore also Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter, does thus commence
his Gospel narrative: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of
God; as it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send My messenger before Thy
face, which shall prepare Thy way". . . Plainly does the commencement of the
Gospel quote the words of the holy prophets, and point out Him at once, whom
they confessed as God and Lord; (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson [trans.],
The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1926 ed., s.v. "Irenaeus Against Heresies 3:10:5,"
425-426.)

All the early English versions agree with the King James as do the
authoritative/standard foreign versions. Luther’s German version reads, "Als
geschrieben stehet in den Propheten:" (as it is written in the Prophets).
However, this has been revised in modern German editions to match the views of
modern textual criticism. Thus we have the new German reading, "Wie geschrieben
steht im Propheten Jesaja:". The same thing is true of the Spanish Reina-Valera
Version. The 1960 revision reads, "Como esta escrito en Isaias el profeta:".
Yet, the original 1602 edition read, "Como esta escripto en los prophetas."

Contextually there arises a problem with the reading as found in the Alexandrian
Text and modern versions. The passage cites both the Prophet Malachi (3:1), and
the Prophet Isaiah (Matthew:3). The reading, "As it is written in Isaiah the
Prophet" seems inconsistent. Yet, it is justified by modern scholarship in
claiming that even though both prophets are quoted, Isaiah was the major prophet
and therefore he takes prominence. To illustrate their point, modern scholars
will reference the student to Mat 27:9, "Then was fulfilled that which was
spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver,
the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did
value." The passage, they claim, is not really a citation of Jeremiah, but comes
from Zachariah 11:12. Thus, Jeremiah being the major prophet receives prominence
as well.

However, this point can be argued. First, the text in Mat 27:1-66 does not read,
"As it is written in Jeremy the Prophet" but merely states, "Then was fulfilled
that which was spoken by Jeremy." God, being the Author of Scripture, is quite
aware of who writes what and who speaks what. Simply because Zachariah writes
the passage does not mean Jeremiah did not speak it. Secondly, this fact was not
overlooked by Zachariah who warned Israel to pay attention to what the former
prophets had spoken. "Should ye not hear the words which the LORD hath cried by
the former prophets, . . .?" (Zachariah 7:7). Matthew Henry points out that the
Jews had a saying, "The spirit of Jeremiah was in Zechariah." Therefore, much of
what Zechariah received, he did so from both the Lord and the former prophet,
Jeremiah. Thirdly, while the passage in Zachariah does speak of thirty pieces of
silver and the potter (verse 13), it is somewhat different from the Matthew
passage. "And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if no,
forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. And the LORD said
unto me Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them.
And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house
of the LORD." (Zachariah 11:12-13). Lastly, the passage in Mat 27:1-66 connects
of the children of Isarel with the potter’s field (verses 9-10). In Jer 18:1-8,
the house of Israel is connected with the potter’s house.

However, none of this addresses the real issue here in Mark 1:2. The passage
does not claim, "what was spoken by . . ." as we have it in Mat 27:1-66.
Instead, it is much more emphatic in stating, "As it is written in . . ." It is
more truthful to say, "As it is written in the prophets" when citing two
prophets, then to say, "As it is written in Isaiah the Prophet," when citing two
prophets. Further, the weight of the textual support favors the reading as it
stands in the Authorized Version as does the weight of the endurance of the
reading throughout the centuries. Therefore the reading as we have it in the
Traditional Text not only is textually but also contextually correct.

Although the translators of the King James Version did not have access to many
of the Greek texts which seek to usurp the authority of the Traditional Text,
they were very much aware of the reading. The phrase, "Isaiah the Prophet" is
found in the Latin Vulgate and thus was translated into English in 1582 by the
Catholic Rheims Version. "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ the sonne
of God. As it is written in Esay the Prophet." However, early Protestant
versions all upheld the reading of the Traditional Text as reflected in the 1539
translation of the Great Bible, "The begynnynge of the Gospell of Jesu Chryst
the sonne of God, as it is written in the Prophetes." Such variants between the
Catholic and Protestant versions caused the KJV translators to declare, ". . .
and all is sound for substance in one or other of our editions, and the worst of
ours far better than their authentic vulgar." (Smith, 22.)

Mark 16:9-20--Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he
appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. And she
went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. And they,
when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.
After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and
went into the country. And they went and told it unto the residue: neither
believed they them. Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat,
and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they
believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. And he said unto them,
Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that
believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be
damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they
cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents;
and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands
on the sick, and they shall recover. So then after the Lord had spoken unto
them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. And they
went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming
the word with signs following. Amen. This passage is referred to as the longer
ending to Mark. Textual critics delight in proclaiming this passage as
questionable and therefore either remove it from the text or separate the
passage with brackets. Objecting to the passage, Kurt and Barbara Aland
proclaim, "At least the shorter ending of Mark (as well as the longer ending of
Mark 16:9-20) was not a part of the gospel in its original form, although both
may well be from the beginning of the second century." (Aland and Aland, 232.)
Although admitting that he did not consider the passage original, Dr. Bruce
Metzger leaves the maxim of modern textual critics, "Brevior lectio potior" (the
shorter reading is preferable), and supported the reading. In a 1994 interview
with Christian History, Metzger stated: The earliest Greek, Syriac, Coptic,
Armenian, and Latin manuscripts end the Gospel of Mark at 16:8: "The women said
nothing to anyone, for they were afraid." That does not sound like an
appropriate ending for a book of good news, so some early scribes, undertaking
their own research, added what they thought would be appropriate endings. . .
Many translators, including myself, consider verses 9 through 20 to be a
legitimate part of the New Testament. (Christian History, Interview with Dr.
Bruce Metzger downloaded from Christian History Magazine on 9/17/96.) The
passage is missing from the Alexandrian texts of both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
Also, the passage is omitted in minuscule 2386 (an obscure manuscript), the
Syrian Sinaitic Version, and a few other translations such as some of the
Georgian Versions of the fifth century. However, it is in the following uncials:
A, C, D, K, X, DELTA, THETA, and PI, all of which date from between the fifth
and ninth centuries. It is also contained in the later dated minuscules such as
137, 138, 1110, 1210, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1221, and 1582. Further it is the
reading found in the majority of Old Latin texts as well as the Coptic Versions
and other early translations. The passage, additionally, receives enthusiastic
support from many of the early Church Fathers. Irenaeus (202 AD) cites Mark
16:19 in his book, Against Heresies. He writes:

Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: "So then, after the Lord
Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the
right hand of God;" confirming what had been spoken by the prophet. (Staint
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:10:5.) Ambrose (397 AD) cites Mark 16:17-18 :

Therefore, it was with good reason that the Lord became a stage, so that the
word of the Lord might prepare such stages for Himself; of these He says, "In my
name they shall cast out devils, they shall speak in new tongues, they shall
take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them."
Indeed they took up serpents, when His holy Apostle cast out the spiritual
forces of wickedness from their hiding places in the body by breathing on them
and did not feel deadly poisons. When the viper came forth from the bundle of
sticks and bit Paul, the natives, seeing the viper hanging from his hand,
thought he would suddenly die. But he stood unafraid; he was unaffected by the
wound, and the poison was not infused into him. (Saint Ambrose, The Prayer of
Job and David, 4:1:4.)

Augustine (430 AD) cites Mark 16:15 and then refers to verses 17-18. "Ye heard
while the Gospel was read, Go preach the Gospel to the whole creation which is
under heaven. Consequently the disciples were sent everywhere with signs and
wonders to attest that what they spake, they had seen." (Saint Augustine,
Homilies On The Epistle of John To The Parthians, IV:2).

If the early Fathers did not believe in the authenticity of this passage, they
wouldnot have cited it. However, we see that it is cited in the end of the
second century, the end of the fourth century, and the beginning of the fifth
century by orthodox Church Fathers. This, coupled with the massive support of
both Greek and other manuscripts which include the passage and the limited
support for removing the passage, demonstrate the dedication modern scholarship
has for the Alexandrian Codices of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

Luk 2:22--And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses
were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;

Here the variant is small, but the difference is profuse. The Authorized Version
uses the phrase, "of her purification" (Greek: kathapismou autes ). Modern
versions, for the most part, read, "of their purification" (Greek: kathapismou
auton). Contextually, the reading must stand as we have it in the King James
Version. Under the Levitical Law a woman was considered unclean after giving
birth and needed purification. The passage in Lev 12:2-4 reads:

Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and
born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of
the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the
flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall then continue in the
blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing,
nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. The
citation is quite clear: this was "her purifying" and not the purifying of both
mother and child. Therefore, the Authorized Version agrees with the Levitical
Law. To offset this point, some have suggested that the "them" in the passage
referred not to Mary and Jesus, but to Mary and Joseph. The argument is that
since Joseph and Mary are mentioned in verse 16 and referred to in the second
half of verse 22, the "them" referred to the married couple. Agreeing with this
we have the reading of the Catholic New American Bible, "When the day came to
purify them according to the law of Moses, the couple brought him up to
Jerusalem so that he could be presented to the Lord." The obvious doctrinal
problem with this is that under the Law of Moses, as set forth in Lev 12:1-8,
the woman, not the husband, needed purification after giving birth. Therefore,
the best contextual reading would agree with the Authorized Version, as it would
support both the Old Testament Law and the actions presented in Luke’s Gospel.
In an Online debate between James White and myself, Brother White claimed Luk
2:22 was an error in the text of the King James Version. His reasoning is as
follows:

First, the VAST MAJORITY of Byzantine manuscripts read "their" (auton). The
Majority Text reads "their." 99.5% of all manuscripts of this passage read
"their." There are a very small number that read "autou" (not noted by Dr.
Holland, though having more support than the KJV reading), and there may be a
grand total of 3 very late manuscripts that have the KJV reading, the only one
we know of being 76, a minuscule text from the 14th century! That means the
KJV’s reading cannot be traced anywhere earlier than the 14th century, and most
feel that this is actually a conjectural emendation made by Beza as he wouldn’t
have known of minuscule 76. (Downloaded from America OnLine/ Christianity Today/
King James Bible Only/ Subj: Luk 2:22/ Date: 95-08-21 22:09:17 EDT/From:
Orthopodeo.) In addition, White repeats this on his Web Site in a open letter
concerning Dr. Peter S. Ruckman. The first passage Ruckman chose to address was
my citation of Luk 2:22. This passage is mentioned only twice in my book, once
in a table, once in an endnote. Yet it is an excellent example of the textual
problems in the Textus Receptus (TR). It also allows us to see just how much KJV
Only advocates are really dedicated to the "truth" or to their own traditions. .
.99.9% of all Greek manuscripts of Luke read "their"! This includes the entire
Byzantine manuscript tradition, which is always called upon by KJV Only
advocates as the "pure" form of the text. As Hills admits, he knows of only a
few Greek minuscules and manuscript 76 that support the TR reading. Indeed, Beza
was probably unaware of those sources, and simply made a "conjectural
emendation," which is a nice was of saying, "He didn’t like the way it read in
all the manuscripts, so he changed it without evidence." Let’s think about what
this means. The earliest we can trace the specific reading "her" in the Greek
manuscripts is to the 14th century-almost a millennium and a half after Luke
wrote the passage. (James R. White, James White Responds To Dr. Ruckman,
downloaded on 9/10/96 from <http://net387.texas.net/ao.html>.) The statements
are factually and textually incorrect. While White is accurate in stating that
most of the Greek manuscripts read "of their purification," he is incorrect in
assuming that the passage was a conjectural emendation made by Beza in the late
1500s. He is incorrect in the dating of his manuscript evidence. He is incorrect
in omitting evidence which supports the reading "of her." One also cannot help
but notice that his statistical data has changed from 99.5% to 99.9%m which
causes us to wonder if he is simply making up the statistics or if he has any
data to support the number given and if he can explain the 0.4% increase. He
claims that Beza was making a conjectural emendation in his Greek text in Luk
2:22. A conjectural emendation is when a text is adjusted for one reason or
another, thereby emending it. The new reading produced, which is a conjecture to
replace the old reading, will therefore lack textual evidence. White is claiming
the reading, "of her purification," was simply an educated guess made by Beza
without textual support. However, White has made a fundamental error. To state,
"the KJV’s reading cannot be traced anywhere earlier than the 14th century,"
shows a lack of understanding in the field of textual criticism and causes one
to wonder how such absurd accusations can be made by one who is considered an
expert in upholding the views of modern translations and their Greek texts. The
only textual support cited by White is minuscule 76 which he claims is from the
fourteenth century. According to Kurt and Barbara Aland, and the United Bible
Societies Greek Text, 76 comes from the twelfth century. (Aland and Aland, 141.
United Bible Societies Greek Text, 2nd edition, 1968, xviii.) He also omits the
textual support of 2174 which does date to the fourteenth century.

While the text is lacking Greek support, it is not lacking other textual
support. The Latin Vulgate (fourth century) and later the Latin Codex Brixianus
read, "et postquam impleti sunt dies purgationis eius secundum legem mosi" (And
after the days of her purification, according to the law of Moses). The Latin
word "eius," or more commonly "ejus," stands in the feminine genitive singular,
thus "of her." If the Latin texts had used "eorum" (of them) the reading would
have supported modern versions and White’s contention. In fact, almost all of
the Old Latin Codices support the reading, with the exception of Codex
Monacensis (seventh century). It is found in the Old Latin Codex Vercellensis of
the fourth century, and Latin texts of the fifth century such as Codex
Curiensis, Codex Veronensis, and Codex Corbeiensis II. Plus, it is found in
later Latin manuscripts such as Codex Usserianus I (seventh century) and Codex
Rhedigeranus (eighth century). Therefore, we see that this reading stands
throughout time in the Old Latin manuscripts. This reading is not without Greek
manuscript endorsement either. Beza’s Codex D (sixth century), which is highly
acclaimed among textual scholars, has the reading "autou" (of it). While the
reading "autns" (of her) is preferred and is written thus in minuscules 76 and
2174, both readings stand in the genitive singular and not the plural as
*"auton" (of them) does. Additionally, we find the reading, "of her
purification," in the Old Syriac version (Sinaitic, second century) and the
Sahidic Coptic version (third century).

White states that Beza interjected a conjectural emendation. Metzger defines a
conjectural emendation as when, "the only reading, or each of several variant
readings, which the documents of a text supply is impossible or
incomprehensible, the editor’s only remaining resource is to conjecture what the
original reading must have been." (Metzger, The Text Of The New Testament, 182.)
Beza was not making a conjectural emendation in his Greek text. He was making a
textual decision for he had Latin, Greek, and other translations which read "of
her."

There was, however, a conjectural emendation by Beza in his Latin text. Beza’s
New Testament had three running columns side by side. The first was his Greek
text, the second his Latin translation, and the third the Latin Vulgate.
Additionally, at the bottom of each page he made textual and doctrinal notes.
His Latin translation reads, "Et quum impleti fuissent dies purgationis Mariae"
(And when the days of Mary’s pruification were fulfilled). Beza states that his
conjectural emendation of "Mary" instead of "her" is proper based on the
Levitical Law. He further states in a footnote that the reading "of them" is
improper and distorts the sense of scripture. Beza notes,

Most of the (Greek) Codices read "of them" and likewise so does Origen, and
unfortunately so does Erasmus. However, they have not considered what the actual
Law says about the purification of the mother. And so consequently the old
editions (of the Greek) are unfavorable . . . because they have distorted the
truth of scripture and in some degree have lessened the image of Mary’s purity.
(Theodore Beza, Nouum Sive Nouum Foedus Iesu Christi, 1589. Translated into
English from the Latin footnote.)

Both Tyndale and the Great Bible have the reading as we find it in the majority
of Greek manuscripts. Tyndale reads, "And when the tyme of their purificacion
(after the lawe of Moyses) was come." However, the Geneva and Bishops’ Bibles
read "her purification." Of course, the Catholic Rheims Version would also read
the same, being based on the Latin Vulgate which we have already shown to
support the reading of the Traditional Text here. Thus it reads, "And after the
daies were fully ended of her purification according to the law of Moyses, they
caried him into Hierusalem, to present him to our Lord."

James White wrote, "Let’s think about what this means." It means that some
textual critics are willing to present partial evidence, distort information,
redefine terminology, and simply make up statistical data in order to hold "to
their own traditions."

John 5:4--For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled
the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was
made whole of whatsoever disease he had. The whole verse is retained in all the
early English versions as well as the Spanish, French, Italian, and German
Bibles. However, it has been omitted in modern versions by either bracketing the
verse or confining it to a footnote. The passage is explanatory and sets forth
the reason as to why there were those waiting near the healing waters of
Bethesda.

Dr. Donald A. Carson addresses this text and offers his reason for rejecting the
authenticity of the passage. ". . . when I turn to John 5:3 b-4 and discover it
is missing from the earliest witnesses, which constitute a wide geographical
distribution indeed, I conclude it was not in the original." (D. A. Carson, The
King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism [Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
1979], 70). Kurt and Barbara Aland resort to the "Brevior lectio potior" adage
and claim that the passage was inserted later by way of a legendary account. But
in John 5:3 b-4 we meet another category: expansions of the original text by
various later legendary supplements developed from the account itself. From the
attestation for the "shorter text" it should be clear that the expansion of the
ending of verse 3 and the whole of verse 4 represents a later insertion. (Aland
and Aland, 303.) The verse is omitted in P66 (second or early third century) and
P75 (third century). These Egyptian papyrus manuscripts are extremely old and
therefore carry considerable weight among textual critics. However, as we have
seen in past lessons and will again consider later, such papyrus are not
strictly Alexandrian and often reflect independent readings, sometimes even
supporting the Traditional Text. Age is not the final consideration for we must
not only consider where the manuscripts have been discovered, but why they were
preserved. After all, manuscripts which were greatly used would not be expected
to last as long as those which were seldomly used. Further, we can expect those
which were greatly used to be represented in greater number as they were copied
and recopied thoughout the centuries.

Additional textual support against the verse is in Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Codex
C, D (which does contain 3b), and W (although added in the text later by a
different scribe). There are also about three other Greek manuscripts which do
not contain the verse as well as a few Latin manuscripts, including the Vulgate,
and some other translations.

If we were to take Dr. Carson’s statement at face value and consider the
authenticity of a verse or passage because of the amount of witnesses and the
various locations of these witnesses, as well as the age of these witnesses, we
would be forced to attest to the authenticity of the passage because all of
these factors support the reading as found in the Traditional Text and the
Authorized Version of 1611. The passage is found in Codices A, E, F, G, H, I, K,
L, DELTA, THETA, PSI and the third corrector of C. Thus the uncial evidence
throughout the old world dating from the fourth to the ninth century support the
verse. The Greek minuscules overwhelming support the verse as it is found in 28,
565, 700, 892, 1009, 1010, 1071, 1195, 1216, 1230, 1241, 1242, 1253, 1344, 1365,
1546, 1646, and 2148. It is also contained in the majority of Old Latin
manuscripts and early translations throughout the old world. The verse is found
in the Old Coptic Version as edited from the Coptic manuscript Huntington 17 and
is translated into English as follows: "There was an angel (who) came down every
hour in the pool, and moved the water. And any one (who) shall come down first
after the moving of the water shall be healed of every sickness which (may) be
his." (The Coptic Version Of The New Testament: In The Northern Dialect, vol. II
[Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1898], 377-379.) The same is true of the Old Syriac.
James Murdock translated the passage from the Peshitto as follows: "For an
angel, from time to time, descended into the baptistery, and moved the waters;
and he who first went in, after the moving of the waters, was cured of whatever
disease he had." (Murdock, 172). Nor is the passage without Patristic citations.
The Orthodox Study Bible informs us that This passage, explaining the presence
of the sick around the pool, is often omitted from modern English translations
because it appears in none of the oldest extant Greek manuscripts. Tertullian
(c. A.D. 200) is the first Latin writer, and St. John Chrysostom (c. A.D. 400)
the first Greek writer, to refer to it. (The Orthodox Study Bible, 224).

Therefore we have witnesses which date to the time of P66 and P75, such as
Tertullian and the Peshitto Syriac Version, as well as wide geographical and
translational support, which favor the passage. Further, we see that this is the
reading which is used by Bible believing Christians throughout the history of
the Church.

Spanish:

Porque un angel descendia a cierto tiempo al estanque, y revolvia el agua; y el
que primero descendia en el setanque despues del movimiento del aqua, era sano
de cualquier enfermedad que tuviese.

French: car un ange descendait de temps en temps dans la piscine, et agitait
l’eau; et celui qui y descendait le premier apres que l’eau avait ete agitee
etait gueri, quelle que fut sa maladie.

Italian:

Perciocche di temo in tempo un angelo scendeva nella pescina, ed intorbidava
l’acqua; e il primo che vi entrava, dopo l’intorbidamento dell’ acqua, era
santo, di qualunque malattia egli fosse tenuto.

German:

Denn ein Engel suhr herab zu seiner Zeit in den Ziech, und bewegte das Wasser.
Welcher nun der erste, nachdem das Wasser beweget war, hineinstieg, der ward
gesund, mit welcherlei Leuche er behastet war.

English (Geneva Bible): For an Angel went downe at a certeine season into the
poole, and troubled the water, whosoever then first, after the stirring of the
water, stepped in, was made whole of what soever disease he had.

John 7:53;John 8:1-11--And every man went unto his own house. Jesus went unto
the mount of Olives. And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and
all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. And the scribes
and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set
her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery,
in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned:
but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to
accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as
though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up
himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first
cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And
they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by
one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and
the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none
but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no
man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do
I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Among textual critics, this passage is designated "Pericope De Adultera" and
refers to the woman caught in the act of adultery. The passage has long been
questioned as genuine and is omitted in a great number of manuscripts. It is, of
course, removed from Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, as well as L, N, T, W, X, Y
DELTA, THETA, PSI, 053, and 0141 among the uncial manuscripts. It is also
missing from several of the minuscules manuscripts; 22, 33, 157, 209, 565, 1230,
1241, 1242, 1253, and 2193.

However, the passage is in numerous uncials, including Codex D (Bazae
Cantabrigiensis), G, H, K, M, U, and GAMMA. Among the minuscule/cursive
manuscripts it is in 28, 700, 892, 1009, 1010, 1071, 1079, 1195, 1216, 1344,
1365, 1546, 1646, 2148, and 2174. It also is in early translations such as the
Bohairic Coptic Version, the Syriac Palestinian Version and the Ethiopic
Version, all of which date from the second to the sixth centuries, as well as in
the majority of the Old Latin manuscripts and the Latin Vulgate by Jerome.

Further, the passage is cited by a number of Church Fathers. Among them are
Didascalia (third century), Ambrosiaster (fourth century), Ambrose (fourth
century), and is in the Apostolic Constitutions, which are the largest
liturgical collections of writings from Antioch Syria in about 380 AD. Saint
Augustine (430 AD) makes an astounding statement concerning the authenticity of
this passage. After citing the forgiving phrase from Christ, "Neither do I
condemn thee: go, and sin no more," Augustine writes: This proceeding, however,
shocks the minds of some weak believers, or rather unbelievers and enemies of
the Christian faith: inasmuch that, after (I suppose) of its giving their wives
impunity of sinning, they struck out from their copies of the Gospel this that
our Lord did in pardoning the woman taken in adultery: as if He granted leave of
sinning, Who said, Go and sin no more! (Saint Augustine, De Conjug. Adult.,
II:6.). This passage is found in all the early English versions and the major
translations of the Reformation.

Acts 8:37--And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.
And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Here the testimony of this Ethiopian eunuch has been removed in modern versions
and their Greek texts. The verse is omitted by the standard Alexandrian codices,
as well as P45 (third century), and P74 (seventh century). It is also omitted
from several of the cursive manuscripts and early versions.

However, the passage is found in Codex E (eighth century) and in several other
manuscripts. Also, it is in the Old Latin manuscripts (second to fourth century)
and the Vulgate of Jerome (fourth century). Still further, the passage is cited
by Irenaeus (202 AD) and Cyprian (258 AD). Thus, while not in the majority of
the Greek witness, it does have both early and wide range support.

James White objects to the passage by claiming that it was introduced by Erasmus
taking the reading from Jerome’s Vulgate.

Acts chapters 8 and 9 are also rather expanded in the TR due to material brought
over from the Vulgate. If one looks up Acts 8:37 . . . in the NIV, one will not
find such a verse (outside of the textual footnote, that is). The reason is the
verse is found in only a very few Greek manuscripts, none earlier than the sixth
century, and Erasmus inserted it due to its presence in the Vulgate and in the
margin of one Greek manuscript in his possession. (White, The King James Only
Controversy, 66.)

True, the passage in question appears in the Latin Vulgate of Jerome. However,
it also appears in all the Old Latin manuscripts which pre-date the Vulgate.
And, as already stated, Irenaeus cites it in his thesis Against Heresies
(3:12:8). Dr. Bruce Metzger sees the citation by Erasmus in a different light
and cites Erasmus himself on this issue.

Although the passage does not appear in the late medieval manuscript on which
Erasmus chiefly depended for his edition (ms. 2), it stands in the margin of
another (ms. 4), from which he inserted it into his text because he, "judged
that it had been omitted by the carelessness of scribes (arbitror omissum
librariorum incuria)." (Metzger, A Textual Commentary On The Greek New
Testament, 360.) It appears in all the early English Versions and all the
authoritative/standard versions of the Reformation.

Rom 8:1--There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ
Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. This verse is called
into question because of the phrase,"who walk not after the flesh, but after the
Spirit." The same phrase appears in verse 4. Scholarship has labeled this a
scribal error. Scribal errors fall into a variety of categories, such as
omissions, false recollection, confusion of letters, and insertions. Some others
are a little more technical, such as the following. Haplography: The omission of
one of a pair of letters or group of letters. Homoeoteleuton: Sometimes a text
has the some phrase or words. Homoeoteleuton is when a scribe skips over a
portion of the text and omits what is between the two like phrases. Dittography:
The repetition of a letter, syllable, word, or phrase. The passage in Rom 8:1 is
listed as a dittography scribal error by naturalistic Biblical scholars.

Scribal errors do occur as seen in the large amount of variances within the
textual witnesses. There is, however, another perspective which modern
scholarship fails to reconcile. While we live in the natural world, there is
also a spiritual world which rages an ongoing battle around us (Eph 6:10-12).
There is a spiritual force which seeks perversion and brings corruption to the
texts. Advantageously, there is also a Spiritual Force which seeks purity and
brings preservation to His Holy words. While we can expect natural corruption of
the text because of human error, we can also expect corruption of the text
because of the powers of darkness. And yet, we have the promise of God to keep
and preserve His words and therefore we are assured of His success. The passage
in Rom 8:1 is by no means a scribal error (unless one inadvertly omitted the
Biblical phrase). Instead, we must conclude upon both the textual promise of God
concerning preservation and the contextual passage itself that the passage is
genuine and has only been omitted by those forces which seek to pervert and not
preserve. Having said this, let us look at both the textual evidence for the
passage and the contextual importance of the phrase. The Greek phrase, "ue kata
sarka peripatousin alla kata pneuma" (who walk not after the flesh but after the
Spirit.) is supported by a number of minuscules. Among them are 33, 88, 104,
181, 326, 330, 451, 614, 630, 1241, 1877, 1962, 1984, 1985, 2492, and 2495.
These date from the eleventh to the fifteenth century. In fact, according to the
United Bible Societies Greek Text, among the minuscule witness, only minuscules
1739 (tenth century) and 1881 (fourteenth century) support the reading which
omits the phrase. The standard Alexandrian uncials also omit the phrase from
verse one. But it is included in Codex K (ninth century), Codex P (ninth
century), and stands in the corrected margin of both Codex Sinaiticus (fourth
century) and Codex Claromontanus (sixth century). Also, it is included in the
Latin Vulgate (fourth century), "nihil ergo nunc damnationis est his qui sunt in
christo iesu qui non secundum carnem ambulant", and the Old Syriac Peshitto
(second century). The whole verse is cited, with the phrase in question, by
Theodoret (466 AD), Ps-Oecumenius (tenth century), and Theophylact (1077 AD). We
also have partial citation of the verse by Basil (379 AD). He writes, And after
he has developed more fully the idea that it is impossible for one who is in the
power of sin to serve the Lord, he plainly states who it is that redeems us from
such a tyrannical dominion in the words: "Unhapply man that I am, who shall
deliver me from the body of this death? I give thanks to God through Jesus
Christ, our Lord." Further on, he adds: "There is now, therefore, no
condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not according to the
flesh." (Staint Basil, "Concerning Baptism," in The Fathers Of The Church: Saint
Basil Ascetical Works, "trans." Sister M. Monica Wagner, vol. 9 [New York:
Fathers Of The Church, Inc., 1950], 343.)

It therefore comes as no surprise that the whole verse is found in the
authoritative/standard foreign versions which underlined the Authorized Version
in 1611. Nor is it a surprise to find it in all early English versions. The
Bishops’ Bible reads, "There is then no damnation to them which are in Christ
Jesu, which walke not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Likewise,
Tyndale’s New Testament, and the Great Bible use the word "damnation." However,
the Geneva Bible agrees with the King James and uses the English word
"condemnation."

Theologically, the omission of the last half of the verse carries a doctrinal
error. To say that there is no condemnation whatsoever of any who are in Christ
Jesus is to overlook the whole of scripture. In fact, we are told that it is
very possible for those who are in Christ to suffer condemnation. If the
Believer is walking, not after the Spirit but after the flesh, his or her works
are nothing but wood, hay, and stubble. If the Believer is walking after the
Spirit, and not after the flesh, his or her works are gold, silver, and precious
stones. (1Co 3:12). Everyone’s works will be tried by fire. Fleshly works will
be burned and Spiritual works will endure. We are told, "If any man’s work shall
be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by
fire." (1Co 3:15). The context of Romans chapter 8, verses 4-10, also teaches us
that faithful Christians are to walk after the Spirit and not after the flesh.
This has to do with our Christian living. The Christian is in a constant battle
between the Spirit and the flesh (Gal 5:16-18). There is no condemnation for the
Believer who is following the Holy Spirit. However, there is condemnation for
those who do not follow the leading of the Spirit, but seek to follow their own
flesh.

We must remember that the word condemnation not only carries the meaning of
judgment, but also of disapproval. John informs his "little children" that the
heart of the Believer is able to pass such condemnation or disapproval on our
Christian living. "For if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence
toward God. And whatsoever we ask we receive of him, because we keep his
commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight." (1Jn
3:20-21). Not only is there a judgment for Believers who stand before the
Judgment Seat of Christ (2Co 5:9-10) where their works will either be approved
or disapproved (1Co 3:12-15). But there also can be a judgment on the Believer
here which may cost them their very life if they continue in sin (Acts 5:1-10;
1Jn 5:16). So, Biblically speaking, there is condemnation to those who walk
after the flesh and not after the Spirit. The use of this verse among the
Reformers, as it stands in the Traditional Text, may be illustrated by citing
John Calvin. In his commentary on Romans, Calvin writes of verse one:

"There is then, &c." After having described the contest which the godly have
perpetually with their won flesh, he returns to the consolation, which was very
needful for them, and which he had before mentioned; and it was this,--That
though they were still beset by sin, they were yet exempt from the power of
death, and from every curse, provided they lived not in the flesh but in the
Spirit . . . "After the Spirit." Those who walk after the Spirit are not such as
have wholly put off all the emotions of the flesh, so that their whole life is
redolent with nothing but celestial perfection; but they are those who
sedulously labour to subdue and mortify the flesh, so that the love of true
religion seems to reign in them. (John Calvin, Commentaries On The Epistle Of
Paul The Apostle To The Romans, "trans." John Owen [1536; reprint, Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1947], 275-276.)

Eph 3:9--And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which
from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by
Jesus Christ: The Textus Receptus uses the Greek word, "koinonia" (fellowship).
However, almost all Greek manuscripts of this passage use the Greek word,
"oikonomia" (dispensation or stewardship). To this, James White states,

We have already noted the fact that the TR has a very unusual reading of
"fellowship," found only in the margin of minuscule manuscript 31 and a few
other very late manuscripts, rather than the reading of all uncials, 99% of the
minuscules, and all the early Fathers, which have "administration." (White, King
James Only Controversy, 179.)

Although we may have cause to question the statistical information provided,
White is correct in stating that almost all of the Greek manuscripts and Church
Fathers used the word "oikonomia" (administration). However, in addition to the
minuscule manuscript 31, we may also add minuscule 57 (twelfth century) as using
the word "koinonia" (fellowship). Additionally, Metzger notes that, "a few other
minuscules," contain the Greek word "koinonia." (Bruce Metzger, A Textual
Commentary On The Greek New Testament [New York: United Bible Societies, 1968],
603.). Thus there are at least three or four Greek manuscripts which have the
Greek word "koinonia." In favor of the Greek word "oikonomia," we have P46,
Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, and the correctors of Codices D, G, K, L,
and P. Among the minuscules 17, 37, and 47 support the use of "oikonomia"
instead of "koinonia."

Early English versions, being based on the Textus Receptus of the Reformation,
used the Greek word "koinonia" and thus the English word "fellowship." The much
beloved Geneva Bible reads, "And to make cleare unto all men what the felowship
of the mysterie is, which from the beginning of the worlde hathe bene hid in
God, who hathe created all things by Jesus Christ."

"Oikonomia" is translated as "stewardship," "administration," and "dispensation"
in various modern versions in Eph 3:9. On the other hand the word, "koinonia" is
translated as "fellowship" (Acts 2:42), "communion" (2Co 6:14), *contribution*
(Rom 15:26), and *distribution* (2Co 9:13) in the Authorized Version. There is a
commonity here among these English words, and even among the two Greek words,
for all of them reflect one who gives what he is a part of.

Dr. A. W. Thorold (Lord Bishop of Rochester) noted this in 1882. Commenting on
Eph 3:9 he writes, " ’Fellowship.’ or, dispensation, in making Gentiles
fellow-heirs with the Jews." (A. W. Thorold, "The Epistle to the Ephesians," in
Commentary On The New Testament, vol. 2 [London: Society for Promoting Christian
Knowledge, 1882].) John Locke tied "fellowship," "communication," and
"dispensation" together in 1707. Locke cites the Authorized Version’s reading of
"fellowship" and then uses the meaning of "communicated" in his own paraphrase.

Tis h koinonia, What is the Communication, i.e. that they may have light from
me, to see and look into the Reason and Ground of the Discovery or Communication
of this Mystery to them now by Jesus Christ, who is now exhibited to the World,
into whose hands God has put the Management of this whole Dispensation. (John
Locke, A Paraphrase And Notes On The Epistles Of St. Paul To TheGal 1:1-24And 2
Corinthians, Romans, Ephesians, Arthur W. Wainwright ed., vol. 2 [1707; reprint,
Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1987], 640-641.)

Further, Dr. G. W. H. Lampe demonstrates that among the writings of the early
Church Fathers, such as Justin Martyr and Clement, "koinonia" carried the
meaning of distribution and imparting. (G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek
Lexicon [Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1961], 764.) Still further, the English
word "fellowship" carries this same meaning which demonstrates a mutual sharing.
Thus, the Greek words and all the English words reflect the meaning of giving
what we are partakers of, which is the meaning of the passage in Eph 3:9. In
light of the definition, the use of the words, and the textual support, it seems
rather ridiculous to cite this passage as an example of errata in the King James
Bible. This passage can hardly be compared to places in modern editions where
the Traditional Text is rejected and whole verses are missing or the context is
completely changed.

Eph 3:14--For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ, The Authorized Version is criticized on this verse by textual critics
because the phrase, "of our Lord Jesus Christ" lacks Greek support among the
early manuscripts. It is true that the phrase is missing from P46 (200 AD),
Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Codices A, B, C and P. It is also missing from the
cursives 33, 81, 1739, 1962, 2127, and 2492. Oddly, it does appear in the
corrector (c) of Codex Sinaiticus, which contains many additions and corrections
in its margins. It is also in D, G, K, and PSI. Among the cursives it is found
in 88, 104, 181, 326, 330, 436, 451, 614, 629, 630, 1241, 1877, 1881, 1984,
1985, and 2495.

It is also found in the Old Latin and other early translations. The Syriac
Peshitto Version (which has been dated as early as the second century and as
late as the fifth century) reads, "And I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord
Jesus the Messiah." The reading is also found in the Old Gothic Version of the
fourth century and the Old Armenian Version of about the same time.

It is cited by Ambrosiaster (fourth century), Victorinus of Rome (362 AD),
Ephraem (373 AD), Chrysostom (407 AD), Theodore (428 AD), Theodoret (466 AD),
John of Damascus (749 AD), and Photius (895 AD), showing that the reading has
survived the onslaught of time.

Saint Basil (379 AD) founded the monastic system, put his faith into practice by
beginning what was an early form of hospice care for terminally ill patients,
and firmly believed that water baptism should follow only after conversion. In
his thesis on the subject of baptism, he cites Eph 3:14 : In these and other
passages of the kind, then, the Lord says that they who are born of the Spirit
become spirit. The Apostle again testifies to the same truth when he says: "For
this cause I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom all
paternity in heaven and earth is named, that he would grant you, according to
the riches of his glory,


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 11: 11 LESSON ELEVEN
========================================================================

Lesson Eleven: TRANSLATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

"As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are
some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable
wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."-- 2Pe
3:16 The majority of objections to the King James Bible can be placed in one of
two categories. The first deals with the text. In regard to this, we have not
only considered the underlining Greek text of the Authorized Version, but also
the Greek text which underlines the vast majority of modern versions.
Additionally, we have also considered several places where opponents of the KJV
have claimed corruption in the text. Each time, we have found support for God’s
word and the doctrine of preservation. The second category deals not with the
underlining Greek text of the King James Bible, but the translation of it. The
claim is often made that since 1611 our language has so drastically changed that
we can no longer make sense of the archaic Elizabethan English found in the
pages of this antiquated version. Although we will deal with this issue in
greater detail in our next lesson, we must pause to say that according to Holy
Scripture, the Bible was never intended to be easily read or understood. In
fact, the Holy Spirit claims that much of God’s word is "hard to understand"
(2Pe 3:16). For this, and other reasons, men have sought to challenge it by
simply changing it. The following are a few examples of where claims are made
against the King James in regard to its English translation. In each case, as
with all the others which are not mentioned, the answer provided by man is
scholarship. However, we find that in each case this man-centered scholarship
falls short and never at any time provides the Believer with the preserved word
of God. Therefore, the final authority becomes scholarship and not Scripture.
Nonetheless, the Bible-believing Christian places their faith in the promises of
God and is rewarded with the assurance that God has in fact kept and preserved
His words as He has promised.

Jer 34:16--But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant,
and every man his handmaid, whom ye had set at liberty at their pleasure, to
return, and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and for
handmaids. The problem found in this verse deals with the little word "ye." Some
editions of the KJV read, "whom he had set at liberty at their pleasure,"
instead of as it appears in the above text. James R. White asks, "The question
for the KJV Only advocate is, ’How do you determine which one is right?’ " (The
King James Only Controversy, Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1995, p.
80). He then mistakenly states that this dilemma cannot be determined by going
back to the original edition of the KJV printed in 1611 since it, "has undergone
changes of similar nature over the years." (Ibid., p. 81).

These type of arguments have nothing to do with either the Hebrew text, the
translation found in the KJV, or the doctrine of preservation. It has to do with
what has already been addressed in lesson seven. This is simply a printing error
which some printers still maintain. Mr. White’s objection is absurd, as
correcting a printing mistake is not changing the text.

Another example of such a printing error can be found in Acts 6:3. The original
edition of 1611 had the correct reading:

Wherefore brethren, looke ye out among you seuen men of honest report, full of
the holy Ghost, and wifedome, whom we may appoint ouer this businesse.

However, a printed edition in 1638 read, "whom he may appoint over this
businesse." Yet, current editions have again corrected this printing error so
that it again reads, "whom we may appoint over this business." As to Jer 34:16,
the original edition of 1611 read, "whome yee had set at libertie at their
pleasure." James White notes that it is the edition printed by Oxford which
reads "he" while the edition printed by Cambridge reads "ye." (Ibid., p.80).
John R. Dore has correctly stated that, "The University of Oxford did not begin
to print Bibles until the year 1675, when the first was issued in quarto size;
the spelling was revised by Dr. John Fell, Dean of Oxford." (John R. Dore, Old
Bibles: An Account of the Early Versions of the English Bible, London: Eyre and
Spottiswoode, 1888, p. 346). Cambridge, agreeing with the edition of 1611, first
began printing KJV Bibles in 1629 by Thomas and John Buck.

Although I cannot prove that the error falls to Dr. John Fell in his 1675 Oxford
edition, I can state that considerable time passed before the error was
introduced, with the error limited to the editions published by Oxford or based
on the Oxford edition. This has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of
Biblical preservation, for the reading is found in the original edition, the
Cambridge edition, and current editions based on either the original 1611 or
Cambridge editions. This has everything to do with what Bible-believers have
claimed about the so-called four revisions of the KJV. These revisions deal with
orthography (spelling), calligraphy (style of writing), or printing errors (as
we find here).

Dan 3:25--He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst
of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son
of God.

Newer versions read, "and the fourth looks like a son of the gods" (NIV), or
"and the fourth has the appearance of a god" (NRSV). Dr. Jack Lewis addresses
this and explains, " ’The Son of God’ (Dan 3:25) can only be taken by the reader
as implying that Jesus was in the furnace, but Nebuchadnezzar says he saw an
’angel’ (Dan 3:28); hence ’a son of god’ or ’of the gods’ --that is, an angelic
being--must be understood." (The English Bible: From KJV to NIV, Grand Rapids:
Baker Book House, 1981, pp. 45-46). This is ridiculous. First, we need not
interpret the Bible in light of what Nebuchadnezzar proclaims. Second, the
explanation of the fourth man being "an angel" would not exclude a
pre-incarnation of Jesus Christ since He is, in the Old Testament, referred to
as the "Angel of the Lord." Dr. Emery Bancroft writes, " ’The Angel of the Lord’
is clearly a manifestation of Deity in the Old Testament, and is identified with
the Second Person of the Trinity, the Lord Jesus Christ. ’The Angel of the Lord’
was God the Son before His permanent incarnation." (Elemental Theology,
Zondervan Publishing House, 1960, p. 26). He offers Jdg 13:18; Isa 9:6; Mal 3:1
and John 8:56 as proof of his statement. Nor would King Nebuchadnezzar be
ignorant of the prophecy concerning the Son of God (Psa 2:7; Psa 2:12 and Pro
30:4), since he read the Hebrew Scriptures and had the insights of not only
these three Hebrew children, but of the Prophet Daniel as well. Most of all,
modern versions and interpreters such as Jack Lewis, ignore the truth of the
passage. It was not "a god," or "a son of the gods," which was in the fiery
furnace with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. It was the Lord Jesus Christ, the
Son of God. This was also the understanding of the early Church Fathers, again
something that modern translators forget in their endeavor to correct the Word
of God. Athanasius (373 AD) wrote: Who is this "Well-beloved" but the
Only-begotten Son? As also in the hundred and ninth, "From the womb I begat Thee
before the morning star," concerning which I shall speak afterwards; and in the
Proverbs, "Before the hills He begat me;" and in Daniel, "And the form of the
Fourth is like the Son of God;" and many others. If then from the Old be
ancientness, ancient must be the Son, who is clearly described in the Old
Testament in many places. (Four Discourses Against The Arians, IV:24)

Further, the Hebrew word used in the passage, "elahh," is the very same word
used in verses 15, 17, 26, 28, and 29 of the same chapter (as well as many other
places). In these verses "elahh" is translated as "God."

George Lamsa’s translation, based on the Syrian texts, indicates that the Old
Syrian manuscripts agree with the translation of the KJV. Lamsa’s version reads,
"The king answered and said, Behold I see men loose, walking in the midst of the
fire, and they are not hurt: and the appearance of the fourth is like that of
the Son of God." It is also interesting that the Greek Septuagint agrees with
the KJV, something modern scholarship seems to overlook here. The LXX uses the
Greek word "Theou" (of God) which stands in the singular and not the plural. It
is the reading of the Old Latin translations and the reading found in the
Douay-Rheims Version (although in this version it is found in verse 92).
Therefore, the verse is hardly limited to the KJV only. The Authorized Version
of 1611 gives the correct reading in accordance with the historic interpretation
of the passage, the uses of the Hebrew word, and the context of the passage.

Mark 6:20--For Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and an holy,
and observed him; and when he heard him, he did many things, and heard him
gladly.

James White writes, Did Herod ’observe’ John, as the KJV says, or ’keep him
safe,’ as the NASB says? The Greek term simply does not mean ’observe,’ but
instead means ’to protect.’ One might possibly suggest that ’observe’ once meant
’to protect,’ but such seems a long stretch, especially since the KJV renders
the same word ’preserve’ at Mat 9:17 and Luk 5:38. (The King James Only
Controversy, pp. 224-225). The problem is not with the translation, but with
modern scholarship’s lack of comprehension concerning the English language.
According to the Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, the word
"observe" comes from the Latin word "observare" which means to watch, guard, and
observe. (Philip Babcock Gove, editor. Springfield Massachusetts:
Merriam-Webster Inc., 1981, p. 1558). This agrees with Dr. John C. Traupman’s
Latin Dictionary which defines "observare" as >>to watch, watch out for, take
careful note of; to guard; to observe, keep, obey, comply with; to pay attention
to, pay respect to. (New York: Amsco School Publications, 1966, p.200). Further,
the Oxford English Dictionary offers this definition of "observe" as well: "6.
To regard with attention; to watch; to watch over, look after." (The Oxford
English Dictionary, 2nd edition, J.A.Simpson and E.S.C. Weiner, editors. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1989, p. 1196). For the most part, we think of the word
"observe" as meaning to watch, study, or take notice of. However, it also means
to keep, protect, or preserve. For example, we speak of "observing the speed
limit." We do not mean that we are watching how fast we travel down the road, we
mean we are obeying or keeping the law of the land. Some observe the Sabbath, or
a religious holiday. Again, this means they keep or respect the day. When the
Coast Guard speaks of "observing our shores," they mean they are protecting
them. So it is with Forest Rangers who set up "observation posts" for the
purpose of protecting the wilderness. Both "observe" and "preserve" mean to keep
something. This is why this very same Greek word is used in Luk 2:19 and is
translated as "kept," "Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her
heart." The basic Greek word is "suntereo." According to the 1978 revision of
The Analytical Greek Lexicon it is defined as, "to observe strictly, or to
secure from harm, protect." (Harold K. Moulton, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, p.
392.) James H. Moulton and George Milligan note that one of the uses of this
word in ancient non-literary writings is when, "a veteran claims that in view of
his long military service, exemption from public burdens ought to be ’strictly
observed’ in his case." (The Vocabulary Of The Greek Testament, Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1949, p.614). These definitions stand in direct contrast with White’s
statement that, "the Greek term simply does not mean ’observe,’ but instead
means ’to protect.’ " Clearly, it means both. The problem is not with the King
James Bible, but with those who do not fully understand either Greek or their
own language. In one sense, this is a good argument for the KJV. When we limit
our understanding, we limit ourselves and our growth as Christians and humans.
Modern versions, in trying to simplify our language, have limited our
understanding of English and many of our great historical and literary writings
outside the Scriptures. In this way, they have done us a great disservice.

Notice how the word "observed" is used in the following writings. In each case,
the word is taken to mean "kept" and not "watch."

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Theodore Roosevelt, President of the Unite
States of America, have caused the said Convention to be made public, to the end
that the same and every article and clause thereof, may be observed and
fulfilled with good faith by the United States and the citizens thereof.
(Convention Between The United States And The Republic Of Panama, 1904, Article
XXVI: 130.

Whoever can there bring sufficient proof that he has strictly observed the laws
of his country for seventy-three moons, has a claim to certain privileges,
according to his quality and condition of life, with a proportionable sum of
money out of a fund appropriated for that use: (Jonathan Swift, Gulliver’s
Travels, Part 1: Chapter 6, paragraph 5)

FIRST SAILOR. Sir, your queen must overboard: the sea works high, the wind is
loud, and will not lie till the ship be clear’d of the dead.

PERICLES. That’s your superstition.

FIRST SAILOR. Pardon us, sir; with us at sea it hath been still observed, and we
are strong in custom. Therefore briefly yield ’er; for she must overboard
straight. (William Shakespeare, Pericles, Acts 3:1-26, Scene 1, line 60)

White also makes an additional statement concerning this text and the
translation produced by the Authorized Version in a footnote to his book.

We note in passing how inferior even this rendering by the KJV is. ’He was a
just man and an holy’ makes little sense; what is ’an holy’? Instead, the Greek
phrase is quite easily translated as the NASB, ’he was a righteous and holy
man,’ both terms ’righteous’ and ’holy’ plainly describing John. (The King James
Only Controversy, p. 238). This is a very strange statement, coming from a
professor of New Testament Greek. The student of Greek knows that often a Greek
adjective can be used for a Greek noun. For example, the Greek word for good is
"agathos." The Greek phrase "o agathos" can mean "the good" or it can mean "the
good man." The noun is understood in the adjective. This being the case, it is
hard to understand how Mr. White cannot apply the same to his understanding of
English. The phrase, "an holy" obviously means "a holy man" as the context
reveals.

Thomas Hubeart, one of the students in our class, has justly made the following
observation as it relates to the above interpretation by James White. He writes,

One cannot help but call Mr. White’s attention to the fact that the New American
Standard’s rendering of the phrase means the same things as the KJV’s rendering!
’A just man and an holy’ plainly means a just and holy man, since ’man’ is
obviously implied by the construction of the English phrase.

Brother Hubeart then does a wonderful job of illustrating this by citing Sir
Arthur Conan Doyle’s, The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes. But you have told us
nothing!" cried the doctor. "Oh, there can be no doubt as to the sequence of
events," said Holmes. "There were three of them in it: the young man, the old
man, and a third, to whose identity I have no clue. . . .<< --*The Resident
Patient.* (see Thomas Hubeart’s Web Site <<http://members.aol.com/basfawlty>>;
<<http://members.aol.com/basfawlty>>)

John 1:18--No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in
the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. The phrase in question is "the
only begotten Son." There are two variants here: one with the Greek text and the
other with the translation. The Greek of the Traditional Text reads, "o
monogenes eos" (the only begotten Son). The Greek of the Alexandrian Text reads,
"o monogenes theos" (the only begotten God). Additionally, the Greek word
"monogenes" is no longer looked upon as being translated as "only begotten" but
is now considered better translated as "unique" or "one and only."

Dr. Edwin H. Palmer, who served as the executive secretary of the Committee on
Bible Translation for the New International Version, had this to say concerning
this passage. A striking case of where the KJV, following bad Greek copies of
the original text, changed the original is (sic) John 1:18. The KJV says, ’No
man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of
the Father, he hath declared him.’ John 1:18, as inspired by the Holy Spirit, is
one of those few clear and decisive texts that declare that Jesus is God. But,
scripts, altered what the Holy Spirit said through John, calling Jesus ’Son.’
Using the archaic language of the KJV, the verse should read: ’No man hath seen
God at any time; the only begotten God, which is in the bosom of the Father, he
hath declared him.’ Or to say it in a modern and elegant way: ’No one has ever
seen God, but God the One and Only [Son], who is at the Father’s side, has made
him known’ [NIV]. (The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, Kenneth L.
Barker editor, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986, p. 143). The statement by Dr.
Palmer is interesting on several levels. First there is the question on the
textual level. The phrase "monogenes theos" is found in P66 and P75, as well as
Codex Vaticanius and Codex Sinaiticus (and a few other manuscripts). The
reading, "monogenes eos" is found in the vast majority of Greek witnesses and
ancient translations. This is a classic example illustrating the two lines of
manuscripts. What is interesting is that Dr. Palmer refers to the line of
manuscripts which support the reading found in the NIV and NASV as being
"inspired." If those of us who support the Greek text of the Authorized Version
referred to it as being the correct text because this was, "A striking case of
where the NIV, following bad Greek copies of the original text, changed the
original in John 1:18," or, "John 1:18, as inspired by the Holy Spirit, is one
of those clear and decisive texts that declare that Jesus is the only begotten
Son of God," we would be ridiculed by men such as Palmer and White for calling
the Greek text of the KJV inspired and original. However, when they do the very
things they accuse us of doing, it is considered "scholarship."

Secondly, it is interesting that Dr. Palmer attacks the KJV for using "archaic
language" and yet does not cite any archaisms for this verse. Is there anything
in the passage which one cannot understand because of the antiquated language of
1611?

Finally, in relation to Dr. Palmer’s quote, while he accuses the KJV of using
"archaic language" he then offers a reading from the NIV which the NIV no longer
contains. Within the first five years of the translation, the NIV changed the
passage "No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only [Son], who is at the
Father’s side, has made him known." It now reads, "No one has ever seen God, but
God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known." Thus,
the NIV has revised itself and omitted [Son].

Placing Dr. Palmer’s comments aside, we are still left with the change of "only
begotten" to "One and Only." Dr. Jack Finegan, in Encounting New Testament
Manuscripts: A Working Introduction to Textual Criticism, cites Dr. Dale Moody
as evidence for the change of English words. This English translation (i.e.
"Only begotten God") corresponds literally to the Greek, but may not bring out
the full meaning of the sentence. Note that "monogenes" ("only begotten") may
also be translated "only" or "unique" (cf. Dale Moody in JBL 72 [1953], pp.
213-219), and that the following word "Theos" ("God") is without the article.
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974, p. 125).

Dr. Moody argues that the word is better translated as "unique" and thus the
passage in John 1:1-51 is simply claiming Christ as a unique God and not a
created god. Moody explains, The word translated ’only’ . . . is monogenes, from
monos (single) and genos (kind). Since Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament (1886) students have known that monogenes meant ’single of its kind,
only’ and that the term denotes ’the only son of God’ in the Johannine writings.
(Dale Moody, "God’s Only Son: The Translation of John 3:16 In the Revised
Standard Version" Journal Of Biblical Literature, Vol 72, 1953, p213.) To begin
with, there have been many translations since 1886 which translated monogenes in
John 1:18 as "only begotten." All one need do is consult the American Standard
Version (1901), The Revised Berkely Version (1959), The New American Standard
Version (1960), and The New King James Version (1979) to see that "only
begotten" is still in vogue. Secondly, all one need do is consult the Greek text
of the King James Version to see that the translators were not unaware that
monogenes can be translated as "only" for they did so in Luk 7:12; Luk 8:42; Luk
9:38. However, none of these verses deals with the person of Jesus Christ.
Therefore, we see that the Greek word can mean "only" when dealing with humans,
but when dealing with Christ it means "only begotten."

Further, this is not only Biblical, but it is also clearly the historical understanding of both the passage and the translation of the Greek word "monogenes." The Old Latin manuscripts read, "deum nemo uidit umquam. unigenitus filius. qui est in sinu patris. ipse narrauit." The Latin word "unigenitus" means more than unique or only. My Latin dictionary from back in public school renders it as, "only begotten, only; of the same parentage." (Dr. John C. Traupman, Latin Dictionary, p. 323). And Martin Luther translated the phrase in German as "der eingeborene Sohn." Even without a knowledge of German, one can see that "eingeborene" means "only begotten." As does the Spanish Reina-Valera in using, "el unigenito Hijo" (only begotten Son). The reading is older than either the German or the Spanish. In 202 AD, Irenaeus wrote, For "no man," he says, "hath seen God at any time," unless "the only-begotten Son of God, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared [Him]." For He, the Son who is in His bosom, declares to all the Father who is invisible.<<(Against Heresies, 3:11:6 ---Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, p. 427. "Irenaeus Against Heresies", New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1926 vol. 1. also in 4:20:6, p.489) In 324 AD, Alexander of Alexandria wrote in his letter to the Bishop of Alexandria the following:

Moreover, that the Son of God was not produced out of what did not exist, and
that there never was a time when He did not exist, is taught expressly by John
the Evangelist, who writes this of Him: ’The only-begotten Son, who is in the
bosom of the Father.’ The divine teacher, because he intended to show that the
Father and the Son are two and inseparable from each other, does in fact specify
that He is in the bosom of the Father. (W.A. Jurgens, The Faith Of The Early
Fathers, Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, p. 300) The context of the 5th
Confession of the Nicene Creed (344 AD) shows that monogenes meant more than
only, it means only begotten.

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, . . . And in His Only-begotten Son
our Lord Jesus Christ, who before all ages was begotten from the Father, God
from God, Light from Light, by whom all things were made, in heaven and on the
earth, visible and invisible . . . (as cited from Athanasius: De Synodis,
II:26).

Athanasius (373 AD) states,

If then He is Only-begotten, as indeed He is, "First-born" needs some
explanation; but if He be really First-born, then He is not Only-begotten and
First-born, except in different relations; that is, Only-begotten, because of
His generation from the Father, as has been said; and First-born, because of His
condescension to the creation and His making the many His brethren. (Discourse
II, XXI:62) Athanasius also cites John 1:18 with Gen 1:1; Psa 110:3; Psa 2:7;
Pro 8:25; and John 1:3.

Plainly, divine Scripture, which knows better than any the nature of everything,
says through Moses, of the creatures, "In the beginning God created the heaven
and the earth;" but of the Son it introduces not another, but the Father Himself
saying, "I have begotten Thee from the womb from the womb before the morning
star;" and again, "Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee." And the Lord
says of Himself in the Proverbs, "Before all the hills He begets me;" and
concerning things originated and created John speaks, "All things were made by
Him;" but preaching of the Lord, he says, "The Only-begotten Son, who is in the
bosom of the Father, He declared Him." If then son, therefore not creature; if
creature, not son; for great is the difference between them, and son and
creature cannot be the same, unless His essence be considered to be at once from
God, and external to God.<< (De Decretis [Defence of the Nicene Definition],
III:13).

Ambrose (397 AD) writes, For this reason also the evangelist says, "No one has
at any time seen God, except the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the
Father, he has revealed him." "The bosom of the Father," then, is to be
understood in a spiritual sense, as a kind of innermost dwelling of the Father’s
love and of His nature, in which the Son always dwells. Even so, the Father’s
womb is the spiritual womb of an inner sanctuary, from which the Son has
proceeded just as from a generative womb. (St. Ambrose: The Patrarches, 11:51).

Finally, Augustine (430 AD) wrote: For Himself hath said: No man hath seen God
at any time, but the Only-Begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father, He
hath declared Him. Therefore we know the Father by Him, being they to whom He
hath declared Him. (Homilies On The Gospel According To St. John, XLVII:3) The
list could go on. The point is that most of the early Theologians in the Church
not only recognized that monogenes means "only begotten," and defined it as
such, but that the popular reading was "only begotten Son."

Acts 5:30--The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a
tree. The objection to this verse deals with the phrase, "whom ye slew and
hanged on a tree." Modern translations, such as the New King James Version,
reads: The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a
tree.

James White comments on this by stating,

Peter did not say that the Jews had slain Jesus and then hung him on a tree.
Instead, they put the Lord to death by hanging Him upon the tree. It is
difficult to see exactly where the KJV derived its translation, as there is no
’and’ in the text to separate ’slew’ and ’hanged on a tree.’ (The King James
Only Controversy, pp. 225-226)

White’s suggestion is faulty in two aspects. First, because he misreads the text
of the Authorized Version, making it read "whom ye slew and THEN hanged on a
tree." Second, because he condemns the Authorized Version for inserting the word
"and," yet White himself agrees with the insertion of the word "by." In English,
the word "and" does not usually mean a time frame, as White has interpreted it
(however the phrase "and then" does refer to time). Therefore, the text is not
saying that the Jews murdered Christ and then placed him on the cross. The word
"and" is a conjunction which simply links two thoughts together. As such, it is
used as the word "further." We understand the text to mean that the Jews were
responsible for killing their Messiah. Further, they were responsible for having
him placed on the cross. This is a proper use of English. When one assumes that
the text is stating that the Jews murdered the Lord and THEN crucified him, he
is reading his own thoughts into the text making it say something it does not
say. In so doing, one simply shows their lack of understanding the English
language. This can be seen in Miguel de Cervantes’, Don Quixote. The barber
tells Sancho Panza that "we suspect already, that you have murdered and robbed
him, for here you are mounted on his horse." However, Sancho defends himself by
stating, "for I am not a man to rob or murder anybody; let his own fate, or God
who made him, kill each one." (Translated by John Ormsby, Pt. 1, Chapter 26:40.)
Sancho places the word order as "rob or murder," while the barber places the
order "murdered and robbed." Both statements are grammatically correct because
"and" means "further" and not in regard to time. The barber is saying of Sancho
that he was a murderer and further, that he was a robber. The same construction
is seen in 1Sa 17:50-51. David had already killed Goliath with the stone from
his sling-shot. He then takes the Giant’s sword and cuts off his head. The
Revised Standard Version translates this as follows: So David prevailed over the
Philistine with a sling and a stone, and struck the Philistine, and killed him;
there was no sword in the hand of David. Then David ran and stood over the
Philistine; and took his sword and drew it out of its sheath, and killed him;
and cut off his head with it. The word "and" is used in this translation as it
is in the Authorized Version. The Giant died from a strike to his head with a
stone coming from David’s sling. The text then says David ran over to the body
of the dead Giant, "and took his sword and drew it out of its sheath, and killed
him." David kills a dead man. How? By removing his sword, "and cut off his head
with it." Again, the word "and" in this text does not mean "and then" but it
means "further." That is to say David killed Goliath with a stone from his
sling. Further, David cut off the Giant’s head with his own sword. In a footnote
to support his claim against the KJV, James White quotes Dana and Mantey, two
Greek grammarians. The participle ’hanging’ is a circumstantial instrumental (or
modal), expressing the means by which death was inflicted. Dana and Mantey list
a syntactical category that would give us the KJV rendering; however, they
indicate that this category should be utilized only when the participle does not
’present in a distinct way any of the above functions’ (H.E. Dana and Julius R.
Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Macmillan: 1955), p. 228).
Since the participle clearly fits into one of those preceding categories, there
is no reason to choose the category that would give us the KJV rendering. (The
King James Only Controversy, p. 239). The full quote from Dana and Mantey reads
as follows: A participle may not present in a distinct way any of the above
functions, but may merely express an attendant circumstance--an additional fact
or thought which is best rendered in English by the conjunction ’and’ with a
finite construction. Here the English participle fails to extend its use
sufficiently to take care of the entire force of the Greek participle, and at
the same time it is doubtful if a separate clause is an exact translation. It is
one of those idioms which have no exact parallel in English...’They went forth
and preached everywhere. (Mark 16:20; See also Luk 4:15; 2Ti 4:11)<< (Dana and
Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, Toronto: Macmillan, 1927,
pp. 228-229).

It should be noted that the entire subject of the classification of the
participle is introduced with, "This matter has occasioned great diversity of
opinion among Greek grammarians." (Ibid., p. 223). All this means is this; the
verses which are called "error" are really a matter of opinion. The verses can
be translated exactly as the KJV translators did. It is not an error, but simply
a matter of diversity of opinion among Greek grammarians. When faced with the
above statement, White responded with what can only be considered classic
White-washing. In our Christianity Today debate, James White retorted with: Of
course, that is untrue. 1) Dana and Mantey do not list Acts 5:30 or 10:29 (sic.)
as fitting this category. 2) They say the final category should only be used
when the previous categories do not fit; a previous category *did* fit, and that
without question. 3) You have failed to deal with the real issue: did the Jews
kill Jesus and THEN hang Him upon a tree, Dr. Holland? Yes or no? ( Subj: Acts
5:30 Date: 95-08-21 22:10:20 EDT From: Orthopodeo)

It is true that Dana and Mantey did not use Acts 5:30 or 10:39 "as fitting this
category." But for that matter, why should they? All that is needed is to state
the rule and give an example or two, not list every example. And, if Mr. White
does not approve of citing Dana and Mantey for this passage, then why does he do
so in his own footnote? After all, Dana and Mantey were not citing Acts 5:30 or
10:39 on page 228 of their book either. And yet, White cites them as authorities
for his point of view. As to the final question, the answer is, of course, no.
The Jews did not kill Jesus and THEN hanged Him upon a tree. The word "then" is
found only in the mind of James White and not in the text of Scripture.

Acts 12:4--And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered
him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring
him forth to the people. The objection deals with the word "Easter." The Greek
word "pascha" is translated as "Passover" in the KJV with this one exception.
Earlier English translations also translated "pascha" as Easter in this verse,
showing that the understanding here dealt with something other than Passover.
Notice the following translations from several early English versions, thus
removing the idea that this is a "King James Onlyism."

Tyndale (1525): And when he had caught him, he put him in preson, and delivered
him to. iiii. quaternions of soudiers to be kepte, entendinge after ester to
bringe him forth to the people.

Great Bible (1539): And when he had caught hym, he put him in preson also, and
delyvered him to. iiii. quaternions of soudiers to be kepte, entendynge after
Ester to bringe him forth to the people.

Bishop’s Bible (1568): And when he had caught him, he put him in prison also,
and delivered him to foure quaternions of souldiers to be kept, intending after
Easter to bring him forth to the people. The Geneva Bible of 1560 does not use
"Easter." Instead it reads: And when he had caught hym, he put hym in prison,
and delivered hym to foure quaternions of souldiers to be kept, intendying after
the Passover to brying hym forthe to the people.

Therefore we see that by 1611 the Bible reading public had both translations of
the word "pascha" in English. The use of the word "pascha" in early Christian
writings dealt with the celebration of Easter, and not just simply the Jewish
Passover (see Dr. Walter Bauer’s, A Greek-English Lexicon Of The New Testament
And Other Early Christian Literature, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,
1957, p. 633). Dr. G.W.H. Lampe notes that "pascha" came to mean "Easter" in the
early Church. The early Christians did not keep the Jewish Passover. Instead
they kept as holy a day to celebrate the resurrection of Christ near the time of
both Passover and the pagan festival celebrating the goddess Ostara. Dr. Lampe
lists several rules and observances by Christians in celebration of their
"pascha" or "Easter." Lampe also points out that Greek words such as "paschazw"
and "paschalua" meant "celebrate Easter" and "Eastertide" in the early Christian
writings. (see A Patristic Greek Lexicon, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961. pp.
1048-1049). And, Dr. Gerhard Kittel notes that "pascha" came to be called
"Easter" in the celebration of the resurrection within the primitive Church (see
Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament, Vol. II. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1965, pp. 901-904). As stated, there was also a connection between the Christian
"Easter" as we have it, and the pagan celebration of Ostara. Early Christians in
Rome could not openly celebrate the resurrection of Christ, so they held their
celebration at the time the pagans did in worship of Ostara. Dr. William C.
Martin writes:

Modern observance of Easter represents a convergence of three traditions: (1)
The Hebrew Passover, celebrated during Nisan, the first month of the Hebrew
lunar calendar; (2) The Christian commemoration of the crucifixion and
resurrection of Jesus, which took place at the feast of the Passover; and (3)
the Norse "Ostara" or "Eostra" (from which the name "Easter" is derived), a
pagan festival of spring which fell at the vernal equinox, March 21. Prominent
symbols in this celebration of the resurrection of nature after the winter were
rabbits, signifying fecundity, and eggs, colored like the ray of the returning
sun and the northern lights, or aurora borealis. (The Layman’s Bible
Encyclopedia, Nashville: The Southwestern Company, 1964, p. 204). In view of all
of this, it seems that "pascha" can mean more than the Jewish holy day of
Passover. Additionally, the context would confirm such a conclusion. Verse three
of this chapter states that Peter was taken during, "the days of unleavened
bread." The next verse then speaks of "Easter" in the King James Version. If the
word is translated as "Passover," we have a problem because the Days of
Unleavened Bread come before the Passover. In the Biblical use of the term,
Passover came before the Days of Unleavened Bread (Exo 12:1-8; Exo 12:15; Exo
12:19; Exo 13:7; Lev 2:11; and Deu 16:4). We have a problem with these verses if
Passover follows the Days of Unleavened Bread. However, the problem is solved
when we see that "pascha" means more than "Passover" as has been shown above.
Peter was held under Roman guard by a king who was appointed by Roman law and
influenced by Roman customs. Contextually, it would seem that this "pascha"
which followed the Days of Unleavened Bread was not the "pascha" (Passover)
which preceded the capture of Peter. Instead, it is likely to refer to the Roman
celebration of Ostara, hence called "Easter." In response to this, James White
writes the following: The problem, of course, is that (1) the term Easter would
still be a misleading translation, since the celebration the English reader
thinks of is far removed from the pagan worship of Astarte; (2) Herod Agrippa,
according to the Jewish historian Josephus, was a conspicuous observer of the
Jewish customs and rituals, and since he was attempting to please the Jews (Acts
12:3), it is obvious that Luke is referring to the Jewish Passover, not a pagan
celebration; (3) the argument depends upon making the "days of unleavened bread"
a completely separate period of time from "the Passover." Unfortunately for the
KJV Only position, the term "the Passover" is used of the entire celebration,
including the days of unleavened bread after the actual sacrifice of the
Passover, in other places in Scripture (note the wrapping up of the entire
celebration under the term the "feast of the Jews" in John 2:13; John 2:23; John
6:4; John 11:55). Therefore, this ingenious attempt at saving the KJV from a
simple mistake fails under examination.<< (The King James Only Controversy, pp.
233-234).

None of this deals with the fact that in Scripture Passover came before the Days
of Unleavened Bread. In Mark 14:1 we read, "After two days was the feast of the
passover, and of unleavened bread." Passover precedes the Days of Unleavened
Bread even in the New Testament. None of the verses cited by White change this.
In fact, three of them simply state that Passover was near (John 2:13; John 6:4;
John 11:55). John 2:23 speaks of many making a surface pretense of believing in
Christ at the feast of the Passover. None of these verses show the two events as
being called "Passover" as White states. As for Herod observing the Jewish
feasts, this means little because as a politician he obeyed whatever was convent
for him while in political power, including both Jewish and Roman holidays. And,
it should be remembered, that this "conspicuous observer of the Jewish customs
and rituals" had just put James to death and was himself about to die by the
hand of God for setting himself up as a god (Acts 12:21-23; Exo 20:2-6).

Acts 19:2--He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?
And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy
Ghost. As with so many other examples in this lesson, this verse is objected to
by James R. White in his book, The King James Only Controversy. Brother White
states,

One of the well-known problems in the AV is found in Acts 19:2 . . . The King
James Version has Paul asking the disciples in Ephesus if they received the Holy
Ghost "since" they believed, that is, subsequent to the act of believing. All
modern translations, however, translate the passage, ’when you believed.’ The
difference is not a slight one. Entire theologies of a second reception of the
Holy Spirit have been based upon this one rendering by the KJV. The doctrine of
the Holy Spirit is materially impacted by how one translates this passage. . .
This author has been extremely frustrated in attempting to get KJV Only
advocates to seriously interact with passages such as this one. (p. 230).

Those of us who have personally had ongoing exchanges of information and
correspondence with Brother White, find the last phrase of utmost interest. In a
series of online debates with James White and in writing a published critique of
his book, I can say with all confidence that THIS author has been extremely
frustrated in attempting to get James R. White to seriously interact with
passages, textual data, and historical information where he has clearly provided
information which lacks veracity. However, let us address the issue he claims
KJV advocates ignore.

None of the Greek words used for "since" or "when" are in this verse. Instead,
we must look at the construction of the Greek. The phrase, "Have ye received the
Holy Ghost since ye believed," reads in Greek as, "Ei pneuma agion elabete
pisteusantes." A literal translation would be, "[The] Spirit/Ghost Holy did ye
receive, having believed?" The phrase in question stands in the Greek aorist.
This refers to past time; thus, we have the past tense with the words "received"
and "believed." Therefore, the translation put forth by White and others is
quite correct as it relates to the Greek itself. However, the English word
"since" also reflects past tense and is correct as it relates to the Greek text.
Dana and Mantey address the use of the aorist. They write, "The fundamental
significance of the aorist is to denote action simply as occurring, without
reference to its progress." (A Manual Grammar Of The Greek New Testament,
Toronto: Macmillan, 1927, p.193) Therefore, the words "since" or "when" both
reflect the proper use of the aorist. In reference to what is called the
"Culminative Aorist," Dana and Mantey add, The aorist is employed in this
meaning when it is wished to view an event in its entirety, but to regard it
from the viewpoint of its existing results. Here we usually find verbs which
signify effort or process, the aorist denoting the attainment of the end of such
effort or process. (Ibid., pp. 196-197). In this regard, the translation of
"since" is proper as it relates to the aorist tense. For it can indicate a past
action, but one which was attained through a process. Dr. George Ladd (Fuller
Theological Seminary) recognizes this and states, "The Greek participle is
’having believed,’ and it is capable of being translated either ’since ye
believed’ (AV) or ’when you believed’ (RSV)." (The Wycliffe Bible Commentary,
Nashville: The Southwest Company, 1962, p. 1160). Although Dr. Ladd prefers the
word "when," he does not claim that "since" is a translational error which will
lead to doctrinal error, as claimed by White. In fact, Dr. Ladd plainly states
that both translations are possible. Since Mr. White received his M.A. from
Fuller Theological Seminary (where Dr. Ladd taught), it is a shame that he did
not make himself aware of Dr. Ladd’s comments concerning Acts 19:2. In White’s
noted objection, he indicates that the doctrine which teaches the Holy Spirit is
bestowed upon the believer after salvation and not at the time of salvation, is
the result of the King James Version. Among many Charismatic and Pentecostal
Christians, the doctrine is taught that a person who is saved must later receive
the Holy Ghost (usually with "evidences" such as speaking in tongues). And, it
is true that some have used this passage as a proof text for that doctrine.
However, to credit the translators of the KJV for providing this doctrine is
somewhat ridiculous. First of all, the translators of the KJV were Anglican and
Puritan, neither of which are proponents of such a doctrine. Secondly, we would
have to ask ourselves why many Charismatics and Pentecostals have embraced
modern versions which have removed the word "since" and replaced it with "when."
In fact, the NIV had translators who support the very doctrine to which Brother
White is objecting.

Regardless of our personal interpretation of the doctrine concerning the
receiving of the Holy Ghost, we cannot allow such doctrine to affect the
translation of the word of God. James White, in allowing his doctrine to
translate for him, is faced with a paradox. If we reject the translation "since"
in verse two and replace it with "when" because we believe that the Holy Ghost
is received instantly at the very time of salvation, what do we do with the
context of the passage? After all, context does count. As we consider the text,
we find that Paul confronts a group of "believers" who never heard of the Holy
Ghost, nor of personal salvation in Jesus Christ. These were believers in the
teaching of John the Baptist and were still looking for the coming Messiah.
Paul, in turn, then preaches to these Jews the person of Christ. After which, we
read, When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the LORD Jesus.
And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and
they spake with tongues, and prophesied. (vs. 5-6). The context teaches that
these former followers of John first believe, then are baptized, and THEN
receive the Holy Ghost with the laying on of hands by the Apostle Paul. The text
shows that they received the Holy Ghost "since" they believed. Those who have
historically and contextually recognized this, have not all taught that the Holy
Ghost is received following salvation as a second blessing. Instead, they teach
that the Holy Ghost comes to believers at the time of salvation. This passage is
looked upon as transitional, and that these followers of John needed the laying
on of hands by Paul in order to show Apostolic authority, not a need for a
second blessing. Therefore, this act became their Pentecost.

Rom 9:5--Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came,
who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

It has become common to use this verse as a "proof" text that the NIV better
represents the Biblical doctrine of the Deity of Christ because it translates
the verse as,

Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ,
who is God over all, forever praised! Amen. In this regard we find Dr. D.A.
Carson listing this verse as proof that modern versions are better translations
(The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism, p. 64). The response to this
is quite simple. First of all, as far as we know, there were no commas in the
original manuscripts. It is certain that there are no commas in the majority of
old Greek manuscripts which we do have. So one cannot dogmatically say the KJV
is a poorer reading simply because translations like the NASV and NIV place the
commas differently.

Secondly, the proof text for the Deity of Jesus Christ does not lay with a text
which can so easily be questioned because of the placement of commas. The real
proof texts for the Deity of Christ may be found in verses such as John 1:1;
John 20:28. Further, passages which prove the Deity of Christ in the KJV are
omitted or changed in modern versions in such places as 1Ti 3:16 and 1Jn 5:7.

Thirdly, the passage should not be translated as we have it in modern versions
because it would remove the teaching of the submission of Jesus Christ to the
Father. If we have Christ as "God over all," than we have Christ as God over the
Father. The Biblical truth is that within the Trinity there is not only equality
(John 5:18 and Php 2:6) but there is also submission by Christ to the Father
(1Co 11:3 and Php 2:7-8). Thus the phrase, "Christ came, who is over all, God
blessed for ever" is not only a correct translation, but is more consistent with
the Biblical teaching of divine submission.

Finally, we find within the writings of early Christians that the understanding
of this passage is not that which is reflected by modern versions, but is
consistent with that of the King James Bible.

Hippolytus (235 AD):

Let us look next at the apostle’s word: "Whose are the fathers, of whom as
concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever." This
word declares that mystery of the truth rightly and clearly. He who is over all
is God; for thus He speaks boldly, "All things are delivered unto me of my
Father." He who is over all, God blessed, has been born; and having been made
man, He is (yet) God for ever. (Against The Heresy Of One Noetus, I:6) Novatian
(Third Century):

And, "My Lord and my God." And, "Whose are the fathers, and of whom according to
the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for evermore." What, then,
shall we say? Does Scripture set before us two Gods? How, then, does it say that
"God is one?" Or is not Christ God also? . . . let them understand that, from
the fact that God is one, no obstruction arises to the truth that Christ also is
declared to be God. (Treatise Concerning The Trinity, XXX.)

2Co 2:17--For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of
sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ. The Executive
Secretary of the NIV Committee on Bible Translation, the late Dr. Edwin H.
Palmer, lists 2Co 2:17 as an obscurity in the King James Version (The NIV: The
Making of a Contemporary Translation, Kenneth Barker, editor. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1986, p.149). The "obscurity" is the English word "corrupt." Most
modern versions use the word "peddle." Thus we have the reading as found in the
NIV:

Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit. On the contrary, in
Christ we speak before God with sincerity, like men sent from God. This becomes
a strange translation because it not only removes the idea of Biblical
corruption, but it is printed in a version published by Zondervan Publishing
House which owns the copyright to the New International Version. And, as far as
I know, Zondervan does peddle (via retail sales) the NIV for a profit. I am not
suggesting that it is wrong to sell the Bible for a profit, but if the
translation of this verse claims it is wrong to do so it seems disingenuous
unless Zondervan does not consider the NIV "the word of God." The Greek word in
question is "kapeleuontes," and does mean a peddler or retailer. However, it
connotates one who sells with deceit, a corrupter. Dr. Walter Bauer points out
that the word came to mean "to adulterate" (A Greek-English Lexicon Of The New
Testament And Other Early Christian Literature, p.403). Dr. Joseph Thayer agrees
and states, "But as peddlers were in the habit of adulterating their commodities
for the sake of gain . . . (the word) was also used as synonymous with ’to
corrupt, to adulterate.’ " (Joseph Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon Of The New
Testament, Grand Rapids: Baker Book, 1977 edition, pp. 324-325). And Dr. Gerhard
Kittle states concerning "kapeleuontes;" "It also means 2. to falsify the word
(as the ’kapelos’ purchases pure wine and then adulterates it with water) by
making additions . . . This refers to the false Gospel of the Judaizers."
(Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament, Vol. III., p. 605). The early
Church Fathers understood the verse to refer to those who corrupt God’s word.
Athanasius (373 AD) wrote, "Let them therefore be anathema to you, because they
have, ’corrupted the word of truth.’ It is an Apostolic injunction, ’If any man
preach any other Gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be
accursed.’ " (Apologia Contra Arianos [Defence Against The Arians], III:49.)
Gregory-Nazianzus (390) alludes to 2Co 2:17, Isa 1:22 and Psalms 54:15, using
the word "corrupt:" And who is sufficient for these things? For we are not as
the many, able to corrupt the word of truth, and mix the wine, which maketh glad
the heart of man, with water, mix, that is, our doctrine with what is common and
cheap, and debased, and stale, and tasteless, in order to turn the adulteration
. . . (In Defence Of His Flight To Pontus, II:46)

James R. White makes an interesting claim concerning this verse. "Surely,"
writes White, "if the KJV translators were alive today they would gladly admit
that ’peddle’ is a better translation than ’corrupt,’ and would adopt it
themselves." (The King James Only Controversy, p.114). In my critique of White’s
book, I refer to such argumentation as "speaking for the dead." It is one thing
to cite those who have died and present what they themselves believed about a
certain subject. It is quite another to draw conclusions for those who have died
and insist that this would be their view if they were alive today. For the most
part one cannot justly refute such invalid argumentation because those who have
died cannot speak for themselves. However, this is not the case in this
instance. One of the treasures left behind from the translators of the KJV are a
few notes by Dr. John Bois, who helped in the translation of the KJV Old
Testament Apocrypha and assisted in the final revision of the KJV New Testament
(Romans through Revelation). In his note for 2Co 2:17 he wrote:

Ibid. v. 17. kapeleuontes] [being a retail dealer, playing tricks, corrupting]
i.e. notheuonetes [adultering]. kapelos is derived apo tou kallunein ton pelon
[from glossing over lees] by corrupting and adultering wine. (the full note was
written in Latin and Greek. Translating For King James, trans. and ed. by Ward
Allen. Vanderbilt University Press, 1969, p. 51)

Apparently, the translators of the KJV were more aware of the meaning of the
word than what James White and others give them credit. If we are indeed going
to speak for the dead, we best learn to do so correctly.

2Ti 2:15--Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to
be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. The word "study" is challenged
in this passage by supporters of modern versions. First, they claim the word is
archaic and difficult to understand. Second, they claim that the Greek word,
"spoudason" should be translated as "diligence." In reference to the New King
James Version, Dr. Jack Lewis writes: "In 2Ti 2:15 ’study’ correctly becomes ’Be
diligent’ . . ." (The English Bible, p. 349). James White likewise considers "Be
diligent" to be a better translation than either the KJV’s "study" or the NIV’s
"do your best." The NIV’s ’do your best’ seems to miss some of the force of the
term, and the KJV’s ’study’ limits the meaning of the word far too much for the
modern reader who might not understand ’study’ to refer to a concerted effort at
diligence and effort. Paul is exhorting Timothy to have an attitude that is
marked by zeal, enthusiasm, and determination in his ministry. This attitude may
well include the aspect of study, but in no way is Paul’s admonishment to be
limited solely to that activity. (The King James Only Controversy, pp. 140-141).

Later, White seems to refer to 2 Timothy as meaning to be diligent in one’s
studies. He writes, "Allow the readers of Scripture to ’be diligent’ (2Ti 2:15)
in their own studies and come to their own conclusions." (Ibid., p. 257). The
English word "study" not only refers to one’s endeavor to become educated, but
also refers to being diligent. The 1828 Noah Webster Dictionary of the English
Language lists one of the definitions of "study" as, "3. To endeavor
diligently." A more current edition defines the word "studious" as, "1. diligent
in study." (The New American Webster Handy College Dictionary, New York: Signet
Books, 1981, p. 517). We can see from this, and even from the first citation
from James White, that the English word "study" means diligence. As to the Greek
word "spoudason" the KJV translators knew the word meant more than book studies.
The same Greek word is elsewhere translated as "diligence" in such places as 2Ti
4:9; 2Ti 4:21 : as "endeavor" in 1Th 2:17 and 2Pe 1:15, as "forward" in Gal 2:10
and 2Co 8:17, and as "labour" in Heb 4:11. Of course, this is no new information
for students who must labor diligently in their endeavor to go forward as they
study. And, again we are faced with the context itself. Our "diligence" in
"rightly dividing the word of truth" comes from our "study" of Scripture, not
our spiritual endeavors. Thus, only in the King James Bible is the Christian
instructed to study in knowing how to rightly divide God’s word. As for the
readability of this passage in the KJV, there is an interesting finding as
established by the Flesch-Kincaid grading level. Although more about readability
will be discussed in our next lesson, the following information may be helpful.
According to my WordPerfect Grammatilk (6.0 version from Main Street) 2Ti 2:15
in the King James Version has a 9.5 Grade Reading Level. Its Sentence Complexity
(from 1 to 100) is listed as a 37; and its Vocabulary Complexity (also 1 to 100)
is listed as a 26. The New International Version reads, "Do your best to present
yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and
who correctly handles the word of truth." Grammatilk gave this an 11.54 Grade
Reading Level, with a Sentence Complexity rating of 47. Only in Vocabulary
Complexity did the NIV receive a lower rating than the KJV in this verse with a
level of 10. The New American Standard Version reads, "Be diligent to present
yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling
accurately the word of truth." It received an 11.71 Grade Reading Level, with a
Sentence Complexity Level of 43 and a Vocabulary Complexity Level of 35.

One final note in regard to this verse. Reformer John Calvin, reading among
other things French, Latin, and Greek, understood the word to mean "study" in
regard to teachings from the Bible. Long before the KJV was translated into
English Calvin wrote:

Now when S. Paul hath thus spoken he addeth, ’Studie to present thyself to God
an approved workeman, that needeth not be ashamed, dividing the word of truth
aright.’ . . . So then, how shall they (those charged to preach the word of God)
have the office of teaching the people of God, keepe themselves from vaine and
unprofitable questions? And how may they resist them, which as busie bodies
trouble the Church? Surely if they present themselves to God, and studie to do
so. (John Calvin, Seromons on the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, The Banner of
Truth Trust, University Press, Oxford, 1983 reprint 1579 edition, p. 799).

Heb 10:23--Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for
he is faithful that promised;) The common word for "faith" is the Greek word
"pistis." However, the word used here is "elpidos" which is translated as
"hope."

"The KJV translation of Heb 10:23 leaves most people wondering as well. The KJV
has the phrase ’the profession of our faith.’ Literally the first term should be
translated ’confession,’ but it is the KJV’s very unusual translation of the
Greek term ’hope’ as ’faith’ that is difficult to understand. The Greek term
appears thirteen times in the TR, and each time it is translated ’hope’ with
this one exception." (The King James Only Controversy, p. 226). This does not
mean that it is a mistranslation. In fact, the KJV translators stated that they
were not bound by strict word counts and that sometimes the context demands that
the same Greek word be translated differently. The English words "faith" and
"hope" carry the idea of trust, assurance that what has been told will occur.
The Thesaurus for my Microsoft Works has for the word "hope," "confidence:
faith, reliance, trust, belief, assurance." Further, there is within Scripture a
clear connection between faith and hope. "Faith is the substance of things hoped
for" (Heb 11:1) Notice the clear Biblical connection of faith with hope. The
Scripture states, "By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein
we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God." (Rom 5:2). And in reference
to Abraham, the word of God says, Who against hope believed in hope, that he
might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So
shall thy seed be. And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body
now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of
Sara’s womb. (Rom 4:18-19)

We are saved by hope (Rom 8:24) and yet we are saved by grace through faith (Eph
2:8). We are told to place our faith and hope in God (1Pe 1:21). The context of
Hebrews chapter ten informs us that we are to have full assurance of faith
(vs.22) and the One we are trusting is "faithful" (vs. 23). The context of the
Greek word "elpis" in this verse can be expressed by the English words faith,
hope, or trust. The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, even though it cites the American
Standard Version, says of this verse:

"Confession of our hope" (ASV). And unwavering confession of faith in the living
Christ. God undergirds our hope by his own promises, for he is faithful who
promised. This then speaks of further affirmation based upon faith in the
faithfulness of God. (Nashville: The Southwestern Company, 1962, p. 1420).

Kittle notes the comparison of faith and hope when defining the Greek word
"elpis" (hope). He even notes that in the Greek LXX there is an "interrelating"
of the two Greek words for faith and hope.

If hope is fixed on God, it embraces at once the three elements of expectation
of the future, trust, and the patience of waiting. Any one of these aspects may
be emphasized. ,The definition of "pistis" as "elpizomenon upostasis" in
H[e]b[rews] 11:1 is quite in keeping with the OT interrelating of "pisteuein"
and "elpizein" and the usage of the LXX, which has "upostasis" as well as
"elpis." (Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament, Vol. II. p.531).

Faith, trust, and hope are used interchangeably. A related word of "elpis"
(hope) is "elpizo." It is translated as "hope" in places such as Luk 6:34 and
Rom 8:25. However, it is mostly translated as "trust" in places such as Mat
12:21 and Rom 15:24. A related word of "pistis" (faith) is "pistuo." It is
translated as "believe" in places such as Mat 8:13 and John 3:16. However, it is
also translated as "trust" in 1Ti 1:11 (as is another form of it in 1Th 2:4
which is translated as "trust"). The context of Hebrews chapters ten and eleven,
demands that this type of trust be translated as "faith" instead of its normal
translation of "hope." Also, since we are told to "hold fast the profession" we
must compare the Scriptures to know that our profession deals with "faith" (1Ti
6:12).

2Pe 2:7--And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the
wicked: This verse, along with a handful of others verses where the same
objection is raised, is questioned because of the word "conversation." The
objection is that today "conversation" means talk, but the verses in question
refer to lifestyle. I recall one pastor objecting to the KJV in 1Pe 3:1 where we
are told that an unsaved husband may be won to Christ by a godly wife’s
"conversation." He stated, "You mean to tell me that the unsaved husband can be
won by the Christian wife’s talking and not by her godly living?" I am always
amazed by such argumentation which reflects both a lack of Biblical
understanding as well as knowledge of the English language. Of course, the
unsaved are in fact won by our words and our lifestyle. We must witness to them
in both word and deed. As has been said, our walk must match our talk. However,
the English word "conversation" does refer to lifestyle. I asked this pastor,
"When someone is born-again and lives the Christian life, what are they called?"
He looked at me and said, "they are called a new convert . . ." Strange how our
own speech will sometimes betray us.

Consequently, we have seen in a few examples how modern scholars will distort
God’s word with meaningless objections in order to replace it with themselves as
the final authority. Accordingly, while objecting to misprints in some KJV Bible
("he" instead of "ye" in Jer 34:16), they will remove Jesus Christ from the
fiery furnace and replace Him with "a god" (Dan 3:25). While they reject the
reading in the King James


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 12: 12 LESSON TWELVE
========================================================================

Lesson Twelve: DELIBERATING THE ARGUMENTS

"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are
they which testify of me." (John 5:39) The foundations of mankind are
philosophies, traditions (Col 2:8), and science (1Ti 6:20). The reality,
however, is that our very bedrock lies with the blessed Hope and His bountiful
word (Heb 11:1-3). What and how we think is not as important as what God says.
How we view our world is not how God views it (Isa 55:8). Therefore, if we are
to know the truth of a matter, we must consider the words of God. Our duty, as
pronounced by Christ, is to "search the scriptures." The believers of Berea
searched "the scriptures daily" to see if what was told them was so (Acts
17:11). It is with this duty in mind that we conclude our study regarding
Biblical preservation and the Authorized Version. These are the closing
arguments placed before us. However, in the final conclusion it will not be us
who judge the word of God; but the word of God which judges us (Heb 4:12-13).
The arguments for the Authorized Version as the preserved word of God for the
English- speaking people will be considered later in this lesson. First,
however, let us consider the arguments favoring modern textual criticism and
weigh the attestations in light of the evidence and sacred Scripture itself. The
majority of the arguments fall under the heading of textual evidences, or
rationalizations concerning the manuscripts. Secondly, we find the arguments
concerning translational simplicity and accuracy and the need, so it is avowed,
for an easier or clearer translation. The criteria for choosing which reading is
original can be found in Burce Metzger’s book The Text of the New Testament.
Metzger categorizes them as 1) External Evidence, and 2) Internal Evidence
(Bruce M. Metzger, The Text Of The New Testament, 2nd ed., Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1968, pp. 209-210). External evidences relate to the date of
the manuscript, its geographical distribution, and its relationship with other
textual families. Internal evidences consider what the original writer was most
likely to have written while taking into account his style and vocabulary, the
context, and the passage’s harmony with other passages by the same writer.
Additionally, textual critics will also consider, as internal evidences, the
Aramaic background of the time of Christ, the emphasis placed on Mark’s gospel
believing it to be the first, and the influence of the Church regarding the
transmission of a certain passage. To consider every argument would be
exhaustive. Nevertheless, we shall consider those which are more commonly used
in the promotion of modern translations.

Sadly, none of what is proclaimed by textual critics considers the Sovereign
hand of the Almighty God preserving His inerrant word or the sinister influence
of a literal Devil seeking to pervert sacred Scripture. Without these
considerations, we are doomed to view the word of God naturalistically and thus
remove Divine influence upon the Holy Bible. We must also realize that the roots
of higher criticism have their foundations in lower criticism.

OLDER AND BETTER MANUSCRIPTS

These two arguments often run together in the footnotes of many modern versions.
They are not the same thing. Older is not always better, and the better are not
the older. This must be the case for the modern textual critic or else once a
text is determined to be the oldest his task of reconstructing the New Testament
would cease. Further, as will be seen by example later, some of the older
manuscripts reflect a mixed reading of textual families, consequently
diminishing the overall emphasis placed on the Alexandrian textual line. For
these and other reasons, scholarship must not claim that older is always better.
Still, we find that the two do go hand-in-hand in justifying the rejection of
the Traditional Text and the English Authorized Version.

Older Manuscripts

Often the supporters of modern translations will point to the very old papyrus
manuscripts. Defiantly as one reads Kurt Aland or Bruce Metzger the patronage
for the readings found in the papyrus is apparent. Aland notes that since the
1930’s with the number of papyrus manuscripts found they have, "held an almost
magical charm, not only for the general public but for New Testament scholars as
well, though with no real justification." (Kurt and Barbara Aland, The Text Of
The New Testament, trans. Erroll F. Rhodes, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987, p.
84.) The early papyrus were discovered in Egypt, south of the Delta region, from
such places as Oxyrhynchos, Atfih (Aphroditopolis), and Heracleopolis, off the
Nile River. It is also rather ironic that these great papyrus were located in
rubbish heaps. (Eldon Jay Epp, "A Dynamic View of Textual Transmission," in
Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, eds. Eldon
Jay Epp and Gordon D. Fee, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993, p. 279.) This causes us
to wonder if they were discarded because they were worn by use, or because they
were considered corrupted. In either case, these are the oldest known
manuscripts we have to date.

Although most of these papyri are fragmentary, others contain large sections of
Scripture and have been given very early dates by paleographers. For example,
p75 (containing part of Luke and John) dates from 175 to 225 AD, p66 (containing
part of John) dates to about 200 AD, p46 (containing part of Romans and the
Pauline epistles) likewise dates to about 200 AD, and p52 (a small fragment
containing only John 18:31-33 and 37-38) is considered the oldest manuscript
dating to 125 AD. Added to this are Alexandrian uncials of the late third and
early fourth centuries (such as Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus).
Further, modern textual critics will point out that Byzantine manuscripts (or
the Traditional Greek Text) are not found until about the fourth century with
the vast majority of their manuscripts not dating until the ninth century and
onward. (Ibid., 82. Also, this chart of Aland’s has been reproduced in James
White’s book, The King James Only Controversy, Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1995,
p. 188.) The argument seems to be a very good one. After all, if we have
manuscripts which date closer to the original writings it would seem logical
that they are closer in content as well. There is, however, more to be
considered. The four papyri mentioned above are very old indeed. The fact that
these manuscripts seem to have originated in Egypt, or at least survived there,
and as with other Alexandrian manuscripts were not used by the majority of
believers throughout the existence of the Church does not carry much weight with
textual scholars. Nor does the fact that these manuscripts are not in agreement.
In fact, the early papyrus although considered Alexandrian in nature, really
reflect a mixed text with many Byzantine and Western readings within them.
Consequently, Aland has labeled p46 and p66 as "free," (Aland, p. 99-100.) and
Metzger simply calls p66 "mixed." (Metzger, p. 254.) In his introduction to the
Chester Beatty Papryi (which contains p46), Sir Frederic Kenyon likewise
observes the mixed nature of the early papryi. Speaking of them, Kenyon notes,
"On the one hand, it is not an out-and- out supporter of the ’Neutral’ or
Vatican type of text; but neither is it, on the other hand, an out-and-out
supporter of the ’Western’ type." (Sir. Frederic G. Kenyon, The Chester Beatty
Biblical Papyri:Fasciculus I, London: Emory Walker, 1933, p. 16.) In fact, Dr.
Eldon Epp has said the study of the papyri, "is largely an exercise in
historical-critical imagination." (Epp, p. 274.) Notwithstanding, while debating
the originality of this or that text, modern scholars will often cite these
papyri manuscripts and their age as proof of their arguments when these papyri
support their point of view. This is illustrated by Professor James White in his
support of the Alexandrian reading found in John 1:18. As the reader recalls
from lesson eleven, this verse concerns the differences in the phrases, "only
begotten Son" (Gk: monogenes huios), and "only begotten God" (Gk: monogenes
theos). White argues:

Suffice it to say that the most ancient texts, including the oldest existing
copies of the book of John, p66 and p75, as well as a number of the early
fathers of the church, refer to Christ as the "only-begotten God," or more
accurately, the "unique God." (White, pp. 199-200.) In truth, the majority of
the early Church Fathers used the phrase "only begotten Son" in regard to John
1:18. Our point here, however, is that White supports his preference for the
reading "monogenes theos" because "the oldest existing copies of the book of
John" have this reading. Yet, their age gives way when these papyri manuscripts
agree with the Traditional Text against those found in the Alexandrian Text. For
example, in John 4:1 the Alexandrian manuscripts of Sinaiticus (4th century),
Bezae (Codex D, 6th century) and Q (9th century) have the reading "Iesous"
(Jesus) while the Traditional Text reads, "kurios" (Lord). The vast majority of
all Greek manuscripts agree with the reading found in the Authorized Version.
Further, we find the reading "kurios" in Vaticanus (4th century), Alexandrinus
(5th century), Codex C (5th century), and the majority of uncial manuscripts.
Thus it is no surprise to find both p66 and p75 with the reading "kurios."
Nevertheless, this reading is rejected in the United Bible Societies Greek Text
in favor of the reading found in Sinaiticus. Consequently, modern translations
such as the NIV and NRSV forsake the early manuscripts in favor of Sinaiticus.
There are, of course, many other examples of this sort.

There are also many places where p66 and p75 differ with each other. In such
cases, p66 is sometimes chosen, while at other times p75 is cited. The point
being that there are several places where these papyri manuscripts agree with
the Traditional Text as presented in our English King James Bible over the
readings found in the Alexandrian Text and its reflective modern English
versions.

Dr. Wilbur Pickering cites the studies of textual scholars Ernest Colwell, Eldon
Epp, and Albertus Klijn noting where the papyri agree with the Textus Receptus
(TR) against the Alexandrian Text. By using portions in John 10:1-42; John
11:1-57 where p45, p66 and p75 agree and where Vaticanus and Sinaiticus differ
(a total of 43 places), Klijn found the following: 32 times p45 agrees with the
TR, 24 times it agrees with Vaticanus, and only 19 does it agree with
Sinaiticus. 33 times p66 agrees with the TR, 29 times with Vaticanus, and only
14 times does it agree with Sinaiticus. While p75 agrees with the TR 29 times,
Vaticanus 33 times, and Sinaiticus 9 times. (Wilbur N. Pickering, The Identity
of the New Testament Text, Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1977, pp. 54-56.) It should
therefore become painfully clear that those who resort to the age of a
manuscript to correct the King James Bible are not consistent in using the older
manuscripts. To the above, we may add the study completed by Dr. Gordon D. Fee
concerning Codex Sinaiticus and how it relates to other manuscripts and Greek
texts. (Gordon D. Fee, "Codex Sinaiticus in the Gospel of John: A contribution
to methodology in establishing textual relationships," in Studies In The Theory
And Method Of New Testament Textual Criticism, pp. 221- 243.) In his study, Dr.
Fee notes several passages in the Gospel of John where Codex Sinaiticus agrees
or disagrees with p66, p75, the TR, and some other witnesses. In John chapter
four, for example, Fee notes that out of 61 possible textual variations, the TR
agrees with p66 a total of 37 times, or 60.6% of the time. Interestingly, p66
agrees with Codex Sinaiticus only 21 times or 34.4% of the time, illustrating
that the TR is closer to p66 in this chapter than is Sinaiticus. It is also
interesting to note that p75 showed a stronger relationship with the Traditional
Text than it did with Codex Sinaiticus; however, its strongest relationship is
clearly with Codex Vaticanus. The agreement with p75 among these texts is as
follows: TR=32 times or 52.5%. Sinaiticus=19 times or 31.05. Vaticanus=52 times
or 85.2%. (Ibid., p. 228.)

Dr. Fee then broadens the study to cover John chapters 1 through 8, with a total
of 320 possible textual variations. The statistics show a strong relation
between the Traditional Text and the very old manuscripts of p66. In fact, the
TR and p66 agree 50.9% of the time when there are textual variations. Comparing
p66 with Sinaiticus we find they agree only 43.7% of the time. (Ibid., p. 233.)

All of this information shows that within the very old manuscripts we find
variants which occur in the Traditional Text long before the establishing of the
Byzantine Text in the fourth century. Dr. Fee, who supports modern textual
criticism, has in fact stated that in the oldest manuscripts we have Byzantine
readings. He admits to this in a different article refuting Dr. Wilbur
Pickering:

Pickering regularly talks about Byzantine readings as being earlier than
Chrysostom--and he is right. That is, readings that eventually become the text
of the majority can often be shown to have existed as early as the second
century. . . p66, for example, is said to have Byzantine readings. In a sense
this is correct in that p66 --and even p75 on rare occasions--is now the
earliest evidence for a variant away from the Egyptian text-type that is later
to be found in the Majority text. But in comparison with places where p66 reads
with the Egyptians against the Byzantines, these "Byzantine" readings are of
little consequence; and above all else they do not render p66 a Majority text
MS." (Ibid., "The Majority Text and the Original Text of the NT", p. 201.) Our
point here is not that the papyri manuscripts are Majority texts manuscripts,
but only that one can find textual support for variant readings within these
very old manuscripts which support the readings found in the Traditional Text.
Further, this allows the student to cite these manuscripts with just as much
fervor when these manuscripts support the readings found in the King James
Bible. Finally, we can also see that these old papyri manuscripts are not
hard-line support for the Alexandrian text, because we find them varying from
that family in a number of places. Therefore, when one argues from the
perspective of "older manuscripts" the consistency is often lacking.

Before moving on, one additional note should be made at this juncture. Dr.
Pickering has made a marvelous observation concerning the prejudice of modern
textual scholars regarding their views of textual criticism. He writes:

Whenever an early witness surfaces it is declared to be "Alexandrian" or
"Western" or "Caesarean" and thereupon those "Syrian" (i.e. Byzantine) readings
which it contains cease to be "pure Syrian" and are no longer allowed as
evidence. Such a procedure is evidently useful to defenders of Hort’s theory,
but is it right?" (Pickering, p. 71.) The "logic" of modern textual scholars is
this: There are no Byzantine manuscripts before the fourth century when Lucian
of Syria conflated the various readings and produced what became the Byzantine
or Traditional Text. We know this is true because we have no Byzantine readings
before the middle of the fourth century, but we do have Alexandrian and Western
readings. Therefore, any second century reading which supports the third or
fourth century readings of the Alexandrian line are considered important and are
offered as proof that these textual lines are more original than the Byzantine
line. However, if a reading is found in these very same manuscripts which agrees
with the fourth century Byzantine reading, it is considered unimportant and
unconsequential. The bigotry against the Traditional Text is clearly seen.

Better Manuscripts The student of textual criticism will notice that there is a
unanimous disregard for the Byzantine text. This is noted by supporters of
modern translations and their related Greek texts. Dr. Frederik Wisse writes:
"(Kurt) Aland also is not interested in the Byzantine text as such, but only in
MSS which significantly diverge from the Byzantine text." (Frederik Wisse, The
Profile Method For Classifying And Evaluating Manuscript Evidence, Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1982, p. 21.) The point is that among such textual scholars the
Alexandrian family of manuscripts is considered closer to the original and
therefore better. The Byzantine or Traditional Text is considered a conflation
(i.e. a mixing or joining) of the Alexandrian and Western texts in the fourth
century by Lucian at Antioch in Syria. This Lucian Recension is considered as
much of a fact as evolution is among humanists. However, both are nothing more
than theories. The truth is, apart from the promise of Scripture, we simply do
not know which text is original and which one is corrupt. Theoretically, it is
just as scholastically valid to argue that despite the absence of early
Byzantine manuscripts it still reflects the original autographs much better than
the Alexandrian line does. Since the Scriptures were meant to be used and read,
we would expect these texts to ware out sooner than texts which were considered
corrupt and therefore not used by the majority of Christians during the first
three hundred years of the existence of the Church. Further, considering the
arid conditions of Egypt we would expect these not as often used manuscripts to
last longer. Arguing against this, Dr. Donald A. Carson states: This ingenious
theory is quite untenable for at least the following reasons: (1) Although it
may explain why the autographs disappeared, it cannot explain why there are no
extant copies of manuscripts with Byzantine text- type from before the fourth
century. If such manuscripts were handled and copied so much that they wore out,
then many copies must have been made. Why have none of them survived? (2) The
ante-Nicene father unambiguously cited every text-type except the Byzantine.
Therefore defenders of the "worn-out manuscripts" hypothesis must not only base
this hypothesis on an argument from silence (there are no early manuscripts with
Byzantine text-type), but also pit it against the hard data that the early
fathers never unambiguously cited from it. Is it not eminently more reasonable
to conclude that manuscripts with Byzantine text simply did not exist for the
first 250-300 years of the church’s life? (3) If they did exist, who was wearing
them out? If the fathers did not cite the Byzantine text-type, who then was
handling these alleged manuscripts so frequently and thoughtlessly that they
wore out? (D. A. Carson, The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism ,
Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979, p. 47.) Dr. Carson’s arguments reflect the
thoughts of modern textual scholars. His arguments, however, are mistaken.

Carson’s first point is that the Traditional Text could not have existed before
the fourth century because we have none, and that if there were a great many
produced by the Church why have none survived instead of being worn out? To
begin with, we have citations from the Church Fathers and from other early
translations which contain Byzantine readings. Further, we have already seen
where the early papyri reflect a mixed line themselves with Byzantine readings
in them. There is also something else to consider. Carson asks, "If such
manuscripts were handled and copied so much that they wore out, then many copies
must have been made. Why have none of them survived?" Of course, the opposite
would also be true, would it not? If the Alexandrian text is original, or closer
to the original, and it were multiplied greatly among the early Church, why is
it that only a few copies have survived? Where are the abundance of second
century manuscripts supporting the Alexandrian line found outside of Egypt? Or,
as we have already noted, why is it that the second century papyri of Egypt are
not pure Alexandrian?

Carson’s second point that the ante-Nicene fathers did not cite the Byzantine
text but did every other text is ambiguous and somewhat absurd. Early in our
studies we showed that Ignatius (d. 107 AD) cited 1Ti 3:16 as it stands in the
Traditional Text. Polycarp (d. 155 AD) cites 1Jn 4:3 as we have it in the
Byzantine line and the Authorized Version. Also, his citations of Rom 14:10 and
Gal 4:26 do not reflect the Alexandrian readings, but the readings found in the
Byzantine manuscripts of the ninth century and onward. Additionally, the early
Church Father’s preferred the reading "only begotten Son" instead of "only
begotten God" in John 1:18, again agreeing with the Traditional Text.

Consider the following examples from the four gospels. In each case the reading
is Byzantine and is not found in the early Greek texts before the fourth century
nor in the reading used in the critical Greek texts. Yet, each reading has its
support in either Apostolic or ante-Nicene times with more than one early church
source.

Mat 27:34 "They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had
tasted thereof, he would not drink." (KJV) "They gave him wine to drink mingled
with gall: and when he had tasted it, he would not drink." (ASV)

"Pierces all round; and to the tree Himself Is fixed; wine drugged with myrrh,
is drunk, and gall Is mixt with vinegar; parted His robe, And in it lots are
cast; what for himself Each one hath seized he keeps; in murky gloom,"
(Tertullian--220 AD, General Reply To Sundry of Marcion’s Heresies, p. 230.
Likewise, this is so cited by Irenaeus, Celsus, Origen, Eusebius, the Gospel of
Peter and the Epistle of Barnabas.)

Mark 1:2

"As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face,
which shall prepare thy way before thee." (KJV)

"Even as it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold, I send my messenger before
thy face, Who shall prepare thy way." (ASV)

"Wherefore also Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter, does thus commence
his Gospel narrative: ’The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of
God; as it is written in the prophets, . . .’ Plainly does the commencement of
the Gospel quote the words of the holy prophets, and point out Him at once, whom
they confessed as God and Lord; " (Irenaeus --202 AD, Irenaeus Against Heresies,
Book III: Chapt. 10:5. This is likewise cited by Origen, Porphyry, Eusebius, and
Titus of Bostra.)

Luk 1:28

"And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favored,
the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women." (KJV) "And he came in unto
her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee." (ASV)

"I recognize, too, the angel Gabriel as having been sent to ’a virgin.’ But when
he is blessing her, it is ’among women,’ not among virgins, that he ranks her:
’Blessed (be) thou among women.’ The angel withal knew that even a virgin is
called a woman." (Tertullian--220 AD, On The Veiling of Virgins, Chapter 6. Also
cited by Africanus, Eusebius, Ephraem, and in the Diatessaron).

John 5:4

"For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the
water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made
whole of whatsoever disease he had." (KJV) This verse is omitted in modern
versions.

"And there were laid in them much people of the sick, and blind, and lame, and
paralysed, waiting for the moving of the water. And the angel from time to time
went down into the place of bathing, and moved the water; and the first that
went down after the moving of the water, every pain that he had was healed. And
a man was there who had a disease for thirty-eight years." (Tatian’s
Diatessaron, Section 22: 12-14. 2nd century. Additionally, this is also cited by
Tertullian, Ambrose, Didymus, and Chrysostom). When confronted with such
evidence, there are usually two responses. First, it will be noted that the
readings which agree with the Traditional Text are not purely Byzantine.
However, it is hard to find a Church Father who was purely Western or
Alexandrian. Origen, for example, has been shown to use Alexandrian, Western,
and Byzantine texts throughout his writings. Dr. Edward Hills has noted this in
reference to the first fourteen chapters of St. John:

Hence, contrary to the assertions of the naturalistic critics, the distinctive
readings of the Traditional (Byzantine) Text were known to Origen, who sometimes
adopted them, though perhaps not usually. Anyone can verify this by scanning the
apparatus of Tischendorf . . . out of 52 instances in which the Traditional Text
stands alone Origen agrees with the Traditional Text 20 times and disagrees with
it 32 times. These results make the position of the critics that Origen knew
nothing of the Traditional Text difficult indeed to maintain. (Edward F. Hills,
The King James Version Defended, 1956; reprint, Des Moines: The Christian
Research Press, 1984, pp. 171-172.)

Secondly, the response by textual critics will often state that the editions of
the Church Fathers has been altered throughout time in order to correspond with
the Traditional Text. In regard to Patristic quotations, Sir Frederic Kenyon
wrote:

. . . even when the earliest manuscripts of an author have been consulted, we
cannot always be sure that we have his Scriptural quotations in their original
form. In no part of his text is corruption so likely to creep in as here. A
scribe who recognized a quotation from its first words would be only too likely
to write it down from memory, without looking too closely at the MS. before him,
and so would give it in the form in which it was current in his own day, instead
of in that which his author actually used. Or, supposing he noticed that the
form of the quotation was unfamiliar, he might very probably alter it into what
he believed to be the true form. (Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, Handbook To The
Textual Criticism Of The New Testament, London: Macmillan and Colossians, 1926,
p. 244.)

Thus, with such argumentation built on supposition, citations of the early
Church Fathers which match the Traditional Text are dismissed. However, the
argument does not stand in the light of evidence. Again, referring to Origen’s
use of the Traditional Text, Hills notes: In these chapters (John 1:1-51; John
2:1-25; John 3:1-36; John 4:1-54; John 5:1-47; John 6:1-71; John 7:1-53; John
8:1-59; John 9:1-41; John 10:1-42; John 11:1-57; John 12:1-50; John 13:1-38;
John 14:1-31) 7 out of 20 "distinctively" Traditional readings which occur in
Origen occur also in Papyrus 66 and/or in Papyrus 75. These 7 readings at least
must have been Origen’s own readings, not those of the scribes who copied
Origen’s works, and what is true of these 7 readings is probably true of the
other 13, or at least of most of them. Thus it can hardly be denied that the
Traditional Text was known to Origen and that it influenced the wording of his
New Testament quotations. (Hills, p. 172.) Nor does Kenyon’s prejudice against
the Traditional Text explain the following example. Saint Hippolytus (235 AD)
quotes all of 2Th 2:1-12. His citation shows a mixture of both Alexandrian and
Byzantine readings. We find Hippolytus using Alexandrian phrases such as, "the
day of the Lord is at hand" instead of the Traditional Text, "the day of Christ
is at hand." We also find the reading, "so that he sitteth in the temple of God"
instead of "so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God" (KJV). These
readings would cause one to claim that Hippolytus was citing the Alexandrian
Text. However, we also have Byzantine readings. For example, he speaks of, "the
son of perdition" (Gk: amartias) instead of the Alexandrian, "man of
lawlessness" (Gk: anomias). He also uses the future tense in stating, "God shall
send" (Gk: pemyei) instead of the present, "God sends" (Gk: pempei). What is
even more interesting is a mixture of both lines in one phrase. The Alexandrian
Text reads, "whom the Lord Jesus will slay." The Traditional Text reads, "whom
the Lord shall consume." Hippolytus writes, "whom the Lord Jesus shall consume."
If a scribe were changing the text, why did he use such a mixed reading?

Finally, Dr. Carson’s third point loses much of his argument. He asks, "If they
(i.e. Byzantine Texts before the fourth century) did exist, who was wearing them
out?" The answer is apparent; the believers who used them wore them out. Carson
further asks, "If the fathers did not cite the Byzantine text-type, who then was
handling these alleged manuscripts so frequently and thoughtlessly that they
wore out?" The fathers were using them as were the early believers. However,
simply because they wore out does not reflect thoughtlessness. I personally have
worn out leather bound Bibles printed on high quality paper. When you use
something, it tends to wear faster than things not used.

Immediately before stating his three objections to the idea that used
manuscripts tend to wear out faster than unused manuscripts, Carson argues
against the use of a Byzantine exemplar before the fourth century. An exemplar
was the master copy used by scribes to reproduce the text they are working on.
However, our study of Old Testament textual criticism shows that it is not at
all hard to believe. In fact, it is not only possible but is very likely. The
Jewish scribes who copied the Masoretic Text used an exemplar and then destroyed
the exemplar once it had served its purpose. He did this out of respect for the
text, much as a dedicated serviceman would bury an old and worn flag.

Further, with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, we see that it is possible
for a textual line to have no evidence of existence for almost one-thousand
years and yet remain faithful to its textual family. After all, until we
discovered the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 and the manuscripts found at Wadi
Murabbaat in 1951, all we had of the Masoretic family came from the middle ages.
Even if we did not have citations from the early Church Fathers or early
translations of Scripture reflecting the Traditional Text, it is not impossible
to believe in a two-hundred-fifty year gap in light of a thousand-year one. The
Need For Simplicity The objection which is often proclaimed is that the King
James Bible is difficult to read. Therefore, we must have a translation written
for today’s reader in order to expound the Word of God to our generation. In
fact, this objection is so well established that it is hardly questioned; and
those who do question it are ridiculed for even suggesting that the Authorized
Version is not as difficult as some would have us believe. This is illustrated
by James White and his comments concerning the changes in the English language.
He writes: The fact that languages change over time is one of the strongest
arguments for either the revision of older translations of the Bible, or for
completely new translations. It is difficult to understand how KJV Only
advocates can resist the logic of the reality that the KJV is written in a form
of English that is not readily understandable to people today. It is amazing to
listen to people honestly asserting that they think the KJV is "easier to read"
than the modern versions. Surely they must realize that this is so for them only
because of their familiarity with the AV, not because it is, in fact, easier to
read! But no, it is actually asserted that the KJV is the simplest, easiest to
read version of the Bible. (White, p. 234.)

Brother White is correct in stating that languages change. However, this does
not give us the right to change the text of Scripture or ignore the foundation
of our own language in the name of revision. The same goal could be easily
reached, and has been, in the number of King James Study Bibles which have
footnotes or marginal notes to explain antiquated words or theological terms.
Nor is the claim that the KJV is not "readily understandable to people today"
entirely truthful. Just as one could point to examples of where an individual
has difficulty with the English of the KJV, one could also point to examples
where individuals with little or no formal education took to reading the KJV and
understood it. After all, although language does change, our English language
has not so drastically changed since the 1860’s that we could not understand the
literature and communication of that day. Yet it was during this time that the
newly freed slaves who had no formal education taught themselves how to read
from the pages of the King James Bible. Finally, the point raised by those of us
who believe the Authorized Version to be the preserved word of God for the
English-speaking people is not that it is easier to read than modern versions,
but that it is a spiritual book and cannot be fully understood without the help
of the Author. To illustrate his point, White borrows from Dr. Jack Lewis and
provides several examples of difficult readings in the King James Bible. (Ibid.,
p. 237. Jack P. Lewis, The English Bible From KJV to NIV: A History and
Evaluation, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981, pp. 53-54.) Although Lewis has
several other examples, the following are the ones Professor White provides for
us as evidence of the difficult readings in the Authorized Version.

"And Mt. Sinai was altogether on a smoke"-- Exo 19:18 "Thou shalt destroy them
that speak leasing"-- Psa 5:6 "Nevertheless even him [Solomon] did outlandish
women cause to sin"-- Neh 13:26 "Solomon loved many strange women"-- 1Ki 11:1
"The ships of Tarshish did sing of thee in thy market"-- Eze 27:25 "We do you to
wit of the grace of God"-- 2Co 8:1

These are good examples and do show the change in our English language. However,
each case could be explained with footnotes or a good English dictionary.
Further, there is something else which should be considered - namely the
difficult readings in modern versions. Consider the following from the NIV:

"Waheb in Suphah and the ravines,"--Numb. 21:14 "The Nephilim were on the earth
in those days"-- Gen 6:4 "Fearing that they would run aground on the sandbars of
Syrtis"-- Acts 27:17 "The meeting of the Areopagus"-- Acts 17:22 "Then the
governor’s soldiers took Jesus into the Praetorium"-- Mat 27:27 "He agreed to
pay them a denarius"-- Mat 20:2

Although these examples display names, places, and Greek currency, they are more
difficult to understand than their English counterpart found in the Authorized
Version. However, in either list there needs to be a greater overview of the
translations as a whole and not isolated examples. Once we do this, we find the
King James is more difficult than modern translations in its usage of the
English language, but it is not so difficult as that it has lost all meaning or
comprehension. This is proven, not by supporters of the KJV but by advocates of
modern translations themselves. Dr. John R. Kohlenberger III has provided for us
a chart posting the reading level of several English translations. The chart
reflects the work of Dr. Linda H. Parrish and Dr. Donna Norton of Texas A & M
University. The chart grants the TEV with a 7.29 reading grade level. The NIV
received a 7.80 reading grade level, while the NASV received an 11.55 reading
grade level. The highest reading grade level was 12.00 and given to the KJV.
(John R. Kohlenberger III, All About Bibles, New York: Oxford University Press,
1985, p. 12.) This would mean that anyone who graduated from high school should
be able to read this "outdated" version.

We must also pause and ask ourselves where we are to draw the line. Do we reject
the readability of the KJV and embrace the NASV as easier to read because it is
half-grade lower? Do we stop with the NIV’s 7.80 grade readability level? What
if someone cannot read at the seventh grade level? Do we lower the standard even
more? Do we take the approach which modern educators have been faced with and
"dumb-down" our language or do we seek to raise the standard higher? Are we, for
example, ready to produce an Ebonics Version of the Bible? If so, do we then
produce a version of the Bible for other groups which misuse the English
language? These are important questions when it comes to readability. After all,
historically the Church has always sought to raise the educational level of the
masses, not lower it. To further this we have a problem with modern means for
establishing grade reading levels such as the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level
formula. Such a method provides the KJV with a lower readability score than that
of 12.00. Using this method, let us put the six chapters provided by White to
the test. Although White supplies a portion of a verse from these chapters, we
will use the whole chapter in order to provide an overall reading. My computer
is fitted with "Grammatik" by WordPerfect. All one need do is insert any passage
of literature or writing and Grammatik using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level
formula will provide a grade level of readability. When this is done, we find
the following:

Exo 19:1-25 produced a 3.89 readability level with a complexity level of 52%.

Psa 5:1-12 produced a 5.92 readability level with a complexity level of 55%.

Neh 13:1-31 produced a 6.89 readability level with a complexity level of 58%.

1Ki 11:1-43 produced a 6.59 readability level with a complexity level of 57%.

Eze 27:1-36 produced a 5.90 readability level with a complexity level of 55%.

2Co 8:1-24 produced a 6.29 readability level with a complexity level of 56%.

While modern versions still have a lower readability level on these passages, it
is clear that the KJV is very readable, at least according to this method. At
any rate, it should be noted that rather the grade reading level is based on
vocabulary (Drs. Perrish and Norton) or word count (Flesch- Kincaid) the
Authorized Version is not as difficult for the reading public as supporters of
modern versions would have us believe. THE KING JAMES AUTHORIZED VERSION

We must now take up the question as to why we believe the King James Bible is
the promised and preserved word of God for the English-speaking world. Although
this question has been addressed many times throughout the discourse of our
study of the issue, some specifics should be noted as we face the conclusion of
our study.

Biblical Preservation The fundamental reason deals with the pledge of Biblical
preservation. Scripture, as we have seen, promises us that God will keep and
preserve His words from generation to generation (Psa 12:6-7). Although the
Psalm does not state that the King James Bible is this preserved word, it does
provide us the scriptural basis for which we make our claim for Biblical
preservation.

Sadly, those of us who believe in the literal fulfillment regarding Biblical
preservation are often misstated or misrepresented. Hence allowing the opponents
of Biblical preservation to ridicule our stated position. Questions such as,
"what about those who do not speak English?", or "what about Bibles before
1611?", or "did our knowledge of Biblical languages freeze in the 17th century?"
all show either a gross misunderstanding or a deliberate perversion of Biblical
preservation. The very definition of this term demands the existence of the
perfect word of God long before 1611. Further, it permits any language at any
time to have the preserved words without error, for Biblical preservation does
not demand the Scriptures remain in the original languages. In fact, it would
permit the preserved words of God to be translated into many languages
throughout the history of the Church as God raised up those who proclaimed His
word. It calls for a belief in the Biblical declaration found in Psa 12:1-8, and
sees this promise fulfilled though the ages. Thus it gives to the Church of God
the Holy Scriptures as our final authority. By this doctrine, we proclaim God
has kept His words from generation to generation. This statement can be made
with full Scriptural authority because this is the proclamation of the
Scriptures themselves (Mat 24:35; 1Pe 1:23; Psa 12:6-7). For those who speak
English, the only candidate which presents itself as the fulfillment of these
Scriptural promises is the Authorized Version. Further, as we shall see, this
was the position of the KJV translators which has been vindicated by history.
Nevertheless, anyone is free to believe another translation or text is the
fulfillment of this Biblical promise concerning preservation. But their
candidate would also need to have the witness of time showing the blessings of
the Lord in order to substantiate the claim.

We cannot compromise the doctrine of Biblical preservation by generalizing its
truth in stating that this was accomplished by the Bible itself, in that it has
existed throughout the history of the Church despite those who would seek to
destroy it. Such a statement does not fulfill the promise of Psa 12:1-8, for it
is not the "word" which is to be preserved, but the "words", thereby keeping the
Bible as a whole.

Neither can we accept the theory espoused by modern conservatives that the words
have been preserved, but are in a variety of manuscripts for scholarship to
reconstruct as best as possible. Although this makes the reader of such a
proclamation feel secure that they have the best available translation in one or
more editions, when tested its fallacy is seen. How can we honestly proclaim
that the words have been preserved, even when the manuscripts differ, because
the true reading is in one of them and at the same time note examples of where
there is no reading at all because the manuscripts have decayed? We have, for
example, already noted that in 1Sa 13:1 conservative scholars write, "the
original numbers in this verse have apparently been lost in transmission."
(Charles C. Ryrie, The Ryrie Study Bible, Chicago: Moody Press, 1976, p. 432.)
Does this not contradict the conservative point of view concerning Biblical
preservation? How can the reading be truly preserved in one or more manuscripts,
when no known manuscript has the reading? Nor is the example found in 1Sa
13:1-23 an isolated incident (however, we would only need one example to
disprove this misconception of Biblical preservation). In 1Sa 6:19 we are told
"fifty thousand and threescore and ten men" which were slain. Dr. Charles Ryrie
notes, "The number 50,070 is doubted by conservative scholars and is probably a
copyist’s error. The number in the LXX and writings of Josephus Isaiah 70."
(Ibid., p. 423.) So do we support the reading by the LXX? If so, we have a
problem because Dr. Ryrie is mistaken here. The LXX reads, "and the Lord smote
among them seventy men, and fifty thousand men:" which equals 50,070 as we find
in the KJV. It is extremely common in Old Testament passages where there is a
problem with locations, names, or numbers to find conservative scholars blaming
the faulty Hebrew manuscript on copyist error. If in any given place, all Hebrew
texts have the same copyist error, does this not remove the false presentation
of Biblical preservation promoted by conservative scholarship?

No, the promise of Biblical preservation must stand firm. If we are to be
Biblical, we must avow that God has kept His words free from error throughout
the generations even as He has promised. Since, "a little leaven leaveneth the
whole lump" (1Co 5:6) and we are, "born again, not of corruptible seed, but of
incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever" (1Pe
1:23), we must believe that God’s words remain error free. Is it too much to
believe that God is able to keep and preserve His words without error from the
time He gave them until now? If we are to believe this, then we must also be
willing to produce a Bible which fulfills the Biblical promise. The supporters
of the Authorized Version can do so, but the supporters of modern translations
are sadly lacking. The Fullness Of Time And The Witness Of History The
Scriptures teach that God does things at just the right time. Concerning Jesus
Christ, we are told that when, "the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth
his Son, made of a woman," (Gal 4:4). Also, the Scriptures teach all things will
be accomplished by Christ, "in the dispensation of the fulness of times" (Eph
1:10). God does things right on time. There are no coincidences in regard to
Christ. He fulfills things according to His purpose and in regard to His timing.
What is true of the Living Word is reflected in the written word. The Authorized
Version came into being at just the right time. If we are to believe in the
Sovereignty of God, we must also believe His hand was in it by providing the
world’s most loved translation of the Bible.

Before the late 16th century and the early 17th century, the church in power was
the Roman Catholic Church. Catholicism forbid the reading of the Bible in any
other language but Latin. However, by the late 16th and early 17th century the
Protestant Church was a force and the major religious basis in the
English-speaking world. At this time, when the King James Bible was translated,
the printing press was being refined, England was on the threshold of becoming
an Empire to reach to whole world, and the Protestant Reformation was in full
force. Additionally, the English language was being developed of which the KJV
was to play a major part.

About a hundred and fifty years before the King James Bible was printed, Bibles
were all written by hand. The only copies of God’s word available were
handwritten. One can begin to imagine the impossible task of reaching out to the
world when all Scripture had to be copied in such a fashion. By the 17th century
printed books were common and the desire of individual Christians to have their
own copy of Scripture was rapidly growing. This is one of the reasons why the
Geneva Bible was so popular. It allowed the common Englishman to have a copy of
God’s word in his language. However, modern English was just being established
and England had yet to gain world power. At the time of the King James Bible,
the English language was moving from Middle English to Modern English. This is
something most people do not consider but should. Our English language is
divided into three periods. Old English, which dates from about 700 to 1100 AD;
Middle English, dating from 1100 to 1500 AD; and Modern English which dates from
1500 to the present. (Marjorie Anderson and Blanche C. Williams, Old English
Handbook, New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1935, pp. 6-7.) Dr. James H.
Murray of the Encyclopedia Britannica dates the English language in this
fashion: Old English 1100-1200; Early Middle English 1200- 1300; Late Middle
English 1300-1400; Transition Middle English 1400-1485; Early Modern English or
"Tudor English" 1485-1611; and Modern English 1611 onward.(cited from William
Rosenau,Hebraisms In The Authorized Version, Baltimore: The Friedenwald Company,
1903, p. 28.) This would bring the beginning of our modern language at the very
time of the King James Bible. Not only is the KJV by definition a modern English
Bible, but it is the only one which helped develop the language we currently
speak! It should be noted that all other versions are shaped by our language;
however, our language was shaped by the King James Bible. Drs. Fred Craddock and
Gene Tucker have noted, ". . . the Authorized Version. . . not only influenced
literature, but also shaped the development of (our) language." (Encrate,
Microsoft 1995 ed.) The Compton’s Encyclopedia states, "it is rightly regarded
as the most influential book in the history of English civilization. . ."
(Compton’s Encyclopedia, Online Edition. Downloaded form America Online, May 26,
1996.) Dr. William Rosenau has written of the KJV that:

It was the most remarkable undertaking in the history of English language.
Produced by royal decree, and soon after accepted by the English church, it was
bound to make itself felt. It molded new forms and phrases, which, while foreign
to the English, became with it flesh and bone." (Rosenau, p. 31.)

Although its beauty has been compared to the writings of Shakespeare, it is
vastly more easily read than Shakespeare and has had equal influence upon our
native tongue. The King James Bible was published in the year Shakespeare began
work on his last play, The Tempest. Both the play and the Bible are masterpieces
of English, but there is one crucial difference between them. Whereas
Shakespeare ransacked the lexicon, the King James Bible employs a bare 8000
words--God’s teaching in homely English for everyman. From that day to this, the
Shakespearian cornucopia and the biblical iron rations represent, as it were,
the North and South Poles of the language, reference points for writers and
speakers throughout the world, from the Sakespearian splendor of a Joyce or a
Dickens to the biblical rigor of a Bunyan, or a Hemingway." (Robert McCrum,
William Cran, and Robert MacNeil, The Story Of English, New York: Viking Penguin
Inc, 1986, p. 113. This book is a companion to the PBS television series on the
history of the English language.) For the Believer, this truth of the history
and effect the KJV has had on our language not only speaks of its great literary
value, but of the Divine hand upon it which shaped not just our language, but
our culture and thought. Nor should it be overlooked that King James himself was
used by God not only to permit the work of translation to proceed, but in his
own arrogance helped in sending the Pilgrims to the New World. The Mayflower
Compact is addressed to King James I of England as these Protestant came to what
became the United States of America because of their desire for religious
freedom. Although the Puritans loved the Geneva Bible and brought it with them,
by 1637 the King James Bible had replaced it throughout the Massachusetts Bay
Colony. (Nathan O. Hatch and Mark A. Noll (editiors), The Bible in America:
Essays in Cultural History, New York: Oxford University Press: 1982, pp. 27-33.)
In fact, the KJV was "universally accepted" in the New Word "as the word of God
and no question was raised as to its infallibility." (Oliver Perry Chitwood, A
History of Colonial America, New York: Harper and Brothers, Publishers, 1961
ed., p. 441.) The world was ruled by England, and with them the English took the
King James Bible. The Greek text of the Protestant Reformation was now placed in
the English tongue. Once this was established, history reveals one of the
greatest evangelical periods known to the Church. Momentous revivals such as the
ones in Wells, Ireland, Scotland, England, and the Great Awakening in the United
States were preached by English-speaking pulpiteers proclaiming Biblical truths
from the Authorized Version. Various denominations were formed and united in the
preaching which derived from this one English translation, something no other
translation has ever done. In order to reject the King James Bible as the
preserved word of God for the English-speaking people, one would have to divorce
the Sovereignty of God and the blessings of the Authorized Version. Truly, all
this occurred in the fullness of time. The Testimony Of The Translators

Next, we should consider the testimony of the translators themselves. Although
their testimony is often ignored and even twisted at times, it stands as a
unique tribute to their enterprise. Contrary to the thoughts of others, consider
for yourself the affirmation of the KJV translators. In the second paragraph in
the original preface, which was entitled The Translators To The Reader, the King
James translators make an interesting comparison. In addressing the criticism
raised by the Roman Catholic Church for translating the Bible into the native
tongue of the people, the translators compare their work to David bringing the
ark of the Lord into Jerusalem, and Solomon building the temple of God, both of
whom received criticism for their efforts. The preface reads:

David was a worthy prince, and no man to be compared to him for his first deeds,
and yet for as worthy an act as ever he did (even for bringing back the ark of
God in solemnity) he was scorned and scoffed at by his own wife. Solomon was
greater than David, though not in virtue, yet in power: and by his power and
wisdom he built a temple to the Lord, such a one as was the glory of the land of
Israel, and the wonder of the whole world. But was that his magnificence liked
of by all? We doubt of it. Otherwise, why do thy lay it in his son’s dish, and
call unto him for easing of the burden? . . . So hard a thing it is to please
all, even when we please God best, and do seek to approve ourselves to
everyone’s conscience. (Miles Smith, The Translators To The Reader, 1611;
reprint, London: The Trinitarian Bible Society, 1911, p. 7.) This is followed in
the third paragraph by comparing the criticism for their work on the Authorized
Version with the criticism raised against Moses of the Old Testament and Stephen
of the New Testament. They state:

. . . that whosoever attempteth anything for the public (specially if it pertain
to religion, and to the opening and clearing of the word of God) the same
setteth himself upon a stage to be glouted upon by every evil eye, yea, he
casteth himself headlong upon pikes, to be gored by every sharp tongue. (Ibid.,
p. 9.)

Although they realized that their efforts would suffer ridicule as they provided
the world with the word of God in English, they also made some very interesting
and very strong correlation between their labors and the labors of those
individuals found in the Holy Scriptures. This monumental comparison should not
be overlooked, nor should the lack of any such comparisons by the translators of
modern versions. For this reveals to us the mind of the translators and just how
spiritual and important they considered their labor to be. The preface then
moves on to make a case for the need of providing individuals with the Holy
Scriptures in their native tongues and not for the Scriptures to remain only in
Latin as the Catholic Church of that day desired. The objections raised by the
Catholic Church included questions such as "Was their (i.e. Protestant)
translation good before? Why do they now mend it? Was it not good? Why then was
it obtruded to the people?" (Ibid., p. 20.) Therefore, in speaking of the
earlier English versions, which preceded the Authorized Version, the KJV
translators state:

Yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the
later thoughts are thought to be the wiser: so, if we building upon their
foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labours, do endeavour
to make that better which they left so good, no man, we are sure, hath cause
sure to mislike us; they, we persuade ourselves, if they were alive, would thank
us. . . . And this is the Word of God, which we translate. . . . For by this
means it cometh to pass, that whatsoever is sound already (and all is sound for
substance, in one or other of our editions, and the worst of ours far better
than their authentic vulgar) the same will shine as gold more brightly, being
rubbed and polished; . . . (Ibid., pp. 21-22.) From this we see that the
translators saw their work on the King James Bible as a completion of the works
provided by earlier English translations, such as the Tyndale Bible, Great
Bible, Geneva Bible and Bishops’ Bible. To them, the King James Authorized
Version was the perfecting of these earlier works. Thus the phrase, "nothing is
begun and perfected at the same time." Further, they believed that what they
translated was the very "Word of God." Finally, they state here that even the
worst of their early English versions (King James I considered the Geneva Bible
a poor translation because of the many notes against the English crown) was far
better than the Latin Roman Catholic Bible. To these translators, theirs was the
work of polishing the work of their forerunner and thus perfecting the Word of
God. This last statement is amplified in the following paragraph: Now to the
latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very
meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession,
(for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the Word
of God, nay, is the Word of God. (Ibid., p. 23.) The question then rises, if all
the early English versions based on the Traditional Text were considered the
Word of God by the KJV translators, why did they alter these early works? This
was the question raised by the Catholic Church, one which had already been
addressed for they saw their efforts as the perfecting of the earlier English
translations. Nonetheless, the translators write:

Yet before we end, we must answer a third cavil and objection of theirs against
us, for altering and amending our translations so oft; wherein truly they deal
hardly, and strangely with us. For to whom ever was it imputed for a fault (by
such as were wise) to go over that which he had done, and to amend it where he
saw cause? . . . If we will be sons of the Truth we must consider what it
speaketh, and trample upon our own credit, yea, and upon other men’s too.
(Ibid., p. 25.)

Again, we see in their response what they considered their task. As sons of
Truth, they were more concerned with presenting the pure word of God then
establishing their own theological beliefs. The next paragraph establishes for
all to see what their goal was in producing the Authorized Version, a goal which
history bears testimony to as being accomplished.

Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should
need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, (for
then the imputation of Sixtus had been true in some sort, that our people had
been fed with gall of dragons instead of wine, with whey instead of milk:) but
to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not
justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavour, that our mark.
(Ibid., p. 29.)

Thus, their goal was to produce from the Early English versions, all based on
the Traditional Text, one principal English translation. The paragraph ends with
their statement of belief as to how such an effort was able to be established.
It was done so, "through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to
that pass that you see." (Ibid., p. 31.) Their final consideration is expressed
in their concern for the reader. To them, the Bible was a spiritual book which
took God the Holy Spirit as the empowering force in producing the work and His
grace in revealing it to the reader.

Many other things we might give thee warning of, gentle reader, if we had not
exceeded the measure of the Preface already. It remaineth that we commend thee
to God, and to the Spirit of His grace, which is able to build further than we
can ask or think. He removeth the scales from our eyes, the vail from our
hearts, opening our wits that we may understand His Word, enlarging our hearts,
yea, correcting our affections, that we may love it above gold and silver, yea,
that we may love it to the end. . . . It is a fearful thing to fall into the
hands of the living God; but a blessed thing it is, and will bring us to
everlasting blessedness in the end, when God speaketh unto us, to hearken; when
He setteth His Word before us, to read it; when He stretcheth out His hand and
calleth, to answer, Here am I; here we are to do thy will, O God. The Lord work
a care and conscience in us to know Him and serve Him, that we may be
acknowledged of Him at the appearing of our Lord JESUS CHRIST, to whom with the
Holy Ghost, be all praise and thanksgiving. Amen. (Ibid., pp. 35-36.) The Jewish
Book The Bible is a Jewish book; we must never forget this. The Apostle Paul
states of the Jews that, ". . . unto them were committed the oracles of God"
(Rom 3:2). Every writer in the Old Testament was Jewish. The Old Testament was
written for Jews. If a Gentile wanted to know the truth and live for God he had
to come to Israel and become a Jew. Likewise, every writer in the New Testament,
with the possible exception of Luke, was Jewish. The central person of the New
Testament, the Lord Jesus Christ, was born a Jew. And, much concerning the New
Testament is based upon that which is Jewish. The Bible most certainly is a
Jewish book. As a Jewish book the Bible uses Jewish terms and expressions. These
are called Hebraisms. For a translation to be truly a proper and correct
translation, it must reflect its Jewish heritage. This must be accomplished not
only in recording the history of the people of Israel, but also by reflecting
their thoughts and words as inspired by the Holy Spirit and given to the
original writers. English translations which weaken or remove these Jewish
Hebraisms weaken our understanding of the people of God and the meaning of
Scripture.

More than any other English translation, the King James Bible retains these
Hebraisms. In fact, because of the popularity of the King James Bible, many of
these Jewish expressions have become our expressions. Dr. William Rosenau has
correctly noted,

It (i.e. the King James Bible) molded new forms and phrases, which, while foreign to the English, became with it flesh and bone. The origin of most of these forms and phrases is not difficult to trace. They are like the equivalents of which they were translations---Hebrew in character." (Rosenau, p, 31.)

Thus we have many common expressions, taken from the Authorized Version, which
have their basic understanding in Hebrew expressions. The following are a few
examples of what Rosenau calls "Proverbial Biblical" Jewish expressions:

"In the sweat of thy face,"-- Gen 3:19 "Am I my brother’s keeper"-- Gen 4:9
"Unstable as water"-- Gen 49:4 "A stranger in a strange land"-- Exo 2:22 "A land
flowing with milk and honey,"-- Exo 3:8 "Sheep which have no shepherd,"--Numb.
27:17 "Man doth not live by bread alone,"-- Deu 8:3 "Whatsoever is right in his
own eyes,"-- Deu 12:8 "The apple of his eye,"-- Deu 32:10 "The people arose as
one man,"-- Jdg 20:8 "A man after his own heart,"-- 1Sa 13:14 "How are the
mighty fallen,"-- 2Sa 1:25 "Thou art the man,"-- 2Sa 12:7 "From the sole of his
foot to the crown of his head,"-- 2Sa 14:25 "Steal the heart"-- 2Sa 15:6 "Horn
of my salvation,"-- 2Sa 22:3 "The sweet psalmist of Israel,"-- 2Sa 23:1 "How
long halt ye between two opinions?"-- 1Ki 18:21 "A still small voice,"-- 1Ki
19:2 "The shadow of death,"-- Job 10:21 "With the skin of my teeth,"-- Job 19:20
"The land of the living,"-- Job 28:13 "My cup runneth over,"-- Psa 23:5 "The pen
of a ready writer,"-- Psa 45:1 "Wings like a dove,"-- Psa 55:6 "From strength to
strength,"-- Psa 84:7 "As a tale that is told,"-- Psa 90:9 "At their wit’s
end,"-- Psa 107:27 "To dwell together in unity,"-- Psa 133:1 "The way of the
transgressor is hard,"-- Pro 13:15 "Heap coals of fire upon his head,"-- Pro
25:22 "Answer a fool according to his folly,"-- Pro 26:5 "Boast not thyself of
to-morrow,"-- Pro 27:1 "Iron sharpeneth iron,"-- Pro 27:17 "There is no new
thing under the sun,"-- Ecc 1:9 "To every thing there is a season,"-- Ecc 3:1
"The race is not to the swift,"-- Ecc 9:11 "A weariness of the flesh,"-- Ecc
12:12 "Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we shall die,"-- Isa 22:13 "As a drop
of a bucket,"-- Isa 40:15 hew:15 ew:15

Many of these have found their way into modern versions simply because they have
become so common in our English expressions. We owe this to the Jewish flavor of
the King James Bible. However, there is more. There are certain expressions
which are most certainly Jewish and in the KJV, but fail to be reproduced in
modern versions such as the NIV. The following are just a few examples from the
"a,b,c’s" of the thousands of Jewish Hebraisms noted by Dr. Rosenau. (see
Rosenau, pp. 169-283.)

Verse

KJV Hebraisms

NIV English expression

1Ki 5:10

"according to all his desire"

"he wanted"

Exo 8:10

"according to thy word".

"It will be as you say"

Lev 11:16

"after his kind"

"any kind"

Gen 45:23

"after this manner"

"this is what"

Exo 14:13

"again no more forever"

"will never see again"

Exo 2:23

"and it came to pass"

"During that long period"

2Sa 1:9

"anguish is come upon me"

"I am in the throes of death"

Pro 14:14

"backslider in heart"

"’The faithless"

Psa 90:17

"beauty of the Lord"

"favor of the Lord"

2Sa 12:12

"before the sun"

"in broad daylight"

Exo 32:18

"being overcome"

"defeat"

Gen 43:33

"birthright"

"ages"

2Ki 25:26

"both small and great"

"least to the greatest"

Pro 2:7

"buckler to them"

"a shield to those"

Numb. 9:23

"by the hand of Moses"

"through Moses"

Jer 7:10

"called by my name"

"bears my Name"

Gen 6:4

"came in unto"

"went to"

1Sa 2:26

"child Samuel"

"boy Samuel"

Ezr 6:16

"children of the captivity"

"the rest of the exiles"

2Sa 7:10

"children of wickedness"

"Wicked people"

Hag 1:7

"consider your ways"

"Give careful thought"

Psa 2:2

"counsel together"

"gather together"

Psa 30:2

"cried"

"called"

Jon 1:2.

"cry against"

"preach against"

Exo 23:23

"cut them off"

"wipe them out"

Again, these are but a very few of the thousands of Hebrew expressions found in
the King James Authorized Version which have been modernized by contemporary
versions, consequently losing some of t


========================================================================
Source: https://sermonindex.net/books/holland-dr-thomas-manuscript-evidence-class/
========================================================================