P.S. I think I've found and downloaded enough info to look into Burgon's supposed remarks, which I will now consider.

Steve

[Edited on 7-11-2006 by Jerusalem Blade]

__________________
Steve Rafalsky
Elder, International Evangelical Church (Reformed)
Limassol, Cyprus

"I am set for the defense of the gospel" (Philippians 1:17)

"Strengthened with all might, according to His glorious
power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness..." (Colossians 1:11)

Blog: A Great and Terrible Love

As I am not near my library (I will visit my home city tomorrow, and pick up a copy of Burgon´s The Revision Revised), I have had to rely on the internet for research into our present "œJohn Burgon controversy."� I looked at Doug Kutilek´s online essay, "œWHAT DID JOHN WILLIAM BURGON REALLY BELIEVE ABOUT THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS AND THE KING JAMES VERSION?"�, and he makes some interesting points, though there was little documentation for some assertions. When I have my copy of Burgon´s book I will look at some of Kutilek´s quotes in their context. I like to examine the arguments of my opponents, so I may study them and see if there is some truth to what they say, or if they do not have the proper perspective.

[Incidentally, on another topic, I think it profitable to look at the Fundamentalist Baptists´ (FB) reasons for opposing Calvinist "“ i.e., Biblical "“ doctrine so as to understand their views, and how they misperceive ours. I am sure our Lord thoroughly comprehended the doctrines of the Pharisees and Sadducees so as to answer them as economically and devastatingly as He did. Of course we will never speak like Him, but we can strive to approach that conciseness.]

I found an excellent (and brief!) essay on "œThe Textual Position of Dean John William Burgon,"� by Dr. Thomas Cassidy, which I give the URL for as it is of value in explaining away a lot of confusion regarding what Burgon meant in the statements people love to attribute to his supposed disaffection with the TR: http://www.baptistpillar.com/bd0556.htm This may be the best thing I have come across.

Another paper on Burgon´s statements regarding the TR from Dr. D.A. Waite, which gives a fuller picture: "œBurgon's Warnings on Revision of the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible"�: http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/Dea...0804.htm#start

This is the Dean Burgon Society´s statement regarding their position, and it is reasonable: "œThe Authorized King James Bible has been, and continues to be, the God honored, most accurate, and best English translation of the inspired, inerrant, infallible, and preserved original language words of God."�

At Sola Scriptura Ministries <http://thescripturealone.com/Resource.html>, I found this chapter of Dr. Hills´ on our question: The King James Version Defended, By Dr. Edward F. Hills; CHAPTER EIGHT, "œTHE TEXTUS RECEPTUS AND THE KING JAMES VERSION"�: http://thescripturealone.com/Hills-8.html This is an excellent view of the matters we are discussing, i.e., Burgon and the Textus Receptus, and seeing them in perspective. You might use your "œfind"� feature to locate the first use of Burgon´s name, and then go to Erasmus, to see what Hills says about them both. (SSM also has info on The Ancient Text of the New Testament, By Dr. Jakob van Bruggen, a masterful, scholarly review of the failure of textual criticism in the past century: http://thescripturealone.com/VanBrug.html)

An interesting article, "œHow Dr. Hills Became a KJV Believer,"� By Dr. E. F. Hills: http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/efhillsa.htm He recalls his days at Yale, and then at Westminster under Stonehouse, and the impact of Warfield´s thought on him. Scholarly reflections.

All of which is to say, if one is prayerful, patient, and diligent one may find treasures of understanding and wisdom to meet the need. Again I assert, those who place their trust in our mighty God´s design and accomplished work in providing us with His word kept intact will not be disappointed.

And let me say again, much respect and appreciation is due our FB brethren for their excellent painstaking historical and textual research as regards the preserved text. Far from the "œbackwoods hillbilly Bible-thumping ignoramuses"� who-can´t-think-for-themselves stereotype, these men have carried the ball on the field of top-notch believing scholarship, where many of us Reformed "œbrains"� had dropped it!

There is an article, I think by Dr. Waite (it's at home), on Chas. Hodge and B.B. Warfield, documenting their failure in the field of textual criticism, which has had a tremendous impact on the Reformed communions, for the thinking of these giants of the faith is too often taken without critical scrutiny. I've searched for it online but haven't found it.

This contention over "The Canon of Scripture and its Integrity" has raged even since the Reformation, at first between the Reformers and Rome, and then between the post-Reformation orthodox and Rome, as I am learning from Richard A. Muller's Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics Volume 2, Holy Scripture: The Cognitive Foundation of Theology (MI, Baker 1993). It is interesting, the issues that came up in those days, regarding both the Hebrew and the Greek texts, over against the Latin Vulgate of Rome, which latter the papists sought to establish as the superior and definitive Biblical text.

Today the situation between Rome and the Reformed and the texts has changed, especially with their throwing Vaticanus into the arena, as B differs more from the Vulgate than the Vulgate differs from the TR!

Steve

[Edited on 7-11-2006 by Jerusalem Blade]

[Edited on 7-12-2006 by Jerusalem Blade]

[Edited on 7-12-2006 by Jerusalem Blade]

[Edited on 7-12-2006 by Jerusalem Blade]

[Edited on 7-12-2006 by Jerusalem Blade]

[Edited on 7-12-2006 by Jerusalem Blade]

[Edited on 7-12-2006 by Jerusalem Blade]

Criticism, as it pertains to the TR, seems to be self-defeating. I am content to accept the traditional text, i.e., canonical text, as over against critical excisions of it. I have never really been fussed to know if the odd pronoun changes here and there, and would probably expound both readings if called upon to do so. I even think some of the so-called conflations which Alexandrians accuse the TR of are actually helpful. Even if I thought Luke 24:53 was a combination of readings, my sermon would not be any different; I would first expound one reading, "praising" and then the next, "blessing." The fundamental beauty of the TR is the fact that you are provided with a full text.

I say this with no intent to repudiate modern maintainers of the TR, but I don't think you will find a defender of the traditional text in the 19th century which denied the fact of slight variations. Even Edward Hills, in the 20th century, accepted variations, although he put it down to Erasmus following the Vulgate over the traditional text. I can't remember if that claim has been substantiated or repudiated.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

I think your last sentence is correct. I think Burgon (and perhaps Scrivener as well) and other critics of W & H attacked the W-H theory and the Revised Version but did not claim infallibility for the KJV and TR as do some in our day.

Here are a couple of articles I turned up with a quick Google search:

Why Dean Burgon would NOT join the "Dean Burgon Society"

Dean Burgon: The Greatest Enemy of King James Onlyism

[Edited on 7-12-2006 by Pilgrim]

__________________
Christian
One Pilgrims Progress

I dislike the spirit in which these papers are written. One could as easily write a paper on why Westcott and Hort would not have joined the United Bible Society. Allowance is generally made for development and disagreement within a school of thought.

Dear Steve,

A couple of things here.

It is late tonight. I am sincerely sorry that it has taken me a day or two to get back to you. I work in a hospital laboratory and JCAHO showed up with a suprise inspection. So please do not think I'm igonring you.

For starters, I don't recall mentioning James White's book. Yes, I do have it. But please do not attempt to marginalize me as if I have read nothing on the subject. White's book is one that must be dealt with on the popular level while some others on both sides of the argument must be dealt with on a more scholarly level. (White concedes as much; he notes that Riplinger's book sold 130,000 copies - and all of the sales of some of those scholars' entire works would not total what Riplinger's one book sold). I have read on the issue and have no settled position at this time.

So let's deal with one of your important questions because I have it hand. You write, "What you say about Burgon and his 150 changes in Matthew of the TR, would you please provide some documentation for that?"

Yes sir.

"The leaders in the advocacy of this system have been Dr. Scrivener in a modified degree, and especially Dean Burgon. First, be it understood, that we do not advocate perfection in the Textus Receptus. We allow here and there it requires revision. In the text left behind by Dean Burgon, about 150 corrections have been suggested by him in St. Matthew's Gospel alone. What we maintain is the TRADITIONAL TEXT. And we trace it back to the earliest ages of which there is any record." (Edward Miller, Introduction, The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels by Dean Burgon, ibid., pg. 5.

And from a KJV defender, the late Dr. Theodore P. Letis, at this link:

http://www.truth.sg/resources/Theodo...sOnKJVonly.pdf

Notice this on page four of 11 of the PDF file:

"...but to date, perhaps his most important work of all has yet to see the light of day. His A Textual Commentary Upon the Holy Gospels, Largely from the Use of Materials, and Mainly Onthe Text, Left by the late Dean John William Burgon, Part I, St. Mathew, Division I, I-XIV."

Letis further notes that most of these changes were incorporated into the Majority Text of Hodges-Farstad.

You then make the following observation, quoting me and your quote follows:

Before signing off, I´d like answer a couple more of your points. You said of Dr. Hills,

(Maestroh)
Note Hills' words under 2f: In the Textus Receptus God corrected the few mistakes of any consequence which yet remained in the Traditional New Testament text of the majority of the Greek manuscripts.

One is inclined to wonder why it was okay for the Bible to have what by Hills' own words are MISTAKES in it - and in the same breath claim that we have always had a 'preserved Bible.'

(Steve)
I have addressed such phenomena in TBAS, but to briefly say here: remember when wicked queen Athaliah destroyed all the seed royal in Jerusalem, save only the infant Joash who was secretly rescued by his aunt Jehosheba and hidden away in the house of the LORD six years while the evil queen ruled supreme in Judah during that rather long period of time? Or during the reign of Emperor Diocletian, when his notorious informers, the traditores, apostates who came from the ranks of the church and went about sniffing out most copies of the Scriptures and their owners, so that they became exceeding scarce?

Such has been the case with a few portions of Scripture, the devil having hated some in particular and moved men to seek to destroy their testimony, but the Lord overruling him kept them safe in other quarters and later restored them to their rightful places of honor and witness.

REPLY:

Please understand, brother, that I have no problem with what you're saying. But when you argue from Hills' theological a priori - well, in essence, he is saying, "I believe in the doctrine of preservation of ALL AGES (WCF) - but not until 1611 (or 1516 if you prefer, TR)." In other words, all ages hardly means all ages.

I have no problem with 'restoration.' But one cannot argue restoration on one hand - and then get mad at 'restoration' by Westcott and Hort in terms of the issue of restoration. (One can, I concede, under such circumstances, argue against the THEORY of W/H - and solidly on many grounds, might I add).

But it rings hollow to say the Bible has always been preserved, but it wasn't preserved until 1611. Let me say that those who endorse the Traditional Text (Burgon, Scrivener, Hoskier, Farstad, Robinson, Oats) have a MUCH MORE solid ground on which to stand in regards to preservation. It disgusts me when people call Burgon forth as a witness in favor of 'King James Onlyism' when a simple read of his works proves he was not.

The quotes you reference - I have personally validated ALL of them. They DO accurately represent Burgon's views. I read Waite's book as well - a few of them actually - but Waite even admitted in his 1994 debate with James White (available online) that he was 'speculating' when he claimed 'heretics doctored the manuscripts.' Not once could he name any group (Arians, Ebionites, etc) who actually changed a specific passage.

Probably the better of the 19th century scholars in favor of the TT/MT was FHA Scrivener. But again, he was not KJVO, either. Scrivener pointed out in his "Plain Introduction" that one who thought I John 5:7 was authentic Scripture should have 'no weight' given to such an opinion. Scrivener was still more Burgonian than he was W/H - but he had to deal with the data he had.

I used to attend a FB fellowship. I would have less problem with what you cite if they actually TOLD THE TRUTH - about their opponents and about the KJV. We have NOTHING to fear from pursuit of the truth. But most of those folks are only calling forth Burgon as a supporter because they need 'a big name' to support them despite constantly 'deploring' scholarship.

Make no mistake: scholarship is not the be all and end all of anything. Not all scholarship is equally scholarly. And good men, good Christians, AND good scholars can disagree on some things without division.

But Letis' summation is right regarding the 20th century FBs in favor of the KJV. It is unfortunate, but it IS accurate.

I have rambled. I find your scriptural intellectual give and take stimulating. I hope that I have not said something that offended you or can be perceived as an attack on you personally or your beliefs. If I have done so, I humbly apologize now.

Note: I will interact with you in the godly manner. Please note that if I'm gone for a few days, it doesn't mean I did a 'hit and run." Also, I'm comfortable with who I am in Christ - I'm not one of those who has to have the 'last word' like we're having a 'put down contest' or something.

God bless you and thank you for your writing.

Maestroh Bill Brown

Matthew,

Out of curiosity, I will check out Luke 24:53 to see what I can find on it.

I maintain the TR/KJV defense as both a pastoral concern and an apologetic one; the former to assure believers we do have a reliable Scripture worthy of their trust, the latter to defend the Gospel of God at its foundation, which is His word.

Some feel confident to do this with the CT, but I don't, as I showed in TBAS.

---------

Chris,

I think this short paper <http://www.baptistpillar.com/bd0556.htm> by Cassidy sheds much light on Burgon's (and Scrivener's) views on this exact matter of what I would call "a TR in flux" in their day, and why Burgon pressed Scrivener to construct the TR which the TBS now publishes. The loose ends seem to now fit together regarding Burgon's remarks about the TR.

I will look over those links you posted, and remark on them.

I am of the mind that the defense of 1 John 5:7 depends greatly on the matter of the old Latin manuscripts (not Jerome's Vulgate). There is a good bit of data available; people evidently put different spins on it. I am studying this now.

"some misgivings" about GAR's work is an understatement.

Steve

Just a couple of more points.

You made reference to Westcott and Hort's agenda. Fair enough.

Did not Burgon have an agenda in keeping the last 12 verses of Mark - since he believed in baptismal regeneration?

Whether Westcot or Hort could speak at my church is irrelevant. Burgon could not do so either - nor would he wish to do so given his emphasis on ecclesiastical authority. But that argument is completely irrelevant ON BOTH SIDES.

And which Edward Hills do we believe? The one who turned in his doctoral dissertation in 1946 IN FAVOR of Westcott-Hort; or the one who wrote "The KJV Defended" in 1954? And how did he change his mind THAT fast?

He seems to have made up his mind earlier but was willing to dissemble or misrepresent his views in order to get his doctorate (see Letis, "E.F. Hills Contribution to the Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text" - Letis claims - and no, I don't have it in front of me - but he pointed out that Hills rejected the notion of textual criticism long before he left school and that for Hills it did not exist).

The personal character and theologies of Westcott and Hort are irrelevant - mostly because the manuscripts precede them by at least 1,500 years. It's not like they actually WROTE them.

Steve,

Please note I am not saying it is a conflation. It is one of W&H's classic examples of conflation, Alexandrine and Western. I don't accept it is. I am just saying that on empirical evidence to date, if it could be shown to be a conflation, I still would not have any problem with preaching on both words, since both have a traditional witness.

Maestroh,

Are you willing to acknowledge that there is a difference between the kind of text criticism going on in the Confessional period, which has given us the classical statement on preservation, and the criticism of the 19th century which excised whole texts? I regard it as a diffeence between texts and readings. It is not simply that the W&H tradition are carrying on textual criticism to a greater degree, but they are engaging in a different kind of criticism.

Blessings!

Generally speaking, do the CT defenders believe we have not had a reliable Bible with the KJV? And do the KJV/TR defenders believe the CT is not good because of W/H?

Just trying to clarify my thinking. And to boil it down to both camps suppositions.

__________________
Chris
Presbyterian Reformed Church of Charlotte (PRC)
Student, Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary
SC

...hope is nothing but the nourishment and strength of faith.
~ Calvin's Institutes III.ii.43

Bill,

I certainly do not mean to marginalize you; the reason I mentioned James White´s book is because in your first post in the thread you said, "œWhite did a decent job in "˜KJVO Controversy´ of listing five different levels of "˜KJVO,´ but I assume we are only preoccupied with a couple of those"¦"� I have indicated a few times here and elsewhere I desire to know specifically what he was referring to when he stated (on one of our threads or on his own site responding to something here),

<blockquote> "œthe consistent application of their [i.e., 1 Jn 5:7 supporters] arguments would demand the utter overthrow of the TR as a Greek text of the New Testament. As I pointed out in my comments in The King James Only Controversy, there are all sorts of readings with similar manuscript support to the Comma that would, by logical necessity, have to be inserted into the TR."�</blockquote>

It is his "œcomments in The King James Only Controversy"� on this I wished to learn of so I might interact with him.

To the contrary, Bill, I see you have read a good deal on the subject. And White also must be dealt with on a scholarly level, to do him justice.

Re your quote of Edward Miller, his remarks in the Introduction to The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels are familiar to me. Twice above I referred folks (via a link) to an article by Dr. Thomas Cassidy dealing precisely with this issue. I realize reading all the links and referrals listed in these posts takes a bit of time, but it is important if we are taking, as you suggest, the scholarly as opposed to the popular approach in this discussion. At the commencement of Cassidy´s address he states,

<blockquote>There is no doubt that Dean Burgon made statements concerning the Textus Receptus, and its need for editing and revision. Edward Miller, writing in the Introduction (Page 5) of Dean Burgon's posthumously published The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels (Published by the Dean Burgon Society, 900 Park Avenue, Collingswood, New Jersey 08108) states, "œFirst, be it understood, that we do not advocate perfection in the Textus Receptus. We allow that here and there it requires revision."�

This statement, reiterated elsewhere in Dean Burgon's writings, begs the question, "œDid Dean John William Burgon advocate revising the Textus Receptus, and if so, on what basis?"� And, "œWhat Greek Text would Dean Burgon advocate today as the preserved Greek text?"�</blockquote>

During the course of this thread we have identified a number of Greek editions of the NT within what has been called the Textus Receptus "œfamily"�: Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and Elzevir (each of these having more than one edition), all of them similar but with variations. Clearly the translators of the 1611 King James picked and chose from these (and other MSS.) in the rendering of their English version.

Cassidy says of this,

<blockquote>So we must ask ourselves, "œIs the King James Bible based on the Textus Receptus, and if so, which edition?"�

The answer is, no. The King James Bible is not based on any single edition of the Textus Receptus, but is based on the Traditional Texts as they have been Providentially preserved down through the ages of church and ecclesiastical history.</blockquote>

He then goes into a discussion of Erasmus, as well as the texts he had access to, topics loaded with much disinformation. (As an aside here, David Cloud´s book, Myths About The Modern Versions, has excellent chapters on these topics, Erasmus and the manuscripts available both to the editors and to the translators, loaded with important historical data.) Cassidy continues,

<blockquote>Is the Textus Receptus identical to the Traditional Text?

Here is where the problem arises. No single edition of the Textus Receptus, available at the time of the translating of the King James Bible (1604-1611) is identical to the Traditional Text. Furthermore, no single edition of the Textus Receptus available to Dean Burgon was identical to the Traditional Text which underlies the King James Bible. And this is what produced the problem which Dean Burgon attempted to address. He believed, and rightly so, that no then-existing edition of the Textus Receptus conformed completely with the Traditional Text as embodied in the Byzantine Manuscript tradition. Thus, every Textus Receptus that the good Dean had available for his use was, in his opinion, in need of revision.</blockquote>

Which brings us to Dr. Cassidy´s concluding question:

<blockquote>Is the Traditional Text best represented today by any single "œTextus Receptus?"�

At the time of Dean Burgon's sudden death in 1888, no Textus Receptus was identical to the readings of the King James Bible, nor the Traditional or Byzantine Manuscript tradition. The Dean, in response to the need for an unassailable Greek Text in the Byzantine tradition, encouraged his colleague F.H.A. Scrivener, Prebendary of Exeter and Vicar of Hendon, to edit a Greek Text with textual apparatus which would show the textual basis for every word in the King James Bible New Testament. Mr. Scrivener began this work in 1881, largely spurred on by the publication of the Greek Text of the New Testament according to Westcott and Hort.

Scrivener's final edition appeared in 1894, and continues to be published by the Trinitarian Bible Society today as the "œTextus Receptus."� In this publication, Scrivener states that he has managed to trace the origin of almost every word of the King James New Testament where it departs from the Textus Receptus (about 190 instances of varying degree if we use Beza's 1598 edition as the base line). Of these 190 instances, Scrivener was able to trace, working from a copy of the Translation Committee's notes found in the private library of the Secretary to the Final Revision Committee, all but about a dozen variants. The official minutes of those historic meetings were apparently destroyed in the London fire of 1629. However, in 1964 Professor Ward Allen found the papers of William Fulman, a 17th century collector, including a handwritten copy of John Bois´s original notes in the Corpus Christi College Library at Oxford University, where they had lain since 1688. These notes have been published by Professor Allen under the title "œTranslating For King James,"� and are available from Vanderbilt University Press, 1969.

We must note that Burgon called for 150 changes in the Textus Receptus in the Gospel of Matthew alone, while Scrivener made only about 250 changes in the entire New Testament. Does this fact suggest that Burgon would not accept Scriveners text? Perhaps not. Burgon's suggestion of 150 changes in the Gospel of Matthew may have included changes in the chapter and verse structure which was added to the Greek New Testament by Stephens. The anecdote has often been told that Stephens did much of his work while traveling on horse back, and the jolting may have caused more than one slip of the pen! This can be easily demonstrated by looking at Acts chapter 21 and 22. Chapter 21 does not complete the paragraph, or even the sentence! The chapter division comes right in the middle of the sentence which begins in 21:40 and ends in 22:1! Perhaps it was just such chapter and verse divisions which Burgon included in his 150 suggested changes.

We can now see that even though Dean Burgon did call for a revision of the Textus Receptus as it existed in his day, the present Greek Text published by the Trinitarian Bible Society under the name "œTextus Receptus"� reflects the revision of the older Greek Texts which went by the same name, and now much more closely follows the manuscript tradition of the Traditional Texts of the Byzantine Manuscript Evidence.

Today, the Dean Burgon Society believes the Textus Receptus, as published by the Trinitarian Bible Society, which is Scrivener's Greek Text of 1894, is the embodiment of the Providentially preserved word of God in Greek. As this Greek Text is the direct result of Dean Burgon's desire to see the Textus Receptus revised to more closely reflect the Traditional Text of the Byzantine Manuscripts, it is my assertion that the Dean, were he alive today, would agree with our position, and deem the Textus Receptus of today to be the authoritative Greek Text.

Which brings us to our concluding point. What about those readings in the King James Bible which depart not only from the majority of Textus Receptus readings, but also from all known Greek manuscript evidence? Where do those readings come from, and how can their authority be confirmed?

The title page to the original King James Version of 1611 contains the following statement: "The Holy Bible, Conteyning the Old Teftament, AND THE NEW: Newly Tranflated out of the Originall tongues & with the former Tranflations diligently compared and reuifed by his Maiesties speciall Comandment."

It has been supposed that the reference to the "former translations" meant only the English translations of Tyndale and others. However, I believe, judging from the notes left by the Translation Committees, that this reference also includes the Vernaculars in Latin, Syriac, and the older European language Bibles used by the Waldenses, Vaudois, and other historic New Testament churches.

It is this reliance on the oldest known vernaculars that has made the King James Bible so reliable, and able to meet every test of accuracy. The Old Latin and Old Peshitta were very early translations of the New Testament dating to as early as the mid-second century (about 150 A.D.). It has been noted that readings occur in the King James Bible that are without Greek manuscript support, and I believe those readings can be traced to the earliest known vernaculars, the Old Latin and Old Syriac Peshitta.

Just because there is no Greek manuscript evidence available today does not mean such evidence never existed! The Old Latin and Old Syriac are strong indications that the readings in question are, in fact, authoritative, and being closest to the autographs, best reflect their readings. These vernacular readings are supported by the evidence from the early church Patriarchs, as well as from the Lexionaries, or daily scripture lessons read in the churches. It is unfortunate that the Critical Text proponents have failed to take this telling evidence into consideration, as it constitutes, in my opinion, the Best Evidence for the authority of these readings.

Think about it.</blockquote>

I quoted a good part of Dr. Cassidy´s address as it seemed it was being glossing over just when this information was most needed in our discussion. If anyone thinks this does not tie up the loose ends in our previous talking about the various editions comprising the TR and the KJV, and what amounts to Burgon´s concern for this "œunsettled"� Textus Receptus or Traditional Text, please bring forward your objections now.

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

Bill, I do not have an internet connection at the time I am writing this, so I will have to get the Letis pdf you gave a link to and comment on it shortly.

You said,

<blockquote>Please understand, brother, that I have no problem with what you're saying. But when you argue from Hills' theological a priori - well, in essence, he is saying, "I believe in the doctrine of preservation of ALL AGES (WCF) - but not until 1611 (or 1516 if you prefer, TR)." In other words, all ages hardly means all ages.

I have no problem with 'restoration.' But one cannot argue restoration on one hand - and then get mad at 'restoration' by Westcott and Hort in terms of the issue of restoration. (One can, I concede, under such circumstances, argue against the THEORY of W/H - and solidly on many grounds, might I add).

But it rings hollow to say the Bible has always been preserved, but it wasn't preserved until 1611. Let me say that those who endorse the Traditional Text (Burgon, Scrivener, Hoskier, Farstad, Robinson, Oats) have a MUCH MORE solid ground on which to stand in regards to preservation. It disgusts me when people call Burgon forth as a witness in favor of 'King James Onlyism' when a simple read of his works proves he was not.</blockquote>

Thank you for saying that "œrestoration"� may well be part of the preservation process "“ I cannot see it as being any other way! "“ but I do not see how you can then say, "œone cannot argue restoration on one hand - and then get mad at "˜restoration´ by Westcott and Hort [W&H] in terms of the issue of restoration."� What W&H did was not restore, but replace, on a massive scale. And their replacing involved omissions of words that numbered in the many thousands.

You say,

<blockquote>But it rings hollow to say the Bible has always been preserved, but it wasn't preserved until 1611.</blockquote>

Is it unfair to say the readings of the genuine autographs have always been preserved "“ have never been lost "“ although a few of them were not restored until the compilation of the settled text by the 1611 translators, even as happened in Old Testament times under Ezra, who brought the text back into its intact form? (I do not equate the 1611 men with the same level of inspiration given Ezra!) This matter of preservation is a nuanced business, and I fear hasty hands have clouded things over, which you rightly object to. Nor can I presume to answer all the question involved in this, though I seek to unearth as much data as I can, even from the writings of the opponents of my position, for much knowledge is to be gained even from them.

I will post this now, download the Letis piece you reference, and will continue later.

Your brother in the Truth,

Steve

W/H were really only the final product of a movement that was being carried on throughout the 19th century. Nolan's "Integrity of the Greek Vulgate" was written to counter liberal criticism early in the century. If my research is correct, the impetus of this text criticial movement was derived from the 18th century Trinitarian/Unitarian debates, especially over the Johannine Comma. So basically the answer would be no, but some TR defenders have used the unorthodox beliefs of W/H to show why they might be inclined to have adopted the text they did.

Bill,

I will have to study more on the contention of Letis that in Burgon´s Commentary on Matthew 1-14 some of his readings support the MT over Scrivener´s 1894 TR; I have the commentary in the library, and will be in my city Sunday to preach and can pick it up then.

I also have Scrivener´s The Authorized Edition Of The English Bible (1611), Its Subsequent Reprints And Modern Representatives (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1910), and I am hoping the apparatus for his 1894 TR is in that volume (I haven´t heard of it being anywhere else).

At this point the best explanation for the data I have seen is, as I have said, Cassidy´s.

I will have to concede the point that Dean Burgon would neither want to join the Dean Burgon Society, nor, were he to want to, would he be allowed, save he changed some of his theological and ecclesiastical views!

I think the late Dr. Letis put many people under the umbrella of a type of Fundamentalism "“ that which has given rise to the stereotype "“ who do not belong there.

He seems to have some disdain for the uneducated who presume to study things in that domain usually reserved for the academicians, and if they get anything wrong, or take things by faith which appear to be contradicted by facts, he dismisses them with scorn. I am not familiar with his work, and he seems to have a lot on the ball, and I will seek to read as much of him as I can find on the internet (getting books is difficult for me being on a fixed retirement income; sometimes getting a laptop battery or antivirus software has the priority over books "“ though in earlier days I used to say with Erasmus, "œIf I have a little money I get books; if there is anything left over I get food and clothing"�).

I am well aware, there is a kind of "œfundamentalism"� which has a spiritual, emotional, and intellectual toxicity about it, but it is unfair to paint all of them with that brush. Some are quite other.

He speaks most unkindly of Jay P. Green Sr. (without mentioning his name) in his remarks on the latter´s book (Volume 1, I gather), Unholy Hands On The Bible (Sovereign Grace Trust). I will have to admit it is true the volume is fraught with typos, though I think he did a fair job in putting a good bit of Burgon´s work in one volume. Green´s remarks in the Introduction are sharp, for he sees damage being done to the sacred deposit of Scripture. Green is not mean-spirited, but he is spirited. As Burgon wrote in the Dedication to The Revision Revised,

<blockquote>If, therefore, any do complain that I have hit my opponents rather hard"¦when the words of Inspiration are seriously imperilled, as now they are, it is scarcely possible for one who is determined effectually to preserve the Deposit in its integrity, to hit either too straight or too hard. (Pp. vii, viii)</blockquote>

From this quote one may see why people contend so earnestly over this issue.

Bill, you said,

<blockquote>Did not Burgon have an agenda in keeping the last 12 verses of Mark - since he believed in baptismal regeneration?</blockquote>

I don´t think "œHe that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned"� gives much support per se to paedobaptism, especially not to "œbaptismal regeneration."�

One good thing about these discussions, people are hearing more about Burgon, Hills, etc, and are leaving the CT position, (some at least) seeing it is indefensible, and are moving over to the MT or TT position, which is far better.

Another remark of yours,

<blockquote>Whether Westcott or Hort could speak at my church is irrelevant. Burgon could not do so either - nor would he wish to do so given his emphasis on ecclesiastical authority. But that argument is completely irrelevant ON BOTH SIDES.</blockquote>

But the reasons for the former two not being invited in would be entirely different from the latter. Let it be put it on me: They would not be invited into the church I shepherd, due to flagrant violations of Biblical commandments, and for damnable heresies. Dr. Letis says "œargumentum ad hominem"� is unacceptable in these discussions of editing Biblical manuscripts, but I beg to differ. In the secular sphere of research and textual emendation he has a point, but in the precincts of the Temple of the Holy One of Israel such persons are prohibited entry by commandment, much less to put hands upon the Torah.

A person´s character and doctrine has everything to do with his being allowed to touch that which, in former days, the priesthood only had supervision of, and in these last days, only the priesthood of believers have supervision of. Yes, I realize this is the bone of contention between the CT and the TT & TR people.

You said,

<blockquote>And which Edward Hills do we believe? The one who turned in his doctoral dissertation in 1946 IN FAVOR of Westcott-Hort; or the one who wrote "The KJV Defended" in 1954? And how did he change his mind THAT fast?</blockquote>

Would you please provide some documentation "“ or perhaps a link "“ for this assertion? I would like to investigate it.

Lastly, you say,

<blockquote>The personal character and theologies of Westcott and Hort are irrelevant - mostly because the manuscripts precede them by at least 1,500 years. It's not like they actually WROTE them.</blockquote>

Well, it was in their positions as priests and professors of divinity in the Anglican Church they were allowed into the Jerusalem Chamber to work on the Church´s Holy Scripture, and they were under specific stipulations as to what was and was not allowed them in this work. If they secretly betrayed their appointments as overseers in the church by damnable heresy, and violated the injunctions laid upon them as regard the limits of the revision-work entrusted to them, do you think this lawlessness in the inner sanctuary of Scriptural emendation "œirrelevant"�?

They didn´t just publish a book, they wrought evil upon the Book!

Gotta quit for now. I need to leave this sphere for a couple of days, and live in the sermons I am preaching on Sunday.

Steve

Matthew,

Thanks for clarifying re Luke 24:53. At any rate, I looked into it. In his Revision Revised Burgon notes the many unwarranted omissions from Luke´s Gospel; after commenting on the removal of "œthe second"� Sabbath after the first in Luke 6:1, (p. 73 ff), he notes,

<blockquote>But indeed, mutilation has been practiced throughout. By codex B (collated with the Traditional Text), no less than 2,877 words have been excised from the four Gospels alone: by codex Aleph,"“3,455 words: by codex D,"“ 3,704 words.

An interesting set of instances of this, as are to be anywhere met with, occurs within the compass of the last three chapters of Luke´s Gospel, from which about 200 words have been either forcibly ejected by our Revisionists, or else served with "˜notice to quit.´ (p. 75 ff)</blockquote>

And he proceeds to list eight of the chief of these, 24:53 being the last. Later in the book, on page 261 ff. (in footnotes) he looks in detail at the attestations pro and con this verse:

<blockquote>Luke´s Gospel ends (xxiv.53) with the record that the Apostles were continually in the temple "˜(a) praising and (b) blessing God.´ Such is the reading of 13 uncials headed by A and every known cursive: a few copies of the old Lat., the Vulg., Syriac, Æthiopic, and Armenian Versions. But it is found that Aleph B C omit clause (a): while D and seven copies of the old Latin omit clause (b).</blockquote>

He has shown the overwhelming evidence for the retention of the cut portions of the verse, and the caprice of W&H, whose primary foundation is the fiction of the "œSyrian Recension"� of their main operating theory which finds no support in history. The verse in its entirety belongs.

Steve

See Whose Unholy Hands on What? , a largely negative review of Green's reprinting of Burgon's work by MT advocate Maurice Robinson that takes Green to task for altering Burgon's work in numerous places (and leaving the unsuspecting reader unaware of said alteration), among other things. Robinson doesn't view Burgon negatively, but simply Green's work in republishing Burgon in "Unholy Hands on the Bible".

This page has a lot of resources; most seem to defend the KJV/TR while some are from MT advocates.

See also Original Manuscripts, the Majority Text and Translations by W. Gary Crampton and Logical Criticisms of Textual Criticism by Gordon H. Clark. These essays basically present a Majority Text view (which is not the same as strictly TR/KJV) and these essays are more food for thought regarding W-H and modern CT theory.

[Edited on 7-15-2006 by Pilgrim]

Sorry taking this long. Someone left work and I got scheduled some extra days this week and next. I will try to get in here and interact with you in the next few days. Just know that if I do not, I will be around. I do not want you to think that I'm avoiding you.

Btw, thank you for what has been one of the most edifying discussions on this topic I've ever experienced. And thank you for your compliment regarding being well read on the subject.

Again, not avoiding you - just want to have time to be fair w/you.

God bless,

maestroh bill brown

Some CT defenders will not recommend use of the KJV or even the NKJV as a primary bible based on the textual issue. I think most CT advocates nowadays follow the "eclectic" approach (as is admitted in the NIV preface) instead of sticking strictly to W-H's views, but they are certainly closer to W-H than they are to a TR or MT position.

Chris,

You´re right, Robinson´s review of Green´s Unholy Hands"¦etc is a fair and scholarly review. (I haven´t had my copy for a while as I traded it 2 or 3 years ago for Hodge´s Commentary on Romans, as I collect everything good I can on Romans and I had all the Burgon books in Green´s volume anyway.) I don´t fault Green for his ire at what has been done to the Biblical texts, though Robinson may have a point that his intro might tend to prejudice people´s view of Burgon´s material that follows.

Your referral to John Robbin´s Trinity Foundation site and Crampton´s essay there on the text of the NT <http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=197> I found excellent. I had downloaded much from the Robbin´s site, but hadn´t gotten around to reading that one till now.

Thanks for the good info.

Steve

Bill (and others),

I have looked over a number of studies I have been referred to on the internet, as well as consulting Scrivener´s, The Authorized Edition Of The English Bible (1611), Its Subsequent Reprints And Modern Representatives (which does have a critical apparatus of sorts for his 1894 TR), parts of his, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, and Edward Miller´s A Textual Commentary Upon The Holy Gospels: Part 1. St. Matthew, Division 1. i-xiv, wherein he utilizes Burgon´s work to emend the Received Text according to the latter´s critical principles.

I have to admit that one cannot rightly take a KJO/1894 TR stand on the work of these three men, for they expressly state against it. I have to retract what I said about Dr. Thomas Cassidy´s essay tying up the loose ends of Burgon´s views in the 1894 TR produced by Scrivener. Scrivener pronounces against it; he produced that edition for reasons other than creating "œa standard of excellence."�

The most one can say "“ though it can truly be said "“ these three men are strong advocates for the Majority Text or Traditional Text.

A great little book toward this same end is Van Bruggen´s, <http://www.thescripturealone.com/VanBrug.html>

A stand for the King James and the 1894 TR will have to be made on other ground than the above.

Bill, You said,

<blockquote>And which Edward Hills do we believe? The one who turned in his doctoral dissertation in 1946 IN FAVOR of Westcott-Hort; or the one who wrote "The KJV Defended" in 1954? And how did he change his mind THAT fast?

He seems to have made up his mind earlier but was willing to dissemble or misrepresent his views in order to get his doctorate (see Letis, "E.F. Hills Contribution to the Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text" - Letis claims - and no, I don't have it in front of me - but he pointed out that Hills rejected the notion of textual criticism long before he left school and that for Hills it did not exist).</blockquote>

Now this seems to me to be a genuine case of argumentum ad hominum. R.C. Sproul, in his tape series on "œDeveloping Christian Character,"� promotes the concept of "œcharity of judgment,"� which in effect says we ought put the best possible spin on a person´s motives in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary.

I will see if I can find this Letis "œexposé"� on the net.

Steve

I'm writing from work, so I must be brief.

For starters, I have begun a reply to you (Steve), and I commend your honesty on the subject of what you've found. I believe I stated earlier that I do not have a particular stake on a particular side at this point.

Regarding Hills' and my comments - and your observation (note that I do not say 'accusation') of 'ad hominem' - perhaps it is how I worded the phrase. My point is that Hills at one time held the W-H position and later held a position that, well, abandons scholarship altogether INCLUDING MAJORITY TEXT SCHOLARSHIP - and it is somewhat amusing to me how many people criticize others who go the opposite way. Changing positions on something MAY reflect instability but it also may reflect maturity.

I've also discovered a number of misrepresentations (to put it charitably) within Hills' own body of work - simply by looking up the footnotes. I'll put that on the board later, but I wouldn't really call Letis' work on Hills an 'expose' as it it more of a biography. Letis was the man who preached Hills' funeral, defended Hills, and was open and honest (scholarly if you will) about putting out information both favorable and unfavorable to Hills.

His Master's thesis, "E.F. Hills' Contribution to the Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text," demonstrates some interesting information regarding Hills. It was presented to Candler School of Theology (Emory University) in 1987. Dallas Seminary has a copy that I've checked out twice. If you'd like, I can refer you (perhaps they can get you a copy of it).

Also, regarding James White's book: What would you like to know? Yes, I have it, enjoyed it, use it for reference.

I concur regarding charity in judgment. I will attempt to embody it better. And I'm sorry for not doing so earlier.

You made another statement on another link that I'd like to address concerning David Cloud. I don't have the quote in front of me but it was something along the lines of somebody saying, "David Cloud is not a reputable source." This statement - by itself - probably constitutes ad hominem.

Yet I do not consider David Cloud a reliable source on the KJV Only issue but I have REASONS why that I'm willing to state openly and clearly. I will refrain at this time because it is not my ultimate purpose to 'attack' another professing Christian. And the reasons have NOTHING to do with Calvinism or his position on CCM music or anything like that, either.

What I'm saying mostly, though, is that I enjoy the Christian give and take and consideration - iron doth sharpen iron.

We must remember, though, that the textual issue PRECEDES the theological issues; it is NOT determined by them. TEXT determines theology; theology should not be used as the arbiter to determine text.

Thank you, and I will TRY (but not promise) to get back to you later this pm.

Bill

This is problematic. Theology determines canon. If so, why not text? Why is higher and lower criticism being carried on with two different standards? We receive the text on the same grounds as we receive the canon -- divine authority -- a theological basis.

I do not want to cause any offence, but the idea of theological neutrality in approaching the text of Scripture is a maxim of liberal criticism. Treating the Bible like any other book is what gave rise to 19th century deviations.

From Gordon Clark's "Logical Criticisms of Textual Criticism":

Bill,

I would be interested to hear what you have to say about Cloud and any alleged inconsistencies you have found in him; that pertains to Hills as well.

To approach textual criticism without the theological doctrine of Providential Preservation of Scripture is to "leave one's faith at the door" of these studies -- it is not appropriate. To say that Hills "abandoned textual criticism" because he used this approach is the reproach of those who use the secular paradigm exclusively.

Yes, there will be differing views of how one holds this doctrine. I suppose this will be the battleground.

Steve

Armourbearer,

I'll be interested then to hear how that theology is anything other than manmade presumption. If theology DETERMINES text then it must precede text. If it precedes text then it - by definition - cannot BE DETERMINED BY TEXT.

So what is it other than speculation?

Besides, given the superiority of some passages in the Critical Text - like Acts 4:25, Titus 2:13, and others - how is one going to use theology to determine WHICH one is right?

Steve,

I sent you an email regarding something posted here. However, here's my problem with what you posit: even assuming the existence of a so-called doctrine of providential preservation, can you please explain what exactly that means?

Does it mean we have a BUNCH of manuscripts and all are error free? If so, the situation is bleak when we confront evidence.

Does it mean we have ONE of all of those manuscripts that is error free? And if so, which one?

Is it applied GENERALLY or SPECIFICALLY to a particular textual tradition. If so, which one? And why?

And what verse tells us HOW God preserved his word? It is ironic to me that people get angry at the 'rationalism' of Westcott and Hort - and yet isn't the argument 'the majority of the manuscripts' nothing but human reasoning?

Let's consider - and I may start a new post shortly on this - Hills' own 'textual criticism.' This is found at the following link:

http://www.biblebelievers.com/Hills_KJVD_Chapter4.htm

(My remarks are in parenthesis)

For a believer, then, the only alternative is to follow a consistently Christian method of New Testament textual criticism in which all the principles are derived from the Bible itself and none is borrowed from the textual criticism of other ancient books (Fair enough). In the preceding pages we have striven to present such a consistently Christian New Testament textual criticism, and now we will recapitulate and summarize its principles briefly:

Principle One: The Old Testament text was preserved by the Old Testament priesthood and the scribes and scholars that grouped themselves around that priesthood. (how this explains textual criticism is beyond me)

Principle Two: When Christ died upon the cross, the Old Testament priesthood was abolished. In the New Testament dispensation every believer is a priest under Christ the great High Priest. Hence the New Testament text has been preserved by the universal priesthood of believers, by faithful Christians in every walk of life. (Where does the Bible teach this? It says the Word will be preserved; it does NOT say by whom and how)

Principle Three: 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 this universal priesthood of believers. (On what basis? Why if this is all BIBLICAL - as Hills argues - has he not yet provided even one Bible verse showing his principles?)

Principle Four: 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. (The Bible not only says nothing about Guttenberg or the printing press, it is the height of arrogance to basically claim not only that you know HOW God preserved His Word when God Himself never said - but you also know that in SOME CASES the REAL reading is in the 'corrupt' Latin - one is hardly surprised to learn that these passages are, of course, those that made it in Erasmus' TR and the KJV).

Principle Five: 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. (Not only is this not biblical, it is not even true. The TR is a PORTION - about 5-25 manuscripts - of the TT/MT. The Traditional Text differs from the TR in OVER 1,800 PLACES!!! So when they differ, which one is correct?)

Principle Six: The King James (Authorized) Version is an accurate translation of the Textus Receptus. On it God has placed the stamp of His approval through the long continued usage of English-speaking believers. Hence it should be used and defended today by Bible-believing Christians. (Could we not just as easily argue that the long use of the Septuagint was proof of God's 'approval?' What about the Latin Vulgate, a Bible that was in use MORE THAN TWICE AS LONG as the KJV has reigned? What about the W/H text? Nowadays, more seminaries (even evangelical and Bible-believing) and Christian colleges use the W/H text as their basis. Doesn't this prove it is 'God's preserved Word?' Using Hills' axions, it certainly does).

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now understand, I'm not picking on Hills; I'm picking on his ARGUMENTS. They are special pleading and woefully inadequate when one considers that Hills cannot consistently do this and then try to argue the divine truth with a Muslim - who holds the same view of his Koran as Hills does of his KJV.

Again - let me reiterate: I am NOT against the KJV; I am against the notion that it is the 'only' Word of God. And I believe it inaccurate to argue that theology somehow precedes text - since theology is supposed to be DRAWN OUT of the revealed text.

God bless,

Maestroh

Two things come to mind as one poster has referenced Wilbur Pickering. Here is what Dr. Maurice Robinson - himself a Majority Text advocate (same text as Pickering - mostly) has posted online about Pickering's work:

"I also want to avoid any connection with the utter mess that Wilbur Pickering made out of various scholarly quotes in his 'Identity of the NT Text' book, where he blatantly took passages out of context, misquoted other passages, and misapplied the lot in a poor attempt to discredit the eclectic position."

This is found at the following netural website (it has a lot of good links on all areas of text criticism): http://www.bible-researcher.com/majority.html#note5

And so that I'm not looked at as harsh, let's consider Pickering's evaluation - from that same book - of Edward Hills' arguments (whom I posted on the prior post):

Hill's position is inconsistent and arbitrary, and does not square with the evidence.

This is found at the following link where you can download Pickering's book: http://www.revisedstandard.net/text/WNP/ap_a.html

It is just past footnote five.

God bless everyone,

Maestroh

Revelation preceded inscripturation, WCF 1:1. The process of canonicity builds upon the foundation of Torah.

Most authors that deal with the subject of canon seek to show the organic principle by which the "rule" of faith and life was acknowledged.

This misses the point and somewhat begs the question. TR defenders argue for the ecclesiastical text over the criticial text based upon their belief that God preserves His word pure "in all ages."

I find it interesting that you use the word "text." I ask, text of what? If you say, the Word of God, then you have maintained theology determines text.

Bill,

Got your email, though I would prefer we kept this entire discussion open on the boards here. I appreciate you don´t want to seem to be attacking anyone´s character or indulging in argumentum ad hominem, but all information pertaining to these issues is relevant. As it stands, all I can do is allude to what I think are incorrect statements you made privately to me regarding David Cloud.

Okay, he was very tough on the guy regarding Daniel Wallace´s publishing on the internet of "œThe Synoptic Problem,"� and in his response Wallace shows himself to be a gentlemanly and scholarly Christian. Nonetheless, Wallace´s type of higher-critical approach "“ although it is deemed orthodox (as opposed to heterodox) by the New Evangelicalism "“ offends Cloud´s particular defense of the inspiration of Scripture, and he is in his rights taking it to task, even severely as he did.

Regarding Cloud´s use of Alfred Martin´s PhD thesis on the Hortian Textual Theory, I do not at all find he is misleading, at least not in the quotes you supplied. It is well known Martin is an opponent to the Hortian view, but an advocate of the Majority Text view and not the King James or its TR. Cloud did not imply otherwise. Martin´s oft-quoted brief remarks on the Theory are well known and widely used, being as succinct as they are. They are most pertinent to Cloud´s teachings, as are Burgon´s, though neither hold fully with Cloud´s views.

Cloud´s defense of Fuller indeed involved opposing the claim that Fuller and others were indoctrinated by Benjamin Wilkinson, as per Kutilek´s article on the "œRoots of King James Onlyism"� or somesuch. I did find your hostility to Cloud apparent by how you characterized him. This is not dispassionate investigation. I don´t think you like the guy.

But, please, let´s keep it on the boards here, so all may be edified, and if we either of us fail to make our case, it may be manifest.

----------

In a recent post here you mentioned that Dr. Hills made a quick turn-about from embracing the CT view to opposing it:

<blockquote>And which Edward Hills do we believe? The one who turned in his doctoral dissertation in 1946 IN FAVOR of Westcott-Hort; or the one who wrote "The KJV Defended" in 1954? And how did he change his mind THAT fast?

He seems to have made up his mind earlier but was willing to dissemble or misrepresent his views in order to get his doctorate (see Letis, "E.F. Hills Contribution to the Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text" - Letis claims - and no, I don't have it in front of me - but he pointed out that Hills rejected the notion of textual criticism long before he left school and that for Hills it did not exist).</blockquote>

From your sentence structure it is hard to discern whether the allegation of his being "œwilling to dissemble or misrepresent his views in order to get his doctorate"� is Letis´ or yours! In either case it is a most reprehensible remark concerning a man who has a sterling reputation even among those who strongly disagree with him.

A brief story about "œquick turn-arounds"�: When I arrived here in Cyprus in 2002 I was a Zionist in my view of the State of Israel. I was no friend of the Rabbinate there, and was finishing up a book attacking their stance not only concerning the Messiah but Judaism itself, titled, A Poet Arises In Israel. I considered them promoting the spiritual genocide of my people according to the flesh, yet I believed that the nation of Israel was the prophetic fulfillment of that people of God to whom the promises of the Old Covenant were given.

One day I was having lunch with a pastor, his wife, and a Dutch couple, when the pastor´s wife said, during the course of some conversation about the Middle East, something to the effect that the Jews did not have the right to the land they occupied. It was only a brief remark, in the form of a question concerning something I had asserted. I had never heard from a Reformed believer such a thing, obviously holding the Jews did not have such a right. The conversation quickly veered off onto another topic, and I couldn´t get it back there, but the remark burned in my mind.

Later that evening, or possibly the next day, I called a missionary couple I was friends with and asked them if they had any books by Christians on such a view. (I had been indoctrinated by my Messianic Jewish associates in the states to the Zionist paradigm; it was all I knew; other views I relegated to Islamic propaganda. Obviously my holding to the Reformed view was neither complete nor well-informed.) My friends gave me three books, Blood Brothers, by Elias Chacour, and Whose Promised Land?, by Collin Chapman, and I forget the third. Both of these books were like a shock to my system. In Blood Brothers it was like I saw the Jewish-Palestinian conflict through the eyes of Christ, or at least Christ in the heart of a child, which the author was as the story begins. And Chapman´s book, it spoke to my mind where the former had spoken to my heart.

It is four years later now, and I have had to shelve my own book, pending its being rewritten, if I even do finish that.

I will attach a short pdf file to this post with an example of my change of mind.

The point is, in less than four years I had a thorough theological reversal, and have produced much material in the new vein. In eight years "“ the alleged time between Hills´ dissertation and his KJV Defended "“ a productive individual, especially one with multitudinous research notes and files, could both have a change of heart and produce works opposing one´s former views.

Remember what I said about "œcharity of judgment."�

-----------

Bill, you have stated a few times that you do not have a particular stake in a particular point of view at this time. May I ask, what is it that "“ in this interim period "“ you do hold to as regards the state of the Biblical text? You are full of many doubtful questions as regards the KJO and the 1894 TR position, which I do respect; but on the positive side, do you believe we have an inerrant Bible which is trustworthy? Or with many of the MT folks, do you believe we sort of have a Biblical text, though it is not now "“ and may never in our lifetimes be "“ settled?

Did you look at the beginning of my pdf To Break A Sword, where I spoke about the dilemma confronting us on the apologetic front?

You pose many sharp questions regarding my (KJV/TR) views of providential preservation (I include those in whose camp I am, such as Cloud and Hills, generally speaking), but have you any of your own that serve you and sustain your faith as you seek full knowledge of the truth?

It is a rather safe place "“ in terms of friendly disputations such as we are having "“ only being the interrogator, and positing nothing as regards your own faith. How are you able to stand in what you presently believe?

You see, for me this is an issue on two fronts, pastoral and apologetic. I want those under my spiritual care to have a sound faith in the Bible. God´s Word is the very foundation of our faith, and of our lives in Christ. This pertains both to our lives in the spiritual realities in God´s Kingdom, and also vis-Ã*-vis those our opponents, who deny the validity of said lives, and who assault us with their unbelief.

As I see it, this contest is properly between the KJV/1894 TR holders and the MT holders. The CT position is a dying wolf; you don´t need to kick or beat a dying wolf if it is no longer able to maul you. Those of us in the fray are really in the same family, with not much between us save the issue of faith preceding our view, or our view preceding our faith. I think you have put it in similar terms.

-----------

You remark concerning Hills,

<blockquote>My point is that Hills at one time held the W-H position and later held a position that, well, abandons scholarship altogether INCLUDING MAJORITY TEXT SCHOLARSHIP - and it is somewhat amusing to me how many people criticize others who go the opposite way.</blockquote>

Am I right in understanding you to imply that those of us who put faith before our view of the Bible text "“ superceding even critical issues "“ have "œabandoned scholarship"�? Will you not allow us our own appellation of "œbelieving scholarship"� or "œfaith-based scholarship"�?

You say,

<blockquote>I've also discovered a number of misrepresentations (to put it charitably) within Hills' own body of work - simply by looking up the footnotes. I'll put that on the board later"¦</blockquote>

I await this.

The Lord Jesus said, "œMan shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."� This is not a textual issue as the words in Matthew 4:4 are not contested anywhere. His words do give rise to a theological issue: implicit in the saying is that by every word of His we live, and such being so He will see to it that we have what we need in order to live.

In Matthew 24:35 our King says, "œHeaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away."� May I take this literally? Is there any other way to take it? Is not implicit in this saying that He shall preserve His word in this world and in the next? This is not a textual issue as this also is not a contested verse.

Isaiah 40:8 "“ "œThe grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand forever."� What, only in Heaven? And not here where it is that by which man lives?

I could give more, but this is to demonstrate that in some significant areas theology precedes textual issues and may even determine them. The theology exemplified above is that God will preserve that which He has given us to live by, i.e., His word.

In a later post you say,

<blockquote>[H]ere's my problem with what you posit: even assuming the existence of a so-called doctrine of providential preservation, can you please explain what exactly that means?

Does it mean we have a BUNCH of manuscripts and all are error free? If so, the situation is bleak when we confront evidence.

Does it mean we have ONE of all of those manuscripts that is error free? And if so, which one?

Is it applied GENERALLY or SPECIFICALLY to a particular textual tradition. If so, which one? And why?</blockquote>

This is the big question, is it not? And this is, as I have said before, the battleground. I aver that the 1894 TR, as a reconstruction of the various manuscripts and manuscript traditions used by the King James translators, is the text God providentially preserved for us in fulfillment of His promises to keep His word intact for us. And that the King James Bible is the best translation of that text.

You enigmatically say,

<blockquote>And what verse tells us HOW God preserved his word? It is ironic to me that people get angry at the 'rationalism' of Westcott and Hort - and yet isn't the argument 'the majority of the manuscripts' nothing but human reasoning?</blockquote>

Bill, when you say as you do above I wonder if you comprehend the issues between the different camps (the CT/W&H and the KJV/MT). Just so I know we are on the same page in our discussion, can you state in a nutshell what the difference is between the two views you refer to above?

Would you state for me "“ since you say you know it "“ the view a Muslim has regarding the text of the Koran? And compare this with Hills?

And please, what is it you actually believe, even if it be only tentatively? It is one thing to tear down others' views, and another to build something positive of your own. Surely you can state what your faith -- or knowledge -- is as regards the Bible.

Steve

[Edited on 7-20-2006 by Jerusalem Blade]

Bill,

You question Hills´ textual principles:

<blockquote>Principle One: The Old Testament text was preserved by the Old Testament priesthood and the scribes and scholars that grouped themselves around that priesthood. (how this explains textual criticism is beyond me) [all bold emphases yours]</blockquote>

It states that providential preservation (PP) of the text was accomplished through the OT priesthood. PP is an aspect of textual integrity.

You say,

<blockquote>Principle Two: When Christ died upon the cross, the Old Testament priesthood was abolished. In the New Testament dispensation every believer is a priest under Christ the great High Priest. Hence the New Testament text has been preserved by the universal priesthood of believers, by faithful Christians in every walk of life. (Where does the Bible teach this? It says the Word will be preserved; it does NOT say by whom and how)</blockquote>

By the common faith of the church, that which the priesthood of believers validated through their usage, we have the essential NT preserved in the majority of manuscripts (the superiority of the minority of manuscripts has been debunked through the overthrow of the Hortian theory), in the Greek church´s Traditional Text, as well as the Bibles used by such groups as the Waldenses in the mountains of Europe (and elsewhere), with important readings retained which were lost in the Greek vulgate (I discussed these in To Break A Sword, and Hills also discusses this in chapter 8 of his KJV Defended). But if you have read Hills as you state, you know what his answers are.

If you differ, you tell us "œby whom and how"� it has been preserved. Are you only questions with no answers?

As we are talking of Hills´ views here, you would know in the aforementioned chapter he discusses in great detail the progress of the transmission of the preserved text. Is the stumbling block for you that we assume God´s hand actively working all through the process, and attribute to Him the triumph of the Received Text? Yes, it is under siege these days, as is the church herself, with the spirit of antichrist steadily encroaching against her sacred doctrine and practice; but for centuries it has reigned supreme. Will you tell me that Jerome´s Latin Vulgate can make the same claim as it held sway in the Roman Catholic Church for even more centuries? Do you think the book of the blood-thirsty whore (Revelation 17) has equal warrant with the line of Bibles written in the blood of those who defied Rome and gave God´s Word to many peoples in their own languages? Please note, I do not say it has no merit at all, only that it bows at the foot of the Queen of Texts.

Bill, I assume you have a working knowledge of church history, as it is clear you are widely read. There have been many dissenters from the State Churches up through the years, who prized their pure manuscripts, simple and common people for the most part. You would know that when Rome slaughtered multitudes in southern Europe, those who did not submit to her doctrine, church government, and her Bible version, she also destroyed their Bibles, as it was not allowed for the common people to read the Bible in those days, in the regions of the whore´s dominance. During the years of the Inquisition this was amplified through the "œHoly Roman Empire"� and all of Europe! Pardon my strong language, but I still taste the blood, and smell the burning flesh of the saints! The Bible was outlawed, but the outlaws kept their secret copies. And the Greek church kept her Bible almost pure.


You go on,

<blockquote>Principle Three: 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 this universal priesthood of believers. (On what basis? Why if this is all BIBLICAL - as Hills argues - has he not yet provided even one Bible verse showing his principles?)</blockquote>

First, on the basis of its sheer existence! It is a fait accompli! A done thing! And done on the basis of the Bible verses I quoted in the above post.

Oftentimes we do not know how a prophecy or promise will be fulfilled, and only in hindsight can we discern how God worked to keep His promises.

God did not precisely describe the nuclear weapons we have today (some may differ with me), though He may have them used to fulfill prophecies in Scripture.

You say,

<blockquote>Principle Four: 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. (The Bible not only says nothing about Guttenberg or the printing press, it is the height of arrogance to basically claim not only that you know HOW God preserved His Word when God Himself never said - but you also know that in SOME CASES the REAL reading is in the 'corrupt' Latin - one is hardly surprised to learn that these passages are, of course, those that made it in Erasmus' TR and the KJV).</blockquote>

Is it really "œthe height of arrogance"� to trust that what has come to pass has come at His decree, and to discern His hand in the gracious providences that have enriched our lives, first and foremost being the final preservation of that text which lived in and was loved in the common faith of His people, as exhibited in the overwhelming majority of the extant Greek (Scripture) manuscripts and manuscript fragments. Yes, some final touches were made from other versions. Hills makes a very good case for how these things were done, nor has he abandoned textual criticism, what he has abandoned is mere secular methodologies in that field, and put his learning to use for the believing church.

I will ask you this, Bill: please give me an alternative as regards how His indisputably promised preservation of His word has been accomplished. What have you to replace what you attempt to tear down? Or is that all you can do?

Steve

[Edited on 7-21-2006 by Jerusalem Blade]

[Edited on 7-21-2006 by Jerusalem Blade]

Bill,

Continuing to respond to your post. You say,

<blockquote>Principle Five: 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. (Not only is this not biblical, it is not even true. The TR is a PORTION - about 5-25 manuscripts - of the TT/MT. The Traditional Text differs from the TR in OVER 1,800 PLACES!!! So when they differ, which one is correct?)</blockquote>

On what basis do you say it is "œnot biblical"�? And what do you mean when you say "œbiblical"�? That it was prophesied? That there is a Bible text to support the assertion? This is the faith view, looking after-the-fact at the compilation of the refined "“ by the various editors from Erasmus to Beza and Elzevir "“ Traditional Text. This "œpurified"� version of the TT/MT we call the Received Text. How do we know it is purified, and better than the raw MSS in the MT tradition? We believe this because our Lord promised to give us His intact word, and we followed the process up through the ages and the hands of men (it is not as though we are ignorant of the stages of the transmission of the text) to its conclusion. We mix our textual understanding with faith. I realize that gets some people bent out of shape, because it reflects on their view of the state of the text, but we stand firm, and that not ignorantly, but informed by both knowledge and trust.

You continue, Bill:

<blockquote>Principle Six: The King James (Authorized) Version is an accurate translation of the Textus Receptus. On it God has placed the stamp of His approval through the long continued usage of English-speaking believers. Hence it should be used and defended today by Bible-believing Christians. (Could we not just as easily argue that the long use of the Septuagint was proof of God's 'approval?' What about the Latin Vulgate, a Bible that was in use MORE THAN TWICE AS LONG as the KJV has reigned? What about the W/H text? Nowadays, more seminaries (even evangelical and Bible-believing) and Christian colleges use the W/H text as their basis. Doesn't this prove it is 'God's preserved Word?' Using Hills' axions, it certainly does).</blockquote>

What do you mean the "œlong use of the Septuagint"�? Do you mean its use as the OT of the Greek Orthodox church? Will you include its Apocrypha in that? Do you think the Greek version superior to the original Hebrew? Are you aware of the properties of the Septuagint, its great flaws? Are you just asking this rhetorically, for the sake of argument, or are you seriously suggesting the superior quality of the LXX?

I addressed the matter of the Latin Vulgate above (though it was not the true Vulgate "“ the "œvulgar"� or common version of the people "“ which the Old Latin versions were, and which Rome hated and sought to wipe out). Perhaps you should answer my remarks there, concerning this text which the papists sought to impose on dissenting believers by torture and murder. Should we consider the Roman Catholic organization a true church in any sense? I realize godly people differ in this; I think there were many believers in the Roman system (Francis of Assisi for one), despite the system; but the sacramental system of salvation, through the mediation of the priesthood, is diametrically opposed to the doctrines of grace, and worthy of utter condemnation, per the apostle Paul (for one) in Galatians 1:8, 9.

And the version of the tormenters of my brothers and sisters, held out on hands dripping with their very gore, you would even consider this in the same league with the common text they were willing to give their lives for?

"œWhat about the W/H text?"� you ask? Are you really serious, Bill? Since you seem to be, let me ask you this basic question: on what textual basis (I am talking evidence, something you think we are lacking and oblivious to!) would you omit the last 12 verses of Mark´s gospel? If you say B and Aleph against almost all other MSS, versions, lectionaries, and fathers, why the immense weight given those two MSS? If you claim the Hortian theory of the "œSyrian recension"� and the neutral text, you will have to provide evidence for their historicity, because I will not allow you to posit this view on your (or anyone´s) mere say-so. It must have support.

The argument of long usage must have other foundations as well. There must be corroborating evidences, which Hills (or I) can provide, but the LXX, Jerome´s Vulgate, and the W/H lack such support. And there can be factors that negate the "œlong usage"� argument. That B was in the library of the Vatican while the popes drenched Europe with blood, so that the land actually stank, does not speak well in its behalf. The martyrs would scorn such a suggestion! And would die for their faith.

Incidentally, I have argued concerning the Faith and our Scriptures with a Muslim, and was not hindered by inconsistency, for my view is intact.

You said,

<blockquote>And I believe it inaccurate to argue that theology somehow precedes text - since theology is supposed to be DRAWN OUT of the revealed text.</blockquote>

As I said and demonstrated above, almost always the text is not an issue to be opposed by theology, but simply exhibits that doctrine (or theology, if you will) God has given us for life and godliness. There are a few places in the Biblical text where doctrine does determine the text, but that doctrine is invariably based on texts that are not in dispute. The Reformed call this the "œanalogy of faith"� or "œanalogy of Scripture,"� where that which is clear explains that which is not clear.

A question, Bill: what do think of the Reformed confessions which reflect the understanding we have of the Bible? Do you think the Westminster Standards, or the London Confession of 1689, or the Three Forms of Unity in the main accurate in their statements concerning the Faith? The Westminster Confession, for one, has a statement regarding the Scripture, and its preservation.

If you disagree (but you cannot disagree regarding preservation in some respect) with the WCF (or how it is interpreted here), how do you see the providential preservation of Scripture? If you have an alternative view I would be most eager to hear it.

As an aside, Bill, I must say I quite enjoy the spirited give and take of our discussion, and this has been most stimulating to my mind. The things I have had to concede, and have learned, I will incorporate in the paper I am writing on this topic. I appreciate that you have kept me on my toes, and not allowed me to be sloppy in my research or my views. Thank you.

I hope you are not offended that I am a little sharp sometimes. As iron sharpens iron, I realize that sparks may indeed fly. I take this as swordplay among friends.

Steve

Bill,

You post saying,

<blockquote>And About Wilbur Pickering..

Two things come to mind as one poster has referenced Wilbur Pickering. Here is what Dr. Maurice Robinson - himself a Majority Text advocate (same text as Pickering - mostly) has posted online about Pickering's work:

"I also want to avoid any connection with the utter mess that Wilbur Pickering made out of various scholarly quotes in his 'Identity of the NT Text' book, where he blatantly took passages out of context, misquoted other passages, and misapplied the lot in a poor attempt to discredit the eclectic position."

This is found at the following netural website (it has a lot of good links on all areas of text criticism): http://www.bible-researcher.com/majority.html#note5

And so that I'm not looked at as harsh, let's consider Pickering's evaluation - from that same book - of Edward Hills' arguments (whom I posted on the prior post):

Hill's position is inconsistent and arbitrary, and does not square with the evidence.

This is found at the following link where you can download Pickering's book: http://www.revisedstandard.net/text/WNP/ap_a.html

It is just past footnote five.</blockquote>

Bill, what is this? Is this just for fun? You quote Robinson trashing Pickering, and then Pickering trashing Hills, almost in one breath. Shall we title this, "œHearsay evidence from the "˜experts´,"� or "œhigher critical pecking order"�?

Steve

[Edited on 7-21-2006 by Jerusalem Blade]

Steve,

Just to let you know, I went right to the end. I'm at work (finishing that 53-hour week - I'm exhausted!!).

Haven't had a chance to read it yet.

Did you get my email? I send you a private message a few nights ago?

Bill

Some reflections while waiting for Bill to get rested up and caught up:

I am glad and grateful to have exposed my views on the KJB/TR issues and subsequently been shown that some of them are wanting! Is it not better to have peer review (of sorts) and critique before finalizing a statement? In this vein, any of you who have downloaded and read my To Break A Sword (TBAS), or parts of it, and have criticisms or comments, it would be a boon to me (not a bane) to receive them.

I see I incur some liability by my holding with certain Fundamentalist Baptists in this issue of the text (and I am not referring to extremists such as Riplinger and Ruckman). Certainly they do hold some erroneous ideas regarding Burgon and Scrivener and their views of the King James Bible and the 1894 Textus Receptus. Nonetheless they have much of worth in both their historical and textual research, and I will not disassociate from them, but rather take a nuanced stance vis-Ã*-vis these folks. Dr. Waite alone, at his Bible for Today ministry, has treasures of reprinted classic, pertinent works on the defense of these texts, and David Cloud and Jack Moorman (to mention only two of many "“ see the bibliography of recommended reading at the end of TBAS) have original works of great value on the subject.

But I find I have been woefully ignorant of Ted Letis and his contribution to the subject. "œWoefully"� because all his major works are now out of print and those for sale exorbitantly priced, and I have not benefited from his labors. I am seeking to amend that.

I understand that a version of Letis´ book, Edward Freer Hills´ Contribution to the Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text, used to be available in an online format. Any of you friends of his willing to email me that treasure would make me the richer in my own labors following in his steps (though I honestly can´t fit in his shoes!). For to my dismay, a former treasure trove of his works at holywordcafe.com, is no longer available, as the site seems to be shut down.

Perhaps "“ arguably "“ the premiere textual critic of the day is Maurice Robinson, and although he calls himself a "œtrue Burgonian"� "“ and according to his definition I believe he is correct "“ he makes it a point not to be guided by the theology of providential preservation but simply by the scientific results of his text-critical approach, which is highly developed. Even so he is a keen and formidable advocate for the MT. There is much to be learned from men such as him. For example, in an internet discussion he says,

<blockquote>"¦[I]n many instances Burgon is now known to have been wrong due to subsequent discoveries. Example: Burgon thought Origen responsible for creating the Alexandrian text; P75 alone squashes that nonsense. But the KJV-Only crowd (especially Ruckman, Riplinger, and Waite) continues to quote Burgon on that point as if he has "œnever been answered"�). Rubbish. Burgon is not infallible, and never was.</blockquote>

I perceive a study to cast much light on that would be Gordon Fee's essay, "œP75, P66, and Origen: The Myth of early Textual Recension in Alexandria,"� pp. 247-73, in, Studies in the Theory and Method of NT Textual Criticism, E. J. Epp, G. D. Fee (Eerdmans, 1994).

I really would like to look that essay over, to see what Fee says. One disadvantage of being on an island in the Mediterranean is the scarcity of English-language libraries. Even in rustic Woodstock (NY) they had great librarians and their inter-library loan system could get me almost any book I wanted, and this one would be easy (books I couldn´t get there were the 2-volume biographies each of Westcott and Hort "“ I had to go to Waite to get those).

Samuel Gipp cites E.F. Hills, saying,

<blockquote>Dr. Edward Hills concludes, "œThe best way to explain this situation is to suppose that it represents an intentional neglect of the Traditional Text on the part of those ancient Alexandrian scribes who kept revising the text of Paprus 75 until finally they created the B text."� [Hills, Edward, Believing Bible Study, (The Christian Research Press, Des Moines, 1967), p. 166.]

(Online version of) Samuel Gipp's, An Understandable History of the Bible, Chapter 6 <http://samgipp.com/history/Gipp_hist...l</blockquote>

Note: I can´t find the quote in my 1977 edition of Hill´s book, as the pagination is different. But I´m hunting.

Now if anyone reading this has the book containing Fee´s essay, and would photocopy and mail it to me, in return I would not only pay the costs of copying and postage, but would send you a copy of Dr. Jakob Van Bruggen´s book, The Ancient Text of the New Testament, as a token of my gratitude (I have an extra copy).

As much as I admire skilled text critics such as Robinson and Pickering, I believe Dr. Hills has the Biblical "“ as contrasted with the secular or naturalistic "“ approach. He makes his case for it well in his The King James Version Defended (an online and downloadable version: http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kjvdefen.htm). I realize they look down with disdain on this approach, whether it be at Hills´ or Letis´ able hands, or lesser folks, seeing it as ignorant, utterly unscholarly, and without merit.

I don´t agree. The Lord will judge between us. I do not need an expert to tell me what to believe. If I choose to hold to the views of a teacher in this field because his teaching exemplifies what I have already been taught in Scripture, I do no dishonor to the field of textual scholarship. I will not be under the "œtyranny of experts"�* as regards my faith, whether it concerns the Person of my Lord, or His word, which is just as supernatural a phenomenon as He Himself is.

*(From J. Gresham Machen´s essay, "œMountains and Why We Love Them"� <http://www.opc.org/machen/mountains.html>)

Steve

P.S. I just bid for & won a copy of Letis´ Ecclesiastical Text at eBay; cost: $8.06 + $3.57 shipping (to a friend in NY) = $11.63. The Lord provided.

Steve,

here are some links to Theodore Letis material if you are interested...

http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/Letis.html

http://www.kuyper.org/main/publish/j...ticle_67.shtml

The So-called English Standard Version (audio...)
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninf...ID=41504103537

A New Hearing for the Authorized Version...
http://www.thescripturealone.com/Letis.html

The Ecclesiastical Text: Text Criticism, Biblical Authority and the Popular Mind (Chapter Synopses of the Book)...
http://www.thescripturealone.com/EccText.html

__________________
Larry Bray
Elder - Reformed Presbyterian Church of Boothwyn, PCA
Boothwyn, PA - http://www.rpcb.org/
Free Online Reformed Seminary - http://www.tnars.net
-----------------------------------------------------
Christian ritual costs nothing and is worth nothing. True Christian religion costs all that we have and is worth everything.

Larry,

Thank you very much. The only link that doesn't work is: http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/Letis.html

Is it working for you? Please let me know, as I can't get the holywordcafe.com website. I was hoping for someone who had downloaded from there in the past and still has it stored on their computer. But if it is working then it must be a server problem I'm having.

Steve

It's working here, Steve.

Working for me, too.

Steve,

Letis was a personal friend and I had a rich email exchange from him. Perhaps I have an electronic copy of Letis' book which I will be happy to email to you if I do, it is rather short around a hundred or so pages if I remember right. I'll let you know later tonight or tomorrow when I can go through the emails he sent.

Blessings.

__________________
Ted Clore
Cascades Fellowship (CRC)
Jackson, MI