TONIGHT’S TOPIC:

“Whether the Legacy Standard Bible, as a representative of modern English translations based upon the UBS/NA text, is superior to the KJV, as a representative of TR-based translations."

JAMES’S KJVO SPECTRUM

James R. White, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? 21-26.

​

JAMES WHITE’S NEXT CATEGORY:

Those who “believe God ‘re-inspired’ the Bible in 1611, rendering it in the English language,” a position he says “predominate[s] in many areas.”

James R. White, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2009), 27-28.

JAMES PROCEEDS TO CLAIM ...

There are “groups who … clai[m] that the KJV was written in eternity and that Abraham, Moses, and the prophets all read the 1611 KJV, including the New Testament. These individuals believe that Hebrew is actually English.”

James R. White, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2009), 27.

EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS WHO TAKE A STRONG POSITION ON PERFECT PRESERVATION & SCRIPTURE WHILE REJECTING RUCKMANISM:

• Fairhaven Baptist College Great Plains Baptist Divinity School
• Pensacola Christian College Baptist Bible Translators Institute
• Sydney Bible Baptist College Beth Haven Baptist Seminary
• Ambassador Baptist College Bible Baptist Theological Seminary (Cromwell, CT)
• Lehigh Valley Baptist Bible College (Emmaus, PA) Bible Baptist Institute (Oak Harbor, WA)
• Heartland Baptist Bible College Indiana Baptist College
• And others
• Many churches with own Bible institutes take a strong position on the perfect preservation of Scripture while rejecting Ruckmanism.

A “RE-INSPIRED” 1611 BIBLE?

​

• No sources support the claim
• KJVO Bible colleges, seminaries, and institutes overwhelmingly reject Ruckmanite fanaticism

ANY POSITION ALONG THE SPECTRUM �HE SETS FORTH . . .

• Would be sufficient to establish the negative I am defending in our debate today.
• James needs to positively prove the critical text is superior to anything on the pro-KJV spectrum.

THE NESTLE-ALAND / UBS-TYPE GREEK TEXT

From which the LSB and

practically all other

modern English versions

are translated is wrong.

THE PRESERVATION OF SCRIPTURE

VERBAL, PLENARY, AND PERFECT PRESERVATION OF THE INFALLIBLY INSPIRED HEBREW OLD TESTAMENT AND GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

​

LONDON BAPTIST CONFESSION (“PERHAPS NO CONFESSION OF FAITH HAS HAD SO FORMATIVE AN INFLUENCE ON BAPTIST LIFE”)

• “the Old Testament in Hebrew … and the New Testament in Greek … being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical,” as the London Baptist Confession of 1689 properly affirms.

​

• W. J. McGlothlin, Baptist Confessions of Faith (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1911), 230.

SCRIPTURE AFFIRMS:

WHAT DOES SCRIPTURE TEACH ABOUT ITS OWN PRESERVATION?�

WHAT DOES SCRIPTURE TEACH ABOUT ITS OWN PRESERVATION?�

WHAT DOES SCRIPTURE TEACH ABOUT ITS OWN PRESERVATION?�

WHAT DOES SCRIPTURE TEACH ABOUT ITS OWN PRESERVATION?�

WHAT DOES SCRIPTURE TEACH ABOUT ITS OWN PRESERVATION?��

• 9.) The Bible presents as a pattern that that believers would receive these words from other believers (Deuteronomy 17:18; 29:29; 1 Kings 2:3; Proverbs 25:1; Acts 7:38; Hebrews 7:11; 1 Thessalonians 1:6; Philippians 4:9; Colossians 4:16).

​

• 10.) The Bible shows that God’s promises may appear to contradict science and reason. In Genesis 2 we see that a newly created world may look ancient. However, the Scriptures remind us that “it is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man” (Psalm 118:8). We believe in order that we may understand.

​

WHAT DOES SCRIPTURE TEACH ABOUT ITS OWN PRESERVATION?

• 11.) Christ taught the preservation of His very words, since they will be the standard in the future judgment (John 12:48) and men will be accountable to obey all of them. He also warned of the vanity of ignoring His actual words (Matthew 7:26). Christ emphatically declared, “the scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). In Matthew 22:29 Jesus rebuked men, saying, “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures.” If the Scriptures were only accessible in long-lost original autographs then why would the Lord chide people for being ignorant of words that were not available? Believers are commanded to contend for the faith (Jude 3) and this faith is based upon the words of God (Romans 10:17).

​

WHAT DOES SCRIPTURE TEACH ABOUT ITS OWN PRESERVATION?

12) “The just shall live by faith” (Romans 1:17; Habakkuk 2:4).

• Scripture, and faith in the promises of God, must be the “glasses” through which we evaluate historical data about the preservation of the Bible.
• Scripture teaches the verbal, plenary preservation of the verbally, plenarily inspired autographa (Psalm 12:6-7; Matthew 5:18; Matthew 24:35);
• that the preserved words would be perpetually available to God’s people (Isaiah 59:21); and
• that Israel was the guardian of Scripture in the Mosaic dispensation (Romans 3:1-2), and the church the guardian in the dispensation of grace (1 Timothy 3:15).
• The Holy Spirit would lead the saints to accept the words the Father gave to the Son to give to His people (John 16:13; 17:8). Believers can know with certainty where the canonical words of God are, because they are to live by every one of them (Matthew 4:4; Revelation 22:18-19) and are going to be judged by them at the last day (John 12:48).

​

FOR MORE ON THE BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OF PRESERVATION, SEE:�

• Kent Brandenburg, ed., Thou Shalt Keep Them: A Biblical Theology of the Perfect Preservation of Scripture (El Sobrante, CA: Pillar and Ground Publishing, 2003).

​

• Free resources: https://faithsaves.net/Bibliology/.

​

• Compare the list of presuppositions on the preservation of Scripture on pgs. 73-74, “Preservation of the Bible: Providential or Miraculous? A Response to Jon Rehurek of the Master’s Seminary,” Paul Ferguson. The Burning Bush 15:2 (July 2009) 67-100

​

THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS��

• It is undisputed that Luther used the Greek Textus Receptus for his translation of the German New Testament in 1522 and all its later editions (although the term itself was not yet in use at the time). . . . [So did] all the translators of the New Testament in the 16th century (e.g., the Zürich version). All the translations of the 17th century, including the King James version of 1611, the “Authorized Version,” were also based on this text.

​

• From “The Text Of The Church?” Kurt Aland. Trinity Journal, 8:2 (Fall 1987), 131, 143.

THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS��

• It is equally undisputed that in the 16th or 17th century (and for that matter well into the 18th century) anyone with a Greek New Testament would have had a copy of the Textus Receptus. . . . Finally it is undisputed that from the 16th to the 18th century orthodoxy’s doctrine of verbal inspiration assumed this Textus Receptus . . . [which] was regarded as “the text of the church” . . . from the 4^th . . . Century.

​

• From “The Text Of The Church?” Kurt Aland. Trinity Journal, 8:2 (Fall 1987), 131, 143.

THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS

• The “Textus Receptus . . . was regarded as preserving even to the last detail the inspired and infallible word of God himself” (pg. 11, The Text of the New Testament, Kurt & Barbara Aland, trans. Erroll Rhodes. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989).

​

​

�VIEW OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS

Having secured . . . preeminence, what came to be called the Textus Receptus of the New Testament resisted for 400 years all scholarly effort to displace it. . . . [The] “Textus Receptus,” or commonly received, standard text . . . makes the boast that “the reader has the text now received by all, in which we give nothing changed or corrupted.” . . . [This] form of Greek text . . . succeeded in establishing itself as “the only true text” of the New Testament and was slavishly reprinted in hundreds of subsequent editions. It lies at the basis of the King James Version and of all the principal Protestant translations in the languages of Europe prior to 1881. So [allegedly] superstitious has been the reverence accorded the Textus Receptus that in some cases attempts to criticize or emend it have been regarded as akin to sacrilege. . . . For almost two centuries . . . almost all of the editors of the New Testament during this period were content to reprint the time-honored . . . Textus Receptus. . . . In the early days of . . . determining textual groupings . . . the manuscript was collated against the Textus Receptus[.] . . . This procedure made sense to scholars, who understood the Textus Receptus as the original text of the New Testament, for then variations from it would be “agreements in error.” (Bruce M. Metzger & Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 4th ed. [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005], 129, 149, 152-153, 170, 181ff.)

SCRIPTURE INFALLIBLY TEACHES THAT

• “the Old Testament in Hebrew … and the New Testament in Greek … being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical,” as the London Baptist Confession of 1689 properly affirms.

​

• W. J. McGlothlin, Baptist Confessions of Faith (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1911), 230.

THE BAPTIST CONFESSION IS FULL OF UNIQUELY TR READINGS:

MORE ON THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS

THE UBS/ NESTLE-ALAND TEXT

DOES NOT FIT WHAT SCRIPTURE TEACHES ABOUT ITS OWN PRESERVATION

TEXTUS “REJECTUS” �(UBS/NESTLE-ALAND TEXT)

• Was not in use for well over 1,000 years.
• Does not claim to give people certainty, so that they can
• Live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God (Matt. 4:4) &
• Avoid the curse on those who add or take away even one word from Scripture (Deut. 4:2; Prov. 30:5-6; Rev. 22:18-19).

IN WESTCOTT & HORT’S VIEW, CERTAINTY ABOUT THE WORDS OF SCRIPTURE=IMPOSSIBLE:

• Are there as a matter of fact places in which we are constrained by overwhelming evidence to recognize the existence of textual error in all extant documents? To this question we have no hesitation in replying in the affirmative. . . . But there is no adequate justification for assuming that primitive corruption must be confined to passages where it was obvious enough to catch the eye of ancient scribes, and would naturally thus lead to variation. … [C]riticism detects impossible readings accepted without suspicion by all transcribers. . . . There may be and probably are other places containing corruption which we have failed to discover[.]

​

​

• B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1882), 279-281.

​

MODERN TEXTUAL CRITICS, DEFENDERS, & AUTHORS OF THE NESTLE-ALAND AGREE: CERTAINTY ABOUT THE WORDS OF SCRIPTURE=IMPOSSIBLE:

• Their text suggests many emendations where, supposedly, every single Greek manuscript is corrupt. ‘

​

• E.G., the Nestle-Aland 26^th edition contained c. 130 . . . conjectures in the apparatus

​

• The Nestle-Aland 27^th edition—base text for LSB—“listed over 100 . . . explicit conjectural emendations”

​

• The text contains conjectural emendation in Acts 16:12 (πρώτης μερίδος)

​

• The Nestle-Aland 28^th edition likewise contains a conjectural emendation in 2 Peter 3:10 (oujc euJreqh/setai).

​

​

​

​

(http://danielbwallace.com/2014/04/18/review-of-trobischs-users-guide-to-the-nestle-aland-28)

pg. 568, New Testament Textual Criticism: The Application of Thoroughgoing Principles: Essays on Manuscripts and Textual Variation, J. K. Elliott. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2010).

​

​

UBS / NA TEXT WITH NO MS SUPPORT AT ALL

• This fact is difficult to discern from the apparatus, in which “readings have been selected and substituted based upon an inadequate representation of the evidence” and where “the readings and their support are often misleading and/or in error.” There are many “lines of text in the UBS4 and in Westcott and Hort that have no manuscript support” just in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark and well into the triple-digits of such lines—with no MS on earth that are identical to them, as far as we know—in the UBS/NA text (the vast majority of them without any footnote in the LSB warning readers that their text does not replicate any actual MS on earth, and the vast majority of them difficult or impossible to discern from the UBS apparatus).

​

​

• Reuben Swanson, ed., New Testament Greek Manuscripts: Variant Readings Arranged in Horizontal Lines Against Codex Vaticanus: Matthew (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic, 1995), iii, xii.
• With 29,648 words in the NA text of Matthew and 138,011 words in the NA text of the NT according to Accordance Bible Software, Matthew-Mark is 21.5% of the NT. With approximately 41 lines in Matthew-Mark with no textual support in even one witness, there would be approximately 191 instances of lines of text with no MS support in the NA NT.

​

UBS / NA TEXT WITH NO MS SUPPORT AT ALL

• Note here that we are simply speaking of individual lines of text—parts of verses consisting of handfuls of words. As for whole verses, groups of verses, or larger sections of text, the portion of the UBS/NA text that looks like exactly zero manuscripts on the earth grows exponentially. (Note that the Textus Receptus has MS support in 100% of these passages where the UBS/NA text has 0 MS supporting its reading.)

​

MERE HANDFULS OF WORDS IN MATTHEW & MARK WITH �NO TEXTUAL SUPPORT IN THE UBS/NA TEXTUS REJECTUS:�

1.) θέλεις, ποιήσω ὧδε τρεῖς σκηνάς, σοὶ μίαν καὶ Μωϋσεῖ μίαν καὶ Ἠλίᾳ μίαν. (Matthew 17:4)

​

2.) λαμβάνοντες τῷ Πέτρῳ καὶ εἶπαν· ὁ διδάσκαλος ὑμῶν οὐ τελεῖ δίδραχμα; (Matthew 17:24)

​

3.) ἂν θέλῃ ἐν ὑμῖν εἶναι πρῶτος ἔσται ὑμῶν δοῦλος· (Matthew 17:27)

​

4-5.) ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς, [κύριε,] υἱὸς Δαυίδ. (Matthew 20:30;

both with and without brackets no MS has reading)

​

MERE HANDFULS OF WORDS IN MATTHEW & MARK WITH �NO TEXTUAL SUPPORT IN THE UBS/NA TEXTUS REJECTUS:

6.) τίνα θέλετε ἀπολύσω ὑμῖν, Ἰησοῦν τὸν Βαραββᾶν (Matthew 27:17)

​

7.) εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ, [καὶ] κατάβηθι ἀπὸ τοῦ σταυροῦ. ὁμοίως καὶ (Matthew 27:40-

​

41; both with and without brackets no MS has reading)

​

8.) ηλι ηλι λεμα σαβαχθανι (Matthew 27:46)

​

9.) καὶ ἐθαμβήθησαν ἅπαντες ὥστε συζητεῖν πρὸς

ἑαυτοὺς λέγοντας· (Mark 1:27)

Including the bracketed Ἰησοῦν τὸν.

​

MERE HANDFULS OF WORDS IN MATTHEW & MARK WITH �NO TEXTUAL SUPPORT IN THE UBS/NA TEXTUS REJECTUS:

10.) καὶ ἠγέρθη καὶ εὐθὺς ἄρας τὸν κράβαττον ἐξῆλθεν ἔμπροσθεν πάντων (Mark 2:12)

​

11.) ὃς ἂν ποιήσῃ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ (Mark 3:35)

​

12.) καὶ ἐδίδου καρπὸν ἀναβαίνοντα καὶ αὐξανόμενα καὶ ἔφερεν ἓν (Mark 4:8)

​

13.) καὶ ὤμοσεν αὐτῇ πολλὰ ὅ τι ἐάν με αἰτήσῃς δώσω σοι ἕως ἡμίσους τῆς βασιλείας (Mark 6:23)

​

14.) ὁ δὲ ἔφη αὐτοῖς· Ἠλίας μὲν ἐλθὼν πρῶτον

ἀποκαθιστάνει (Mark 9:12)

​

MERE HANDFULS OF WORDS IN MATTHEW & MARK WITH �NO TEXTUAL SUPPORT IN THE UBS/NA TEXTUS REJECTUS:

• More examples: Matthew 1:5-6 (2x); 5:11; 12:2, 22, 24; 14:5; 17:3; 20:31; 21:15-16; 21:42; 24:39-40; 25:15-16; Mark 3:6, 7, 33-34; 6:14; 8:27; 9:13; 10:2, 47-48 (2x); 11:10; 12:8-9, 36-37, 39; 16:8
• While there are certainly more significant variants than those

that distinguish these passages from extant MSS, these 41

examples illustrate the extremely thin textual support for

the UBS/NA text.

​

�ALAND WROTE:

“The text of the early period of the second/third century was frequently characterized by erratic traits . . . such as the free expansions still permitted by the standards of the second century when the New Testament text was not yet regarded as ‘canonical,’ much less as sacred in the same sense as Jewish scribes regarded the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. . . . Until the beginning of the fourth century the text of the New Testament developed freely . . . scribes . . . felt themselves free to make corrections in the text, improving it by their own standards of correctness, whether grammatically, stylistically, or more substantively. This was all the more true of the early period, when the text had not yet attained canonical status, especially in the earliest period when Christians considered themselves filled with the Spirit [of inspiration] . . . .

�ALAND WROTE:

​

​

“Well into the second century Christians still regarded themselves as possessing inspiration equal to that of the New Testament writings which they read in their worship services. . . . Until the third/fourth century, then, there were many different forms of the New Testament text . . . not until the fourth century . . . did the formation of text types begin. . . . [There are] instances [where] . . . the New Testament tradition presents an insoluble tie between two or more alternative readings. . . . If a critic prefers to identify a different reading as the original, there is no problem.”

​

(Kurt & Barbara Aland, trans. Erroll F. Rhodes, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989], 51, 55, 64, 69, 295, 321)

​

 �JAMES HIMSELF ADMITS: �WE DO NOT HAVE A CERTAIN TEXT NOW AND �WE NEVER, EVER WILL HAVE ONE.�

• When asked by Douglas Wilson: “If you agree that we are capable of finally settling on the aboriginal test of all 66 books in the Bible, then would you agree that his final ecclesiastical text would have to be generated as some kind of an artificial text—in a similar way to how Scrivener 1881 was formed, or as an artificial collation from the original languages like the Nest/Aland/UBS (only without options or choices in the footnotes)?

​

• James replied: “I would assume that over time the further discovery of older texts together with the fuller analysis of the manuscripts … would diminish the strongly disputed texts to a minimum. But even then, I cannot see unanimity being achieved[.]”

​

• Douglas Wilson vs. James R. White, Debating the Text of the Word of God (Simposio: 2017), 65.

​

JAMES’ POSITION VIOLATES SCRIPTURE

• Scripture teaches that believers in every age can be certain about what the pure words of God are, so they can love and “live … by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4), and avoid the dreadful curses in both the Old and New Testaments on those who add or take away any of His words (Deuteronomy 12:32; Proverbs 30:5-6; Revelation 22:18-19).
• But James says we never have and never will get certainty about what every one of those words is. James’ position, and the NA/UBS text he is defending, violate Scripture’s promises. They are wrong.

​

TEXTUAL CRITICAL VIEWS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

REJECT CERTAINTY & PROVIDENTIAL PRESERVATION

ACCORDING TO EMMANUEL TOV:

“[A] critically reconstructed “original text” (or a textual form approaching the original text) . . . do[es] not exist for the complete Hebrew Bible[.] . . . Interest in the original shape of the biblical text is a relatively new development in the history of research. Before that interest developed, the biblical text was considered to have once existed in exactly or approximately the same form as that known from the medieval manuscripts and the printed editions of M [the Masoretic text]. . . . In spite of the importance attached to this issue, the question of the original text of the biblical books cannot be decided unequivocally[.] . . . Because of the many problems inherent with it, the supposition of an original text has often been rejected by scholars. . . . [E]verything that is said about the pristine state of the biblical text must necessarily remain hypothetical. . . . Most of the biblical books were not written by one person nor at one particular time, but rather contain compositional layers written during many generations[.] . . .”

EMMANUEL TOV, CONTINUED:

“[T]he original text of the Bible . . . if such texts ever existed. . . was far from identical with . . . M [the Masoretic text]. . . . The presumed existence of alternative readings has given impetus to the view that there never existed any single original text. . . . During the textual transmission many complicated changes occurred, rendering the reconstruction of the original form of that text almost impossible. . . . [E]ven the more modest aim . . . [to] reconstruct the various texts that were current in the fourth to third centuries BCE . . . is impossible . . . [and this] would not have provided a replacement for the reconstructed original text. . . . A textual theory which could explain the development of the biblical text in its entirety does not exist[.] . . . The period of relative textual unity reflected in the assumed pristine text(s) of the biblical books was brief at best, but in actual fact it probably never existed[.] . . .”

EMMANUEL TOV, CONTINUED:

“[T]he random preservation of evidence . . . by chance . . . determines . . the textual nature of the books[.] . . . The biblical text developed and changed much throughout many generations of copying and transmission[.] . . . It is not clear whether it is possible to reconstruct the original orthography of the biblical books[.] . . . [T]extual criticism . . . [of] the Hebrew Bible . . . [does not] ai[m] . . . at the compositions written by the biblical authors[.] . . . [Many scholars affirm] the books of the Hebrew Bible never existed in one original written form, but only in several parallel oral formulations. . . . [O]ften it is impossible to make a decision with regard to the originality of readings. . . . The comparative evaluation of variants . . . is necessarily subjective. . . . [T]he original reading . . . [is] not necessarily the best[.] . . . In such cases in which scholars believe that no reading has been preserved . . . emendations may be suggested[.] . . . These emendations need not be evaluated since they are based on imagination rather than evidence. . . . [T]extual rules . . . as we have seen propounded are of little if any use. No one is guided by them in practice. Nor can they secure an accurate judgment in all cases. . . .”

EMMANUEL TOV, CONTINUED:

“[I]t is difficult to present examples which can unequivocally prove the correctness of any given rule. . . . [Th]ere is no unanimous view on . . . any . . . reading[.] . . . [O]ften no decision is possible . . . one will often suggest solutions which differ completely from the one[s] suggested on the previous day. . . . In modern times, scholars are often reluctant to admit the subjective nature of textual evaluation[.] . . . [For many variant readings] it is questionable whether textual evaluation has any application to them at all. . . . This lack of clarity could cause scholars always to refrain from expressing an opinion on the originality of readings in general. . . . Scholars also realize that sometimes [not even] . . . conjectural . . . emendation is acceptable, at which point they are likely to be content with merely stating that the text is corrupt. . . .”

EMANUEL TOV, CONTINUED:

“Many readings have been lost, among which were necessarily readings that were contained in the first copies. . . . [T]he evidence that has been preserved is arbitrary from a textual point of view. . . . [‘C]ritical edition’ is the most inappropriate of all names for the thing to which custom applies it, an edition in which the editor is allowed to fling his opinions in the reader’s face without being called to account and asked for his reasons.”

EMMANUEL TOV ADMITS:

• “[I]t is not easy to provide convincing proof of . . . errors in M [the Masoretic Hebrew text of the Bible].”

​

Emmanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 2^nd rev. ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), 9.

THOUGHTS TO CONSIDER:

• Scripture models the receipt of the text of Scripture from other true

​

believers.

​

• Scripture indicates that God’s sheep hear his voice.

​

• Not one of the modern editors of the critical Greek New Testament believes

​

in the infallible inspiration of Scripture.

​

• Neither Westcott nor Hort believed in the infallible inspiration of Scripture.

​

• In the NA/UBS text, one is getting his Bible from the goats-the children of Satan-and not from the sheep, the children of God.

UBS EDITORS REJECT INFALLIBLE INSPIRATION

• Indeed, UBS editors Kurt & Barbara Aland state that believing heretical, anti-inspiration garbage like that “1 Peter and 2 Peter … were clearly written by two different authors … and were brought together only by a much later church tradition” are the sorts of “insights … fundamental and of vital significance for the history of the text [and] New Testament textual criticism.”

​

​

​

• Kurt Aland & Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism, trans. Erroll F. Rhodes (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989), 49.

​

UBS EDITORS REJECT INFALLIBLE INSPIRATION

• UBS editor and modernist Kurt Aland denied the verbal, plenary inspiration of Scripture and the canonicity of various books of the Bible, and contributed to the theological modernism in works such as Peake’s Commentary. (Ibid, 277-278)

​

• UBS editor and modernist wife of Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland likewise denied the infallible inspiration of Scripture and attacked books of the canon.

​

• UBS editor, Roman Catholic Archbishop and Jesuit Carlo Maria Martini, taught at the Pontifical Biblical Institute where the Documentary Hypothesis, evolution, and New Age universalism is mixed with traditional Roman Catholicism such as Mary worship, worship of saints, worship of pieces of bread allegedly transubstantiated, and rejection of justification by faith alone—he was at the highest levels of what Baptists and Protestants have viewed as the core of the Whore of Babylon and the “church” of Antichrist (Revelation 17).

​

SIMILAR HERESIES & REJECTION OF INSPIRATION �CAN BE FOUND FOR ALL NA TEXT EDITORS

​

• (David Cloud, The Modern Bible Version Hall of Shame [Port Huron, MI: Way of Life, 2005] 274-276)

​

• For sources for all the editors, see David Cloud, The Modern Bible Version Hall of Shame (Port Huron, MI: Way of Life, 2005), 268ff.

​

NA REJECTS OVERWHELMING MAJORITY �OF GREEK MSS MOST OF THE TIME

​

• Acts 16:12, NA follows NO Greek MSS: prōtēs “Dissatisfied … with all … Greek witnesses, a majority of the Committee preferred to adopt [a] conjecture.”

• There are large numbers of readings where the NA follows only one MS and rejects all others.

​

• Bruce Manning Metzger, United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.) (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 394.

​

UNDERLYING GREEK TEXT UNDER LSB=WRONG!

Doesn’t even claim perfect preservation

Was not in the mouths of God’s people

Entirely absent from Baptist confessions

TEXTUS RECEPTUS NOT THE TEXTUS “REJECTUS”!

• Since the people of God rejected the NA/UBS for centuries, one might, to highlight its antithesis with the old received Bible, call it the Textus Rejectus.

Rejectus est a Deo, “Is having been rejected by God.” (Caroli Francisci Lhomond, Epitome Historiae Sacrae: Brevi Christi Vitae Narratione Addita, ed. Robertus Carfagni [Newburyport, MA: Focus Publishing, 2009] 92)

​

��

• Matthew 4:23 1 MS (en hole te Galilia)
• John 4:27 1 MS (elthan)
• John 9:22 1 MS (eipan)
• John 14:7 1 MS (gnosesthe)
• 1 Peter 2:25 1 MS (alla)

​

IN MANY CASES, NA FOLLOWS JUST ONE MS

& REJECTS ALL OTHERS!

��

• Luke 2:52: NA 0.1% of MSS (en te) TR 99.7% of MSS (proekopten) other 0.2%
• Note that in NONE of these passages—and in vast numbers of similar texts where the Nestle-Aland text rejects all or approximately 99.9% of MS evidence—does the LSB even contain a footnote letting readers know that their Textus Rejectus is rejecting 99.9% or 100% of the MS evidence. James’ book against the KJV position is subtitled “Can You Trust the Modern Versions?” the answer, too often, is “no”!
• The Nestle-Aland text also fails to meet the model of Scripture because it is a patchwork, “eclectic” printed text that does not even closely resemble any actual MS that exists on the earth.

​

There are many readings where the NA text rejects around 99.9% of MSS, such as:

��THE NESTLE-ALAND TEXT ALSO FAILS TO MEET THE MODEL OF SCRIPTURE BECAUSE IT IS A PATCHWORK, “ECLECTIC” PRINTED TEXT THAT DOES NOT EVEN CLOSELY RESEMBLE ANY ACTUAL MS THAT EXISTS ON THE EARTH. �

TEXTUS RECEPTUS

TEXTUS REJECTUS

LOOKS LIKE 0% MSS:

​

Modern eclectic praxis operates on a variant unit basis without any apparent consideration of the consequences. The resultant situation is simple: the best modern eclectic texts simply have no proven existence within transmissional history, and their claim to represent the autograph or the closest approximation thereunto cannot be substantiated from the extant ms, versional or patristic data. … [M]odern eclecticism … assume[s] that very early the original text was rent piecemeal and so carried to the ends of the earth where the textual critic, like lamenting Isis, must seek it by his skill.

​

​

​

​

Calvin L. Porter, “A Textual Analysis of the Earliest Manuscripts of the Gospel of John” (PhD Diss., Duke University, 1961) 12.

​

J. EPP, D. C. GREETHAM, BRUCE METZGER:

• Such a scenario imposes an impossible burden upon textual restoration, since not only is the original text no longer extant in any known ms or texttype, but no ms or group of mss reflects such in its overall pattern of readings.
• There thus remains no transmissional guide to suggest how such an “original” text would appear when found. … It is one thing for modern eclecticism to defend numerous readings when considered solely as isolated units of variation. It is quite another matter for modern eclecticism to claim that the sequential result of such isolated decisions will produce a text closer to the autograph (or canonical archetype) than that produced by any other method.
• … [S]trangely lacking is any attempt to defend the resultant sequential text as a transmissional entity. The lay reader can be overwhelmingly convinced regarding any individual eclectic decision due to its apparent plausibility, consistency, and presumed credibility[.] … The “pattern of readings” phenomenon concerns a discernible pattern involving only the units of existing variation considered sequentially as they combine to produce a standardized form of the nt text.

​

MODERN ECLECTICISM �FAILS PROBABILITY TEST

• A major problem arises as soon as those same readings are viewed as a connected sequence; at such a point the resultant text must be scrutinized in transmissional and historical terms. …
• [M]odern eclecticism faces a greater problem than did the Byzantine text under the theoretical stemma of Westcott and Hort. Not only does its resultant text lack genealogical support within transmissional theory, but it fails the probability test as well.
• That the original text or anything close to such would fail to perpetuate itself sequentially within reasonably short sections of text is a key weakness affecting the entire modern eclectic theory and method. …

PREFERRED TEXT CAN HAVE NO KNOWN MS SUPPORT

• [T]he resultant sequential aspect of modern eclectic theory is that its preferred text repeatedly can be shown to have no known ms support over even short stretches of text—and at times even within a single verse.
• The problem increases geometrically as a sequence of variants extends over two, three, five, or more verses.
• This raises serious questions about the supposed transmissional history required by eclectic choice. … [I]t is transmissionally unlikely that a short sequence of variants would leave no supporting witness within the manuscript tradition; the probability that such would occur repeatedly is virtually nil.

​

MODERN ECLECTICISM’S CREATED TEXT

Modern eclecticism creates a text which, within repeated short sequences, rapidly degenerates into one possessing no support among manuscript, versional, or patristic witnesses. The problem deteriorates further as the scope of sequential variation increases. … As examples (which could be multiplied): (1) Mt 20:23 contains seven variant units, only three of which (the first, second and sixth) are sufficient to leave the resultant text of NA²⁷ with no support; (2) Lk 6:26 contains five variant units, which together leave the NA²⁷ text without support; (3) Mk 11:3 contains but two variant units, in which the witnesses to the NA²⁷ text are mutually exclusive (variant 1, text = B Δ 2427 pc; variant 2, text = א D L 579 892 1241 pc); (4) Jn 6:23, with four variant units, needs but the second and third to produce a NA²⁷ verse with no support. Westcott and Hort Introduction, 243, acknowledged this as regards the variant units in Mk 14:30, 68, 72^a, 72^b: “the confusion of attestation … is so great that of the seven principal mss א A B C D L Δ no two have the same text in all four places.” The na²⁷ variants for Mk 14:72 alone leave the text with no ms in support.

​

• … As scattered examples, (1) Ac 17:26 is supported by mss 𝔓⁷⁴ א A B 33 81 1175; if v. 27 is added, the support drops to B and 33; after v. 28, only ms 33 remains, and if v. 29 is added, the resultant text no longer can be found in any extant Greek ms; (2) Mk 7:24, with five units of variation, is supported in toto only by ms L; Mk 7:25 with four variant units is supported in toto only by ms B; if the two verses are taken together, no extant ms supports the resultant text. … The NA²⁷ variants for Mk 14:72 alone leave the text with no ms in support. …

​

• It seems extremely difficult to maintain archetype or autograph authenticity for any artificially-constructed eclectic text when such a text taken in sequence fails to leave its pattern or reconstructable traces within even one extant witness to the text of the nt; this is especially so when other supposedly “secondary” texttypes and Textforms [that is, the Byzantine/ Textus Receptus type of text] are preserved in a reasonable body of extant witnesses with an acceptable level of reconstructability.

​

• The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform 2005, with Morphology. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2006), 534–538.

• The … text of NA²⁷ over a short portion of text is often found to have support from B or alone or no extant MS support whatsoever[.] … Whenever even short phrases have no real support among the extant Greek MS base of over five thousand witnesses, something is seriously wrong with the transmissional model underlying modern eclecticism. This suggests that the transmissional history of the Greek NT text hypothesized by modern eclectic editors does not follow a pattern which any other historical discipline normally would accept in regard to the transmission and preservation of texts. Readings which when considered together are seen to be without MS support are mere conjectures and not demonstrations. …. [T]he MSS which comprise the Byzantine Text form … retain at any given point a basic identity of reading which is not paralleled in the MSS of the minority texttype traditions.³
• Investigating Text-critical Dichotomy: A Critique of Modern Eclectic Praxis from a Byzantine-priority Perspective.” Faith and Mission 16, no. 2 (1999): 17.

​

• For example:

​

• John 18:1 [in the NA text], taken as a whole, is supported by no single MS whatsoever. … John 18:3 … taken as a whole has no known Greek MS supporting it[.] … John 18:5 … is likewise supported by no known Greek MS whatsoever. …
• Note that whenever the examples extend beyond a single verse, it becomes even more difficult to find a single Greek MS in support of such an extended segment within the modern eclectic critical text—yet that text as reconstructed virtually ex nihilo is purported either to reflect the original autograph or to come closer to such than any other text or MS.
• Indeed, in examining the … opening pages of Mark (NA²⁷, pp. 106–10) … no Greek MSS were found to be in total support of any page in that section.
• Investigating Text-critical Dichotomy: A Critique of Modern Eclectic Praxis from a Byzantine-priority Perspective.” Faith and Mission 16, no. 2 (1999): 17-19.

​

 CRITICAL TEXT MSS WERE NOT COPIED CAREFULLY!��

• [W]hat makes cod[ices] B and D such utterly untrustworthy guides, (except when supported by a large amount of extraneous evidence), is the circumstance that Design had evidently so much to do with a vast proportion of the peculiar errors in which they severally abound. … In S. Luke's Gospel alone (collated with the traditional Text) the transpositions in codex B amount to 228, affecting 654 words: in codex D, to 464, affecting 1401 words. Proceeding with our examination of the same Gospel according to S. Luke, we find that the words omitted in B are 757, in D, 1552. The words substituted in B amount to 309, in D, to 1006. The readings peculiar to B are 138, and affect 215 words; those peculiar to D, are 1731, and affect 4090 words. … Codex B … bears traces of careless transcription in every page. The mistakes which the original transcriber made are of perpetual recurrence. (John Burgon, The Revision Revised, pgs. 248-249)

CRITICAL TEXT MSS WERE NOT COPIED CAREFULLY!

They are chiefly omissions, of one, two, or three words; but sometimes of half a verse, a whole verse, or even of several verses. … I hesitate not to assert that it would be easier to find a folio containing three or four such omissions than to light on one which should be without any. In the Gospels alone, Codex B leaves out words or whole clauses no less than 1,491 times[.] … [T]he codex is [also] disfigured throughout with repetitions. The original scribe is often found to have not only written the same words twice over, but to have failed whenever he did so to take any notice with his pen of what he had done. (John Burgon, The Revision Revised, pgs. 248-249)

CODEX SINAITICUS�NOT COPIED CAREFULLY!�

Codex Sinaiticus … abounds with errors of the eye and pen … [o]n many occasions, 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness. Letters and words, even whole sentences, are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately cancelled: while that gross blunder … whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament. Tregelles has freely pronounced that “the state of the text, as proceeding from the first scribe, may be regarded as very rough.” In this way 14 words have been omitted from Cod. א [in] S. Mark 15:47–16:1—19 words in S. Mark 1:32–34:—20 words in S. John 20:5, 6:—39 words in S. John 19:20, 21. (John W. Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark [Oxford: James Parker and Co., 1871] 72–86)

VATICANUS & SINAITICUS NOT COPIED CAREFULLY!�

[I]t is easier to find two consecutive verses in which the [Vaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus (Aleph)] MSS. differ, the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree[.] … But the character of two witnesses who habitually contradict one another has been accounted, in every age, precarious. On every such occasion, only one of them can possibly be speaking the truth. Shall I be thought unreasonable if I confess that these perpetual inconsistencies between Codd. B and א [Aleph]—grave inconsistencies, and occasionally even gross ones,—altogether destroy my confidence in either? (John W. Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark [Oxford: James Parker and Co., 1871] 72–86)

SCRIVENER NOTED:

• One marked feature … [of] Codex Vaticanus [B] … characteristic of this copy, is the great number of its omissions … it … present[s] an abbreviated text of the New Testament: and certainly the facts … on this point are startling enough. … Codex B leaves out words or whole clauses no less than 330 times in Matthew, 365 in Mark, 439 in Luke, 357 in John, 384 in the Acts, 681 in the surviving Epistles; or 2,556 times in all. That no small proportion of these are mere oversights of the scribe seems evident from the circumstance that this same scribe has repeatedly written words and clauses twice over … which by no means enhances our estimate of the care employed in copying this venerable Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, ed. Edward Miller, Fourth Edition., vol. 1 (London: Deighton Bell & Co., 1894), 119–120.

​

ALEPH AND B, THOUSANDS OF CONTRADICTIONS!�HERMAN HOSKIER, CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES: A STUDY AND AN INDICTMENT, VOL. 2 (LONDON: BERNARD QUARITCH, 1914) 1

EXAMPLES OF FOUR BYZANTINE MSS THAT ARE EXACTLY THE SAME IN THE BOOK OF TITUS�(PICTURED: MANUSCRIPT 1072, MT. ATHOS, GREECE)

Manuscript 1072 (Mt. Athos, Greece, XIII century)

MANUSCRIPT 1072 (MT. ATHOS, GREECE)�

MANUSCRIPT 2080 (MONASTERY OF ST. JOHN THE THEOLOGIAN, ISLE OF PATMOS, GREECE)

MANUSCRIPT 2080 (MONASTERY OF ST. JOHN THE THEOLOGIAN, ISLE OF PATMOS, GREECE)

MANUSCRIPT 2587 (VATICAN)�

MANUSCRIPT 2587 (VATICAN)�

MANUSCRIPT 2723 (VISSARION MONASTERY, TRIKALA, GREECE)�

MANUSCRIPT 2723 (VISSARION MONASTERY, TRIKALA, GREECE)

VERY CAREFUL COPYING!�

• [Out of 21 MSS of the Thessalonian epistles I have personally collated], eleven of their exemplars (over half) were ‘perfect,’ and another five were off by only one variant. . . . The MSS come from all over the Mediterranean world. . . . [Considering] minuscule 18 . . . at least ten [generations passed between this MS and] the family archetype[,] [very possibly] fifteen or more[.] . . . However many there actually were, please note that every last one of them was perfect! The implications of finding a perfect representative of any archetypal text are rather powerful. All the ‘canons’ of textual criticism become irrelevant to any point subsequent to the creation of that text [Emphasis in original, both here and below in the bold print.]. . . . For MS 18 to be perfect, all the generations in between had to be perfect as well. Now I call this incredibly careful transmission. (Pickering)

VERY CAREFUL COPYING!

Nothing that I was taught in Seminary about New Testament textual criticism prepared me for this discovery! . . . MS 18 is not an isolated case . . . [By contrast, a] typical “Alexandrian” MS will have over a dozen variants per page. . . . [but] one of the better f³⁵ MSS [the f³⁵ group is a segment of the Byzantine MSS] will go for pages without a variant. . . . A monk copying an “Alexandrian” MS evidently did not consider that he was handling Scripture, in stark contrast to one copying a f³⁵ MS. . . . In 2 John . . . [I have collated] twenty-four . . . MSS [that] are perfect representatives of the family as they stand . . . in 3 John . . . also twenty-four . . . in Jude . . . seventeen . . . for all three . . . eleven . . . all thirty-seven MSS [from which the statistics of this sentence come] are independent in their generation, as were their exemplars. . . . I see no evidence of collusion, of ‘stuffing the ballot box’—there was no organized effort to standardize the Text. We are looking at a normal transmission, except that it was incredibly careful. . . .

VERY CAREFUL COPYING!�

• [There were] twenty-one perfect exemplars [for all three books, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude]. . . . [In the book of James] . . . the examplars of [MSS] 18, 35, 1864, 1865, 2221 and 2723 are perfect representatives . . . [In] 1 Peter . . . we have four exemplars that [are perfect copies] . . . [in] 2 Peter . . . we have eight exemplars . . . [in] 1 John . . . we have eight exemplars . . . [in] 2 John . . . most of the [collated] cursives are perfect representatives . . . [in] 3 John . . . we have twenty-one perfect exemplars . . . [in] Jude . . . half of the cursives are perfect representatives . . . The exemplar of [MS] 2723 . . . is perfect throughout a section of seven books.

��VERY CAREFUL COPYING!�

• “I hold a copy of a perfect representative of the f³⁵ archetype [what Pickering believes is the archetypical Byzantine text, namely, the autograph] for 22 of the 27 NT books.”

• - Wilbur N. Pickering, ed., The Greek New Testament According to Family 35, 3^rd ed., introduction

​

DR. WILBUR PICKERING

• Has personally collated “31 perfect representatives of the archetype of the book” of 3 John, concluding, “God has preserved his text”!

• These 31 MSS are identical to the printed book of 3 John in Stephanus’ 1550 edition of the Textus Receptus used by the translators of the Authorized, King James Version.

​

• Sources: “The Family 34 archetype for 2 & 3 John & Jude—final form,” Wilbur N. Pickering, elec. acc. https://www.prunch.org.br ; Wilbur N. Pickering, ed., The Greek New Testament According to Family 35, 3^rd ed.,; Stephen’s 1550 Textus Receptus: With Morphology (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2002).

​

CONCLUSION FROM THE CANONICITY OF THE RECEIVED BIBLE ESTABLISHED FROM REFORMATION AND POST-REFORMATION BAPTIST CONFESSIONS���

No indication of controversy or question concerning this text appears anywhere, and churches unhesitatingly employed verses absent in the modern NA/UBS text but preserved in the TR to establish doctrine, often without the support of any texts shared by these modern textual competitors. The CT text form is entirely absent from Baptist confessional life. Baptists affirmed the verbal, plenary preservation and perpetual availability of Scripture, and identified that matchless treasure with their common Bible, crystallized in the Authorized Version and its original language equivalents.

THE PRINTED MASORETIC HEBREW TEXTUS RECEPTUS:�

RB2

• RB2 … was hailed as the Jewish edition of the Hebrew Bible. Consequently, all subsequent editions, with the exception of a few critical editions issued in the second half of the 20^th century, reflect this edition. … RB2 became the leading edition because of its status within Judaism and the scholarly world.

​

​

​

​

• (Emmanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 3rd ed. [Minneapolis : Fortress Press, 2012], 72.)

​

NEW HAMPSHIRE CONFESSION

• New Hampshire Confession of Faith of 1833 and other Baptist confessions, that “the one … living and true God … whose name is JEHOVAH … [is] worthy of all possible honor, confidence, and love”—a truth also confessed in documents such as the extremely influential 2^nd Helvetic Confession and many other evangelical and Reformed documents, rather than rejecting “Jehovah” for “Yahweh.”

​

​

• W. J. McGlothlin, Baptist Confessions of Faith (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1911), 302.

LEXICON SAYS “JEHOVAH,” NOT “YAHWEH.”

• “The punctuators seem to intimate the originality of the vowels of יְהוָֹה by not pointing Yod with Chateph-Pattah (hDOwhSy) to indicate the reading of yDnOdSa just as they point it with Chateph-Segol to indicate the reading of MyIhølTa. We could, moreover, not account for the abbreviated forms OwhVy, Owy prefixed to so many proper names, unless we consider the vowels of יְהוָֹה original.”

​

• (Davidson, Benjamin, The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1992), 171.

​

CRITICAL TEXT CONTRADICTIONS

• There are more differences between Aleph and B just in the Gospels than there are places that the TR and the W/H text differ in the entire NT!

​

BERLIN KARL LACHMANN

• First recognized scholar to break totally with the TR
• Editor of the New Testament
• Goal was NOT to reproduce original text

CONCLUSION FROM THE CANONICITY OF THE RECEIVED BIBLE ESTABLISHED FROM REFORMATION AND POST-REFORMATION BAPTIST CONFESSIONS�

• These facts should settle the modern textual and translational controversy for every believer. The church of God, for hundreds of years, loved, believed, confessed, preached, practiced, and suffered for that common, available Bible now set aside by those who accept the CT. Since the Holy Spirit led Christ’s churches to accept the Textus Receptus as the true text, it must be the Word of God.
• Since the people of God rejected the CT for centuries, one might, to highlight its antithesis with the old received Bible, call it the Textus Rejectus.

Rejectus est a Deo, “Is having been rejected by God.” (Caroli Francisci Lhomond, Epitome Historiae Sacrae: Brevi Christi Vitae Narratione Addita, ed. Robertus Carfagni [Newburyport, MA: Focus Publishing, 2009] 92)

FIRST EDITION OF THE WESTCOTT & HORT NEW TESTAMENT

• marked . . . about 60 passages that they (or one of them) suspected involve a “primitive error,” for the removal of which one is confined to conjectural emendation

DEAN BURGON

• Dissented from Westcott & Hort
• His argument: if the Holy Spirit had inspired Scripture, He would have preserved it

BRUCE METZGER & BART EHRMAN:

“[Not the sovereignty of God, but] very often chance has entered into the survival or loss of manuscript evidence that existed in previous centuries. . . . [Concerning various passages of Scripture,] the textual critic must simply acknowledge an inability to decide[.] . . . [The] critic must sometimes be content with choosing the least unsatisfactory reading or even admitting that there is no clear basis for choice at all. . . . Occasionally, none of the variant readings will commend itself as original. . . . In textual criticism . . . one must seek . . . to become aware of what . . . cannot be known. . . . [W]e simply do not know what the original author wrote.”

​

(Bruce M. Metzger & Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 4^th ed. [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005], 129, 149, 152-153, 170, 181, 229, 232, 273-275, 315-316, 322-323, 340, 343-344)

​

BRUCE METZGER & BART EHRMAN:

“Textual criticism is not . . . an exact science at all. . . . It is possible that after the original was placed in circulation it soon became lost or was destroyed, so all surviving copies may conceivably have derived from some single, error-prone copy made in the early stages of the book’s circulation. . . . How did Mark end his Gospel? Unfortunately, we do not know . . . [among the] endings [that] are current among the manuscripts . . . probably none of them represents what Mark originally intended. . . None of these . . . endings commends itself as original. . . . [T]he possibility of non-Pauline interpolations that occurred before any of the surviving manuscripts had been produced . . . show why it is difficult—some would say impossible—to talk about the original text of the Pauline epistles. . . . [O]ne [or more] passage[s] . . . d[o] not appear to have been part of the original letter(s) at all but to have been interpolated into [Paul’s] letter[s] at a later time by a later hand[.] . . . It would seem to be an impossible task to establish those texts since they now only exist in their edited form, with parts omitted and/or edited . . . many scholars have come to think that all of our surviving manuscripts derive ultimately not from the “originals” that Paul produced but from a [later] collection of Paul’s writings[.] . . . If that is the case, it would be difficult to get behind the texts presented in that collection to the original texts.” . . .

TEXTUS RECEPTUS NOT THE TEXTUS “REJECTUS”!

• Since Scripture teaches that the true churches receive God’s true words, the Textus Receptus, not the Textus Rejectus, must be that text of Scripture kept pure in all ages by God’s singular care and providence.

THE HEBREW TEXTUS RECEPTUS

• Because of the inclusion of the Masorah, Targumim, and traditional Jewish commentaries in RB2, that edition was hailed as the Jewish edition of the Hebrew Bible. Consequently, all subsequent editions, with the exception of a few critical editions issued in the second half of the 20^th century, reflect this edition. The new editions deviated from RB2 only when changing or adding details on the basis of other manuscripts or when removing or adding printing errors. … RB2 became the leading edition because of its status within Judaism and the scholarly world.
• “RB2” = The Rabbinic Bible, 2^nd ed., Ben Chayyim 1524-1525, the Hebrew Textus Receptus.

VOCALIZATION OF DIVINE �NAME CORRUPTED

• This is not a Word to mess around with.
• Would God allow the correct pronunciation of His Name to be lost? (cf. Exodus 3:15, Psalm 9:10, Proverbs 18:10, Joel 2:32)
• The pointing in the Hebrew text must represent the correct pronunciation, Yehowah or Jehovah.

​

יְהוָֹה

​

יְהוָה

​

THE DIVINE NAME

יְהוָֹה

THE DIVINE NAME

NAMES ILLUSTRATING “JEHOVAH”

NAMES ILLUSTRATING “JEHOVAH”

NAMES ILLUSTRATING “JEHOVAH”

NAMES ILLUSTRATING “JEHOVAH”

MISHNA AFFIRMS NAME JEHOVAH

• The Mishna states that the Name was pronounced as it was written, that is, as Jehovah.

• יְהוָֹה

​

FROM WILLIAM SMITH’S DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE:

“Very little favors the pronunciation Yahweh. Since this latter pronunciation is not favored by any evidence in the Hebrew of the Bible, nor in other ancient Jewish documents, its advocates must look outside of Scripture and Jewish texts for evidence in its favor. This they find in late patristic writers “Theodoret . . . and Epiphanius . . . [who] give Iabe” as the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton, although “the former distinguish[es] it as the pronunciation of the Samaritans.”

�“YAHWEH” NOT EVEN CLAIMED TO HAVE �HEBREW MSS SUPPORT IN LSB PREFACE!�

LSB PREFACE STATES:

“The translation “Yahweh” is substantiated by scholarly reconstruction as well as by historical discussions in [patristic sources].”

​

​

THE ENGLISH OF THE LEGACY STANDARD BIBLE IS INFERIOR ��TO THE ENGLISH OF THE KING JAMES VERSION.�

The definitive modern work on the Hebrew accent system by one of the leading Jewish authorities on cantillation states: “Translations from the Hebrew are taken from the King James Version[.]”

​

• Joshua R. Jacobsen, Chanting the Hebrew Bible: The Art of Cantillation.

BART EHRMAN:

“[The KJV] translators … were all skilled, highly skilled, in Greek and Hebrew. Today, when somebody is highly skilled in Greek … ([as I am considered] highly skilled in Greek) that means we can kind of slosh our way through a Greek text if we have a dictionary. … [T]hese guys … could speak Greek, and did speak Greek to each other when they felt like it. And they could read Hebrew like the newspaper[.] … These were serious, serious scholars … they didn’t have TV … they sat around and studied Greek … and Latin and Hebrew.”

​

​

(“What Kind of a Text is the King James Bible? Manuscripts, Translation, and the Legacy of the KJV,” lecture at Loyola Marymount University, 2/7/2013, 21:00-22:00, elec. acc. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehnEZtqj2Mo)

​

LELAND RYKEN:

“[The KJV translators] were the best of the best that England possessed in regard to biblical knowledge and facility with the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible. … [T]he King James style is as flexible and varied as what we find in the original text … because the King James translators accepted an essentially literal translation philosophy that preserved the stylistic range of the original text of the Bible. … [T]he style of the KJV is matchless, a blend of the simple and the majestic[.] … The most important translation in English [is] the King James Version, which … contain[s] the best of [earlier] translations. [T]he KJV is demonstrably the greatest English Bible ever[.]”

​

​

​

​

Leland Ryken, “Ten Fallacies about the King James Version,” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 15:4 (2011), 5, 11, 13, 15.

KJV SUPERIOR TO LSB: �2^ND PERSON PRONOUNS

1.) Greek and Hebrew distinguish between 2^nd person singular and 2^nd person plural pronouns. The KJV uses thee/thou/thy (thee = objective case; thou = subjective; thy = possessive) for 2^nd person singular and ye/you/your (ye = subjective, you = objective) for 2^nd person plural. For example, consider John 3:7:

Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. (KJV)

​

“Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ (LSB)

​

Right there we have about 2,000 places where the KJV clearly is superior to the LSB and other modern versions (including the NKJV).

​

KJV SUPERIOR TO LSB: PRONOUNS OF DEITY

2.) In the LSB, “Personal pronouns are capitalized when pertaining to Deity,” but this is not a distinction found in the inspired Hebrew or Greek texts, and, for that reason, is not found in the KJV.

​

Consider Mark 14:61:

  “But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” (KJV)

​

“But He kept silent and did not answer. Again the high priest was questioning Him and said to Him, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” (LSB)

​

KJV SUPERIOR TO LSB:

Contrariwise, consider Genesis 32:29-30:

​

29 And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there. 30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved. (KJV) 

​

29 Then Jacob asked him and said, “Please tell me your name.” But he said, “Why is it that you ask my name?” And he blessed him there. 30 So Jacob named the place Peniel, for he said, “I have seen God face to face, yet my life has been delivered.” (LSB)

​

KJV IS SUPERIOR TO LSB: USE OF ITALICS

3.) In the KJV, words not present in underlying Greek & Hebrew text, but necessary in English, are placed in italics.

“Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.” (KJV)

​

The LSB = inconsistent & inaccurate in use of italics:

“Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him.” (LSB)

​

LSB FAILS to properly utilize italics & WEAKENS its commendable desire.

KJV IS SUPERIOR TO LSB: USE OF ITALICS

Proverbs 30:7:

Two things have I required of thee; deny me them not before I die: (KJV)

​

Two things I asked of You, Do not withhold from me before I die: (LSB)

​

LSB FAILS to properly utilize italics & WEAKENS its commendable desire.

KJV SUPERIOR TO LSB: LSB VIOLATES CHRIST’S PROMISE (MATT. 5:18)

LSB ADDS INTO the Bible passages in the Old Testament that are not found in any Hebrew text.

​

Judges 16:13 it adds in: “and fasten it with a pin, then I will become weak and be like any other man” although its own note states that these words are not found in any Hebrew manuscript.

​

Same thing occurs in 1 Samuel 13:1. In Several other passages: LSB doesn’t follow the Hebrew Masoretic text.

​

Christ promised, “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot [the smallest Hebrew consonant, the yod] or one tittle [the smallest Hebrew vowel or accent mark] shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” (Matthew 5:18).

​

Christ promised that the Hebrew Old Testament would be preserved to the smallest letter until heaven and earth pass away.

​

The LSB rejects this promise by adopting readings that are not found in any Hebrew MS and also deviating from the Masoretic text received by and in the mouths of God’s people (Isaiah 59:21).

​

KJV IS SUPERIOR TO LSB: DOCTRINE OF HELL ATTACKED

The LSB attacks the doctrine of hell by completely removing hell from the Old Testament. For example, consider Psalm 9:17:

​

“The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.” (KJV)

​

“The wicked will return to Sheol, Even all the nations who forget God.” (LSB)

​

​

KJV IS SUPERIOR TO LSB: DOCTRINE OF HELL ATTACKED

​

​

• “And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.” (KJV)
• “And Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will descend to Hades; for if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day.” (LSB)

​

​

• The word “hell” appears:

  31x in the KJV Old Testament

0x in the LSB Old Testament

23x in the KJV New Testament

12x in the LSB New Testament

​

​

KJV SUPERIOR TO LSB: LSB CONTAINS INACCURATE OR MISSING MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE

​

Luke 11:2

And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. (KJV)

​

And He said to them, “When you pray, say: ‘Father, hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come. (LSB)

​

​

The LSB note states:

“Later mss add phrases from Matt 6:9-13 to make the two passages closely similar.”

​

KJV SUPERIOR TO LSB: LSB CONTAINS INACCURATE OR MISSING MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE

​

“The reality is that over 99% of all Greek MSS have “Our Father which art in heaven,” with only three that omit the phrase (Aleph, B, P75).

​

Over 99% of all Greek MSS have “Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth,” with only two omissions (B, P75). They are both included in early codices such as A, C, D, and W. Even codex Aleph includes “thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.”

​

So now not only must we set aside over 99% of the extant MSS, but even A, D, and Aleph are “later MSS,” despite scholarly literature universally calling them early uncials?

​

The vast majority of readers of the LSB have no idea that “later mss add” really means “over 99% of MSS have this phrase, including extremely early ones, and only two do not have it for one of these variants and three for the other one.”

​

​

​

E. g., F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1988), 48.

​

Going back one chapter, the LSB note on Luke 10:1 speaks of a variant “seventy two” for the number of disciples Christ sent out. This variant is also rejected by over 99% of Greek MSS, which read “seventy,” including Aleph, A, C, and W. “Seventy two” appears in only four MSS—P75, B, D, and 0181.

​

• Mr. Swing was one of 1,212 candidates who filed papers to run for president in 2020, and was a write-in candidate who got his own vote and that of over 100 others.

But to say “some mss” read “seventy two,” instead of “99%+ read seventy, and four read seventy-two” conveys an extremely misleading impression, kind of like “Joe Biden of the Democrat Party, Donald Trump of the Republican Party, and Gary Swing of the Boiling Frog Party ran for President of the United States in 2020 and got SOME votes.”

���THE LSB IS INFERIOR IN DOCTRINE TO THE KJV�

• both because of the inferior original language texts and inferior translation

​

LSB ATTACKS DOCTRINE OF INERRANCY

• Not one editor of Nestle-Aland text believed in the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy.
• They applied the secular principle that the “harder reading is better” in such a way to attack inerrancy.
• Thus, it is NOT God’s perfect text getting corrupted by scribes but scribes making an imperfect, allegedly uninspired text better.
• So the critical Greek text underneath the LSB attacks the doctrine of inerrancy.

LSB ATTACKS DOCTRINE OF INERRANCY �SEE MATTHEW 1:7,10

�Verse 7: “And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;” (KJV)

LSB on “Asa”: Greek Asaph

​

Σολομὼν δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν Ῥοβοάμ, Ῥοβοὰμ δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν Ἀβιά, Ἀβιὰ δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν Ἀσά, (Asa, TR)

Σολομὼν δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ῥοβοάμ, Ῥοβοὰμ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἀβιά, Ἀβιὰ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἀσάφ, (Asaph, NA)

Verse 10: And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias; (KJV)

LSB on “Amon”: Greek Amos

​

Ἑζεκίας δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν Μανασσῆ, Μανασσῆς δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν

Ἀμών, Ἀμὼν δὲ ἐγέννησε τὸν Ἰωσίαν, (Amon, TR)

​

Ἑζεκίας δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Μανασσῆ, Μανασσῆς δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν

Ἀμώς, Ἀμὼς δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰωσίαν, (Amos, NA)

​

BRUCE METZGER:

“[T]he tendency of scribes, observing that the name of the psalmist Asaph (cf. the titles of Pss 50 and 73 to 83) was confused with that of Asa the king of Judah (1 Kgs 15:9 ff.), would have been to correct the error, thus accounting for the prevalence of Ἀσά in the later Ecclesiastical text and its inclusion in the Textus Receptus. . . . [Some commentators disagree, declaring] that “literary criticism is not able to admit that the author, who could not have drawn up this list without consulting the Old Testament, would have taken the name of a psalmist in place of a king of Judah. It is necessary, therefore, to suppose that Ἀσάφ is a very ancient [scribal] error.” … [But this was so unconvincing to] the Committee [that they could say that they] saw no reason [italics supplied] to adopt [the reading “Asa” that did not have the error.] … [T]he reading “Amos” [is] an error for “Amon,” the name of the king of Judah … the Committee [adopted the erroneous reading] … Ἀμώς.”

CODEX D:�NOT COPIED CAREFULLY!�

• … The text of the sacred deposit is far too precious a thing to be sacrificed to an irrational, or at least a superstitious devotion to two MSS[.] ... Codex D … no text is more thoroughly disfigured by corruptions and interpolations than that of Codex D. In the Acts … it is hardly an exaggeration to assert that it reproduces the textus receptus much in the same way that one of the best Chaldee Targums does the Hebrew of the Old Testament: so wide are the variations in the diction, so constant and inveterate the practice of expanding the narrative by means of interpolations which seldom recommend themselves as genuine by even a semblance of internal probability. … [I]t is easier to find two consecutive verses in which the [Vaticanus and Sinaiticus] MSS. differ, the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree? (John W. Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark [Oxford: James Parker and Co., 1871] 72–86)

NA IN ERROR IN MARK 6:22

Mark 6:22, And when the daughter of the said Herodias came in, and danced, and pleased Herod and them that sat with him, the king said unto the damsel, Ask of me whatsoever thou wilt, and I will give it thee. (KJV)

​

• καὶ εἰσελθούσης τῆς θυγατρὸς αὐτῆς τῆς Ἡρωδιάδος καὶ ὀρχησαμένης, καὶ ἀρεσάσης τῷ Ἡρώδῃ καὶ τοῖς συνανακειμένοις, εἶπεν ὁ βασιλεὺς τῷ κορασίῳ, Αἴτησόν με ὃ ἐὰν θέλῃς, καὶ δώσω σοί. (TR)

​

• καὶ εἰσελθούσης τῆς θυγατρὸς αὐτοῦ Ἡρῳδιάδος καὶ ὀρχησαμένης ἤρεσεν τῷ Ἡρῴδῃ καὶ τοῖς συνανακειμένοις. εἶπεν ὁ βασιλεὺς τῷ κορασίῳ· αἴτησόν με ὃ ἐὰν θέλῃς, καὶ δώσω σοι· (NA)

Mark 6:22, When his daughter Herodias came in and danced, she pleased Herod and his guests; and the king said to the girl, “Ask me for whatever you wish, and I will give it.” (NRSV)

METZGER’S TEXTUAL COMMENTARY:

“According to the reading with αὐτοῦ, the girl is named Herodias and is described as Herod’s daughter. … [T]he reading with αὐτοῦ, despite the historical and contextual difficulties [that is, it is a blatent error], must be adopted.”

NA IN ERROR IN MARK 6:22

Note that here the error is so blatant that the LSB translators (unlike, e. g., the NRSV, which actually translates what the NA text says), as a product of evangelicals who believe in inerrancy, translate as if they were following the TR instead of the NA text.

In this verse, the LSB rejects the textual theory that leads to the Nestle-Aland text and embraces the TR in order to maintain the doctrine of inerrancy (for the TR here, as everywhere else, does not make any factual errors). As inerrantists, the LSB translators should have been consistent, rejected the NA text, and embraced the TR everywhere else as well, instead of inconsistently rejecting their chosen Greek text and the principles that lead to it only in this passage.

​

NA IN ERROR IN LUKE 3:33

In Luke 3:33, the Nestle-Aland text invents two fictional people, “Admin” and “Arni,” and inserts them into the genealogy of Christ:

​

Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda, (KJV)

son of Amminadab, son of Admin, son of Arni, son of Hezron, son of Perez, son of Judah, (NRSV)

the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Ram [LSB footnote: Gr Arni], the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, (LSB)

​

• τοῦ Ἀμιναδάβ, τοῦ Ἀράμ, τοῦ Ἐσρώμ, τοῦ Φαρές, τοῦ Ἰούδα, (TR)
• τοῦ Ἀμιναδὰβ τοῦ Ἀδμὶν τοῦ Ἀρνὶ τοῦ Ἑσρὼμ τοῦ Φάρες τοῦ Ἰούδα (NA)

NA IN ERROR IN LUKE 23:45

�BDAG INDICATES:

• Lk 23:45; Luke’s diction is standard for description of an eclipse be eclipsed (Thu. 2, 28; 7, 50, 4; X., Hell. 1, 6, 1; FGrH 239 B, 16 [III BC]=Marm. Par., Jac. p. 22; Dio Chrys. 57 [74], 28; Plut., Pelop. 295 [31, 3]; Sir 17:31; Philo, Mos. 2, 271; Ar. 6, 2; s. JSawyer, JTS 23, ’72, 124–28

OTHER LEXICA INDICATE . . .

THE APPENDIX TO THE WESTCOTT-HORT GREEK TESTAMENT NOTES:�

• The familiar σκοτίζομαι [“was darkened,” TR] applied to the sun (as Mt 24:29 || Mc 13:24; Ap 9:2; Eccl 12:2; cf. Is 13:10) could never be a stumblingblock: the less common ἐκλείπω [“eclipsed,” WH & NA], nowhere else applied to the sun in the Greek Bible, might easily provoke paraphrase, even if it did not give more serious offence by suggesting the in this place impossible sense of eclipse. We learn from Origen … that already in his day attacks were made on the Gospel … on account of the impossibility of an eclipse at full moon.

​

​

• B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek: Appendix (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1882), 70.

​

NA & LSB ERROR IN I COR. 5:1

It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife. (KJV)

​

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and sexual immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife. (LSB)

​

• Ὅλως ἀκούεται ἐν ὑμῖν πορνεία, καὶ τοιαύτη πορνεία, ἥτις οὐδὲ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ὀνομάζεται, ὥστε γυναῖκά τινα τοῦ πατρὸς ἔχειν. (TR)

​

• Ὅλως ἀκούεται ἐν ὑμῖν πορνεία, καὶ τοιαύτη πορνεία ἥτις οὐδὲ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν [OMIT ὀνομάζεται], ὥστε γυναῖκά τινα τοῦ πατρὸς ἔχειν. (CT)

• The attack on inerrancy in the critical text is easily set aside because of its poor manuscript evidence.

​

EVIDENCE FOR TR & NA LISTINGS MENTIONED BELOW:

NA COMMITTEE WILLING TO INTRODUCE �FICTIONAL PEOPLE INTO CHRIST’S GENEOLOGY

• tou Aminadab tou Admin tou Arni (τοῦ Ἀμιναδὰβ τοῦ Ἀδμὶν τοῦ Ἀρνὶ) = 0% of MSS—errant
• The three names spelled as above are not even in one MS on the face of the earth—0%!
• The MSS the NA considers “best” are an astonishing mess of confusion!

ONLY EVIDENCE FOR TR & NA LISTINGS MENTIONED BELOW:

OTHER INSTANCES OF POOR MSS EVIDENCE IN CT

• Claiming Isaiah wrote the book of Malachi in Mark 1:2, following 1.7% of MSS
• Christ crossing the sea of Galilee and arriving at Gerasa, a town that is 37 miles southeast of the Sea of Galilee
• Mark 5:1 [NA follows 0.3% of MSS]
• Luke 8:26 [NA follows 0.3% of MSS]
• Luke 8:37 [NA follows 0.5% of MSS]

​

NA TEXT MAKES THE CHRISTIAN FAITH �HARDER TO DEFEND

• It imports plain errors and corruptions—as the anti-inerrancy NA committee was fully aware—into God’s infallible word. The NA text has huge numbers of examples of worse theology and even worse grammar, so that anti-preservationist grammarians need to create special categories to deal with what could properly be characterized as “many” examples that could properly be described as “flagrant misunderstanding of the rudiments of Greek” allegedly in the original Greek text of Scripture—at least if one has a Textus Rejectus instead of a Textus Receptus.

​

 �TEXTUS RECEPTUS-TYPE MSS WERE COPIED VERY CAREFULLY!�

We can see from examples like these—of which there are many—that scribes of the TR-type of text were extremely careful in their copying practices. Here we have identical copies of Titus in different parts of the world, from different centuries, in different hands, indicating that extreme care was taken in the making of these MSS.

COMPARE THIS WITH THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE W/H TEXT AND THE TR IN THE ENTIRE NT:�

​

​

​

TEXTUS RECEPTUS vs. W/H CHANGES.

​

• Has 140,521 Greek words. W/H Changes 5,604 places in the N.T.
• In 647 pages of Greek Text, W/H changes 9,970 Greek words.
• On 217 words per page, W/H changes 15.4 words per page.
• The TR has 100% of the Greek words. W/H changes 7%.
• W/H changes total 45.9 pages of the 617 pages in the TR.

​

​

Donald Waite, Defending the King James Bible (Collingswood, NJ: Bible for Today, n. d.) “Forward.”

​

SINAITICUS HAS MORE CHANGES THAN ANY OTHER EARLY MS!�

• No other early manuscript of the Christian Bible has been so extensively corrected [as Sinaiticus]. A glance at the transcription will show just how common these corrections are. … They range from the alteration of a single letter to the insertion of whole sentences.

​

​

From http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/codex/significance.aspx. This website is the official one that has the codex on it.

​

AN EXAMPLE OF CORRECTIONS ON SINAITICUS (2 ESDRAS 21:16-22:1; 22:1-22:23; 22:23-22:28; 22:28-22:37)�

EXAMPLES OF ADDITIONS IN CODEX D:��

​

Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. (KJV/TR/Byz Matthew 20:28)

Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. But seek to increase from that which is small, and to become less from that which is greate. When you enter into a house and are summoned to dine, do not sit down at the prominent places lest perchance a man more honorable than you come in afterwards, and he who invited you come and say to you, “Good down lower”; and you shall be ashamed. But if you sit down in the inferior place, and one inferior to you come in, then he that invited you will say to you, “Go up higher”; and this will be advantageous for you. (Matthew 20:28, Codex D)

​

EXAMPLES OF ADDITIONS IN CODEX D:��

​

And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath. (Luke 6:5, KJV/TR/Byz)

On the same day, observing one working on the Sabbath, He said to him O man, if indeed thou knowest what thou doest, thou art blessed: but if thou knowest not, thou art accursed, and a transgressor of the Law (Luke 6:5, Codex D)

​

A COMMENT ON THIS ADDITION TO THE BIBLE:�

• This very remarkable addition cannot be accepted as genuine on the authority of a single MS[.] ... The meaning of the story is that “if thy work is of faith,—if thou art thoroughly persuaded in thy own mind—thou art acting with true insight; but if thy work is not of faith, it is sin.” See Rom. 14:22, 23; 1 Cor. 8:1. What renders the incident improbable is that no Jew would dare openly to violate the Law by working on the Sabbath, an act which rendered him legally liable to be stoned. The anecdote, as Grotius thought, may have been written in the margin by some follower of Marcion, who rejected the inspiration of the Old Testament.

​

• F. W. Farrar, The Gospel according to St Luke, Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1893) 179.

​

EXAMPLES OF DELETIONS IN CODEX D

• And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. (Luke 24:40, KJV/TR/ All Greek MSS except Codex D)

​

• OMIT (Codex D, RSV)

• Here Codex D (followed by the RSV) attacks the bodily resurrection of Christ, in accordance with the teaching of the heretic Marcion, who “wishe[d] to substitute a notion of the soul’s immortality for bodily resurrection.”

​

Note: deletions in D are considerably rarer than the additions.

Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000), 1267–1268.

​

DELIBERATE ALTERATIONS COMMON IN ALEXANDRIA�

• The Alexandrian grammarians sometimes marked a word or phrase in the Homeric writings as “inappropriate” and corrected it accordingly. These corrections include simple changes such as hemin, “to us,” which was corrected to humin, “to you (plur.).” For example, according to the grammarian Zenodotus it was not befitting for Aphrodite to carry a chair for Helen and thus he deliberately altered the text of Iliad III.423–6.

​

Emmanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012) 154. Tov is commenting on what the Alexandrian scribes did to Homer. That they would do the same to the NT should surprise no one.

​

APPROXIMATE DATES FOR THE TRANSLATION OF ANCIENT BIBLE VERSIONS:�

• Old Latin: c. A. D. 150. (Jerome’s Vulgate is 4^th century A. D.)
• Syriac: 2^nd century A. D.
• Coptic: early 3^rd century A. D.
• Gothic: by the end of the 3^rd century A. D. 
• Ethiopic: c. A. D. 350.
• Armenian: c. 5^th century A. D.
• Georgian: c. 5^th century A. D. 
• Scythian: c. 5^th century A. D.  
• Persian: c. 5^th century A. D.

​

APPROXIMATE DATES FOR THE TRANSLATION OF ANCIENT BIBLE VERSIONS:�

• Bohemian: 9^th century or earlier A. D.

​

• Arabic: 10^th century A. D.

​

• Slavonic: 9^th century A. D.

​

• (Ancient) German: 7^th-8^th centuries A. D.

​

• Anglo-Saxon: 7^th-8^th centuries A. D. (Scripture portions)

​

A MAP OF THE ANCIENT NEW TESTAMENT VERSIONS

TENS OF THOUSANDS OF NT MSS

​

• 5,600+ Greek MSS
• 10,000+ Latin MSS
• 9,300+ in other early versions
• 24,000+ total

​

• If the NT is not reliable, nothing is reliable!

THOUSANDS OF EARLY CITATIONS

​

In addition to all of this, if all Greek and ancient translations of the Bible were destroyed, almost the entire New Testament could be reconstructed from the quotations of the Church Fathers from the first few centuries! They cited the New Testament more than thirty-six thousand times! In fact they provide every verse of the New Testament except for eleven verses. This too can be said of no other book from the ancient world. 

​

Norman L. Geisler, A Popular Survey of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2014) 19.

​

• If the NT is not reliable, nothing is reliable!

THOUSANDS OF EARLY CITATIONS

ANABAPTISTS WITH THE AUTOGRAPHS?

• [W]e have information, that even at the present day there are brethren and Christians at Thessalonica, who agree with the [Anabaptists] in all articles of religion, also in baptism, two of whom were yet in the time of our fathers, with the brethren in Moravia, and then also in the Netherlands, and communed with the brethren, who expressly declared that they still preserved in good condition, at Thessalonica, the originals of St. Paul’s two epistles to the Thessalonians. Likewise, that many of their brethren were still living, scattered here and there in Ethiopia, Greece and other oriental countries, as well as other Christians, who, like them, were preserved by God, and remained in the same doctrine, and the true practice of baptism, constantly from the beginning of the apostles to this time. . . . They stated further that the church of God at Thessalonica had remained unchanged in faith from the time of the apostles, and that they still preserved in good condition the letters which the apostle Paul wrote to them with his own hands.

​

• (Pg. 366, The Bloody Theater or Martyr’s Mirror. Thieleman J. Van Braght, trans. Joseph F. Sohm. 2^nd. Eng. ed. [Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1999]).

�SELECTED USEFUL RESOURCES:�

DOES A P⁷⁵ & B (VATICANUS) COMBINATION SHOW WE HAVE AN AUTOGRAPHIC (OR CLOSE TO IT) TEXT, NOT A 4^TH CENTURY RECENSION?�

• 1.) We have over 100 papyri and only one of them looks quite similar to Vaticanus. So even in the small section of Upper Egypt from where we have all or almost all the NT papyri—and Vaticanus is quite likely of Egyptian origin—having one papyrus, less than 1% of the papyri, looking like a relative of Vaticanus does not seem very impressive.

​

• 2.) If, as Colwell argued, almost all variant readings arose before A. D. 200, one would not be surprised if the corrupt readings in P⁷⁵ are ancient.

• 3.) However, as Yale and Macquarie University professor Brent Nongbri demonstrated in the Journal of Biblical Literature, P⁷⁵ is actually more likely itself a 4^th century papyrus, and earlier dates for P⁷⁵ cannot be proven. So there is no manuscript evidence that a text specifically like that of Vaticanus exists before the fourth century or that codex B is not a 4^th century recension, as was commonly thought before probably inaccurately early dates were given to P⁷⁵.

​

​

• Brent Nongbri, “Reconsidering the Place of Papyrus Bodmer XIV-XV (P⁷⁵) in the Textual Criticism of the New Testament,” Journal of Biblical Literature 135:2 (2016) 405-437.

​

​

DOES A P⁷⁵ & B (VATICANUS) COMBINATION SHOW WE HAVE AN AUTOGRAPHIC (OR CLOSE TO IT) TEXT, NOT A 4^TH CENTURY RECENSION?�

• 4.) It is likely that the copyist of P⁷⁵ “did not know Greek. … E. C. Colwell analyzed P⁷⁵ and found about 145 itacisms plus 257 other singular readings, 25% of which are nonsensical. From the pattern of mistakes it is clear that the copyist who did P75 copied letter by letter! … This means that he did not know Greek—when transcribing in a language you know you copy phrase by phrase, or at least word by word.”

​

​

​

• “Scribal Habits in Early Papyri: A Study in the Corruption of the Text" The Bible in Modern Scholarship, ed. J.P. Hyatt, Abingdon Press, pp. 374-76, 380.

​

• Wilbur N. Pickering, “Can Anything Good Come Out of [Egypt]?” elec. acc. https://prunch.org.

​

​

BRENT NONGBRI ON THE DATE OF P⁷⁵ �IN THE JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

• 1.) “Paleographically and codicologically, P⁷⁵ Bodm. XIV-XV fits comfortably in a fourth-century context, along with the bulk of other “Bodmer papyri” with which it was apparently discovered … [which, with other reasons,] suggest[s] that P. Bodm. XIV-XV was also itself produced in the fourth century. Thus, a number of previous arguments that relied on a second-or early-third-century date for P.Bodm. XIV-XV will need to be reconsidered.” (pg. 405)

​

• 2.) We may thus summarize previous paleographic discussions of P by noting that, of the three proposed parallels for its handwriting that have relatively secure dates, only two show any similarity with P⁷⁵, and this similarity is not impressive. Neither P.FuadUniv. 19 nor P.Mich.inv. 3 is especially close to P⁷⁵ in terms of either the formation of individual letters or the overall appearance of the handwriting. In sum, the evidence so far mustered in support of a late-second- or early-third-century date for P⁷⁵ is surprisingly slim, especially given the important role that the date of P⁷⁵ has played in the textual criticism of the New Testament in the second half of the twentieth century. (pg. 414)

​

BRENT NONGBRI ON THE DATE OF P⁷⁵ �IN THE JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

• 3.) [T]he date of 175-225 CE commonly assigned to P⁷⁵ represents only one possibility, and not the most probable possibility, for the date of the production of this codex. This early date was established solely on the basis of paleography (the analysis of handwriting) which cannot reliably produce such a narrow window of possible dates for Greek literary writing of the Roman era. In fact, good parallels for the handwriting of P⁷⁵ can be found in manuscript produced in the fourth century. More importantly … too great a focus on paleography can cause us to neglect other evidence relevant to the dating of manuscripts. In terms of codicology (the format and construction of the codex), P⁷⁵ fits comfortably in a fourth-century context. Further, the other “Bodmer papyri” with which it was apparently discovered are for the most part products of the fourth and fifth centuries. … [W]e should seriously consider the possibility that P⁷⁵ was also produced in the fourth century and hence that the “B Text” is also a fourth-century development.” (pg. 407)

• 4.) “[T]he overall appearance of P⁷⁵ aligns more closely with examples of what some paleographers call the ‘inclined or sloping ogival majuscule,’ which seems to have arisen in the fourth century. … The important point is that the type of writing that characterizes P⁷⁵ persisted well beyond … 175–225 CE … [its writing style spans] the period from the middle of the second century down into the fifth century.” (pgs. 416-417)

​

BRENT NONGBRI ON THE DATE OF P⁷⁵ �IN THE JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

• 7.) “[A]rtifacts that physically resemble P⁷⁵ were being produced in Upper Egypt in the middle of the fourth century (just as we have seen that handwriting quite like that used in P⁷⁵ was also in use in the fourth century). Furthermore, a fourth-century date for the production of P⁷⁵ would not run afoul of the context of the other codices that were part of the Bodmer find.” (pgs. 430-431)

​

• 8.) “P⁷⁵ … [contains] marginal writing in a heavy uncial of the fourth of 5^th century … the codex was in use during the fourth century and possibly in the fifth century. … [I]f P⁷⁵ was produced in the fourth century, it … would have had plenty of time to be used, damaged, and repaired before its final deposition with the other Bodmer codices at a period no earlier than the late fifth or early sixth century.” (pgs. 432, 434)

​

BRENT NONGBRI ON THE DATE OF P⁷⁵ �IN THE JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

• 9.) “William L. Petersen has noted that P⁷⁵ “is often regarded as having the ‘purest’ text of the early papyri,” but he alleges that “this claim is made, of course, only because P⁷⁵’s text is closer to our modern, critically reconstructed text. If it were the text of Clement of Alexandria that came closest to our modern critical text, then it would be Clement who would be hailed as the preserver of the ‘true text,’ and not P⁷⁵. A more unscientific, hubris-filled, and self-serving approach to scholarship is hard to imagine.”

​

​

• (“The Genesis of the Gospels,” in New Testament Textual Criticism and Exegesis: Festschrift J. Delobel, ed. A. Denaux, BETL 161 [Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2002], 33–65, here 60 n. 89). (pg. 436)

​

BRENT NONGBRI ON THE DATE OF P⁷⁵ �IN THE JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

• 10.) “Because the paleographic and codicological characteristics of P⁷⁵ are not inconsistent with a fourth-century date of production, the close similarity between the text of P⁷⁵ and that of Vaticanus may instead be seen as an additional piece of evidence in favor of a fourth-century date for the production of P⁷⁵ itself. Furthermore, if both of these codices can be assigned to the fourth century, then textual critics of the New Testament may need once again to entertain the idea that the “B Text” is indeed the result of some sort of recensional activity in the fourth century. … Since the 1960s, P⁷⁵ has held a central place in the textual criticism of the New Testament. Yet much of the importance imputed to P⁷⁵ has rested on the presumed late-second- or early-third-century date for the codex. As we have seen, the actual evidence used to establish that date was not strong. While one cannot absolutely rule out a late-second- or early-third-century date for P⁷⁵ on the basis of the evidence presently available, the materials analyzed in this essay point toward the fourth century as an equally likely, if not more likely, date for this codex. … Barbara Aland’s recent contention that not only P⁷⁵ but also the other substantial New Testament papyri have the same textual character as Vaticanus is not statistically convincing[.] … It is intriguing that William H. P. Hatch presented a paper at the 1952 Annual Meeting of the SBL arguing that Vaticanus was copied in Upper Egypt, the locale in which P⁷⁵ was most likely discovered.” (pg. 437)

​

JAMES WHITE: “THE KING JAMES TRANSLATORS WOULD HAVE PREFERRED THE LSB TO THE KJV”!

• 1.) James provides zero evidence that the KJV translators would want to remove the canonical ending and all resurrection appearances from Mark’s Gospel, so that the Good News according to Mark ends with the women running away and saying nothing because they were continually afraid, based on the slimmest MS evidence.
• 2.) James provides zero evidence that the KJV translators would want to introduce many readings that deny the inerrancy of Scripture into their translation (Matthew 1:7; 10; Mark 1:2; 5:1; 6:22; Luke 3:33; 8:26 23:45; 1 Corinthians 5:1)
• 3.) James provides zero evidence that the KJV translators preferred a Textus Rejectus that was not used by God’s people and churches to the Textus Receptus received by the churches that they actually used.

​

JAMES WHITE: “THE KING JAMES TRANSLATORS WOULD HAVE PREFERRED THE LSB TO THE KJV”!

• 4.) James provides zero evidence that the KJV translators would want to reject the reading in all Hebrew MSS and erase God’s covenant Name, “Jehovah,” from Scripture and replace it with something else.
• 5.) James provides zero evidence that the KJV translators would have been fine radically altering the model prayer in Matthew 6:9-13 & Luke 11:2-4 or that they would have rejected their knowledge of the Greek NT and LXX to mistranslate “deliver us from evil” as “deliver us from the evil one.”
• 6.) James provides zero evidence that the KJV translators would want to eliminate “hell” from the Old Testament, eliminate the distinction between singular and plural pronouns (thee/ye), etc.

JAMES WHITE: “THE KING JAMES TRANSLATORS WOULD HAVE PREFERRED THE LSB TO THE KJV”!

• While a claim (such as James’s) about what the KJV translators would have done (were they alive today) is actually an example of what David Hackett Fisher’s Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (New York: Harper & Row, 1970) calls the “fallacy of fictional questions” (pgs. 15ff.), if we must indulge in historical fallacies, it is much more probable that they would all have rejected the LSB, the more high Anglican KJV translators embracing a position like that of Burgon and Scrivener and the more Puritan KJV translators embracing a position like that of Edward F. Hills.

����COHERENCE-BASED GENEALOGICAL METHOD, PRESERVATION, �AND THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS�

1.) CBGM rejects God’s promises of perfect preservation:

View of Gerd Mink (author of CBGM) and others associated with the method:

“Textual critics have often aimed their efforts in relation to what we do not have, namely, the author’s text. But Mink suggests that the more proper aim is the … Ausgangtext . . . [not] the text of the autograph itself. … [It is a] naïve assumption that the two are identical. … [we should] yield the need for too much certainty[.]”

​

Peter J. Gurry, A Critical Examination of the Coherence-Based Geneological Method in New Testament Textual Criticism (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 93, 100.

​

����COHERENCE-BASED GENEALOGICAL METHOD, PRESERVATION, �AND THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS�

• 2.) CBGM not only has no place for the Spirit-led canonical reception of the true Words of God by the churches (Isaiah 59:21; Matthew 5:18-19; 28:18-20; John 17:8; Revelation 22:18-19) but also flatly denies that all the Words are preserved anywhere (Matthew 24:35) and justifies the unscriptural practice of conjectural emendation:

• “[Applying CBGM to the Petrine epistles, at] 2 Peter 3:10 … the editors arrived at the conclusion that the initial reading of the passage was lost and a conjecture was needed.”

​

Klaus Wachtel, “The Coherence-Based Genealogical Method: A New Way to Reconstruct the Text of the Greek New Testament” in Editing the Bible: Assessing the Task, Past and Present, eds. John S. Kloppenborg & Judith H. Newman (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012), 129.

​

����COHERENCE-BASED GENEALOGICAL METHOD, PRESERVATION, �AND THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS�

3.) CBGM assumes Textus Rejectus eclecticism, anti-Byzantine / Textus Receptus position:

“The editors of the ECM themselves readily admit that they use the CBGM with reasons eclecticism. … CBGM addresses a problem that proponents of the Byzantine priority position do not have[.] … CBGM’s … assumptions and purpose make it largely irrelevant to those who hold the Byzantine priority position. … CBGM uses the editor’s own textual decisions to produce geneaology, [so] it essentially inverts the Byzantine priority position. … CBGM is generally irrelevant to the Byzantine priority method. … CBGM sprang from one specific methodological viewpoint and it is clearly designed to best serve that view. The method for which the CBGM has the most value is reasoned eclecticism.”

​

“The CBGM … presupposes [the] textual decisions [of its makers] … it is clear that other scholars starting from different premises will come to different conclusions.”

​

����COHERENCE-BASED GENEALOGICAL METHOD, PRESERVATION, �AND THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS�

4.) CBGM has unsolvable problems:

​

• “[There are] limitations [to] CBGM, limitations that I take to be insoluble at present” (Peter J. Gurry).

• 5.) CBGM “was originally developed for evolutionary biology” (Klaus Wachtel). Should creationists use it?

• Nevertheless, CBGM cannot get rid of the Textus Receptus!

• Despite CBGM selecting “only those manuscripts that differ from the majority text in more than 10 percent of these passages,” it leads to conclusions such as: “If we look at a table that lists the manuscripts that are most closely related to our reconstruction of the initial text, we find three pure representatives of the Byzantine text among the first ten manuscripts, and more follow not much farther down. … the Byzantine text is remarkably coherent” (Klaus Wachtel).

� LAST VERSES OF REVELATION IN TR EDITIONS � IN USE TODAY-NO GREEK MS SUPPORT?�

1.) Conjectural emendation violates Scripture (Proverbs 30:5-6; Matthew 5:18-19; 24:35).

A reading that never had any MS support cannot possibly be correct, because of God’s promises.

​

2.) James cannot argue consistently against the 1^st printed edition of Erasmus’ TR (and, allegedly, later TR editions) by alleging conjectural emendations prove the TR is inferior to the NA text.

​

Any argument James makes against the final verses of Revelation based on allegations of conjectural emendation redound far more against the NA text, which utilizes conjectural emendation and is full of short passages that are in no known Greek MS on the face of the earth. The only consistent argument that James can make assumes a Byzantine priority or a Textus Receptus-preferred position—in which case the KJV/TR is a better text than the LSB/NA, and James loses this debate.

​

DOES HISTORY PROVE THAT THE FINAL VERSES OF REVELATION IN CURRENT PRINTED TR EDITIONS ARE SUPPORTED BY THE LATIN VULGATE ALONE WITH NO GREEK EVIDENCE?�

1.) Primary sources say otherwise:

Preface to Beza’s 1598 Textus Receptus says he used “very old” and “many” Greek MSS (Note that not all the MSS available to the TR editors of the Reformation era are extant today):

It is now forty-two years, Christian reader, since I set out to correct the Latin translation of the New Testament, by collating the Greek text, not only with nineteen manuscripts, most of them very old, and many codices printed far and wide, but also with the Syriac translation, and by comparing it, with the best faithfulness and diligence I could, partly with the writings of the old Greek and Latin fathers, and partly with the more recent versions and various expositions by the theologians most outstanding for both piety and learning.

​

E. g., the list of MSS used by Stephanus’ 1550 edition of the Textus Receptus in Jan Krans, Beyond What is Written (Zutphen: Wohrmann, 2004) 299 indicates that (at least) 12.5% of the MSS used for the edition are now lost.

​

DOES HISTORY PROVE THAT THE FINAL VERSES OF REVELATION IN CURRENT PRINTED TR EDITIONS ARE SUPPORTED BY THE LATIN VULGATE ALONE WITH NO GREEK EVIDENCE?�

1.) Primary sources say otherwise:

Beza says he always had Greek MSS for his text: “I do not dare to improve something in the Greek text that does not rely upon manuscripts.”

“[N]ihil in Graeco contextu emendare sum ausus contra codicum fidem.”

Erasmus said that the backtranslation of the final verses of Revelation in his first edition was eliminated in subsequent editions: “Thus, when I sent the revised copy to Basle, I wrote to my friends that they should restore this place from the Aldine edition, for this work had not yet been purchased by men. It has been done as I had asked.”

​

The Aldine edition asserted it used “many of the oldest copies” for its text: “Collected from many of the oldest copies, and with the help of some of the most learned men, the Bible (as they commonly call it) has been elegantly described in Greek.” (Andreas Aesulanus Cardinal Aegidius).

Multis vetustissimis exemplaribus collatis, adhibita etiam quorundam eruditissimorum hominum cura, Biblia (ut vulgo appellant) graece cuncta eleganter descripsi.

​

In his Annotations Erasmus indicates he had access to “many …. manuscripts” (Latin “pluris … codices,” and reformation-era writers refer to “many manuscripts” containing TR readings that do not today occur in many known extant MSS.

​

DOES HISTORY PROVE THAT THE FINAL VERSES OF REVELATION IN CURRENT PRINTED TR EDITIONS ARE SUPPORTED BY THE LATIN VULGATE ALONE WITH NO GREEK EVIDENCE?�

2.) Secondary sources say otherwise:

“For his 1519 edition … and 1522 edition[s] … Erasmus also had … other (now unidentifiable) mss.”

​

“Aldus is stated to differ from Erasmus in about 200 places, for the better or worse[,] … [including] in the Apocalypse.”

​

“The fourth edition [of Erasmus’ Greek NT,] (dated March, 1527) contains the text in three parallel columns, the Greek, the Latin Vulgate, and Erasmus’ recension of it. He had seen the Complutensian Polyglott in 1522, shortly after the publication of his third edition, and had now the good sense to avail himself of its aid in the improvement of the text, especially in the Apocalypse, wherein he amended from it at least ninety readings.

​

​

DOES HISTORY PROVE THAT THE FINAL VERSES OF REVELATION IN CURRENT PRINTED TR EDITIONS ARE SUPPORTED BY THE LATIN VULGATE ALONE WITH NO GREEK EVIDENCE?�

3.) Manuscript evidence says otherwise:

​

Herman Hoskier, the TR advocate who spent thirty years of his life collating all known MS of the book of Revelation, wrote about MS 141 (2049), which he suggested dated to the 1400s and served as a Greek source for the readings in the TR editions of Revelation 22:16-21:

​

[T]he MS … contains th[e] text … of the printed text of Erasmus, Aldus, or Colinaeus, and yet it has no appearance of being a copy of any one of them … after the most serious examination it might seem to be a sister of Apoc. 1 [a MS of Revelation known to be used by Erasmus for his printed editions], and to have been copied from a similar ms. … there are [numerous] indications of xv century execution, rather than xvi century. … In order to avoid any bias, I carefully refrained from looking at the last page until I had reached this conclusion. Upon reaching the end of the Apoc. And the famous final six verses, supposed to have been re-translated from the Vulgate into Greek by Erasmus when Codex 1 was discovered and found to lack the last leaf, the problem takes on a most important aspect.

​

DOES HISTORY PROVE THAT THE FINAL VERSES OF REVELATION IN CURRENT PRINTED TR EDITIONS ARE SUPPORTED BY THE LATIN VULGATE ALONE WITH NO GREEK EVIDENCE?�

3.) Manuscript evidence says otherwise:

​

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! … [while containing text very similar to the allegedly backtranslated verses], … our ms., in order to exhibit its independence—even of Er. 4. 5—has in verse 21 ἡμῶν for ὑμῶν as the last word, which is not found in Erasmus’ editions, nor in Aldus, nor in Colinaeus. … [Other differences are mentioned,] differing toto caelo [Latin, “the whole heaven,” that is, very differently] from the printed texts, and conforming to more ancient usage. [Several pages of differences between this MS in Revelation and the printed editions are then listed, leading Hoskier to the conclusion that] it highly improbable that the scribe was copying the printed text. … [T]he above would convey presumptive evidence that the last leaf of Erasmus’ codex might have contained the famous double ελθε, and ελθετω in verse 17 for the general Greek MS readings of ερχου and ερχεσθω, and that it was not Erasmus’ retranslation of the Vulgate’s veni and veniat; and that in verse 18 συμμαρτυρουμαι γαρ for μαρτυρω εγω is not necessarily retranslation … And the same applies to the ἀφαιρῇ and ἀφαιρήσει of verse 19 for the usual ἀφέλῃ and ἀφελεῖ. … Years ago, I made a careful comparison of the five editions of Erasmus, and collated Aldus and Colinaeus. The full evidence will be found set out in the collected readings. We can certainly rule out any copying by our ms. of Er. 1. or 2[.] … Without such a troublesome examination of all the Erasmian editions, I could not have offered the foregoing evidence. (Herman Hoskier)

DOES HISTORY PROVE THAT THE FINAL VERSES OF REVELATION IN CURRENT PRINTED TR EDITIONS ARE SUPPORTED BY THE LATIN VULGATE ALONE WITH NO GREEK EVIDENCE?�

4.) Logic says otherwise:

​

One needs very strong reasons to conclude that, despite many editions of Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus, and the Elzevirs, nobody in “three centuries” bothered to check that the last verses of Revelation had no Greek MS support at all; no Baptists and Protestants cared enough to verify this, and no Catholic supporters of the Latin Vulgate over the original language texts bothered to attack advocates of sola Scriptura on this matter. What is more, there are numbers of changes in the last verses of Revelation in later editions of the TR where it differs from Erasmus’ first edition. Would later editors change mistakes in Erasmus’ first edition, conforming it to Greek MS authority, while leaving other backtranslated readings unchanged?

​

Translation from Latin in Jan Krans, Beyond What is Written (Zutphen: Wohrmann, 2004), 51.

​

TEXTUS RECEPTUS –VS- TEXTUS REJECTUS �IN REVELATION—WHICH IS BETTER?

1.) The Textus Receptus text-type in Revelation is large:

Herman C. Hoskier: “[I sought to make a] comprehensive examination [of all] … known MSS … of the Apocalypse[.] … Never before has a comprehensive examination such as this been undertaken of any book of the New Testament. …. I may state … [t]hat 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 … his family-MSS occupy the first rank in point of actual numbers[.]

​

TEXTUS RECEPTUS –VS- TEXTUS REJECTUS �IN REVELATION—WHICH IS BETTER?

2.) The Textus Receptus text-type of Revelation is old:

“[O]n the analogy of the rest of the New Testament books [one may] apply the term “Byzantine,” with Kenyon, to the text-type underlying the “received text” and our King James Version. … [The] Av … cursive strea[m] [originates] back, perhaps far back, of the fourth century …. Antedat[ing] the time of ℵ.”

“[M]any of the corrections of ℵ by ℵ^a are from this [Textus Receptus] type [of text]. Since ℵ^a is the siglum assigned to the nearly contemporaneous correctors of ℵ’s text, the exemplar they employed must be at least as old as ℵ itself. … [Many of the Textus Receptus-type] family of manuscripts [are] associated with the commentary of Andrew, bishop of Caesarea, in Cappadocia … [who would have] utilized the most respected manuscript available to him as the text on which he commented. … There is no reason why the parental exemplar of the Andreas [Textus Receptus] text-type could not go back well into the second century.”

​

• Zane Hodges, “The Ecclesiastical Text of Revelation — Does It Exist?” Bibliotheca Sacra 118:470 (1961), 120.
• The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, ed. Zane C. Hodges & Arthur L. Farstad, 2^nd ed. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1985), xxxii-xxxvi.

​

TEXTUS RECEPTUS –VS- TEXTUS REJECTUS �IN REVELATION—WHICH IS BETTER?

-Note that the fact that the TR-type of Greek text is often associated with a commentary indicates that this type of text was in use, as Andreas’ “Commentary on the Apocalypse is the standard commentary of the Byzantine tradition,” which fits the promises of God (Isaiah 59:21; Matthew 4:4; 5:18-19; Revelation 1:3, 22:10, 18-19).

Apoc. 208 …. [Greg. 2186] … looks early xii, or even xi[.] … The date seemingly can be checked by a marginal comment along the margin of p. 145 verso by a second hand in very large script, which seems certainly as old as the xii century. … Written in an educated hand. An absolutely faithful copy of the old document underlying Erasmus’ famous Apoc. 1 [a primary MS Erasmus had for the book of Revelation, also called the “Reuchlin codex.”] This is indeed a discovery! … [T]his codex … of most respectable age, takes us closer to 1 and … it substantiates what have generally been considered errors of the Reuchlin codex. We go so far indeed as to justify Erasmus and his compositors as against the collations of Tregelles and Delitzsch[.] … one of our oldest and clearest witnesses for the printed text of Erasmus.

​

​

William C. Weinrich, ed., Revelation, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005), xxxi.

Herman 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 Versions, Commentaries, and Fathers: A Complete Conspectus of All Authorities, vol. 1 (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1929), 678.

​

TEXTUS RECEPTUS –VS- TEXTUS REJECTUS �IN REVELATION—WHICH IS BETTER?

• The Textus Receptus text-type of Revelation is Doctrinally Superior.

Revelation 1:5: TR/KJV includes washing in the blood of Christ, NA/LSB corrupts the text:

Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, (KJV)

τῷ ἀγαπήσαντι ἡμᾶς, καὶ λούσαντι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ· (TR)

To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood— (LSB)

Τῷ ἀγαπῶντι ἡμᾶς καὶ λύσαντι ἡμᾶς ἐκ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ, (NA)

​

TEXTUS RECEPTUS –VS- TEXTUS REJECTUS �IN REVELATION—WHICH IS BETTER?

• The Textus Receptus text-type of Revelation is Doctrinally Superior.

• Revelation 1:6: TR/KJV includes believers as kings and priests, NA/LSB corrupts the text:

And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; (KJV)

καὶ ἐποίησεν ἡμᾶς βασιλεῖς καὶ ἱερεῖς τῷ Θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ αὐτοῦ· (TR)

and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father— (LSB)

​

καὶ ἐποίησεν ἡμᾶς βασιλείαν, ἱερεῖς τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ αὐτοῦ, (NA)

-Note the LSB/NA also has bad grammar, a nominative used in apposition to an accusative in the textual variant.

​

​

​

TEXTUS RECEPTUS –VS- TEXTUS REJECTUS �IN REVELATION—WHICH IS BETTER?

• The Textus Receptus text-type of Revelation is Doctrinally Superior.

​

Revelation 1:8: NA/LSB removes Christ as “the beginning and the ending” and denies the Deity of Christ by adding “God,” undermining the otherwise “persuasive evidence” that the verse refers to “God the Son,” tipping the scales to the conclusion that “God the Father speaks in v. 8” (as Master’s Seminary professor Robert Thomas concludes).

​

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. (KJV)

​

Ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ Α καὶ τὸ Ω, ἀρχὴ καὶ τέλος, λέγει ὁ Κύριος, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, ὁ παντοκράτωρ. (TR)

​

“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” [OMIT “the beginning and the ending”] says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” (LSB)

​

Ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ ἄλφα καὶ τὸ ὦ, λέγει κύριος ὁ θεός, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, ὁ παντοκράτωρ.

​

​

• Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 1-7: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1992), 80.

​

TEXTUS RECEPTUS –VS- TEXTUS REJECTUS �IN REVELATION—WHICH IS BETTER?

• The Textus Receptus text-type of Revelation is Doctrinally Superior.

​

Revelation 1:11: TR/KJV includes Jesus Christ as “Alpha and Omega, the first and the last”; NA/LSB removes the phrases. (TR/KJV also says Asia Minor had seven churches, while NA/LSB says there are seven churches [in the whole world?])

​

• Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea. (KJV)
• λεγούσης, Ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ Α καὶ τὸ Ω, ὁ πρῶτος καὶ ὁ ἔσχατος· καί, Ὃ βλέπεις γράψον εἰς βιβλίον, καὶ πέμψον ταῖς ἑπτὰ ἐκκλησίαις ταῖς ἐν Ἀσίᾳ, εἰς Ἔφεσον, καὶ εἰς Σμύρναν, καὶ εἰς Πέργαμον, καὶ εἰς Θυάτειρα, καὶ εἰς Σάρδεις, καὶ εἰς Φιλαδέλφειαν, καὶ εἰς Λαοδίκειαν. (TR)

​

​

• Other doctrinal corruptions are in Revelation 1:9 & many other verses after Revelation 1:1-11.

​

TEXTUS RECEPTUS –VS- TEXTUS REJECTUS �IN REVELATION—WHICH IS BETTER?

• The Textus Receptus text-type of Revelation is Doctrinally Superior.

​

Revelation 1:11: TR/KJV includes Jesus Christ as “Alpha and Omega, the first and the last”; NA/LSB removes the phrases. (TR/KJV also says Asia Minor had seven churches, while NA/LSB says there are seven churches [in the whole world?])

​

• saying, [OMIT “I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, and] “Write in a scroll what you see, and send it to the seven churches [OMIT “which are in Asia]: to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea.” (LSB)

​

• λεγούσης· ὃ βλέπεις γράψον εἰς βιβλίον καὶ πέμψον ταῖς ἑπτὰ ἐκκλησίαις, εἰς Ἔφεσον καὶ εἰς Σμύρναν καὶ εἰς Πέργαμον καὶ εἰς Θυάτειρα καὶ εἰς Σάρδεις καὶ εἰς Φιλαδέλφειαν καὶ εἰς Λαοδίκειαν. (NA)

​

​

• Other doctrinal corruptions are in Revelation 1:9 & many other verses after Revelation 1:1-11.

​

TEXTUS RECEPTUS –VS- TEXTUS REJECTUS �IN REVELATION—WHICH IS BETTER?

4.) The Textus Receptus text-type of Revelation is Grammatically Superior:

​

• “[The NA/LSB text of] Revelation exhibits a quantity of striking solecisms which are based especially on inattention to agreement (a rough style), in contrast to the rest of the NT and to the other writings ascribed to John.” [Did the Apostle John—under the control of the Holy Spirit!—forget how to write good grammar in Revelation?] 

​

​

F. Blass, A. Debrunner, and Robert W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature

​

TEXTUS RECEPTUS –VS- TEXTUS REJECTUS �IN REVELATION—WHICH IS BETTER?

4.) The Textus Receptus text-type of Revelation is Grammatically Superior:

χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ τοῦ [preposition followed by a genitive] ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος

charis hymin kai eirēnē apo tou [preposition followed by a genitive] ho ōn kai ho ēn kai ho erchomenos (Revelation 1:4, TR)

​

χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ ὁ [preposition followed by a nominative, impossible grammar a elementary school-age child in the first century would know was wrong] ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος

charis hymin kai eirēnē apo ho [preposition followed by a nominative, impossible grammar a elementary school-age child in the first century would know was wrong] ōn kai ho ēn kai ho erchomenos (Revelation 1:4, NA)

​

TEXTUS RECEPTUS –VS- TEXTUS REJECTUS �IN REVELATION—WHICH IS BETTER?

4.) The Textus Receptus text-type of Revelation is Grammatically Superior:

The “nominative after a preposition … [t]here is apparently only one example of this in the NT [in the NA text—the TR has good grammar]. … This is the first and worst grammatical solecism in Revelation, but many more are to follow.”

“The cause of such unusual grammar in the [NA text of the] Apocalypse is highly debated. … [S]ome of the following syntactical categories [invented to explain the shoddy grammar in the NA text of Revelation] should be regarded as somewhat unusual (in some cases, bizarre), even by Koine standards. [Note: Wallace’s discussion would be very different had he recognized as preserved the TR text of Revelation.]

​

Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics.

​

����IN THE WORDS OF AN OPPONENT OF THE TR TEXT OF REVELATION:�

• [T]he Andreas [Textus Receptus] text-form … [is] a stylistic improvement or a reverential embellishment … smooth[ing] … stylistic irregularit[ies] … [possessing a text with] smoothness and consistency … eliminating seeming roughness in the [alternative to the TR text’s] style.”

​

​

The question: Did the Holy Spirit through John write good grammar which fallible men corrupted in some MSS which were less used or not in use, or did fallible men improve the grammar of the Holy Spirit and the Apostle John in the MSS of Revelation which were regularly in use? Which alternative fits what the Bible teaches about the infallible inspiration and preservation of Scripture within the use of the church?

​

​

​

• Zane Clark Hodges, Arthur L. Farstad, and William C. Dunkin, The Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text, 2nd ed. (Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers, 1985), xxxvi–xxxix.

​

������������DOES THE NT QUOTE THE LXX AS AUTHORITATIVE� WHEN IT DIFFERS FROM THE PRESERVED HEBREW TEXT?�

1.) This false idea is unscriptural: Christ promised that the inspired Hebrew Words—to the smallest letter “jot [yod]” would be preserved, and those inspired and preserved Words would be available for the people of God to live by (Matthew 5:19):

• 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 5:18)

Furthermore, the Lord Jesus, the Apostles, and OT prophets referencing earlier portions of the OT never took the OT out of context and never made a mistake in their quotations. As with Christ, so with the Apostles the Hebrew text was always the ultimate authority, not a Greek translation.

​

������������DOES THE NT QUOTE THE LXX AS AUTHORITATIVE� WHEN IT DIFFERS FROM THE PRESERVED HEBREW TEXT?�

2.) This false idea “proves” too much—it doesn’t just “refute” Baptist confessional promises about the Word being kept pure in all ages, and the KJVO doctrine of preservation, but brings utter chaos into the text of Scripture and makes removing Mark 16:9-20 look like child’s play:

The Greek Septuagint translation (LXX) of Jeremiah differs significantly from the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT). The LXX is approximately 2,700 words shorter, or about one-eighth shorter, than the MT. The LXX omits numerous words, phrases, sentences and even longer passages that the mt contains. For example, some of the longer passages that the LXX omits are Jeremiah 33:14–26; 39:4–13; 51:44–49; 52:27–30. In addition, the LXX differs significantly in the order of several chapters. Thus in the LXX the chapters that we traditionally label as Jeremiah 46–51, the oracles against the nations, appear right after Jeremiah 25:13. Furthermore, the specific order of the oracles in these six chapters is different in the LXX than in the MT.

������������DOES THE NT QUOTE THE LXX AS AUTHORITATIVE� WHEN IT DIFFERS FROM THE PRESERVED HEBREW TEXT?�

2.) This false idea “proves” too much—it doesn’t just “refute” Baptist confessional promises about the Word being kept pure in all ages, and the KJVO doctrine of preservation, but brings utter chaos into the text of Scripture and makes removing Mark 16:9-20 look like child’s play:

• The sheer size of the differences, coupled with the rearrangement of the material, suggests that the different reading of the LXX is not due merely to poor translation. … [Secular textual criticism concludes the LXX is more original than the Hebrew text]: The shorter text is the better one. This statement reflects the assumption that editors would be much more likely to add material to a text than they would be to delete material. Tov therefore concludes, “All of these details (and others) indicate that the shorter text is earlier, and therefore ‘more original.’ … The Hebrew text behind the MT was developed from the Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX.”

​

​

​

• Tov, “Book of Jeremiah,” 34. Vincent Bacote, Laura C. Miguélez, and Dennis L. Okholm, Evangelicals & Scripture: Tradition, Authority, and Hermeneutics (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 136-139.

​

​

������������DOES THE NT QUOTE THE LXX AS AUTHORITATIVE� WHEN IT DIFFERS FROM THE PRESERVED HEBREW TEXT?�

3.) This false idea that the NT Quotes LXX variants that are not original attacks not preservation only, but also inspiration and inerrancy.

​

James Orr:

“[T]he imperfect translation of Old Testament passages in quotations from the Septuagint … [shows that the Bible is not] an ‘errorless’ record, in matters of minor detail? The discussion may close with a few words on this subject of ‘inerrancy.’ … One may plead, indeed, for ‘a supernatural providential guidance’ which has for its aim to exclude all, even the least, error or discrepancy [which] … may arise from corruption of anterior documents. But this is a violent assumption which there is nothing in the Bible really to support. … [Concerning] the New Testament quotations … on the theory of verbal inspiration, the New Testament writers should have adhered to the ipsissima verba of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament … it hardly seems worth while to deny the compatibility of inspiration with the possibility of minor errors also in the matter of the record.”

​

​

​

������������DOES THE NT QUOTE THE LXX AS AUTHORITATIVE� WHEN IT DIFFERS FROM THE PRESERVED HEBREW TEXT?�

3.) This false idea that the NT Quotes LXX variants that are not original attacks not preservation only, but also inspiration and inerrancy.

​

• Even if someone had no good explanation for a quotation, it would be better to live by faith (Hebrews 11) and cleave to the plain teaching of Scripture on the verbal, plenary, infallible, inerrant inspiration and verbal, plenary preservation of the original language texts (Matthew 5:18-19), rather than rejecting Scripture’s teaching because of an inability to explain an alleged difficulty.

​

​

​

������������DOES THE NT QUOTE THE LXX AS AUTHORITATIVE� WHEN IT DIFFERS FROM THE PRESERVED HEBREW TEXT?�

4.) The explanation by classical and modern defenders of verbal inspiration and preservation is better.

a.) NT writers frequently paraphrase when they reference the OT

​

Alfred Edersheim (and others) have called this “Targuming”:

“The alterations in the words quoted are … a ‘targuming’ of th[e] [Old Testament] … prophecy in form as in its spirit, and in true Jewish manner” (Edersheim).

​

“‘[T]arguming’ … mean[s] that the words of Jesus were translated by preachers often with an accompanying explanation” (David Sim).

​

​

������������DOES THE NT QUOTE THE LXX AS AUTHORITATIVE� WHEN IT DIFFERS FROM THE PRESERVED HEBREW TEXT?�

4.) The explanation by classical and modern defenders of verbal inspiration and preservation is better.

​

b.) Scribes of the LXX in the Christian era would conform their quotations to the NT:

​

i.) Classical defense of this fact—John Owen, commenting on the OT quotations in Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews.

​

​

�������������JOHN OWEN, COMMENTING ON THE OT QUOTATIONS �IN PAUL’S EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS (2)�

​

It is also undeniably manifest, from this view of his words, that the apostle did not scrupulously confine himself unto the precise words either of the original or any translation whatever,—if any other translation, or targum, were then extant besides that of the LXX. Observing and expressing the sense of the testimonies which he thought meet to produce and make use of, he used great liberty, as did other holy writers of the New Testament, according to the guidance of the Holy Ghost, by whose inspiration he wrote, in expressing them by words of his own. …

​

​

�������������JOHN OWEN, COMMENTING ON THE OT QUOTATIONS �IN PAUL’S EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS (1)�

​

First, it is evident that they are exceedingly mistaken who affirm that the apostle cites all his testimonies out of the translation of the LXX, as we intimated is by some pleaded, in the close of the preceding discourse. The words he useth, in very few of them agree exactly with that Greek version of the Old Testament which is now extant,—though apparently, since the writing of this Epistle, it hath grown in its verbal conformity unto the allegations as reported in the New; and in most of them he varieth from it, either in the use of his own liberty, or in a more exact rendering of the original text. This the first prospect of the places and words compared will evince. Should he have had any respect unto that translation, it were impossible to give any tolerable account whence he should so much differ from it almost in every quotation, as is plain that he doth.

​

​

�������������JOHN OWEN, COMMENTING ON THE OT QUOTATIONS �IN PAUL’S EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS (3)�

​

• [I]n … those … citations … wherein the words of the apostle are the same with those now extant in the Greek Bible … the apostle doth rightly interpret the meaning of the Holy Ghost … [and] in his paraphrase appl[ies] the words unto that very end for which they were intended, shall be cleared afterwards. … [Those who improperly] … affirm that the apostle waived the original, and reported the words from the translation of the LXX … and assign the rise of this difference unto some other copies of the Hebrew text, used by the LXX, varying from those which now remain … [manifest a rash] boldness in correcting the text, and fancying, without proof, testimony, or probability, of other ancient copies of the scripture of the Old Testament, differing in many things from them which alone remain, and which indeed were ever in the world, may quickly prove pernicious to the church of God. We must therefore look after another expedient for the removal of this difficulty.

​

​

�������������JOHN OWEN, COMMENTING ON THE OT QUOTATIONS �IN PAUL’S EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS (4)�

​

I say, then, it is highly probable that the apostle, according to his wonted manner, which appears in almost all the citations used by him in this Epistle, reporting the sense and importance of the places in words of his own, the Christian transcribers of the Greek Bible inserted his expressions into the text; either as judging them a more proper version of the original, whereof they were ignorant, than that of the LXX, or out of a preposterous zeal to take away the appearance of a diversity between the text and the apostle’s citation of it. And thus, in those testimonies where there is a real variation from the Hebrew original, the apostle took not his words from the translation of the LXX., but his words were afterwards inserted into that translation. …

​

​

�������������JOHN OWEN, COMMENTING ON THE OT QUOTATIONS �IN PAUL’S EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS (5)�

​

Whereas the reasons of the apostle for his application of the testimonies used by him in his words and expressions are evident, as shall in particular be made to appear; so no reason can be assigned why the LXX (if any such LXX. there were) who translated the Old Testament, or any other translators of it, should so render the words of the Hebrew text. Neither various lections, nor ambiguity of signification in the words of the original, can in most of them be pleaded. … In the meantime, I judge there is much more ground to suppose that the apostle’s expressions, which he had weighty cause to use, were by some person inserted into the Greek text of the Old Testament, than that a translation which those that made it had no cause so to do, evidently forsaking the proper meaning of very obvious words, and their sense, known to themselves, should be taken up and used by the apostle unto his purpose.

​

​

�������������JOHN OWEN, COMMENTING ON THE OT QUOTATIONS �IN PAUL’S EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS (6)�

​

Secondly, it is certain that some words, used by the apostle, have been inserted into some copies of the Greek Bible, which, being single words, and of little importance, prevailed not in them all; as may be seen in sundry of the foregoing instances. And why may we not think that some whole sentences might, on the same account, be inserted in some of them, which, being of more importance, found a more general acceptance? And how by other means also that translation was variously changed and corrupted of old, and that before the days of Jerome, learned men do know and confess. …

​

​

�������������JOHN OWEN, COMMENTING ON THE OT QUOTATIONS �IN PAUL’S EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS (7)�

​

Upon these reasons, then,—which may yet be rendered more cogent by many other instances, but that we confine ourselves to this Epistle,—I suppose I may conclude that it is more probable, at least, that the apostle’s interpretations of the testimonies used by him, all agreeably unto the mind of the Holy Ghost, were by some of old inserted into the vulgar copies of the Greek translation of the Old Testament, and therein prevailed unto common acceptation, than that he himself followed, in the citation of them, a translation departing without reason from the original text, and diverting unto such senses as its authors knew not to be contained in them, which must needs give offence unto them with whom he had to do.

​

​

������������DOES THE NT QUOTE THE LXX AS AUTHORITATIVE� WHEN IT DIFFERS FROM THE PRESERVED HEBREW TEXT?�

4.) The explanation by classical and modern defenders of verbal inspiration and preservation is better.

​

b.) Scribes of the LXX in the Christian era would conform their quotations to the NT:

​

ii.) Modern recognition of this fact in the standard introduction to the Septuagint:

​

​

�������������INTRODUCTION TO THE SEPTUAGINT

“[B]y the end of the second century the Septuagint had passed into the care and keeping of the Christian church. It is no surprise that virtually all surviving Greek manuscripts of the Bible have been produced by Christian, not Jewish, scribes. … [A]lmost all manuscripts of the Septuagint are found in codices that date from the fourth century of our era or later and that also include the NT. They were evidently produced by Christian scribes, and so the question arises whether they edited OT readings in light of Christian theology. … We need to remember that the scribes who copied the surviving manuscripts of the LXX were by and large Christians who would have been familiar with the NT writings.

​

​

�������������INTRODUCTION TO THE SEPTUAGINT (2)

When, in the process of producing a Greek OT manuscript, they came to a passage that was quoted in the NT, they sometimes adjusted the text, either inadvertently (because of their memory of the NT form) or purposely (because they assumed that the NT form was correct). … Christian scribes harmonized Greek texts of the OT to agree with the use of those texts in the NT, or that they subtly introduced Christian exegesis into the text of the OT books. … Greek renderings that [stand] in contrast to the Hebrew text … must therefore be scrutinized to determine if that understanding was intended by the original translator or was introduced …. by later Christian scribes.

​

​

������������DOES THE NT QUOTE THE LXX AS AUTHORITATIVE� WHEN IT DIFFERS FROM THE PRESERVED HEBREW TEXT?�

4.) The explanation by classical and modern defenders of verbal inspiration and preservation is better.

​

b.) Scribes of the LXX in the Christian era would conform their quotations to the NT:

​

iii.) A clear example of what Owen & Jobes/Sillva explain— Hebrews 1:6 with Psalm 97:7 [96:7, LXX] & Deut 32:43 (LXX).

​

​

������������EXAMPLE OF WHAT OWEN & JOBES/SILVA EXPLAIN:�

In Hebrews 1:6b, Paul quotes Psalm 97:7b, proving that the incarnate Messiah is Jehovah who is worthy of worship:

​

And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. (Hebrews 1:6)

​

ὅταν δὲ πάλιν εἰσαγάγῃ τὸν πρωτότοκον εἰς τὴν οἰκουμένην λέγει, Καὶ προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι Θεοῦ.

Confounded be all they that serve graven images, that boast themselves of idols: worship him, all ye gods. (Psalm 97:7, KJV)

​

בֹ֤שׁוּ ׀ כָּל־עֹ֬בְדֵי פֶ֗סֶל הַמִּֽתְהַלְלִ֥ים בָּאֱלִילִ֑ים הִשְׁתַּחֲווּ־ל֝וֹ כָּל־אֱלֹהִֽים׃

​

​

������������EXAMPLE OF WHAT OWEN & JOBES/SILVA EXPLAIN (2)�

Let all that worship graven images be ashamed, who boast of their idols; worship him, all ye his angels. (LXX, Brenton)

​

αἰσχυνθήτωσαν πάντες οἱ προσκυνοῦντες τοῖς γλυπτοῖς

οἱ ἐγκαυχώμενοι ἐν τοῖς εἰδώλοις αὐτῶν·

προσκυνήσατε αὐτῷ, πάντες οἱ ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ. (LXX)

​

However, scribes of the LXX gratuitously introduced the exact words of Hebrews 1:6 into Deuteronomy 32:43, without any support from the Hebrew text:

​

Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people. (KJV)

• הַרְנִ֤ינוּ גוֹיִם֙ עַמּ֔וֹ כִּ֥י דַם־עֲבָדָ֖יו יִקּ֑וֹם וְנָקָם֙ יָשִׁ֣יב לְצָרָ֔יו וְכִפֶּ֥ר אַדְמָת֖וֹ עַמּֽוֹ׃

​

​

������������EXAMPLE OF WHAT OWEN & JOBES/SILVA EXPLAIN (3)�

• Rejoice, ye heavens, with him, and let all the angels of God worship him; rejoice ye Gentiles, with his people, and let all the sons of God strengthen themselves in him; for he will avenge the blood of his sons, and he will render vengeance, and recompense justice to his enemies, and will reward them that hate him; and the Lord shall purge the land of his people. (LXX, Brenton)

​

εὐφράνθητε, οὐρανοί, ἅμα αὐτῷ,

καὶ προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες υἱοὶ θεοῦ·

εὐφράνθητε, ἔθνη, μετὰ τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ,

καὶ ἐνισχυσάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι θεοῦ·

ὅτι τὸ αἷμα τῶν υἱῶν αὐτοῦ ἐκδικᾶται,

καὶ ἐκδικήσει καὶ ἀνταποδώσει δίκην τοῖς ἐχθροῖς

καὶ τοῖς μισοῦσιν ἀνταποδώσει,

καὶ ἐκκαθαριεῖ κύριος τὴν γῆν τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ.

​

-Note also that the Gottingen LXX Apparatus on Deuteronomy 32:43 mentions sources with the reading αγγελοι in the προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες υἱοὶ θεοῦ clause.

​

​

������������EXAMPLE OF WHAT OWEN & JOBES/SILVA EXPLAIN (4)�

​

• Did the Apostle Paul quote the LXX of Deuteronomy 32:43 that is absent from the Hebrew text in Hebrews 1:6? Absolutely not. Paul referenced Psalm 97:7, and scribes of the LXX introduced the words of Hebrews 1:6 into LXX MSS of Deuteronomy 32:43.

• The same thing has happened in Hebrews 10:5. Paul has expounded the meaning of or Targumed “mine ears hast thou opened” legitimately and in context (Psalm 40:6) as “a body hast thou prepared me,” but LXX scribes have moved the σῶμα δὲ κατηρτίσω μοι of Hebrews 10:5 into the LXX of Psalm 40:6 (Eng, 39:7, LXX: σῶμα δὲ κατηρτίσω μοι, LXX, Swete) in post-Christian manuscripts, while “ears,” rendering the Hebrew properly, appears in the Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotian, and in the Hexapla. Paul did not quote an LXX textual variant that differ from the preserved Hebrew text in Hebrews 10:5, but LXX scribes in the Christian era introduced Hebrews 10:5 into LXX MSS in Psalm 40:6.

​

​

������������EXAMPLE OF WHAT OWEN & JOBES/SILVA EXPLAIN (5)�

​

• The same thing happened in Hebrews 8:9 in the clause “I regarded them not” (κἀγὼ ἠμέλησα αὐτῶν). Paul, “targuming” the passage, properly explained the meaning of the Hebrew text of Jeremiah 31:32. Scribes of the LXX in the Christian era then moved Paul’s words into the equivalent section of the LXX (Jeremiah 38:32—note the LXX is seven whole chapters off!) and so introduced καὶ ἐγὼ ἠμέλησα αὐτῶν into the Greek translation in copies in the Christian era. Paul did not quote an LXX textual variant that differed from the preserved Hebrew text in Hebrews 8:9, but LXX scribes in the Christian era introduced Hebrews 8:9 into LXX MSS of Jeremiah 31:32 [English, LXX 38:32].

​

​

• For an exposition, see John Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, ed. W. H. Goold, vol. 23, Works of John Owen (Edinburgh: Johnstone and Hunter, 1854), 129–131.

​

​

DO NT PAPYRI PROVE THE SOLE EXISTENCE OF AND �SUPERIORITY OF THE ALEXANDRIAN TEXT-TYPE?�

JAMES MAKES THE ASTONISHING ASSERTION IN HIS KJVO CONTROVERSY: “EVERY PAPYRUS MANUSCRIPT WE HAVE DISCOVERED HAS BEEN A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ALEXANDRIAN TEXT-TYPE.”�

​

​

But even Kurt & Barbara Aland, editors of the Nestle-Aland Greek NT, say otherwise. In their classification of all (then) known papyri in their The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism, despite strong anti-TR proclivities, classify the majority of papyri as non-Alexandrian, and some as Byzantine [e.g., P⁶³, P⁷³, P⁸⁴, etc.) They admit: “There is undoubtedly an early … tradition underlying the K [TR/Byz] text … claim[ing] one or more papyri of the early period among its ancestors.”

​

​

​

​

​

​

James R. White, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2009), 195.

Kurt Aland & Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism, trans. Erroll F. Rhodes (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989), 95-102.

​

JAMES’S ASTONISHING ASSERTION IN KJVO CONTROVERSY: “EVERY PAPYRUS MANUSCRIPT WE HAVE DISCOVERED HAS BEEN A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ALEXANDRIAN TEXT-TYPE.” (PG. 195)�

​

​

James’ book cites no recognized textual critic of any persuasion who agrees with his affirmation that every papyrus MS fits the Alexandrian text-type.

​

Non-KJVO scholars disagree with James and affirm:

“[A]ll the texttypes [that is, including TR/Byz] began earlier than we had assumed … the Bodmer John [Papyrus 𝔓⁶⁶] is also a witness to the early existence of many of the readings found in the Alpha [TR/Byz] text-type[.] Strangely enough to our previous ideas, the contemporary corrections in that papyrs frequently change an Alpha-type [TR/Byz] reading to a Beta-type [Alexandrian]. This indicates that at this early period readings of both kinds were known, and the Beta-type [Alexandrian] were supplanting the Alpha-type [TR]—at least as far as this witness is concerned.

Ernest C. Colwell, “The Origin of Texttypes of New Testament Manuscripts,” Early Christian Origins, 130–31.

​

MORE ASTONISHING ASSERTIONS

​

​

“[T]here are not more than eight … uniquely Byzantine reading[s] found in the papyrus manuscripts … this exception proves the rule [of Alexandrian superiority].” (James R. White, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2009), 197).

​

But even non-KJVO textual scholars admit: “Distinctly Byzantine readings often have ancient roots. For Byzantine proponents, this is a tautology since Byzantine tradition is the most ancient one. But even among their opponents, research in the past several decades has demonstrated that hundreds of specific readings that have been classified at times as distinctly Byzantine are not, say, secondary conflations or corruptions arising from some later recension, but in fact are already attested by witnesses that are often a millennium older. For instance, P⁴⁵, P⁴⁶, and P⁶⁶ share over one hundred readings with the Byzantine tradition against the early [Alexandrian] majuscules, and other chronologically earlier witnesses such as 02, 032, and some versions regularly contain what later become classified as Byzantine variants. … [T]he Byzantine [tradition] has preserved second-century tradition not preserved by the other text-types … it should … not [be] discarded to the “late” heap. Indeed, a growing chorus of scholars not otherwise part of the Byzantine-priority camp admit that “tenacious negative bias against the Byzantine majority text” is in need of a “reevaluation,” such that the Byzantine tradition “is an important witness to the early text” (Gregory Lanier).

​

ALL PAPYRI=ALEXANDRIAN?

3.) Even if one granted (for the sake of argument) James’ astonishingly inaccurate assertion in his KJVO Controversy that all papyri are Alexandrian, James provides no reason why we should assume that papyri found in a very small number of locations in one small part of one country—Upper Egypt—are necessarily representative of the type of NT text being used in the region where so many of the autographs actually came from—Asia Minor, the stronghold of the TR/Byz text—as well as everywhere else Christianity had reached, from Britain to Morocco to Jerusalem to Iran.

The KJVO Controversy not only does not answer this question, it completely ignores it.

DOES POSSIBLY ONE CHURCH LIBRARY AND/OR A VERY SMALL NUMBER OF LOCATIONS IN ONE VERY DRY SECTION OF EGYPT =

represent the NT text used by all Christians worldwide?

​

BART D. EHRMAN & �MICHAEL W. HOLMES:

“[P]apyrus MSS survive only when protected from moisture—when placed in protective caves, jars, or buildings, or when buried in the soil of virtually rain-free regions … How and where were the NT papyri preserved? All stem from Egypt … the Chester Beatty papyri … [probably were] discovered among the ruins of some early church … from the neighbourhood of the Fayum[.] … A similar statement accompanied the purchase of P⁵², the earliest NT fragment of all, which was assumed to have come either from the Fayum or from Oxyrhynchus. It has also been surmised that the Beatty and Bodmer codices may have come from the same church library.”

​

​

​

Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes, The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research : Essays on the Status Quaestionis (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), 6–7.

​

ELDON EPP & �GORDON FEE:

“To begin with an obvious question—yet one too rarely discussed or even raised—how representative, really, of the earliest history of the NT text are these earliest papyri? What assurance do we have that these randomly surviving MSS represent in any real sense the entire earliest period of the text? Subsidiary questions appear: First, all of these documents come from one region, Egypt. Can we be satisfied with Egypt as the exclusive locale for viewing this earliest history of the text? Was Egypt in the third century AD representative of the NT text for all of Christianity at that period? Was any NT book written in Egypt? Probably not. Does not Egypt then represent at best a secondary and derivative stage in the history of the NT text? After all, is it not merely an accident of history (though a most fortunate one) that papyrus almost exclusively survives only in the dry sands of Egypt?

​

​

​

Eldon Jay Epp and Gordon D. Fee, Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993), 43–44.

ELDON EPP & �GORDON FEE, CONT’D:

If textual witnesses, then, are to have “automatic significance” (to use Aland’s phrase), should there not be a basis for so significant a role that is more substantive than merely their early age? … [Must] we not assure ourselves either that these earliest witnesses present a unitary text (which, of course, they do not), or—lacking that assurance—should we not require a guarantee (or at least some persuasive evidence) that they are genuinely representative of the earliest history of the text, representative, that is, of the various textual complexions that existed in the earliest period? … [T]here is one rather clear sense in which the early papyri seem not to be representative—and that is their restriction to a single geographical segment of Christianity—and another sense in which they [only] may be representative—and that is their presentation of textual complexions[.] … [The papyri do not allow us to] assuredly identifying any MS, any group of MSS, or any critical text with that elusive “original”[.]”

​

​

​

Eldon Jay Epp and Gordon D. Fee, Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993), 43–44.

KURT & BARBARA�ALAND:

“Egypt was distinguished from other provinces of the Church, as far as we can judge, by the early dominance of Gnosticism; this was not broken until about A. D. 200.”

​

​

​

Kurt Aland & Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism, trans. Erroll F. Rhodes (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989), 59.

​

MAURICE ROBINSON &�WILLIAM PIERPONT:

​

​

​

​

“[There is] no evidence proving that NT documents during the era of persecution [before Constantine in the 4^th traveled [across the Roman] … Empire. Nor [that] … any early NT papyrus or uncial fragment reflects a palaeography suggesting an origin outside of Egypt. Timothy J. Finney, “The Ancient Witnesses of the Epistle to the Hebrews: A Computer-Assisted Analysis of the Papyrus and Uncial Manuscripts of ΠΡΟΣ ΕΒΡΑΙΟΥΣ” (PhD Diss, Murdoch University, 1999) 194–211 demonstrates that various early papyri and uncials (𝔓¹³ 𝔓⁴⁶ א A B D I) have similar orthography, and on the hypothesis that shared orthography implies shared provenance, Finney suggests that these witnesses were copied in the same region, possibly Egypt.

​

​

​

​

​

​

Maurice A. Robinson & William G. Pierpont, ed., The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform 2005, with Morphology. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2006), 569–570.

​

​

​

​

KJVO CONTROVERSY:

​

​

​

4.) James argues, “the Byzantine [text] is not found in full form until the fourth century,” and he places a chart in his book with zero Byzantine MSS from the 2^nd-4^th centuries. He elsewhere declares that “[t]here is no evidence of the Byzantine text type existing as a distinct tradition … [in] the late second century.” James does not mention that the same advocates of the Textus Rejectus who claim that there was no Byzantine text until the fourth century likewise argue that there were no text types at all until the fourth century. The same secular evaluation of evidence that lead one to say “there was no Byzantine text type until the fourth century” would lead one to say also that “there was no Alexandrian text type until the fourth century,” and editors of the NA text would make both assertions. It is highly misleading to join their affirmation about the TR text and not recognize that they made the same claim about the Alexandrian text.

​

​

​

James R. White, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2009), 196.

Douglas Wilson vs. James R. White, Debating the Text of the Word of God (Simposio: 2017), 54.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

KURT & BARBARA�ALAND:

​

​

​

“[E]arly manuscripts should not be described … [as] partly Alexandrian, partly Western[,] … etc. … when these groups had not yet developed[.] … [I]t was not until the beginning of the fourth century even in Egypt that a standardization of the text occurred[.] … The major text types trace their beginnings to the Diocletianic persecutions and the Age of Constantine which followed.”

​

​

​

• Kurt Aland & Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism, trans. Erroll F. Rhodes (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989), 58-65.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

JAMES DEFENDING OPPOSITE OF GREEK TEXT EDITORS

• So while James says, “We have found numerous fully (and one might say purely) Alexandrian papyri,” he is asserting the opposite of what the editors of the Greek text he is defending assert.

​

​

​

Douglas Wilson vs. James R. White, Debating the Text of the Word of God (Simposio: 2017), 54.

​

�AN OLDER TEXT IS NOT NECESSARILY A BETTER ONE.�

EMMANUEL TOV

Older witnesses are often presented as being preferable to more recent ones … [f]or this reason, 𝔐 [the traditional Masoretic text] is sometimes dismissed as … the most recent and worst form of the biblical text[.] … However, some copyists preserved their source better than others. For example, the community that transmitted 𝔐 has left the biblical text virtually unchanged for some two thousand years since the time of the proto-Masoretic texts from the Judean Desert, whereas many Qumran scrolls (the QSP⁺) changed the orthography, morphology, and content of the text. Thus, 1QIsa^a, dating to the 1^st century BCE, is further removed from the original text of Isaiah than a Masoretic manuscript written in the 10^th century CE. Given such exceptional cases, the fallacy of dependence upon the age of witnesses was recognized long ago. … In the 18^th century, J.S. Semler, Hermeneutische Vorbereitung (Halle: Hemmerde, 1765) 3/1.88 showed that some late NT manuscripts contain readings that are closer to the original text than older texts[.] … In recent research, too, reliance on the age of documents has been strongly criticized … recent documents are not necessarily worse than older ones.

​

​

Emmanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 3rd ed. (Minneapolis : Fortress Press, 2012), 274.

​

​

• James has said: “Anything written on the subject of the ancient text of the New Testament prior to the discovery of the papyri must be considered badly out of date as a result.”

​

Douglas Wilson vs. James R. White, Debating the Text of the Word of God (Simposio: 2017), 54.

​

​

ALAND & ALAND

• The term “papyrus” has … held an almost magical charm … though with no real justification. … [M]ost of the major manuscripts (in terms of length) have been well known since the beginning of modern research. … It should also be remembered that the date of a manuscript is no more a clue to its significance than its length. … Minuscules have always played a role in textual studies … [and can] offer a valuable early text which can compete with even the best of the uncials. … a whole group of minuscules is advancing claims for equal recognition, and with equal justification, [as] … the uncials [and] . . . the papyri.

​

• Kurt Aland & Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism, trans. Erroll F. Rhodes (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989), 84, 103, 104, 129.

​

���“MINISCULES WHICH ARE CITED QUITE FREQUENTLY [IN THE NA/UBS]�

��A “SECOND CLASS OF “CONSTANT WITNESSES” �TO SPECIFIC BOOKS INCLUDE:�

“CONSTANT WITNESSES” FOR THE BOOK OF REVELATION INCLUDE: �

• Kurt Aland & Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism, trans. Erroll F. Rhodes (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989), 247-249.

​

�WHAT REALLY MATTERS TO THE NA TEXT

​

• Is that the text of a manuscript rejects the Textus Receptus.

​

Thus, for example, Aland & Aland declare that the early, 5^th century uncial A is “inferior in the Gospels” because it is a TR-type text, while in Revelation it is “best … superior to P⁴⁷ א” because there its text is not Byzantine.

​

​

• Kurt Aland & Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism, trans. Erroll F. Rhodes (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989), 109.

​

THUS, AMONG CRITICS WHO SUPPORT THE NA/UBS:

“All of us are open, theoretically and practically, to … [the] possibility … [that] a late minority reading [is] to be judged original. … [A]ntiquity of witnesees is not in itself sufficient for the text-critical task.” What really matters is that the reading is NOT the Textus Receptus (what one would expect, Scripturally, of totally depraved, unregenerate persons who hate the true Word of God, 1 Corinthians 2:13-17; John 17:8).

​

• Eldon Jay Epp, “Traditional ‘Canons’ of New Testament Textual Criticism: Their Value, Validity, and Viability—Or Lack Thereof,” in Klaus Wachtel & Michael W. Holmes, eds., The Textual History of the Greek New Testament: Changing Views in Contemporary Research (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 99.

​

PAPYRI

6.) NO PAPYRI ARE CLASSIFIED BY WHITE AS BYZANTINE �BECAUSE OF THE PRESUPPOSITION THAT THERE WAS NO BYZANTINE TEXT.�

• “[T]he “Byzantine” category can be eliminated. None of the early papyri are Byzantine, because they antedate the Byzantine period.” The very next sentence admits: “some of them happen to display … Byzantine qualities”!

​

​

Philip Wesley Comfort and David P. Barrett, The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 2001), 27.

​

Human

Living Being with human qualities

CONSIDER P52

What is it?

Probably oldest papyrus of the NT

​

Aland dates to c. A. D. 125, with “125 as representing the later limit, so that P⁵² must have been copied very soon after the Gospel of John itself was written,” has every word, and no other words, than those in the printed Textus Receptus published by the Trinitarian Bible Society among the words visible on its text.

​

Has specific TR word order εἰς τὸ πραιτώριον πάλιν rather than the NA text’s πάλιν εἰς τὸ πραιτώριον in John 18:33, with no variants that look like the NA text over against the TR.

​

TEXTUS RECEPTUS RATHER THAN TEXTUS REJECTUS IN P52, JOHN 18:33:� CITED FROM ACCORDANCE BIBLE SOFTWARE MODULE, GNT PAPYRI, MANUSCRIPT ORDER, JOHN 18:33.�

ⲓⲥ[ⲏⲗⲑⲉⲛ ⲟⲩⲛ ⲉⲓⲥ ⲧⲟ ⲡⲣⲁⲓⲧⲱ]

ⲣⲓⲟⲛ ⲡⲁⲗⲓⲛ

​

NA text editors Kurt and Barbara Aland write: “If a fragment preserves a passage where there is any variation in the tradition, it is quite sufficient to signal the textual character of the whole manuscript.”

​

​

Kurt Aland & Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism, trans. Erroll F. Rhodes (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989), 58.

​

WHY?

• Why doesn’t White tell his readers that the earliest papyrus of the NT is identical with the printed Textus Receptus as far as we can tell from the words actually present on its text, and that it differs from the NA text? Why does James instead say: “we have yet to find a 2^nd or 3^rd century papyrus that is fully Byzantine in form”?

​

Douglas Wilson vs. James R. White, Debating the Text of the Word of God (Simposio: 2017), 54.

​

FROM THE ALANDS’ ARGUMENTATION, SHOULD �P⁵² CLASSIFY AS TR/BYZANTINE?

• Why does James insist on claiming that “every papyrus manuscript” represents the “Alexandrian text type” despite the very oldest one looking exactly like the TR, and siding with the TR against the Alexandrian NA text?
• Vaticanus and the text followed by the NA does not. Although this papyrus is identical with the printed TR, it is not really a TR text, just one with “TR readings.” Why?
• It is his presupposition that there was no Byzantine text at the time. Therefore the papyri cannot be classified as of the Textus Receptus or Byzantine, no matter what their text says. They must, because of anti-Scriptural presuppositions, be classified with the Alexandrian Textus Rejectus.

JAMES WHITE, KJVO CONTROVERSY:

• Many critics of modern textual methods like to point out that there are variations between representatives of each text-type, and so any discussion based upon text-types is meaningless. Surely there are variations between representatives of each text-type. But text-types are used to describe groupings of manuscripts that contain common types or patterns of variation, not identical readings. Some Byzantine text-type defenders have pointed to Byzantine readings in the papyri (see Harry Sturz, The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984]).

​

JAMES WHITE’S �KING JAMES ONLY CONTROVERSY

MISTRANSLATIONS IN THE KJV?�

JAMES WHITE ON MARK 6:20

1.) “The first problem we will examine is found in Mark 6:20. … For Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and an holy, and observed him; and when he heard him, he did many things, and heard him gladly. Did Herod “observe” John, as the KJV says, or “keep him safe,” as the NASB says? The Greek term simply does not mean “observe[.]”

Lexica: observe strictly to observe to observe strictly

Observe the opportunity, and beware of evil; and be not ashamed when it concerneth thy soul. (Sir. 4:20, LXX, KJV Apocrypha

Watch for an opportune time, and beware of evil, and about your soul do not be ashamed.” (Sirach 4:20 A New English Translation Of The Septuagint)

​

​

​

James R. White, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2009), 278.

LSJ, s.v. “συντηρ-έω,” 1727.

The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek, s.v. “συντηρεω,” 2055.

A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, s.v. “συντηρέω,” 596.

​

JAMES WHITE’S RE-DEFINITION OF �“FREE TRANSMISSION”�

WHAT IS “FREE TRANSMISSION”?

• James claims: “The ‘free transmission’ of the text is vitally important to our defense of it against the myriad of attacks wee face in today’s hostile world. … I t gives us tremendous confidence that the text has not, in fact, been edited and changed, with entire doctrines removed or added.”

​

• What NA editors actually mean by “free transmission”—all kinds of corruption and error introduced because early scribes allegedly thought they were just as inspired as the NT and so could change it at will!

​

​

• Douglas Wilson vs. James R. White, Debating the Text of the Word of God (Simposio: 2017), 40.

​

�ALAND WROTE:

​

​

“Well into the second century Christians still regarded themselves as possessing inspiration equal to that of the New Testament writings which they read in their worship services. . . . Until the third/fourth century, then, there were many different forms of the New Testament text . . . not until the fourth century . . . did the formation of text types begin. . . . [There are] instances [where] . . . the New Testament tradition presents an insoluble tie between two or more alternative readings. . . . If a critic prefers to identify a different reading as the original, there is no problem.”

​

(Kurt & Barbara Aland, trans. Erroll F. Rhodes, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989], 51, 55, 64, 69, 295, 321)

​

�ALAND WROTE:

“The text of the early period of the second/third century was frequently characterized by erratic traits . . . such as the free expansions still permitted by the standards of the second century when the New Testament text was not yet regarded as ‘canonical,’ much less as sacred in the same sense as Jewish scribes regarded the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. . . . Until the beginning of the fourth century the text of the New Testament developed freely . . . scribes . . . felt themselves free to make corrections in the text, improving it by their own standards of correctness, whether grammatically, stylistically, or more substantively. This was all the more true of the early period, when the text had not yet attained canonical status, especially in the earliest period when Christians considered themselves filled with the Spirit [of inspiration] . . . .

BRENT NONGBRI ON THE DATE OF P⁷⁵ �IN THE JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

• 5.) “[The papyri] PHerm. 4 and 5 … from the archive of Theophanes, a government official who traveled from Hermopolis to Antioch in the 320s … [can be dated to the period of Theophanes’ trip in the 320s … [and] provide the closest securely datable paleographic connection … for the script of P⁷⁵. … [T]he paleographic proximity of P⁷⁵ and P.Herm. 4 and 5 indicates that the first half of the fourth century should certainly be regarded as a possible date for the copying of P⁷⁵.” (pgs. 420-421)

​

• 6.) “[The] larger corpus [of papyri discovered at the same location] include[s] three additional codices with Greek Christian materials, all assigned to the fourth century. … [M]ost of the Bodmer codices are assigned to the third to the fifth centuries with a clustering in the fourth century. … [T]he physical features of P⁷⁵ render it plausible that it too was a product of the fourth century. … P⁷⁵ aligns most closely in terms of codicology with the Bodmer Menander codex … [of the] fourth century[.]” (pgs. 427-428)

​

�HEBREW VOWEL POINTS

CONSENSUS HELVETICA, A. D. 1675:�CANON 1�

• God, the Supreme Judge, not only took care to have his word, which is the “power of God unto salvation to every one that believes” (Rom 1:16), committed to writing by Moses, the Prophets and the Apostles, but has also watched and cherished it with paternal care from the time it was written up to the present, so that it could not be corrupted by craft of Satan or fraud of man. Therefore the Church justly ascribes to it his singular grace and goodness that she has, and will have to the end of the world (2 Pet 1:19), a “sure word of prophecy” and “Holy Scriptures” (2 Tim 3:15), from which, though heaven and earth pass away, “the smallest letter or the least stroke of a pen will not disappear by any means” (Matt 5:18).

​

CONSENSUS HELVETICA, A. D. 1675:�CANON II�

• But, in particular, The Hebrew original of the OT which we have received and to this day do retain as handed down by the Hebrew [saints], “who had been given the oracles of God” (Rom 3:2), is, not only in its consonants, but in its vowels—either the vowel points themselves, or at least the power of the points—not only in its matter, but in its words, inspired by God. It thus forms, together with the Original of the NT the sole and complete rule of our faith and practice; and to its standard, as to a Lydian stone, all extant versions, eastern or western, ought to be applied, and wherever they differ, be conformed.

​

CONSENSUS HELVETICA, A. D. 1675:�CANON III�