Thread: The merits of the A.V.

Taken form the merits of the A.V. from J.C. Philpot:
http://www.radiomissions.org/gleanings/authvers.html

In the following remarks, Mr. Philpot expresses his opinion upon the question of whether it would be desirable to have a new, or at least a revised translation of the Scriptures (Authorized Version).

"We fully admit that there are here and there passages, of which the translation might be improved; as for instance, "love" for "charity" all through I Cor. 13; but we deprecate any alteration as a measure that for the smallest sprinkling of good would deluge us with a flood of evil. The following are our reasons:

"1. Who are to undertake it? Into whose hands would the revision fall? What an opportunity for the enemies of truth to give us a mutilated false Bible! Of course, they must be learned men, great critics, scholars, and divines. But these are notoriously either Puseyites or Neologians; in other words, deeply tainted with either popery or infidelity. Where are there learned men sound in the truth, not to say alive unto God, who possess the necessary qualifications for so important a work? And can erroneous men, men dead in trespasses and sins, carnal, worldly, ungodly persons, spiritually translate a book written by the blessed Spirit? We have not the slightest ground for hope that they would be godly men, such as we have reason to believe translated the Scriptures into our present version.

"2. Again, it would unsettle the minds of thousands, as to which was the word of God, the old translation or the new. What a door it would open for the workings of infidelity, or the temptations of Satan! What a gloom too it would cast over the minds of many of God's saints, to have those passages which had been applied to their souls translated in a different way, and how it would seem to shake all their experience of the power and preciousness of God's word!

"3. But besides this, there would be two Bibles spread through the land, the old and the new, and what confusion would this create in almost every place1 At present, all sects and denominations agree in acknowledging our present version as the standard of appeal. Nothing settles disputes so soon as when the contending parties have confidence in the same umpire, and are willing to abide by his decision. But this judge of all dispute, this umpire of all controversy, would cease to be the looser of strife if present acknowledged authority were put an end to by a rival.

"4. Again, if the revision and re-translation were once to begin, where would it end? It is good to let well alone, as it is easier to mar than mend. The Socianising Neologian would blot out "God" in I Timothy 3:16, and stroke out I John 5:7-8 as an interpolation. The Puseyite would mend it to suit Tractarian views. He would read "priest" where we now read "elder," and put "penance" in the place of "repentance." Once set up a notice, "The old Bible to be mended," and there would be plenty of workmen, who, trying to mend the cover, would pull the pages to pieces. The Arminian would soften down the words "election" and "predestination" into some term less displeasing to Pharisaic ears. "Righteousness" would be turned into "justice," and "reprobate" into "undiscerning." All our good Bible terms would be so mutilated that they would cease to convey the Spirit's meaning, and instead of the noble simplicity, faithfulness, and truth of our present version, we should have a Bible that nobody would accept as the word of God, to which none could safely appeal, and on which none implicitly reply.

"5. Instead of our good old Saxon Bible, simple and solid, with few words really obsolete, and alike majestic and beautiful, we should have a modern English translation in pert and flippant language of the day. Besides its authority, as the word of God, our present version is the great English Classic – generally accepted as the standard of the English language. The great classics of a language cannot be modernised. What an outcry there would be against modernising Shakespere, or making Hooker, Bacon, or Milton, talk the English of the newspapers or of the House of Commons.

"6. The present English Bible has been blessed to thousands of the saints of God; and not only so, it has become part of our national inheritance which we have received unimpaired from our fathers, and are bound to hand down unimpaired to our children. It is, we believe, the grand bulwark of Protestantism; the safeguard of the Gospel, and the treasure of the Church; and we should be traitors in every sense of the word if we consented to give it up to be rifled by the sacrilegious hands of the Puseyites, concealed Papists, German Neologians, infidel divines, Arminians, Socinians and the whole tribe of enemies of God and godliness."

I will agree that educational standards are at an all time high. However, common sense has taken a nose dive. Why is it that reformed people have forsaken the reformation text? Just my .

Hello Trevor,

Nice to run into you again.

Re #1, on the revision committee that produced the Critical Text underlying most modern versions there was a committed Unitarian who, after the CT was published, later wrote about the importance of removing testimonies to the deity of Christ from that text (I refer to Dr. Vance Smith). I believe info on him can be found in the "Why do KJ Only types believe the Westcott and Hort manuscripts are bad?" thread. And there were also those whose "theology" did indeed, as Philpot feared, "mutilate" the Bible.

Is not the excision of "God" in 1 Tim 3:16 a dismemberment? A discussion on this text may be found in "What is the authentic New Testament text" thread, by text critic Wilbur Pickering. It either belongs in the Scripture, or not. Do you know the evidences pro and con?

Re #3, God forbid we should advocate the burning of any MSS, even those deemed corrupt, for they have great value nonetheless.

I have seen firsthand the confusion engendered by differing Bibles, with the modern versions casting doubt on the sound readings of the AV/TR in their margin notes and outright omissions. There is now widespread uncertainty in our being able to determine the actual text of the NT (and the Old), hence, uncertainty in the reliablity of God's word. It is a serious thing. And what it may look like a generation or two from now (should the Lord hold His return for a while), the doubt may have far worse of an impact than it does now.

Re #6, Yes, the Latin Vulgate of the Roman Catholic organization did last a long time, and there were those who were saved through it, there being an adequate preservation of God's word in it (as also in many modern versions today), but there were serious flaws in it nonetheless, which supported the agenda of Rome and its doctrines. It was on the basis of Rome's stand for its LV they tried to undermine the very Reformation, claiming the doctrine of Sola Scriptura was without foundation. On the basis of the providentially preserved Hebrew and Greek texts -- which was a doctrine of the Reformation -- they withstood Rome and its blasphemous and soul-destroying traditions, and the Reformation churches thrived.

It is odd that in this time it is the very arguments -- and texts -- of Rome that are used to once again subvert the Reformation texts, but this time it is being done from within the camp of the Reformed churches. There are a few that withstand, but many have fallen. It remains to be seen what the fruit of this capitulation will be. It does not bode well for the living faith of the people of God in an ever-darkening world.

And yes, the primary argument is based on the quality of the CT.

I myself, being a poet to whom communication with my fellow humans is of paramount importance, ponder the issue of "modern speech" versus the language hallowed within the churches for centuries. Very few Reformed folks object to the older language in the classic hymns they sing; why in the Scriptures?

Steve

Trevor,

I'm not sure what you mean by "independent." Independent of what?

That's not churlish of me to say, is it? I do try to be circumspect. Those are two words you'd have to excuse from your lineup! They're still current. The rest, well, D.A. Waite has what is called the Defined Bible, which gives the definition of such words in the margin. Two links to see this:

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Defined-Bible-Large-Black-Leather/dp/1568480156"]Amazon.com: Defined King James Bible (Large, Black Leather edition): Books: D. A. Waite,Donald A. Jr. Waite,S. H. Tow[/ame]

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/defined.htm

In one of your posts you said,

A lot of poetry is fine to chew on, but much of it lacks clarity. Many of the classic hymns are not clear either. Thou, thee, dost, etc can be discarded without doing justice to the text.

This archaic language is a cultural accretion that is not neccessary to the Gospel , but rather which hinders it for many. There is enough that is holy in the Scriptures, without adding extra holy words that must also be revered. The primary aim of the Scriptures is to convey truth, not to sound poetic.

Unfortunately what you say of "much poetry" is all too true. It is incumbent on the poet to be understandable, or at least accessible (with some little work -- as is the case with Scripture also).

I have to accept what you say about archaic language being a hinderance to some. At least initially. I will be looking to see if this "aversion" can be remedied as I begin preaching in our new church plant, to a mostly English-speaking congregation. Of course such words as you have shown I would render in modern equivalents; I would like to help others have an appreciation for the beauty of the language in the King James. It's sort of like one having married a wonderful woman with an odd accent -- it would behoove the wise man to attend to and learn her speech, so as to commune well with her.

Part of the beauty of the King James Bible is its unsurpassed fidelity, not only to the Hebrew and Greek, but of its underlying Hebrew and Greek to the very writings of the apostles and prophets. Such fidelity is a beauty in itself, and well worth the little trouble to familiarize oneself with the "odd accent."

I very much like Jay P. Green's MKJV (and his Literal translation also), and have it by me most the time, and consult it regularly. But I like the KJV far better.

You asked,

What happens when the TR and the KJV disagree (like in various places in the Book of Revelation)...

It would be more accurate to specify which TR one is speaking of, as many of the Reformation texts are called the TR. The TR I refer to is the one Dr. Scrivener put together in 1894 (called the 1894 TR), and is the exact Greek underlying the KJV. It is, of course, a compiled edition of the Greek, as the editors/translators of the KJV utilized various Greek MSS -- and some foreign-language versions -- as they put together the English text. The KJV/TR advocates hold that the MSS they used were providentially preserved and brought to them by the Lord apart from whose will not a bird or even a hair of your head falls to the ground.

Here's a link with info on the 1894 TR:

http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.o...les/tr-art.asp

The way to phrase your question would be, How come the Majority Text (which is considered by some a form of the TR) differs with the KJV in some parts, particularly in the Book of Revelation? Here are some studies in this area:

http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/majoritytext.htm

http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/kinn...hell-game.html

The above link to an article by Will Kinney is as good as the one above it by David Cloud. Kinney has a wealth of stuff on his site.

On Cloud's site, the excerpt from Jack Moorman's When the KJV Departs from the "Majority" Text in Cloud's article is one of the classics on this topic: http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/jackmoorman.htm

Kinney is Reformed, and has much good stuff on specific textual issues (http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/articles.html), Cloud and Moorman are Baptists (Fundamentalist), but all are astute scholars in this area.

I hope you don't mind my just throwing links at you -- I'm a little pressed for time right now. But I'll be back.

Steve

Originally Posted by trevorjohnson

Hey Steve;

Thanks for the replies.

If you have any links, I will read them all.

I see that we have a disagreement regarding the manuscript families. Given your philosophical views all of your replies make perfect sense and I have no rebuttal to them.

It may be that we both agree very closely as far as translation theory (even though I may look more favorably on the UBS and Nestle-Aland texts). It seems our difference is one of whether the CT or your favored text is the more reliable.




My only major objection with your post is the last paragraph:

"I myself, being a poet to whom communication with my fellow humans is of paramount importance, ponder the issue of "modern speech" versus the language hallowed within the churches for centuries. Very few Reformed folks object to the older language in the classic hymns they sing; why in the Scriptures?"



A lot of poetry is fine to chew on, but much of it lacks clarity. Many of the classic hymns are not clear either. Thou, thee, dost, etc can be discarded without doing justice to the text.

This archaic lanugage is a cultural accretion that is not neccessary to the Gospel , but rather which hinders it for many. There is enough that is holy in the Scriptures, without adding extra holy words that must also be revered. The primary aim of the Scriptures is to convey truth, not to sound poetic.


I love the AV, but here is a list of some words that most would agree COULD be changed without distorting any doctrine:

“chambering” (Rom. 13:13), “champaign” (Deut. 11:30), “charger” (Matt. 14:8—it is not a horse), “churl” (Isa. 32:7), “cieled” (Hag. 1:4), “circumspect” (Exod. 23:13), “clouted upon their feet” (Josh. 9:5), “****atrice” (Isa. 11:8), “collops” (Job 15:27), “confection” (Exod. 30:35—it has nothing to do with sugar), “cotes” (2 Chron. 32:28), “covert” (2 Kings 16:18), “hoised” (Acts 27:40), “wimples” (Isa. 3:22), “stomacher” (Isa. 3:24), “wot” (Rom. 11:2), “wist” (Acts 12:9), “withs” (Judg. 16:7), “wont” (Dan. 3:19), “suretiship” (Prov. 11:15), “sackbut” (Dan. 3:5), “the scall” (Lev. 13:30), “scrabbled” (1 Sam. 21:13), “roller” (Ezek. 30:21—i.e., a splint), “muffler” (Isa. 3:19), “froward” (1 Peter 2:18), “brigadine” (Jer. 46:4), “amerce” (Deut. 22:19), “blains” (Exod. 9:9), “crookbackt” (Lev. 21:20), “descry” (Judg. 1:23), “fanners” (Jer. 51:2), “felloes” (1 Kings 7:33), “glede” (Deut. 14:13), “glistering” (Luke 9:29), “habergeon” (Job 41:26), “implead” (Acts 19:38), “neesing” (Job 41:18), “nitre” (Prov. 25:20), “tabret” (Gen. 31:27), “wen” (Lev. 22:22)?


Blains, cotes, and amerce may sound more poetic - but I would prefer more commonly used words today.


But, I know where you are coming from brother. I know that you revere God's Word and I am thankful to God for you.


Why can't your favored text be retranslated and updated? I would love to see a new translation out that eliminates the archaic language AND stays faithful to your texts.

I have Jay P Green's and use it often (do you have this one too)? What do you think? It is very literal and he seems to eliminate a lot of the uniquely English words that had no place intruding on the Greek anyhow.

My favorite KJV expression is "superfluity of naughtiness," which occurs at James 1:21.

Originally Posted by trevorjohnson

That makes some sense. I'll chew on that.

Were there Independants on the KJV committee? This would put a hole in your argument if yes.

I am independant and believe in independancy, so the differences might go deeper from this argument. If I acept your premise (which I am trying to do hypothetically) then your argument might have weight.

One thing I've always been curious about: since the New Testament in the KJV is actually about 85% Tyndale's translation imported into the KJV directly, how much "translating from the originals" did these old boys actually do, anyway?

We read the KJV to the kids even at their young age because it raises a lot of questions on their part. We will often read only 10 verses or so but have enough to talk about for half an hour at least. It will also help them with their Shakespeare later on.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

They went through all of it. Besides the originals, the committees utilised a plethora of translations ancient and modern of all different languages. In the main committee the translation was read out, and if any reading along had an objection, the person reading was stopped and the scruple answered. The reason for the percentage of carry over was their conviction that the Bible should not be altered needlessly, but only where required.

Thanks, Matthew. Makes sense.

Trevor,

Here are two hymns from the Trinity Hymnal (Old Blue) with "archaic" language, and yet their beauty is not diminished by it:

Thou hidden source of calm repose

Thou hidden source of calm repose,
Thou all-sufficient love divine,
My help and refuge from my foes,
Secure I am, if thou art mine:
And lo! from sin, and grief and shame
I hide me, Jesus, in thy Name.

Thy mighty Name salvation is,
And keeps my happy soul above;
Comfort it brings, and pow'r, and peace,
And joy, and everlasting love:
To me, with thy dear Name are giv'n
Pardon and holiness and heav'n.

Jesus, my all in all thou art;
My rest in toil, my ease in pain,
The medicine of my broken heart,
In war my peace, in loss my gain,
My smile beneath the tyrant's frown,
In shame my glory and my crown:

In want my plentiful supply,
In weakness my almighty pow'r,
In bonds my perfect liberty,
My light in Satan's darkest hour,
My help and stay whene'er I call,
My life in death, my heav'n, my all.

Original Trinity Hymnal, #426

(this can be found at, with a midi file of piano music: http://www.opc.org/hymn.html?hymn_id=743)
--------
Here is another classic, with the "archaic" language -- in my view -- really as current as the degenerating language of the day. The "Thy"s and "Thou"s of such hymns are in truth a devotional language -- love-language if you will (which is why love poets may still use these words to their lovers) -- beyond the reach of the flippant and profane.

Jesus, thy blood and righteousness

Jesus, thy blood and righteousness
My beauty are, my glorious dress;
'Midst flaming worlds, in these arrayed,
With joy shall I lift up my head.

Bold shall I stand in thy great day;
For who aught to my charge shall lay?
Fully absolved through these I am
From sin and fear, from guilt and shame.

When from the dust of death I rise
To claim my mansion in the skies,
Ev'n then this shall be all my plea,
Jesus hath lived, hath died, for me.

Jesus, be endless praise to thee,
Whose boundless mercy hath for me—
For me a full atonement made,
An everlasting ransom paid.

O let the dead now hear thy voice;
Now bid thy banished ones rejoice;
Their beauty this, their glorious dress,
Jesus, thy blood and righteousness.

Original Trinity Hymnal, #439

(it is online at the OPC site at: http://www.opc.org/hymn.html?hymn_id=391)

----------

I noticed that one of the Kinney links I sent you to has a link to a Gail Riplinger article. I do not recommend her. Kinney is also a bit tough on James White. I would not relate to him in that manner. Though anyone who seeks to undermine confidence in the standard Bible many hold to as to life itself (it being the Word of God) ought to expect some to take strong exception.

Steve

Originally Posted by bookslover

My favorite KJV expression is "superfluity of naughtiness," which occurs at James 1:21.

Mine is "certain lewd fellows of the baser sort". (Act 17:5 KJV)

Hi Trevor,

I agree with you. It is not the beauty per se, but the fidelity and accuracy of the language which makes it the best to me. The issue of clarity is more nuanced. Regarding archaisms I can agree with you here also, they are a hinderance to comprehension, but that can be remedied. Apart from those, when I get to a difficult section of Scripture, I will not only study the Greek or Hebrew, but will see how other translators dealt with the passage; first I go to the NKJV, then the NIV, then the MKJV, NASB, and ESV; if I want to investigate further, I will go to Lamsa's Syriac Pe****ta (no doubt some letters will be deleted with the fine filter!), and others (I have a large collection of translations).

An important thing to me is what is the true underlying Greek or Hebrew text; if that's not the true text what does it matter how well or not they translate it? I realize this is the primary area of dispute. If you go to the ESV or NASB -- both reputed to be more literal and accurate in translation than the "dynamic"-style versions -- you will find in those also certain passages which are not clear due to theological difficulty, and on which one must devote some study and prayer to attain clarity.

I will not sacrifice accuracy for clarity; by that I mean, the modern language of the ESV, NASB, and NIV do, I will admit, avoid some of the comprehension problems of the KJV, but the price I would have to pay is too great. Some times I will read a psalm in the KJV, and then later in the NIV to see if I can gain any nuance the older version missed. KJV defenders may be aghast when I say that in a couple of places (both OT and New) I have written the NIV rendering of a phrase in the margin of my King James.

My pastor when we were in NYC, Tim Keller, used the NIV (although he brought other versions and the Greek and Hebrew to bear on various passages), and lately I understand he has been using the ESV more, and I have great respect for Tim and his preaching and scholarship.

My wife uses the NIV, and she is a godly woman who loves the Word of God, and studies it diligently. I don't bust people's chops for using the other versions. I just take a stand when the integrity of God's word is violated, and even then do not get "obnoxious" or mean-spirited, but rather seek to take a winsome and scholarly approach.

Steve

Trevor,

What makes the Critical Text superior in your view?

Steve

P.S. Trevor, let's pick a couple of verses in Revelation where there are differences between our versions, and look at the reasons and evidences for each. How does that sound?

Steve

Hi Trevor,

As you've given me more than "a couple," please be patient while I prepare a response (I am glad to have a challenge like this).

Incidentally, I looked at your blog -- and the great photos -- and appreciate what you're doing. Are there any Scriptures translated into the language(s) of the people you are among?

Steve

Originally Posted by Jerusalem Blade

I myself, being a poet to whom communication with my fellow humans is of paramount importance, ponder the issue of "modern speech" versus the language hallowed within the churches for centuries. Very few Reformed folks object to the older language in the classic hymns they sing; why in the Scriptures?

Indeed Steve, the historical Protestant tradition was to adopt the common language and make it "religious language". The idea was to make the language that we worship with, a higher and more proper language fitting the reverence of YHWH. Consider:

"The Reformers adopted this strategy from the Hebrew’s, who saw themselves as a unique and different people, with a mission to preserve God’s word and translate the Hebrew into the Greek[1]. And when the Reformers translated they adopted the language in such a manner that it became “religious language”. The Hymns, prayers, the writing of the Reformers, the translations, the sermons and teachings all took upon them this language that brought continuity of thought to the worship service and life of the believer. The language was a reflection of the attitudes, and they did strive to have a stability to all of their worship, both in every day practice and within the church assemblies, speaking a religious language that kept them communicating within the same thought process. A language common to the believer, but yet foreign to those outside of the “camp”. Like their Hebrew counterparts they viewed the everyday worship of God special, and not something to be identified with the common everyday things of life. Although the Bible was in the common language of the people, it wasn’t done in a manner that would be mistaken as a common document, but recognized as the word of God. Both Tyndale[2] and Luther, when translating the Bible into their respective languages, took great pains to make the translations of the Bible masterpieces of the language. And indeed, Tyndale is viewed as the one to define the English language and Luther the German with their superior use of language, and even today they still stand as works of art. The King James Bible took that same approach, and the translators made a masterpiece of the English language. It still stands, in the opinion of some, as the work that is the pinnacle of English language. My point being this, that any reader of the King James Bible recognizes that the language used in translating the word of God, is of such a high quality and manner, that it properly is a language used to translate the word of God. A religious language, a theological language, which is fitting enough to command the respect of the reader.

[1] F. F. Bruce states this very well of the Jew’s who translated the Septuagint as he said that, “the Greek was not suited for Hebrew revelation but was adapted to Hebrew thought forms and transformed by them: To one accustomed to reading good Greek, Septuagint Greek reads very oddly, but to a Greek reader acquainted with Hebrew idiom, Septuagint Greek is immediately intelligible. The words are Greek, but the construction is Hebrew.” From, The Books and the Parchments; London: Pickering and Inglis, Ltd. 1950, p. 70.

[2] William Tyndale (1494?-1536) is said to be the father of the English Bible. With his skill it is said he defined the English language with his translation. He was hung and then his body was burned for his work." My Thoughts on Faith and the Covenant, by: Ted Clore

That is an excerpt from a book I am currently writing about "Christian Faith". These comments are well researched and provide some of the foundation of looking at the Jewish concept of faith from an OT perspective. The LXX is key in this as it is a good focal point to see how the Greek language was adopted for Hebrew thought. My point being this, in today's church world, we are quickly loosing the tie between our worship, every day and special, as we are loosing our language of worship. We are quickly secularizing both the word of God and what we use to communicate our faith to one another with, which is a language that defines the peculiar people of God. What is Christianity, when it looks like and sounds like, what is spoken at down the road at the corner bar and grill? And then that is brought into the assembly and we take it to God for our worship of the Creator and Sovereign of our faith.

It takes little effort to teach ourselves a means of communication that separates from the world and brings our minds into focus to worship our Savior.

Trevor,

Here I am reposting a brief section from a larger post (#27) in the "What is the authentic New Testament text?" thread on issues pertaining to Erasmus. There is so much disinformation concerning him and the texts he used that it turns many people off to the subsequent texts that used his work. I had noticed in your "TTer gone CTer" thread you said one of the reasons you switched was "...I had greater access to manuscript evidence. I began to research, for example, Erasmus' translation method on Revelation." This following is an example, and I will post more.

CONCERNING ERASMUS

I want to quote first from a paper titled, “That Rascal Erasmus—Defense Of His Greek Text”, pages 5-8, by Dr. Daryl R. Coats (available for $2.00 at BFT – Bible For Today Webstore – item # OP2456). Most of us have heard stories of Erasmus’ poor copies of texts available to him, and especially the one about his offering to insert 1 John 5:7 into his Greek editions if but one Greek MS was shown him which contained it. Dr. Coats writes,

The supposed “Erasmian Inventions”

Modern critics such as Metzger almost gleefully repeat the story that when Erasmus put together his Greek New Testament, he had access to only one copy of Revelation, a “very mutilated” copy missing the last six verses of the book and damaged in verse 17:4. As a result Erasmus supposedly retranslated the missing verses from the Latin vulgate back into Greek, producing several readings supposedly known in no Greek manuscripts and one word (akaqavrthtoVin 17:4) which doesn’t even exist in Greek. These readings (to Metzger’s apparent distress!) “are still perpetuated today in printings of the so-called Textus Receptus” [The Text of the New Testament: its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 3rd Edition, by Bruce Metzger (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), p. 100.

Even if this story were completely true,* these “Erasmian inventions” are of no consequence unless a person believes that the New Testament exists in no language other than the “original Greek.” Pressed to prove the seriousness of his claim of supposed inventions, Metzger lists only 33 words. Of these 33 words, 18 match the text of the UBS Greek New Testament which Metzger helped edit! Of the 15 words that don’t Metzger’s own text, 11 make no difference in English translation. Of the four words that do affect translation, three are found in Codex Sinaiticus (a), the oldest existing “complete Greek manuscript of Revelation!**

There are, however, at least three good reasons to doubt the validity of the story of Erasmus and his mutilated copy of Revelation: 1) the only evidence for it is that the manuscript apparently used by Erasmus for Revelation is missing its last page;*** 2) Erasmus’s Latin New Testament doesn’t agree with the Latin Vulgate in the last six verses of Revelation (a problem if his Greek text for those verses was derived from the Vulgate); and 3) there exists Codex 141.†

H.C. Hoskier spent a lifetime collating every edition of Erasmus’s Greek New Testament, several other printed Greek New Testaments, and almost all of the known Greek manuscripts of Revelation….His study and collation of Revelation in Codex 141 surprised him, because it contained substantially the same text that appears in Erasmus’s Greek New Testament. In Hoskier’s own words:

Upon reaching the end [of Revelation] and the famous final six verses, supposed to have been re-translated from the Vulgate into Greek by Erasmus when Codex I was discovered and found to lack the last leaf: the problem takes on a most important aspect. For if our MS. 141 is not copied from the printed text, then Erasmus would be absolved from the charge for which his memory has suffered for 400 years! [Emphasis in the original]

In an effort to nullify the testimony of Codex 141, most “scholars” assign the manuscript a “young” age and simply claim that it is a copy of Erasmus’s (or Aldus’s or Colinaeus’s) printed Greek New Testament. But based on his study of the penmanship of the scribe who composed it, Hoskier determined that Codex 141 was executed in the 15th century—well before Erasmus’s Greek New Testament was printed; and based on his study of its contents (and the collation of same), Hoskier determined that MS 141 “has no appearance of being a copy of any [printed edition of the Greek New Testament], although containing their text (Coats’s emphasis).†† There is, then, manuscript evidence to support the supposed “Erasmian readings”—as much as there is to support the reading of Revelation 5:9 that appears in all the modern “bibles”—and critics who claim otherwise are either ignorant or purposely deceitful.

-------------
Footnotes

* By their own admissions, not all the stories which these “scholars” tell about Erasmus are true. Since 1964, on p. 101 of all three editions of Text of the New Testament, Metzger has claimed that Erasmus inserted 1 John 5:7 in his Greek New Testament only because “in an unguarded moment [he] promised that he would….if a single manuscript could be found that contained the passage. At length such a manuscript was found—or made to order!” He has claimed further (pp. 62, 101) that Erasmus wrote notes stating his suspicions that the manuscript was a forgery and the passage was spurious. Yet in the third edition, in small print in footnote 2 on p. 292, he makes this admission: “What was said about Erasmus’ promise….and his subsequent suspicion that MS. 61 was written expressly to force him to [add 1 John 5:7 to the text], needs to be corrected in light of the research of H.J. de Jonge, a specialist in Erasmian studies who finds no explicit evidence that supports this frequently made assertion” [bold emphasis mine –SMR; italic Coats’]. Why isn’t this admission in larger type in the text of the book? Why is the “assertion” (that is, lie!) still included? Because the enemies of the Bible are liars and crooks at heart.

** In Text of the New Testament (p. 100, n. 1), Metzger lists these “Erasmian inventions” in Revelation: one word in 17:14; one in 22:16; three in 22:17; seventeen in 22:18; ten in 22:19; and one in 22:21. But the “coined word” of 17:4 and the “invented words” of 22:16 & 17 are synonymous with the “original” words and make no difference in English translation.

Of the 17 words in question in 22:18, twelve match the text of the UBS Greek New Testament; two more are synonymous with the “original words” and make no difference in English translation. One word (a personal pronoun) “missing” from Erasmus’ Greek New Testament is also “missing” from many manuscripts of the Received Text, including von Soden’s subgroups c, d, and e—and including it makes no difference in English translation, because the King James translators already added a personal pronoun to the English text for clarity. The other two “invented words” appear in the scribal corrections in Codex a. (Other words in Erasmus’ text of this verse also appear in Codex A and the corrections in Codex a.

Six of the ten “invented words” in 22:19 match the USB Greek text. Three more represent only differences in spelling or inflection (case; conjugation/voice) andmake no difference in English translation. Only biblou (“book”) would affect English translation (“book of life” vs. “tree of life”). The invention cited for 22:21 is almost laughable: amhvn (“amen”! The word is rejected by the UBS Greek New Testament, but it’s found in most of the manuscripts of the Received Text as well as in Codices a, 046, 051, 94, 1611, 1854, 1859, 2020, 2042, 2053, 2065 (commentary section), 2073, and 2138. It is also translated in most of the counterfeit “bibles” on the market…

*** The audacity of “scholars” in speculating (and then basing theories and “facts”) on the contents of a missing leaf of a manuscript—or even in assuming that the leaf was missing when Erasmus used the manuscript (provided that this is the manuscript he used)—aptly demonstrates the reliability of such men in matters of scholarship.

† The manuscript is listed under several call numbers. Under Hoskier’s, Scrivener’s and the Old Gregory classification systems, it is MS 141; under the New Gregory system it is 2049; and under von Soden’s system, it is w 1684. It is located in the Parliamentary Library in Athens.

†† For full details, see H.C. Hoskier, Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse: Collations of All Existing Available Greek Documents with the Standard Text of Stephen’s Third Edition, Together with the Testimony of the Versions, and Fathers; a Complete Conspectus of All Authorities, Vol. 1 (London: Bernard Quaritch, Ltd, 1929), pp. 474-477. It was also Hoskier who noted that Erasmus’s Latin New Testament differs from the Vulgate in the last six verses of Revelation.

--------

Steve

Originally Posted by Jerusalem Blade

*** The audacity of “scholars” in speculating (and then basing theories and “facts”) on the contents of a missing leaf of a manuscript—or even in assuming that the leaf was missing when Erasmus used the manuscript (provided that this is the manuscript he used)—aptly demonstrates the reliability of such men in matters of scholarship.

Steve,

This point, in my opinion, should be made often. Since before the time of Westcott and Hort, and the tendancy of European "scholars" influenced by the Enlightenment, there is a practice that these fellows participate in, especially the German's. That is, they can create stories that become legends in the area of textual criticism and translation, for instance Metzger's speculations. These speculations are often made for the sake of reinforcing a particular method, while disparaging the historical method and truth of a matter. What happens is that in the zealotry of supporting the eclectic method used by these folks, they will quickly start parroting what one has said thinking that this is a means to justify a way to an end. But what is actually happening, is that there is a polarizing effect, and it seems to me that there are emerging those that are heading back to the historical methods of the church, and the belief that God's hand is in effect preserving His word as apposed to the subjective methods used for the last century or so.

If one can be creative enough to posit a good theory, that in turn quickly becomes a fact which is used against the historical method, to disparage the person's who have offered a wealth of talent and scholarship, imo.

Originally Posted by trevorjohnson

Sorry Ted, on the whole, I see more bad argumentation being made by the Kign Jame'sers than usually done by those that favor the eclectic text.

No reason to apologize TJ, I am not a KJVO. I find that there is an extreme in that movement that often breaks the 1st Commandment and is often used to disparage those that are a more moderate "scholarship" that are looking at the textual families, not a particular translation.

To me the issue in textual criticism boils down to two main topics, 1) does God preserve his word for each generation (yes), and 2) what is the means and method for that preservation (His Spirit filled people).

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. (Mat 24:35 KJV)

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. (1Ti 3:15 KJV)

Originally Posted by bookslover

My favorite KJV expression is "superfluity of naughtiness," which occurs at James 1:21.

That's a great one. Concupiscence is another favorite "KJV word" of mine.

Trevor,

Some thoughts on the “heavyweight” Dr. Metzger:

Many naturalistic textual critics believe neither in God nor in the devil, and hence accept neither the supernatural character of God’s Book nor the intense, continual destructive efforts against it by supernatural antagonists.

Look at it this way: would I allow a physician who for decades specialized solely in abortions be the Ob/Gyn for my pregnant wife? Would that not be madness? And why would I take a “Bible” thoroughly worked over by enemies of the Faith and of God?

Do you think the modern textual experts are better than those of the 19th century? Bruce Manning Metzger is renown as a textual critic; he is one of the editors of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (a modern edition of W&H’s Greek text), and George L. Collord Professor of New Testament Language and Literature, Princeton Theological Seminary. He was the chairman for the Reader’s Digest Condensed Bible (which removed 40% of the Bible text, including the warning of Revelation 22:18-19), and he wrote the introductions to each book of this abbreviated “Bible.” In these he denies the authorship by Moses of the Pentateuch, and the writing of Daniel by Daniel (instead, he says, written by others in 168-165 B.C – whereas abundant evidence proves he wrote in approx. 605 – 536 B.C.).* Metzger was co-editor of the New Oxford Annotated Bible RSV (NOAB-RSV), and wrote many of the notes in this Bible and put his editorial stamp of approval on all the others. In the section, “Introduction to the Old Testament,” is written, “The Old Testament may be described as the literary expression of the religious life of ancient Israel…The Israelites were more history-conscious than any other people in the ancient world. Probably as early as the time of David and Solomon, out of a matrix of myth, legend, and history, there has appeared the earliest written form of the story of the saving acts of God from Creation to the conquest of the Promised Land…Thus the Pentateuch took shape over a long period of time.” [bold emphases added]

But this is not true criticism or exegesis, this is the thinking of a rationalistic unbeliever. It matters not how famous a man may be, a red flag of danger should go up if he says of the Book of Job it is an “ancient folktale,” and of Jonah it is “from the realm of popular legend” (both of these from the same notes in the NOAB-RSV as the above), and of the Book of Genesis, “The opening chapters of the Old Testament deal with human origins. They are not to be read as history…These chapters are followed by the stories of the patriarchs, which preserve ancient traditions now known to reflect the conditions of the times of which they tell, though they cannot be treated as strictly historical…it is not for history but for religion that they are preserved…” (Notes from “How To Read The Bible With Understanding” in the NOAB-RSV).**

I do not know about you, reader, but I do not want a Bible put together by a man like this (and he is one of very many, though Metzger is one of the most influential editors of modern Greek texts, and of Bibles, living today). I would not trust it!
-----------
Footnotes:
* The dates and events Daniel gives are historically solid, attested to by internal evidences (including the teaching of Jesus Christ in the N.T.), corroborating histories of other nations, and archeological discoveries. The unbelieving modernists cannot stand that Daniel made accurate prophesies which all came true to the letter, so they claim someone else wrote them centuries later, after the events happened! For an extended and in-depth treatment, see Robert Dick Wilson’s, Studies In The Book of Daniel, 2 volumes (MI, Baker, 1972); also Josh McDowell’s, Daniel In The Critics’ Den (CA, Here’s Life Publishers, 1979). Edward J. Young, An Introduction to the Old Testament, (MI, Eerdmans, 1977), pp. 360-377; and also his, A Commentary on Daniel, (PA, Banner of Truth, 1972), pp. 15-26, ff.; Gleason L. Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, (IL, Moody Press, 1994), pp. 421-447. These are but five among many able defenses of the integrity of the Book of Daniel.
** Cited in, Modern Versions Founded upon Apostasy, by David W. Cloud (WA: Way of Life Literature, 3rd ed. 1997), pages, 41, 42, 43, 44.
-------------

Further information on rationalistic text-critics may be found in David Cloud’s online article, “Textual Criticism Is Drawn From The Wells Of Infidelity” (http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/textualcriticism.htm)

Steve

Hello again Trevor,

The situation regarding the NT MSS, and in particular those containing Revelation, is complex. Not that many people know that although we have upwards of 5,300 Greek manuscripts (this includes Scripture from lectionaries and fathers), only a very small fraction of them have been examined and collated. Even the so-called Majority Text does not utilize the vast amount of unexamined MSS, but refers only to a majority of those few that have been (when more are examined, the “majority-percentage” remains). The reason for this is that since the days of Westcott and Hort (although this view prevailed among rationalist text critics before them) the overwhelming majority of manuscripts (and those Scriptures from lectionaries, fathers, and versions which supported these) had been classified so as not to obstruct the way for the primacy of the extreme minority but most ancient codices comprising the Alexandrian textform, the main exemplars of which are Sinaiticus (a) and Vaticanus (B). A theory was developed which would effectively eliminate this undisputed vast majority of witnesses, and that Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) propounded in his companion volume to The New Testament in the Original Greek, his Introduction [and] Appendix (Cambridge: Macmillan, 1881). Even though this theory of a and B being exemplars of a “neutral [i.e., uncorrupted] text” and the majority (or “Antiochian”) text but a corrupt “official” text produced in Antioch in the 4th century has been debunked and no longer acknowledged as true in text-critical circles, the once-despised traditional text pretty much remains despised! For one thing, there would be no jobs for multitudes of textual scholars and translators in the academic and publishing industries which depend upon a problematic textual situation and an advertising/market-driven demand for [purportedly] reliable and readable Bibles. The production – indeed, the preservation and defense – of the Church’s sacred text is no longer in the hands of the Church, but of mostly secular industry catering to ad-ravaged consumers. You will pardon me if I am a little cynical about the hands into which our Bibles have fallen; their bottom line is almost always not the glory of God or the good of the saints. A good number of textual critics are not even believers, and those who profess to be often have a low view of Scripture. But this is another matter.

The issue here is that the Majority Text has been relegated by the Elite Critics to the oblivion due “inferior” and thus inconsequential MSS. For the Nestle-Aland edition “Miniscules have to pass a test before they are considered worthy of inclusion in a textual apparatus. All MSS which are generally Byzantine [aka ‘Majority’ or ‘Traditional’] will fail.” (Frederik Wisse, The Profile Method for the Classification and Evaluation of Manuscript Evidence, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982, p. 4)

So the state of things is such that because of an a priori conception of what are worthwhile manuscripts the vast majority of them have not even been examined or collated, save for that cursory test which showed them Byzantine and thus to be rejected! When one examines the “superior” and “most ancient” MSS closely, however, their trustworthiness and “neutrality” vanish like dew in the desert – for instance, there are 3,036 differences between a and B in the Gospels alone! [Tabulated by Herman C. Hoskier, Codex B and Its Allies, vol. 2, Chiefly Concerning a, but covering three thousand differences between a and B in the Four Gospels. (London: Bernard Quaritch, Publisher, 1914), p. 1.] In a court of law, when two witnesses do not agree in their testimony one or both are reckoned unreliable; it is an odd thing when the two “superior” and “most ancient” MSS so extensively disagree with each other in their testimony as to what is the New Testament text!

We have then the suppression of a vast amount of evidence concerning the manuscripts, a fact not lost on many text critics, though those out of the discipline have not been made aware of the new disillusionment of many, a case similar to the debunking of evolutionary “facts” but not reflected in the science textbooks and the popular opinion of the culture. It has been said that discerning the Biblical texts in the time of the Reformation fell into the “pre-critical” period, the “critical” period was during (approximately) the 18th century till the end of the 20th, and due to the disillusionment and failure of the discipline we are now in the “post-critical” period, where different paradigms are being considered for making better sense of the textual data. Not all are cognizant of this change in the thinking of a number of people involved in textual studies, a situation like many modernists not being aware that much of the Western world has moved into postmodern categories of thought.

Certain people give up on the AV because they have only come into contact with the baser form of fundamentalist defenses of the KJV/TR – unaware (in genuine depth) of the Majority Text defenses of Burgon, Scrivener, Hoskier, Bruggen, Hodges, Pickering, Borland, Robinson, etc., where they devastatingly examine the rationalistic/Hortian foundation of Critical and Eclectic textual views, or the scholarly writings of KJV/TR defenders Nolan, Dabney, Hills, Fuller, Maynard, Engelsma, Green and Letis (to name just a few), as well as the genuinely scholarly fundamentalist Baptists such as Cloud, Moorman, Waite, DiVietro, Jones, Grady, etc. Yes, I realize some fundamentalists have quite a chip on their shoulders, but is it not possible the Lord Himself would be highly displeased to see the sacred Book made merchandise of, and many words both added and taken out of the Book, contrary to His solemn command?

At any rate, despite the discipline of textual studies being in a shambles, many proceed as though things were quite steady and balanced. One can somewhat excuse those who have a vested interest in the “Bible industry” for having blinders on, but others who purport to be unbiased and impartial, it is hard to understand why they cannot see the situation. Perhaps the following will shed some light.

I would like to end this post with two brief quotes from an essay by Dr. Theodore P. Letis, in the book he edited and contributed to, The Majority Text: Essays And Reviews In The Continuing Debate. This is from the essay, “In Reply to D.A. Carson’s ‘The King James Version Debate’”.

Letis begins his interaction with Carson on this note:

If D.A. Carson’s book illustrates nothing else it shows there are two schools of thought. Both schools interpret the data of NT textual criticism and modern translations differently, and both groups fill in the gaps in the data with assumptions which favor their given position. I hope some are beginning to see that this is not an argument between scholarship (the established school represented by Carson) and non-scholarship (the challenging school which has traditionally been treated as non-scholarly and completely uncritical). To the contrary, the best representatives of both schools display genuine scholarship. Why is it, then, that these two schools co-exist on this all-important issue of the very wording of the NT text? And is this a recent or a long-standing debate? It is these questions that we hope to broach—and answer—in this essay.

Letis ends the essay thus:

Some will fault me for not answering every objection of Carson’s, but it was only our intention to raise the old issue of presuppositions and to underscore the fact that this debate is not one between experts with data and non-experts with dogma, but rather one between experts with the same data, but different dogma—the dogma of [scientific] neutrality versus the dogma of [divine] providence…(pp. 201-204)

Perhaps I will post the pertinent material (the “meat”) from the essay itself shortly (Though it has already been posted in the thread, “What is the authentic New Testament text?”)

I will be heading into Revelation next. This was just to establish some points in the discussion.

Steve

It's passages like this that make me the the A.V. so.

2Cr 8:1 Moreover, brethren, we do you to wit of the grace of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia;

I can't imagine ever giving it up. Been reading through the NT and Psalms in the NKJV. It just doesn't have the power(imo) that the old A.V. does.
God bless all you brethren.

Originally Posted by trevorjohnson

The fact that we have 5,300 texts (some of which were not available in the times of the KJV) makes me want to stay open to a greater weighing of the texts both my number and text-famly type. But, as you rightly point out, this issue is exceedingly complex.

Trevor,

You may be positing a logical fallacy, as it is certain that these "new manuscripts" were available to the historical church at some point in the past. It may be that they were rejected then, and being newly found we are adding some importance to text that were at one time known and known to be spurious for whatever reason. This is where we have to appeal to our theological presupposition, is the church of God the pillar and ground of truth? If it is, we have to realize that she is then a part of the plan of God to preserve His word (truth) for future generations and that the act of preservation stretches into the past. There is a continuity of integrity to be brought into our mind as we are looking at the text, which comes from our faith in our God and the understanding of His sovereign hand upon His people.

The fallacy would be that new error is more legitimate than old error. If something was found to be inappropriate for the church in the past, what makes us think today that it would be appropriate, just because we have it in our hand and have innovative minds thinking of ways to justify ways of "selling God's word".

I think I heard that thee and thou are familiar forms of the 2nd person pronoun. If that is the case and there is a correspondence in the original language then that's certainly an advantage. "Thou art my God" has a subtle difference of meaning which suggests the mutual intimacy, communion and union of the believer with God in Christ.

Originally Posted by trevorjohnson

Sorry Tallen, but your post didn't do much for me...

Have I been dismissed or dis-ed?

Originally Posted by trevorjohnson

Also, why do KJV folks always accuse anyone but themselves of wanting to "Sell the Word"....

BTW, although I am not a KJVO, I think the point being made is this. It isn't that the Bible is being sold, for instance the KJV, that's the problem. I think most people realize that there are cost to printing, etc., that those that can afford it should pay for it. It is that there is innovative and creative methods being employed by private companies for the sole purpose of marketing the word of God to particular demographics. Therefore, when the translation committee endeavors to translate, it is not for the purpose of "preservation", but for the purpose of marketing for profit by exploiting the demographic profile that the bible is intended for. In this, what becomes very apparent, is that the integrity of the scripture is at risk to those that a have particular agenda in mind. Hence, "selling the word" is for private and personal gain, at the expense of those it is aimed at.

Originally Posted by trevorjohnson

If anyone is guilty of logical fallacies it is the herd of KJV advocates who build their case by labeling all others as heretics and placing greedy motives on them. It is hard to meet a KJV advocate who will not bring up the ghosts of Westcott and Hort or charge that the main reason for new version is always and only money.

I agree that there is an extreme, and that there is an element of the KJVO movement that is in grave error, even to the point of failing at the first Commandment. But your whole idea here is nothing more than an ad hominem, a straw-man, as I hadn't brought up the idea that your view is only for the idea of making money, and your trying to disparage me as someone that is labeling and judging motives. Should I point out the hypocrisy, you are the one judging motives?

These are distractions from the main issues of textual credibility and transmission lines and text choice when encountering variant readings. I dislike these distractions.

Since I hadn't made any of the points, I haven't distracted from anything but to question whether or not you are making a illogical point. Which is, does new error trump old error making it better than the old?

Trevor,

I see two copies of Letis' The Ecclesiastical Text (ET) at Amazon for $50 each (Amazon.com: The Ecclesiastical Text: Text Criticism, Biblical Authority & the Popular Mind: Books: Theodore P. Letis. It is an important book, and the essay on Benjamin Warfield breaks new ground. I have reviewed and quoted from both this and his The Majority Text in the "Authentic text" thread noted above.

I just searched for his The Majority Text (MT) and find none available in the world! A few of months ago I had to pay $98 for a marked-up copy (through Amazon), and was fortunate to find a cheap copy of the former book on eBay. Your best bet to get MT would be to have a friend get a copy from their local Inter-library Loan system, photocopy it, and have them send it to you. It is now a rare book.

Although ET is more recent, and has some excellent stuff in it, I think MT might be the most important of the two, but not by far. Again, I refer you to the excerpts and reviews in the above-mentioned thread, for a sampling.

You bring up some good points regarding the Latin Vulgate and its long usage in the Western church. I quote from the "Authentic" thread:

Edward F. Hills:

Do we believing Bible Students "worship" the King James Version? Do we regard it as inspired, just as the ancient Jewish philosopher Philo (d. 42 A.D.) and many early Christians regarded the Septuagint as inspired? Or do we claim the same supremacy for the King James Version that Roman Catholics claim for the Latin Vulgate? Do we magnify its authority above that of the Hebrew and Greek Old and New Testament Scriptures? We have often been accused of such excessive veneration for the King James Version, but these accusations are false. In regard to Bible versions we follow the example of Christ's Apostles. We adopt the same attitude toward the King James Version that they maintained toward the Septuagint.

In their Old Testament quotations the Apostles never made any distinction between the Septuagint and the Hebrew Scriptures. They never said, "The Septuagint translates this verse thus and so, but in the original Hebrew it is this way." Why not? Why did they pass up all these opportunities to display their learning? Evidently because of their great respect for the Septuagint and the position which it occupied in the providence of God. In other words, the Apostles recognized the Septuagint as the providentially approved translation of the Old Testament into Greek. They understood that this was the version that God desired the gentile Church of their day to use as its Old Testament Scripture.

During the 4th century the Roman Empire was divided into two parts, a Greek-speaking Eastern half and a Latin-speaking Western half. In the West the knowledge of Greek died out, and only the Latin language remained. Hence for the Western Christians the Greek Bible became useless. For more than 1,000 years the Latin Vulgate was their only Bible. It was the Latin Vulgate that John Wyclif translated into English, and it was through the study of the Vulgate also that Martin Luther gained his knowledge of those Gospel truths by which he ushered in the Protestant Reformation. Hence, in spite of its errors, it is not too much to say that the Latin Vulgate was the providentially appointed Bible version for Christians of Western Europe during the medieval period.

But if the Septuagint was the providentially appointed Old Testament version during the days of the early Church and if the Latin Vulgate was the providentially appointed Bible version for Christians of medieval Europe, much more is the King James Version the providentially appointed Bible for English-speaking Christians today. In it the true text of the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament has been restored, and the errors of the Septuagint and of the Latin vulgate have been corrected. (Believing Bible Study, pp. 81, 82)

I think this gives us a different picture of what Dr. Hills understood to be the truth. The superiority of the providentially appointed English Bible arrived when the English language was at its height, when the translators were the best and most learned, and in time for the greatest missionary outreaches — using the restored Hebrew and Greek texts — to translate the Bible into the various languages of the nations. There was a process over time during which God guided “all things together for good” to bring the true readings of Scripture — which He had kept in their purity — together into one definitive text. Hills put it this way,

The Traditional Text, found in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts, is the True Text because it represents the God-guided usage of [the] universal priesthood of believers.

…The first printed text of the Greek New Testament represents a forward step in the providential preservation of the New Testament. In it the few errors of any consequence occurring in the Traditional Greek Text were corrected by the providence of God operating through the usage of the Latin-speaking Church of Western Europe. In other words, the editors and printers who produced this first printed Greek New Testament text were providentially guided by the usage of the Latin-speaking Church to follow the Latin Vulgate in those few places in which the Latin Church usage rather than the Greek Church usage had preserved the genuine reading. [Emphasis mine –SMR]

…Through the usage of Bible-believing Protestants God placed the stamp of His approval on this first printed text, and it became the Textus Receptus (Received Text). It is the printed form of the Traditional Text found in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts. (The King James Version Defended, pp. 111, 112)

It seems that if one is looking to find fault, find it they will, even if it means missing the thread of cohesion that holds their opponent’s arguments together. Sin has affected our ability to reason and perceive. No doubt I suffer from this also. Please, Lord, preserve me from that here!

So the phrase, “the text current among believers”, is not to be taken as an absolute, valid everywhere and for all time, but in the context of the historical steps of preservation, as Hills meant it to be taken. The crown of this process, being in English (for I have seen excellent translations from the TR in Arabic and in Dinka Padang New Testaments) the King James Bible, cannot be supplanted by inferior translations based upon inferior Greek texts, however widely used among believers, as is the case today.

----------

Another excerpt from the same thread:

To demonstrate briefly how Hills’ thought coheres, and how he does not contradict himself as regards his principles involved in preservation. He does not say that God’s providential preservation of the New Testament operated in the area of the Greek text exclusively, neither does he say that this “providential preservation operated within the sphere of the Greek Church” exclusively. One might try to paint Hills in a corner this way, but it is invalid to lay these thoughts at his doorstep. Please note this: Hills’ presupposition that God would successfully preserve His word down through the ages was the lens through which Hills discerned in the factual history of the New Testament text God’s hand upon it.

And consider this: the edition of the Majority Text / Textus Receptus in the English language given the world is the King James Bible; its underlying Greek text is the one God sovereignly chose to have used.

It exists, a fait accompli!

-------

As regards the issue of "If only the Greek Byzantine was the providentially preserved text, what about the other locations in the world that had a different texttype -- did they not have an adequate Bible?" I aver (again excerpting from an interaction with the writings of a text critic):

There is a preserving of the text, and then there is a preserving of the text—where its integrity is held even to minute readings not granted the former. That the former was nonetheless efficacious is analogous to the Bibles based upon the CT being efficacious to save and edify God’s people today, as witnessed by the multitudes regenerated through those who use the NIV and NASB. The minute preservation occurred in the primary edition (KJV/TR) which was to serve the English-speaking people and the translations created for the vast missionary work they undertook, which impacted the entire world. (It is accepted by many today that the English language is now the universal language—the second language of most other nations.) There was a progression in the purifying of the text, so as to almost (some would say completely) perfectly reconstitute the original manuscripts of the apostles, even as there has been, in the area of theology, a restoration of apostolic doctrine, which also went through phases of deterioration and eventual renewal.

Thus, even those areas of the church which were non-Greek-speaking also had a “preserved text”—as do multitudes in this present day—though their texts were not “minutely preserved.” The texts they had were efficacious unto the salvation of souls and the sustaining of the churches.

As regards the “minutely preserved” text, I observe the fait accompli of His work – Him who said, “I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure” (Isaiah 46:9, 10) – I observe this Book produced in 1611, and I seek to understand in retrospect what He did and how He did it. I am aware you may scoff at what you may term my “unscientific and ignorant” approach, but what is that to me? I do not have faith in your “science” or in your “learning,” so your judgment of my approach is not relevant to me. You may term this (as I have heard it said) “invincible ignorance,” but if my approach to knowledge is approved by my Lord, I care not for your disapproval.

Many times the people of God have not understood how a prophecy was to be fulfilled until it was a done thing, and then they looked backward to see how He had worked. It is thus in observing how He fulfilled His promise to preserve His word.

I look at the completed act of His providential preservation, the manuscripts He brought into the possession of (despised-by-many) Erasmus, and those editors who came after him; I follow the transmission backwards, the nature of those texts – behold, in the main they are those of the Byzantine text-type, with some few readings from the Latin Vulgate – and I seek to discern and construct what Maurice Robinson and Wm. Pierpont posited in their Introduction to The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Byzantine / Majority Textform,

A sound rational approach which accounts for all the phenomena and offers a reconstruction of the history of textual transmission is all that is demanded for any text-critical hypothesis. (p. xxxii)

I am likewise aware that Messrs. Robinson and Pierpont will disown me as one of their illegitimate progeny, as they make clear on their page xli, but I want to make clear I refuse to be under bondage to “the tyranny of experts,” to use Machen’s memorable phrase. I do not need the knowledge of “experts” who proceed according to methodologies I do not subscribe to. I will consider their work (as much as I am able) and use it if I please.

---------

I bring these things up to indicate there is an adequate preservation as distinguished from preservation in the minutiae, and this will cast some light on the status of the Latin Vulgate, the Alexandrian texttype, etc.

Steve

I have a question.

I'm pretty much unfamiliar with the history of "revisions" made to the Authorized Version. Usually in the course of these discussions someone points out that there were five or six revisions done since the 1611 version. I assume these were mostly spelling changes and, perhaps, changes made to obsolete words. I know that the essential text type wasn't changed; just wondering about the extent of the revisions.

That being said, in the past few months the superiority of the Byzantine textual tradition as opposed to the Alexandrian textual tradition has really been solidified for me, and I've started reading out of the Authorized Version due to various things I've read on here, and elsewhere.

However, I do wish that proponents of the KJV would support a modest revision of the current version. I think JOwen posted that Sinclair Ferguson and one of the churches from the British Isles were thinking of doing so.

I have no problems reading the KJV, and I'm sure that few on this board would. However, if I step outside of my enjoyment of it, and think from an objective perspective, I don't see how anyone could think that a revision wouldn't be beneficial.

I'm not even talking about the Thee's and Thou's, you's or ye's. In fact I would think the latter should be retained for clarity. I'm just thinking along the lines of a very modest revision. Because without posting a list of words, as others have done, there are more than a couple non-technical, non-theological words in the AV that the vast majority of unbelievers simply would not know.

And if they had a dictionary present or went to a KJV preaching church (not that there are many nowadays), I'm sure those hurdles could be overcome.

I just think that if an unbeliever opens Scripture, he should be immediately confronted with its truth, instead of, hypothetically, having to figure out what the English even means, before he even gets ot he meaning (that he may indeed reject).

And I've seen this raised before. And I'm not arguing whatsoever for the "s****ping" of the version, or changes in the texts, or anything like that. These discussions are usually so heated that immediately the other side posts about the "reading level" and everything...

I don't know. I just humbly wish that those who were so ardent (in the world, not referring to people on this board) about the tradition and legacy of the AV would recognize that, for it to be beneficial to people who aren't acquainted with it, weren't reared on it, or haven't adapted to it, a modestrevision of archaic words (and possibly the "-ths", though I think that is less of an issue than the obsolete words) is growing more and more necessary.

I just can't help but think that is more of a cultural attachment and a cultural appreciation for our spiritual language than the desire for a clear and accurate Scripture. If you left the phrasing alone, the texts alone, and the pronouns alone... and just changed the clearly Anglo-Saxon, no longer used words... how would that be a detriment?

I have a friend who is hardline KJVO, and she uses the Defined King James Bible someone referenced above. IMO, the existence of such a Bible from a hardline-KJVO advocate is a tacit indication that such a revision would be nice. I'm fine with churches (and myself, as I am using the AV) using it until such a revision happened. But I don't understand the hardline "no changes are necessary, everybody can read it fine" mentality. Maybe for those of us on the PB, but... I dunno.

I'm rambling. I'll stop.

Trevor,

At the outset let me refer you to a book, by Pastor Jack Moorman, which I think is the best on this particular topic (the disputed text of Revelation in the AV), and I see it available under two different titles: The one I have before me, When the King James Departs from the “Majority Text”: A New Twist in the Continuing Attack on the Authorized Version (With Manuscript Digest) is exactly the same as the one advertised at The Bible For Today online bookstore (http://www.biblefortoday.org/search_result.asp), under the title, Hodges/Farstad 'Majority' Text Refuted By Evidence, and it has the same item #: 1617, and can be purchased from them ($16). I will post some excerpts from it shortly to give you an idea of his views.

You chose Revelation 22:19 to examine, so let’s look at that one for starts, as I’ll want to look at others also.

In the AV it reads,

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

In the ESV (reflecting the CT) it reads,

and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

The difference in the Greek is, the CT reads xuvlou, “tree of life” instead of the TR’s biblou, “book of life”; and the 6th word from the end of the verse in the Greek, kai;, or and is absent in the CT, so that in translation the phrase “and from the things” is also omitted.

As for the sense, it make far more to have one’s part (or share) taken out of the book of life, which phrase runs parallel with the foregoing taking away “from the words of the book of this prophecy,” than having one’s part taken away from the tree of life, as though I were an animal who would be climbing in it.

To add to the difficulty for AV adherents, the Greek of the Majority Text (Hodges and Farstad) is identical to the CT. And this aligning of the MT with the CT in the Book of Revelation generally is what must be addressed. It is to this phenomenon Jack Moorman speaks in the book mentioned by me in the beginning of this post.

In post #30 above Dr. Coats talks of the misinformation concerning Erasmus and the supposed missing last leaf of the copy of Revelation he used, which had the last six verses of the book on it. In bringing Codex 141 to light, Coats shows this MS has the text Erasmus used. Regarding 141 Coats refers to Hoskier, and I have the latter’s book here in front of me, Concerning The Text Of The Apocalypse Vol. 1, and I find he has devoted four pages to an examination of Codex 141.* In these pages he scrutinizes the MS and determines it was not executed in the 16th century from the printed text of Erasmus, but likely in the 15th (p. 474), and shows “presumptive evidence” the last six verses (of both Erasmus and MS 141) were not copied from the Latin Vulgate (p. 477).

*(The manuscript is listed under several call numbers. Under Hoskier’s, Scrivener’s and the Old Gregory classification systems, it is MS 141; under the New Gregory system it is 2049; and under von Soden’s system, it is w 1684. It is located in the Parliamentary Library in Athens.)

-------------

I would like to introduce part of an article by Will Kinney here on the passage we are considering; it is from his website (http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/booklife.html). Here is Kinney:

Many anti-King James Bible critics bring up "the book of life" as found in Revelation 22:19 as an error. One well known such critic is Doug Kutilek. His full article is found at this site

http://www.bible-researcher.com/kutilek1.html

I have included only extracts from his main arguments, but I am by no means misrepresenting his views. Men like Mr. Kutilek have no inspired, complete, inerrant Bible and they often resort to personal opinion presented as fact, and outright falsehood as though it were irrefutable evidence. Let's read some of what he has to say and then we will respond to his criticisms.

In Mr. Kutilek's article he says there are "a number of unique readings in Erasmus' texts, that is, readings which are found in no known Greek manuscript but which are nevertheless found in the editions of Erasmus. One of these is the reading ‘book of life’ in Revelation 22:19. All known Greek manuscripts here read ‘tree of life’ instead of ‘book of life’ as in the textus receptus. Where did the reading ‘book of life’ come from? When Erasmus was compiling his text, he had access to only one manuscript of Revelation, and it lacked the last six verses, so he took the Latin Vulgate and back-translated from Latin to Greek. Unfortunately, the copy of the Vulgate he used read ‘book of life,’ unlike any Greek manuscript of the passage, and so Erasmus introduced a ‘unique’ Greek reading into his text."

First of all, Mr. Kutilek says there are no Greek manuscripts that read "book of life". He is flat out wrong about this. Dr. Thomas Holland, Jack Moorman, Dr. H.C. Hoskier and many others have documented the textual evidence that exists for the reading of "book of life" as found in Revelation 22:19.

Dr. Holland responds to this charge at his website –

http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/advanc01.htm

There this question is posed and Dr. Holland responds:

Question: "If the Textus Receptus is the error free text, then why are the last six verses of Revelation absent from the TR, yet present in the KJV? Did you know that for these verses, the Latin Vulgate was translated into English - a translation of a translation?"

Dr. Holland replies:

The "TR" has the last six verses of Revelation in it. It is found in the editions of Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus, and the Elzevir brothers.

Codex 1r, which was used by Erasmus, was missing Revelation 22:16-21. [We have seen above this is an unproven assumption. -Steve] The standard teaching is that Erasmus went back to the Latin Vulgate for these verses and re-translated them into Greek. However, Dr. H. C. Hoskier disagreed by demonstrating that Erasmus used the Greek manuscript 141 which contained the verses. (Concerning The Text Of The Apocalypse, London: Quaritch, 1929, vol. 1, pp. 474-77, vol. 2, pp. 454,635.)

Regardless, the textual support for these verses is not limited to the Latin Vulgate. They are also found in the Old Latin manuscripts, additional early translations such as the Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, and Ethiopic, and some later Greek manuscripts.

Regarding the Greek, it should be pointed out that even today there is not a great deal of textual support for the verses in question. For example, of the early papyri there are no manuscripts of Revelation 22, or for that matter of Revelation chapters 18-22. Further, among the uncials, only five have Revelation chapter 22, and only four of these contain the last six verses (Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, 046, and 051). There are several minuscules which have been discovered which contain these verses (94, 1611, 1854, 1859, 2042, and 2138 to name a few).

Of course, the biggest "change" comes in verse 19. Dr. Hoskier has shown that Greek manuscripts 57 and 141 read with the Latin in stating "book of life" and not "tree of life" as found in Sinaiticus and most other Greek mss. There are, of course, other witnesses to the reading found in the KJV here. For example, the Old Bohairic Coptic version also reads "book of life." Additionally, we have patristic citations from Ambrose (340-397 AD), Bachiarius (late fourth century), and Primasius in his commentary on Revelation in 552 AD. Thus, we have evidence of the KJV reading dating from before the Vulgate and maintained throughout Church history in a variety of geographical locations and various languages.

Dr. Thomas Holland

Mr. Jack Moorman, in his book "When the KJV Departs from the 'Majority' Text", says the reading of "book of life" is also found in the Coptic Boharic, the Arabic, the Speculum, Pseudo-Augustine and written as such in the Latin of Adrumentum 552, Andreas of Cappadocia, 614 Haaymo, Halberstadt, Latin 841. "Book of life" is found in the Greek manuscripts of # 296, 2049, and in the margin of 2067.
Libro (book) is the reading of the Latin mss. Codex Fuldensis (sixth century); Codex Karolinus (ninth century); Codex Oxoniensis (twelfth to thirteenth century); Codex Ulmensis (ninth century); Codex Uallicellanus (ninth century); Codex Sarisburiensis (thirteenth century); and the corrector of Codex Parisinus (ninth century)."

Secondly, Mr. Kutilek is very misleading when he says that Erasmus had no Greek texts to consult for the ending of Revelation and so he copied from the Latin Vulgate. It is well documented that Erasmus was exceedingly well acquainted with hundreds of Greek manuscripts from his extensive travels and studies. You can read more about this in a very informative article dealing with the question of Is the Received Text Based on A Few Late Manuscripts?

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/isthereceived.htm

Thirdly, in his article Mr. Kutilek also states as fact what is really unfounded conjecture when he says: "The fact that all textus receptus editions of Stephanus, Beza, et al. read with Erasmus shows that their texts were more or less slavish reprints of Erasmus' text and not independently compiled editions, for had they been edited independently of Erasmus, they would surely have followed the Greek manuscripts here and read ‘tree of life’."

This is pure guesswork on his part. Stephanus had access to many Greek manuscripts that Erasmus did not possess, as well as Beza. For example, Stephanus mentions and John Gill confirms that the three heavenly witnesses of "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one" of 1 John 5:7 was the reading found in 9 of the 16 Greek manuscripts Stephanus used, yet we do not have any of these Greek texts today. Earlier writers like Stephanus, Calvin, Beza often make references to the readings of old Greek manuscripts which we no longer possess.

Fourthly, when Mr. Kutilek argues in favor of the Westcott-Hort text being based on "the oldest extant Greek manuscripts, plus the earliest of the versions or translations, as well as the early Christian writers", it seems than many "scholars" of equal learning have come to the exact opposite conclusion.
This is a direct quote from the Preface of the New King James Version by people who have attended the same seminaries and have access to the same information. Here is what they say on page vii:

"The manuscript preferences cited in many contemporary translations are due to recent reliance on a relatively few manuscripts discovered in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Dependence on these manuscripts, especially two, the Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts, is due to the greater age of these documents.

However, in spite of their age, some scholars have reason to doubt their faithfulness to the autographs, since they often disagree with one another and show other signs of unreliability.

On the other hand, the great majority of existing manuscripts are in substantial agreement. Even though many are late, and none are earlier than the fifth century, MOST OF THEIR READINGS ARE VERIFIED BY ANCIENT PAPYRI, ANCIENT VERSIONS, AND QUOTATIONS OF THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS. This large body of manuscripts is the source of the Greek text underlying the King James Bible. It is the Greek text used by Greek-speaking churches for many centuries, presently known as the Textus Receptus, or Received Text, of the New Testament."

Even Dr. Hort of the famed Westcott Hort text said: "The fundamental Text of late extant Greek MSS generally is beyond all question identical with the dominant Antiochian or Graeco-Syrian Text of the second half of the 4th century." (Hort, The Factor of Geneology, pg 92)

Furthermore, concerning the church Fathers, John Burgon compiled over 86,000 citations and quotes of the church Fathers and found that not only did the Textus Receptus that underlies the King James Bible exist but it predominated.

The early versions like the Old Latin contain many TR readings not found in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus as does the Syriac Pe****ta. And both of these predate Sinaiticus Vaticanus by 150 years.

For my article dealing with the Old Latin version which refutes Doug Kutilek's claims see –

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/OldLatin.html

In summary, we see that the reading of "book of life" in Revelation does have some Greek manuscript support, as well as ancient versions and church Fathers.

The Providence of God has seen fit to place this reading in most Bibles that have been used throughout history to reach millions for Christ. These include Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible, the Bishops' Bible 1568, and the Geneva Bible 1587. "Book of life" is found in Young's, Webster's, Third Millenium Bible, and the New KJV. It is also the reading of the 1569 and 1602 Spanish Reina Valera versions as well as its modern 1960 edition used throughout the Spanish speaking world.
Martin Luther's translation of 1545, using Greek texts before Stephanus' 1550 edition, also reads "book of life". I met a Russian pastor a couple years ago and asked him what his Russian Bible said here. He told me it reads book of life too. I also have a copy of the Modern Greek New Testament, used by the Orthodox churches in Greece today, printed in 1954 and the reading of Revelation 22:19 is "book of life".

Besides all these English, Spanish and Greek Bibles, I have been able to confirm that the following Bible versions also read "book of life": The Afrikaans Bible of 1953, the Albanian, the Basque New Testament (Navarro-Labourdin), the Dutch Staten Vertaling, the Hungarian Karoli, the Icelandic Bible version, the Italian New Diodati, and the Douay-Rheims.

The Catholic versions and the Latin Vulgate also disagree among themselves, with Jerome's Vulgate and the 1950 Douay, and the Jerusalem Bible all reading "tree of life", while the older Douay-Rheims and the Clementine Vulgate both read "book of life".

As a side note, the number 7 is highly significant in the book of Revelation and in the texts that underlie the King James Bible, and the phrase "the book of life" is found 7 times. This is the number of divine perfection. In the NIV, ESV, Holman Standard and NASB it is only found 6 times. Six is the number man, who is weak and prone to fail.

Mr. Kutilek closes his article by saying: "Some writers calculate the differences between the two texts at something over 5,000, though in truth a large number of these are so insignificant as to make no difference in the resulting English translation. Without making an actual count, I would estimate the really substantial variations to be only a few hundred at most. What shall we say then? Which text shall we choose as superior? We shall choose neither the Westcott-Hort text nor the textus receptus as our standard text, our text of last appeal... we refuse to be enslaved to the textual criticism opinions of either Erasmus or Westcott and Hort or for that matter any other scholars, whether Nestle, Aland, Metzger, Burgon, Hodges and Farstad, or anyone else. Rather, it is better to evaluate all variants in the text of the Greek New Testament on a reading by reading basis, that is, in those places where there are divergences in the manuscripts and between printed texts, the evidence for and against each reading should be thoroughly and carefully examined and weighed, and the arguments of the various schools of thought considered, and only then a judgment made."

Do you see where Mr. Kutilek is coming from? He is his own Final Authority. He has no inerrant, complete, inspired Bible to give you or recommend. He is like those of old of whom God says in the last verse of the book of Judges: "In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes." Judges 21:25.

There ultimately is no certain way of knowing what the "originals" really said, because we simply do not have them, and literally thousands of Greek copies have been lost to time and decay. The King James reading of "book of life" in Revelation 22:19 is not without textual support, be that of Greek copies, ancient versions, Latin manuscripts, early church fathers or modern English and foreign language versions.

I and many thousands of other Bible believers have come to the conclusion that God meant what He said in His Book about His preserved words.

Isaiah 40:8: "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever."

Psalm 12:6-7: "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."

Psalm 138:2: "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy Truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name."

Psalm 100:5: "For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations."

Psalm 33:11: "The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations."

Psalm 119:152, 160: "Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever. ... Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

Isaiah 59:21: "... My Spirit that is upon thee [Isaiah], and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever."

Matthew 5:17-18: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 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."

Matthew 24:35: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

1 Peter 1:23-25: "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you."

John 10:35: "... the Scripture cannot be broken."

Will Kinney
--------------
This ends the Will Kinney excerpt.

The matter of preservation is something we spoke of at length in the “Authentic” thread; unabashedly we acknowledge our view of Scripture stands on the presupposition that God promised to preserve His words to all generations and that He kept His promise. Our approach is presuppositional as opposed to evidential, although we rejoice in that we have abundant evidences to support our view. Still, the lens through which we see and classify the data which exists is our presuppositional understanding. How do we know anything? Because God has spoken and given us light, from which knowledge of His we derive our understanding.

I will give Kinney’s “preface” to his above remarks in the next post.

Steve

This continues the remaining portion of Will Kinney’s article excerpted above:
-----------------
Revelation 22:19 Book of Life or Tree of Life?

"And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the BOOK of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

Rather than saying "book of life", versions like the RSV, NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman Christian Standard, Jehovah Witness New World Translation, and the Catholic versions read: "God will take away his share in the TREE of life."

It should be noted that there are several textual differences found in just the last few verses of Revelation, and that not even the modern versions agree among themselves.

For instance, in verses 20 and 21, the King James Bible as well as the Majority of all texts reads: "EVEN SO, come, Lord Jesus." However Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus omit the word for "even so", and so do the NASB, NIV, ESV, and Holman Standard.

Again, in verse 21 in the KJB we read: "The grace of our Lord Jesus CHRIST be with YOU ALL. AMEN." Here the word CHRIST is found in the Majority of all texts, but again Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus omit it, and so do the NASB, NIV, ESV, and Holman Standard.

Then in the very last part of the last verse of Revelation, where the KJB says: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with YOU ALL, AMEN", here Sinaiticus is different from all other texts, reading "with THE SAINTS". The Revised Version, the American Standard Version, and the Revised Standard Version all read "with the SAINTS" (following Sinaiticus) while the NIV paraphrases the Sinaiticus reading as "with GOD'S PEOPLE".

However the NASB 1995 and the new 2001 ESV (English Standard Version) now reject Sinaiticus and go with Alexandrinus instead, which says: "with ALL" and omits the word "you". But wait. The even newer ISV (International Standard Version), and the upcoming Holman Christian Standard have once again gone back to the Sinaiticus reading of "with the saints". The modern versions don't even agree among themselves.

It is more than a tad hypocritical of Bible correctors to criticize the King James reading "book of life", when the two other variant readings adopted by the conflicting modern versions of "with all" and "with the saints" are found ONLY in ONE manuscript each and, according to the UBS textual apparatus, not in any other ancient version or quoted by any church father.

Regarding the final word AMEN, manuscript Alexandrinus omits this word, but it is found in the Majority of all texts as well as Sinaiticus, but this time the NASB, ESV chose to reject the Alexandrinus manuscript they had just followed, and went back to the Sinaiticus they had previously rejected and now include the word Amen!

Do the modern versions always follow the Majority reading? Not at all. In fact they reject the Majority readings literally thousands of times. Do they always follow Sinaiticus? No, not at all. They continually pick and choose among the various readings; do not always agree with each other, and their own printed Greek texts found in Nestle-Aland or the United Bible Society editions are constantly changing every few years.

I have written a series of examples of the so called "Science" of Textual Criticism, showing that it is more along the lines of Hocus Pocus than a genuine science. Be sure to see all sections for a real eye opener into the real nature of this bizarre, ever changing, pseudo-science the scholars love so much.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/science.html

Will Kinney

----------

Steve again:

It is written in Matthew 4:4 that the Lord Jesus said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

Is it not reasonable to conclude that He would indeed provide that which we needed to live? His every word. Does this not indicate such a preservation as the Westminster Confession confesses in 1.8? There is not much dispute that the KJV faithfully renders the Hebrew and Greek of the texts we affirm were preserved, even though some of the words are archaic.

Our "dogma" of preservation is based on nothing else than our Lord's promise. Not a bird falls to the ground out of His sovereign will, nor a hair from our heads. It is not too much to affirm that One so great as He is cannot preserve intact the words of His Book, for the Bride of His Son.

The "dogma" of some is that the science of textual criticism is neutral, and accurate. We do not believe this; we have seen science so-called bent to the prejudices and aims of those who do not believe in His sovereign power and majesty. The word of our God alone is absolutely accurate, and true.

Steve

Trevor,

Continuing to examine Revelation, particularly where the AV differs from the Majority Text. The book I noted in a previous post, Hodges/Farstad 'Majority' Text Refuted By Evidence (also titled When the King James Departs from the “Majority Text”), by Jack Moorman, is, as I have stated before, the book I would recommend as having the latest and most comprehensive information – to my knowledge, as of this writing.

It is available at The Bible For Today online bookstore (http://www.biblefortoday.org/search_result.asp), under the title, Hodges/Farstad 'Majority' Text Refuted By Evidence, and it has the same item #: 1617, and can be purchased from them ($16). I have repeated this information for those who pick up the discussion here.

I will only touch upon some general principles of the AV – MT disparities here, as I want to get into Revelation. Hodges & Farstad, as well as Robinson and Pierpont, in their respective editions of the Majority Text, relied on Hermann Von Soden’s 1913 edition of a massive gathering and collation of the “majority” cursive manuscripts. Although remarkable for the enormity of information gathered, as can be seen in its apparatus, later scholars examining it have declared it “honeycombed with errors” (H.C. Hoskier; JTS, 15-1914, p. 307)

Frederik Wisse, in his, The Profile Method for the Classification and Evaluation of Manuscript Evidence (Eerdmans, 1982), says

Once the extent of error is seen, the word “inaccuracy” becomes a euphemism…

…von Soden’s inaccuracies cannot be tolerated for any purpose. His apparatus is useless for a reconstruction of the text of the MSS he used. (pp. 16, 17)

Yet, as Moorman remarks, “…Hodges and Farstad went ahead and used von Soden to reconstruct the Received Text!” (When the KJV Departs…, p. 11)

What Moorman brings out, Von Soden's collating of the MSS was very incomplete, and relatively few of the thousands of MSS were represented. It was not a depiction of how the majority of cursives read.

The “Majority Text” of the Book of Revelation, however, is different, as it does not rely on Von Soden’s work. It relies on the more comprehensive and complete work of Herman C. Hoskier, in his two-volume, Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse: Collations of All Existing Available Greek Documents With the Standard Text of Stephen’s Third Edition, Together with the Testimony of Versions, Commentaries and Fathers. Hoskier was also the author of the two-volume devastating-to-the-Westcott/Hort-(CT)-production, Codex B and its Allies: A Study and an Indictment. So why does the MT of Hodges & Farstad differ from the TR (1894) if they used the superior work of Hoskier?

Please note that I am using Jack Moorman’s aforementioned work for my writing here.

What Hoskier showed, basically, is that there are two groups of manuscripts exhibited in those that have the Apocalypse, the Andreas group and the 046 group. Moorman says, “Hoskier did not elevate 046 but merely cited the data.” (p. 17) Hodges and Farstad did not allot to the Andreas group all the MSS due it, and thus “the 046 group in the Majority Text edition is made to look much larger and appear dominant.” (Moorman, Ibid.)

How this happened is through their use of the scholar Josef Schmid’s work and their misconstruing his count of the respective MSS in Andreas and 046. The places where the MT and the TR 1894 differ in Revelation – save at the very end of the book, which we have discussed above – is due to this.

Moorman proceeds with an extended discussion of various factors and issues in this matter. He remarks,

At the outset the Bible believer will be very happy to know that [or is it “what” –SMR] Hoskier’s basic conclusion was toward the 200 plus MSS he collated for Revelation:

I may state that if Erasmus had striven to found a text on the largest number of existing MSS in the world of one type, he could not have succeeded better, since his family-MSS occupy the front rank in point of actual numbers, the family numbering over 20 MSS besides its allies. (The John Rylands Bulletin 19-1922/23, p 118.)

It should be noted that this exemplary MS used by Erasmus was of the Andreas group, the readings of which we find in the AV. Perhaps needless to say, we do not think it coincidence this primary manuscript fell into the hands of Erasmus. For we believe that the Lord providentially preserved His word, and the only place it makes sense to have been preserved in was the Greek Textus Receptus as discerned by Erasmus, Stephens, Beza, and the AV translators, and given to us in the AV.

This phenomenon – the text-critical business just mentioned – would explain the variant readings you listed and queried concerning in post #23.

--------------

I will excerpt below from Will Kinney’s article, where he discusses Revelation 15:3 http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Shellgame.html

Revelation 15:3 "thou King of saints"

One of the silliest comments James [White] makes is his criticism of the KJB reading found in Revelation 15:3. Here we read: "And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy words, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King OF SAINTS."

James says on page 66 that King of saints "should be either "King of the AGES (NIV) or "King of THE NATIONS" (NASB), the TR's reading again fails to have Greek manuscript support."

James is such a joker, isn't he? In his book he recommends three different versions as being "reliable and trustworthy" - the NASB, the NIV and the NKJV, yet all three of these "reliable versions" differ from each other, and every "erroneous" reading of the KJB in the book of Revelation that he discusses in his book is also found in the NKJV which he recommends! Then he now gives us two different versions with two different readings, and then [does not tell us the truth] when he says the KJB reading fails to have Greek manuscript support.

According Jack Moorman's book, When the KJV Departs from the "Majority" Text, on page 110 he gives the evidence for the reading found in the King James Bible, as well as that of Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, Young's, Webster's, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909 and 1960, Luther's German Bible, the NKJV, KJV 21, Green's Modern KJV, and the Modern Greek version used throughout the Orthodox churches. This is the reading found in the Greek manuscripts of 296, 2049 and 2066. It is also the reading of the Greek texts of Stephanus, Beza, Elziever, and Scrivenir. "King of saints" is also quoted by various church fathers like Victorinus, Tyconius, Apringius, and Cassiodorus.

Not even the modern versions agree among themselves. The UBS text says "king of NATIONS" and so read the NASB, NRSV, ESV, Jerusalem bible, and Holman Standard. However, versions like the Revised Version, the American Standard Version, RSV, Douay, and the NIV all read: "king of THE AGES".

Notice that the RV, and ASV read "king of the ages", but then the revision NASB changed this to "king of nations". The RSV read "ages" but the revisions of the RSV now read "nations". The Douay read "ages" but the other Catholic revision now says "nations". The NIV says "ages" too, but wait! Now the revision of the NIV has come out. It is called Today's NIV (TNIV of 2005) and it now reads: "king of the NATIONS". NONE of the revisions agree with the previous versions, and yet Mr. White has the temerity to recommend three different bible versions, none of which agrees with the others, and then he [does not tell the truth] to us about the KJB reading not having any Greek support.

End of Kinney

-----------

You will pardon, Kinney, I hope, for his sarcasm toward Dr. White. This sort of anger happens sometimes when that Book some hold dearer than life is disparaged and termed invalid, unreliable, and not the true word of God.

Dr. White does admit the reading is found in miniscules 57 and 141, but says of them “Hoskier 141 is almost certainly a copy of Erasmus’ printed text, and hence is nearly worthless as a textual source (the same is true of Hoskier 57)” [The King James Only Controversy, p. 87, footnote 41]

In Post #27 above we talk of MS 141, and what Hoskier thought of it. In the absence of strong evidence to the contrary, I would go with a text critic of Hoskier’s caliber over Dr. White.

For post 27 click: The merits of the A.V.

Steve

Originally Posted by trevorjohnson

I don't know any Puseyites...or maybe I wouldn't know one if I saw one.... What is one?

They are the Tractarians.

As for the A.V debate I am sure you can guess my view