|
|
 | | From: | admin | | Subject: | The Conclusion #7 | | Date: | Tue, 23 Nov 2004 00:08:45 GMT |
|
|
 | This is the end of Chapter #9. I will continue posting the appendix for
those that are interested and following this thread. The appendix is quite
interesting. Steve
This a continuing post from the Book "Which Version is the
Bible" by Floyd Nolen Jones. Chapter 9, pages 121-134
Which Version is the Bible?
Copyright 1995 · Floyd Jones Ministries, Inc.
All Rights Reserved. This book may be freely reproduced in any form as long
as it is not distributed for any material gain or profit.
of the Greek wording is needed as God, through His providence, has settled
the text. Further, we have seen that the dark ages truly began with the
Greek text of Westcott and Hort (Origen-Eusebius) which was published by
Jerome in 405 A.D., and ended with the 1516 publication of the Greek text of
Erasmus.
The single most enduring and reasonable charge that has been leveled against
the TR which persists to this day is that Erasmus had to use the Latin
Vulgate for the last six verses in the final chapter of the Book of
Revelation (although Hoskier, the greatest authority on these manuscripts,
doubts this). Yet even if this is granted, what doctrines are at risk with
regard to the variant readings here? None. Indeed, Erasmus was using an
edition which had been produced "from an ancient Greek exemplar representing
a text from at least as far back as the third century when he employed the
Vulgata for these last few verses. Unlike the Egyptian uncials, however, no
doctrine is at stake whatsoever. The meaning is not even altered."
Any small variations among the editions of the Textus Receptus, other than
typographical errors, should be indicated in the center column of future
editions. The critic's allegation that God has not preserved every word of
the inspired N.T. text solely in the TR is an un-provable and untruthful
assertion. The Christian needs a firmer foundation than the ever shifting
consensus of scholarly opinion upon which to anchor his faith. Only the
existence of a continuously preserved, providentially determined text
provides such a basis. The Textus Receptus alone affords such a cornerstone.
The Christian must come to grips with and understand that a purely rational
totally scientific method of dealing with the problems inherent with the
text of Scripture can never really produce the desired result for in the
ultimate sense, we can never demonstrate the agreement between the Textus
Receptus and the original manuscripts since the originals have not survived
to our day. Thus, once again, Hills' "logic of faith" is the only method
that can bridge the gap back to the autographs. However, it must be
recognized that the same must be said for the Traditional or Majority Text.
Indeed, the hostile critics are themselves in the same predicament; none can
compare their favored readings to the original in order to establish its
superiority. Inevitably we must "receive" the Received Text. The Church is
utterly dependent upon God's providential preservation of the text.
Moreover, the Reformers did not distinguish between the text they actually
possessed and the originals. They believed they had the original wording
preserved by the "singular care and providence" of God (See the Philadelphia
Confession on this author's p. 54).
Truly, the entire matter may be summarized by the words of the late Dr. D.O.
Fuller:
"If you and I believe that the original writings of the Scriptures were
verbally inspired by God, then of necessity they must have been
providentially preserved through the ages.
The next question is, which of the versions - if any - reflects the original
wording from the autographs in English? Without hesitation, we say that the
King James "Version" is that entity. It is "the Bible" in the English
language. Yet strangely when this and the overall message contained in this
manuscript has been shared and explained by the author (as well as by
others, present or past), the reaction from the vast majority of readers or
listeners - whether laymen, pastors or professors - has been so bewildering
and unexplainable. Not seeming to comprehend that help and warning are being
offered rather than "criticism", most become very defensive and often
irritated. A pall of apathy overshadows the subject. This is indeed a
troubling tragedy in the extreme.
Yet, as things stand we are left in the strange circumstance whereby
everyone is permitted and encouraged to come to the religion classroom,
Bible study, Sunday School class, Church service, etc., all bearing
different "textbooks". Such is never tolerated or practiced in any other
learning situation. University professors of English, Chemistry, Physics,
Mathematics, History, etc., do not permit such a practice for they well know
the chaotic situation that would result. An atmosphere for real learning
would not exist in such an environment. Even the authorities in the lower
levels of education - the High Schools, Junior Highs, and Elementary
schools - know better. No, the institution selects the textbook (whether
good or bad), and the student purchases it. Other material relevant to the
subject are to be found and utilized in the reference area of the
institution's library. It would seem that only within the confines of the
Christian Church is such foolishness practiced and tolerated. Yet in so
doing, have we not completely set aside all common sense and logic?
Finally, it is a fair and accurate statement that in direct proportion to
how much text criticism was legitimized by the Churchmen of nineteenth
century Britain (the bastion of conservatism at that time), to that selfsame
extent was a verbal view of inspiration surrendered. Once the verbal
infallible view was abandoned, the Bible ceased to be honored as a "sacred"
book. Sadly, the Church slumbers on - deceived by so-called scholarship and
oblivious to the singular truth penned over one hundred years hence:
"Vanquished by THE WORD Incarnate, Satan next directed his subtle malice
against the Word written"
The war rages on in unabated fury! The clarion has been sounded. "Choose you
this day whom ye will serve; ... as for me and my house, we will serve the
LORD." How so? By believing His promises that He would preserve His
infallible Word - forever!
Heaven and earth shall pass away:but my words shall not pass away.
Mark 13:31
|
|
| | From: | admin | | Subject: | Re: The Conclusion #3 | | Date: | Wed, 24 Nov 2004 01:31:17 GMT |
|
|
| THE CONCLUSION #3
This a continuing post from the Book "Which Version is the Bible" by Floyd
Nolen Jones. Chapter 9, pages 121-134
Which Version is the Bible? Copyright 1995 · Floyd Jones Ministries, Inc.All
Rights Reserved. This book may be freely reproduced in any form as long
as it is not distributed for any material gain or profit.
Biblical scholars working in concert with publishing companies, neither of
which answer to any ecclesiastical authority within the Church, have taken
the Bible away from the people. Through their endless writings and
promotions, they have convinced many in the community of believers, pastors
included, that only they can truly appreciate and understand the Bible. They
infer that they are the only ones who can determine what it means. Does not
this arrogance resemble a giant leap back to the Catholic position from
whence the Reformation sprang? Did the dauntless Reformers work, endure
persecution and die in vain?
Of course, unlike the great whore of Rome with its Pope for final decision
making, no consensus has emerged from the critics/University explaining what
the Bible means as only a "religious" book. To the contrary, the text is in
a state of continuous flux, vacillating between the opinions of enormous
egos. In this rarefied atmosphere on the edge of Olympus, every man does
"that which" is "right in his own eyes" (Jud.21:25).
It is no longer a matter of the different methods used by Church and Academy
in studying the Bible; it is a matter of totally different views and goals.
This has resulted in a revolt (within the Academy as well!) over the loss of
sacred text and a call to recognize the Bible as a book sui generis (unique,
in a class all its own). It is time for the Church to reclaim its God-given
deposit. The Bible is the Church's book! This must begin at the grass
roots - laymen to the fore if our shepherds continue to sleep, intimidated
by so-called science (I Tim.6:20), respecting men's person - unwilling to
humble their intellects before God and stand in faith.
>
>
|
|
| | From: | admin | | Subject: | Re: The Conclusion #4 | | Date: | Fri, 26 Nov 2004 02:06:28 GMT |
|
|
| Conclusion #4
This a continuing post from the Book "Which Version is the Bible" by Floyd
Nolen Jones. Chapter 9, pages 121-134 Which Version is the Bible?Copyright
1995 · Floyd Jones Ministries, Inc.All Rights Reserved. This book may be
freely reproduced in any form as long as it is not distributed for any
material gain or profit.
Such will not be an easy matter apart from intervention from the Lord. The
Academy is awake and determined to keep the theologians from quietly
"stealing" their Bible back fearing that the Church will again shroud it in
medieval-like canonical authority, in the name of "Biblical theology".Thus
there has been a transition from the Bible as sacred text deposited and
lodged in the bosom of the Church, to the Bible as viewed as only religious
text - and just as firmly centered in the University. The rejection of the
Latin Vulgate, the sacred text of the medieval Roman Catholic Church, by
Erasmus and Valla as being corrupt, gutted the Vulgate of sacred status.Rome
countered with decrees at Trent (1546) relevant to Jerome's Vulgate in an
effort to recapture its standing as sacred text. When by the nineteenth
century this failed, the Trent undertaking was, in effect, replaced by
the1870 Vatican I decree which conferred infallibility to the Pope.As a
result of this ongoing struggle which had its inception at the division of
the "Christian" community into the Eastern and Western entities and the
ensuing developments to which we have alluded, the war continues. It has
merely shifted alignments. Rather than East versus West, it has evolved into
battles between the Church and the Academy in determining what constitutes
the correct New Testament text.
TEXT CRITICISM TODAY - THE AGE OF MINISCULES
It may come as a surprise, but only a relative few of the 3,000 plus
manuscripts now cataloged have been collated (to collect, compare carefully
in order to verify and often to integrate). The same is true concerning the
2,143 extant lectionaries. Such collation has been limited to the papyri
fragments, older uncials, and those cursives which give some support for the
Alexandrian (A-B) text. Except for a few cursory checks, the vast majority
has been ignored. The reason is that the overwhelming majority of
manuscripts supports the TR/KJB; and seeking out any further support is the
last thing in which textual criticism is interested.Westcott and Hort
certainly were not interested in giving the majority the opportunity to
speak. They wove their theory around only a few MSS, and of these they had
but second hand knowledge. They collated no manuscripts themselves, but
rather applied themselves to the study of collations and apparatuses made by
other scholars. As a result, their knowledge of the documents was
second-hand and partial. Hort knew of the existence of fewer than 1,000
cursives, and only c.150 of these were available to him in complete
collation.Since Hort, around 1,800 cursives have been found. Again, apart
from a cursory glance to see if there might be some readings supportive of
the A-B category of text, they have been merely cataloged and ignored.
Attention instead has centered on the comparatively few papyri fragments and
what to do when they disagree with A and B. Indeed, Kurt Aland has admitted
"... the main problem in N.T. textual criticism lies in the fact that little
more than their actual existence is known of most of the manuscripts
......"However, minuscules must pass a "test" before Aland and other textual
critics consider them worthy of inclusion in a textual apparatus. All
MSS/mss which are generally Byzantine will fail.
|
|
| | From: | admin | | Subject: | Re: The Conclusion #4 a | | Date: | Fri, 26 Nov 2004 02:06:53 GMT |
|
|
| The Coonclusion #4A (Continued)
The issue of the presence of grammatical smoothness has even been used as an
argument against the TR and Byzantine mss in general. The critics maintain
that the TR and its supporting mss, reading in as flowing a style as they
do, "reflect editorial revision designed to improve the flow and syntax."
Textual criticism has long implied that the rougher the grammar, the more
likely a variant reading is to be the original. But why must the Holy Spirit
be accused of using rough grammar? Did not the Divine Author in inspiring
the words and sentences of Scripture know how to use proper Greek? Are we to
understand that His knowledge has since "evolved?"
For the critic, the nineteenth century was the age of the uncials; the
mid-twentieth century was the age of the papyri, but now he is entering the
age of the minuscules. However, when one reads that many more cursives are
being cited in the latest Nestle-Aland Greek N.T., he should not be deceived
into believing that a significant shift away from the Alexandrian text has
taken place.
What the present "age of the minuscules" really means to the editors of the
critical text is that they hope to find a little more support for the
A/B/Alexandrian family of text. As a matter of fact, they did not find much
support during their "age of the uncials." Further, despite initial promise,
the "age of the papyri" has become something of an embarrassment for their
cause. Thus insofar as finding anything that would even remotely strengthen
their case for the A-B text from the manuscripts, this "age of the
minuscules" is their last hope. So despite any appearance to the contrary or
talk of being eclectic - Aleph, B, and their few allies still dictate the
modern critical text. The feeling still prevails that no purpose would be
served in giving the majority a greater voice. For the text critics, these
old uncials are more than adequate representatives of the MS tradition to
the extent that the rest can be ignored. After all, they challenge us, "why
start more than thirteen centuries after the autographs were written, and
wade back through literally thousands of MSS in an immensely complicated and
expensive process, if at best one can only arrive at a fifth-century text
which is already well represented by copies of that time." This argument
forms the background for all those who consider it justifiable to ignore
all, or at least nearly all, of the minuscules (cursives).
The only argument which would justifiably allow the critics to circumvent
the task of studying all the late mss would be that there exists among the
early uncials a relatively uncorrupted tradition which shows all other
text-types of the period to be secondary and corrupted. Only if this
position can be proved, and if it is clear from some sampling that late mss
fall predominantly in the tradition of one of the corrupted texts, could
they justify the omission of a full study of these late minuscules. Yet A
and B, the two main pillars of the critical text, exhibit 3,036 clear
differences in the Gospels; what candidate can they propose as a "relatively
uncorrupted tradition"? They have none! Yet they continue to keep the TR/KJB
dishonestly shrouded - out of public sight, without giving all of the
witnesses an opportunity to speak.
The point that we wish to make clear at this occasion is that anyone who
seeks to gather Byzantine manuscript evidence from the standard sources
(Alford, Tischendorf, Souter, Merk, Vogels, Nestle, Aland, or von Soden) is
really getting only a few scraps from the table. The interests and energies
of these men have been expended elsewhere. Their labors with regard to the
great mass of Byzantine mss have been limited to those places where there
has been departure from the TR. (textus Receptus).
|
|
| | From: | admin | | Subject: | Re: The Conclusion #5A | | Date: | Sun, 28 Nov 2004 06:07:45 GMT |
|
|
| However this brings us to ask: Since the texts of the TR and T.T. are
identical twin brothers, why did Burgon only defend the T.T.; why did not
Burgon "contend for the acceptance of the Textus Receptus" whereas Hills
(Waite, Letis, this author etc.) did? (Both men did advocate "retaining" the
TR but for different reasons and purposes.)
Hills best explains the reason for the disparity between himself and
Burgon's views by calling attention that Burgon (as well as Prebendarys
Scrivener and Edward Miller) was not a Protestant but a High-Church
Anglican. As such, Burgon believed in infant baptism and apostolic
succession. The latter meaning that only bishops who had been consecrated by
earlier bishops and so on back in an unbroken chain to the first bishops who
had been set aside as such by the laying on of the hands of the Apostles
were the true and only instruments that God would use in Church matters.
This world view caused him great annoyance over the fact that, although
about two thirds of the New Testament Revision Committee were also Anglican
(Church of England; most of whom were liberal), the southern convocation had
allowed a few Baptist, Methodist, and other "separatists" (not to mention
Vance Smith, a Unitarian who had in writing denied the deity of Jesus) to
participate. It was, in fact, this High-Church Anglicanism which led Burgon
to place so much emphasis on the N.T. quotations of the Church Fathers, most
of whom had been bishops. For him, these quotations were vital because they
proved that the Traditional Text found in the vast majority of the Greek
manuscripts had been authorized from the very beginning by bishops of the
early Church.
However, this high Anglican position betrayed Burgon when he came to deal
with the printed Greek N.T. text for from the Reformation times down to his
own day the Greek text favored by the bishops of the Church of England had
been the Textus Receptus - and the TR had not been prepared by bishops but
by Erasmus who had not been a bishop but was an independent scholar. Thus
Erasmus, and his Greek edition, did not align with Burgon's High-Church
stance on apostolic succession and authority. Still worse for Burgon was the
fact that the particular form of the Textus Receptus used in the Church of
England was the third edition of Stephanus - and Stephanus was a Calvinist.
Hills came to many of the same conclusions that Burgon had reached, but
being a conservative Presbyterian and trained in the classics at Yale with a
doctorate in N.T. textual criticism from Harvard, his frame of reference was
that of a true heir of the Reformation. Thus, rather than to the High-Church
argument of apostolic succession as a guarantee of the text's fidelity,
Hills appealed to the affirmation of the Presbyterian Westminster Confession
of Faith. This Confession sanctioned the Textus Receptus as being the Greek
text which bore the mark of historic continuity and as having been preserved
in its integrity within the Christian Church itself - hence it must be the
providentially preserved true text (WC 1:8). Moreover, this was the very
position of the Protestant dogmaticians, both Lutheran and Reformed, ever
since the seventeenth century.
Hills convincingly argued that, from a believing consistently Christian
standpoint, Burgon's (and all other) position was illogical as anyone
believing in providential preservation of the N.T. text must accept and
defend the Textus Receptus since it is the only form in which the
Traditional Text has actually circulated in print. Moreover, that to decline
to defend the TR implies that God preserved a pure text all during the
manuscript period but for some unexplained reason left this pure text
"hiding in the manuscripts and allowed an inferior text to issue from the
printing press and circulate among His people for more than 450 years."
Realizing that the only bridge that would take us back beyond the extant
MSS/mss of the Majority Text - the fourth century - to the lost autographa
was Providential Preservation, Hills correctly saw the absolute necessity
for a theological element in determining the Text.
Hills thereby concludes (as does this author) that when we believe in and
receive Christ Jesus, the logic of faith first leads us to a belief in the
infallible inspiration of the original Scriptures. This is followed by a
belief in the providential preservation of this original text down through
the ages and thence to a belief in the Bible text current among believers as
the providentially preserved original text. This is the "common faith" which
has always been present among the Church of the Living God. Indeed, Hills
summarizes it best:
|
|
| | From: | admin | | Subject: | Re: The Conclusion #5 | | Date: | Sun, 28 Nov 2004 06:07:36 GMT |
|
|
| POST # 5 OF 7 POSTS This a continuing post from the Book "Which Version is
the Bible" by Floyd Nolen Jones. Chapter 9, pages 121-134 Which Version is
the Bible?Copyright 1995 · Floyd Jones Ministries, Inc.
All Rights Reserved. This book may be freely reproduced in any form as long
as it is not distributed for any material gain or profit.
CONCLUDING REMARKS Recently, some well meaning brothers have attempted to
allow the mss a voice by utilizing the massive 1913 work of Hermann von
Soden to assist them in producing a "Majority Text". However, von Soden's
enterprise represents only a very small portion of the total. He merely made
a cursory sampling of the vast numbers of mss. Moreover Herman C. Hoskier
thoroughly documented that while hoping to find "great things" from von
Soden's final volume he was forced, albeit regrettably, to have to strongly
condemn it. Hoskier stated that the work was not only "honeycombed" with
errors, many documents which should have been recollated had not been
touched whereas others were only partially so done with many others having
been incorrectly handled.
Wisse informs us that von Soden collated a significant number of MSS only
partially. After his test check on a weighty portion of von Soden's data,
Frederik Wisse adds "Once the extent of error is seen, the word 'inaccuracy'
becomes a euphemism. ... von Soden's inaccuracies cannot be tolerated for
any purpose. His apparatus is useless for a reconstruction of the text of
the mss he used." It is worthy of mention that, although von Soden viewed
the Byzantine text as being un-derived from and possibly as old as Aleph-B
(a departure from standard W-H dogma), in all other matters he was so
strongly Alexandrian that Hoskier reported: "von Soden's text is so
thoroughly Alexandrian that it falls into line with Hort, irrespective of MS
evidence."
By now we trust that our reader can discern that our extant manuscripts
reflect but do not determine the text of Scripture. The text was determined
by God from the beginning (Psa.119:89 etc.). After the advent of printing
(A.D. 1450), the necessity of God's preserving the manuscript witness to the
text was diminished. Thus, in some few instances, the majority of MSS/mss
extant today may not reflect at every point what the true, commonly
accepted, and majority reading was 500 years ago. The Greek manuscripts do
not constitute the sole viable witness to the true text of the New
Testament. The ancient versions, lectionaries, and quotes from the Fathers
must also be taken into account. Hence, we should not be surprised to find
that the Spirit of God has occasionally used the Latin West for
corroboration on a disputed reading. After all, if we went strictly by the
majority of the extant Greek manuscripts we wouldn't be able to include the
Book of Revelation in the canon, for only one in fifty MSS/mss contains it.
There was a bias against the book in the Greek speaking East, thus it was
not used in the lectionary services.
Again, the reason that all defenders of the TR since the Reformation follow
the majority text is because it reflects the actual usage by the Church (the
body of believers in all ages) which Jesus promised to lead into all truth,
not merely because of statistical "superiority" or "probability". To not
grasp or comprehend this leaves the reader with a "tentative" Bible. Even
opponents freely admit this conclusively decisive point. For Example,
Professor Kurt Aland forthrightly grants: "It is undisputed that from the
16th to the 18th century orthodoxy's doctrine of verbal inspiration assumed
...... [the] Textus Receptus. It was the only Greek text they knew, and they
regarded it as the 'original text'".
Merrill M. Parvis penned:
"The Textus Receptus is not the 'true' text of the New Testament ..."
but then incredulously went on to concede:
"It [the TR] was the Scripture of many centuries of the Church's life. ...
The Textus Receptus is the text of the Church. It is that form of text which
represents the sum total and the end product of all the textual decisions
which were made by the Church and her Fathers over a period of more than a
thousand years." (author's emphasis)
These candid admissions by such leading scholars of the opposing view
underscore and prove our entire thesis - that the Textus Receptus always has
been the N.T. used by the true Church!
|
|
|
