|
|
Examining the Lies of the King James Attackers
Well, unless some other thought strikes me in the future, this will be the final installment of this series. When I set out righting these I didn’t plan for seven articles but that looks to be where we are winding up. Just by way of review, the previous six articles were on the following subjects.
· Lie #1 We don’t talk that way anymore
· Lie #2 The new bibles are easier to read
· Lie #3 All we have done is brought the Bible up to date and modernized the language
· Lie #4 But King James killed Baptists
· Lie #5 But King James was a homosexual
· Lie #6 The King James Only Position is a new idea and not a historical Baptist position
That brings us to the granddaddy of all lies, one that is advanced often by many people. Simply stated that lie is this: The new bibles are translated from the oldest and best manuscripts. This lie is so popular it is unquestioningly accepted as fact by a huge majority of Christianity. If you tote any sort of King James Study Bible, you probably have some notes in your Bible that reference this lie. Just by way of reference there are various notes in a Scofield Reference Bible that mention that certain verses (such as the end of Mark 16) are not found in the oldest and best manuscripts. The Scofield note at I John 5:7 says “It is generally agreed that v.7 has no real authority, and has been inserted.”
This will be a subject that will be difficult to condense but I am going to break the above stated lie into small pieces and take them one at a time. Before we step into the lies let me make a few statements that will be the basis from which we will work:
· If you were to gather all of the extant (still in existence) Greek manuscripts you would have about 5,000 documents ranging from fragments with a few words on them to entire New Testaments. 95% of these 5,000 would fall into the family or stream known as the Received Text (textus receptus), also known as the Byzantine or majority text.
· The remaining 5% including Codex Sinaiticus (also known as Aleph, a name taken from the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet) and Codex Vaticanus (also known as B) make up the critical text. There are huge issues with these texts, which we will look at as we proceed.
· The King James is the only English Bible translated from the Textus Receptus. The New Kings James claims to be translated from the Textus Receptus, but in most places where the critical text and the TR disagree, they go with the critical reading.
· Because of these things, if you get a modern bible the best you can hope for is a good translation of bad manuscripts, and in reality what you are getting is far worse than that.
With all of these things being understood, we will now tear into the above stated lie and expose it for what it is. The new bibles are translated from the oldest and best manuscripts. Really what is at issue here is the word best. Remove the word best and the above statement is completely correct.
I. The Discovery of these ancient manuscripts.
From shortly after its translation in 1611 until the mid to late 1800’s the King James held an unrivaled position among English Bibles, simply being referred to as the “Holy Bible” (See article #5). But then things began to change. In 1844 Constantin von Tischendorf found Codex Sinaiticus at Saint Catharine’s Monastery in Alexandria, Egypt. Almost 400 years before this in 1481 the Codex Vatacanus was discovered in the Vatican. Codex Sinaiticus was actually discovered in a trash heap waiting to be burned. There is no dispute among anyone that these two manuscripts are markedly older than any other manuscripts that were in existence.
A) Why were these manuscripts still in existence, given their age? Is the question that anyone aware of the practice of handling the texts should be asking. Obviously we know that printing as we know it didn’t exist back in these times. From the time of the original writings these manuscripts were hand written by scribes on parchments. When these parchments began to show signs of wear from use a scribe would copy the text onto a new parchment. After checking for accuracy, the old worn manuscript was destroyed and the new copy was put in its place. This is the reason why all of the autographs have been gone for a very long time and the bulk of the manuscripts that exist are much more recent, being copies of copies of copies. With that understood the question needs to be asked-Why were these ancient manuscripts still in existence? The answer is that they had been disregarded by everyone and were not in regular use (trash heap, remember?)
B) What happened instead? Instead of being disregarded, just as the Catholic church had apparently done, these manuscripts found their way in to the hands of Wescott and Hort and the rest, as they say, is history.
II. The Problems with these manuscripts
An article of this length could not possibly scratch the surface of the issues with these two manuscripts. Because of that I will highlight only a few.
A) The Vaticanus contains many omissions. There are some from Genesis, II Kings, Psalms; and, in the New Testament, Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11 are missing. Also, Hebrews to the end of the New Testament are missing.
B) There are thousands of passages in which they disagree with each other, exposing those that copied them as heretics. One scholar said, “The Sinai and Vatican disagree with each other a dozen times on every page.” Another scholar states, “It is easier to find two consecutive verses in which these manuscripts differ, than two in which they agree.” Yet another says, “They disagree 70% of the time and in almost every verse of the Gospels.”
C) Dean Burgon said this about the manuscripts “As for the origin of these two curiosities, it can perforce only be divined from their contents, that they exhibit fabricated texts is demonstrable. No amount of honest copying - preserved in for any number of centuries - could by possibility have resulted in two such documents. Separated from one another in actual date by 50, perhaps by 100 years, they must needs have branched all from a common corrupt ancestor, and straightway become exposed to fresh depraving influence."
D) Edward Hills said “"The best way to explain this situation is to suppose that it represents an intentional neglect of the Traditional Text on the part of those ancient Alexandrian scribes who kept revising the text of Paprus 75 until finally they created the B text."
E) Phillip Mauro said “"It should be observed, before we proceed with this question, that the agreeing testimony (where they do agree) of the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS cannot be properly regarded as having the force of two independent witnesses; for there are sufficient evidences both internal and external to warrant the conclusion that these two Codices are very closely related, that they are, in fact, copies of the same original, itself a very corrupt transcript of the New Testament."
III. Westcott and Hort
As if the problems with the manuscripts are not enough, and by the way the above mentioned examples are like grains of sand on the beach. Do some research and see for yourself the multitude of problems that exist with the underlying text. These texts came into the possession of Doctors Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1903) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) where they began their most unholy work of producing a seriously flawed Greek text. Rather than me giving you my opinion on these two men, I will let them speak for themselves. What follows are quotes from The Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, by his son, Arthur, and The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, written by his son. The words are theirs but anything emphasized by bold type or underline is mine.
Hort
"In the New Testament, as in almost all prose writings which have been much copied, corruptions by interpolation are many times more numerous than corruptions by omission."
"I am inclined to think that no such state as 'Eden'(I mean the popular notion) ever existed, and that Adam's fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants, as Coleridge justly argues."
“Further I agree with them [Authors of "Essays and Reviews"] in condemning many leading specific doctrines of the popular theology ... Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue. There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, and especially the authority of the Bible."
"As I was writing the last words a note came from Westcott. He too mentions having had fears, which he now pronounces 'groundless,' on the strength of our last conversation, in which he discovered that I did 'recognize' 'Providente' in biblical writings. Most strongly I recognize it; but I am not prepared to say that it necessarily involves absolute infallibility. So I still await judgment."
"But I am not able to go as far as you in asserting the absolute infallibility of a canonical writing."
"...Have you read Darwin? How I should like to talk with you about it! In spite of difficulties, I am inclined to think it unanswerable. In any case it is a treat to read such a book."
"But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with ... My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable. If so, it opens up a new period."
"I think Maurice's letter to me sufficiently showed that we have no sure knowledge respecting the duration of future punishment, and that the word 'eternal' has a far higher meaning than the merely material one of excessively long duration; extinction always grates against my mind as something impossible."
“The idea of purgation, of cleansing as by fire, seems to me inseparable from what the Bible teaches us of the Divine chastisements; and, though little is directly said resecting the future state, it seems to me incredible that the Divine chastisements should in this respect change their character when this visible life is ended.”
Westcott
"No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history - I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did - yet they disclose to us a Gospel. So it is probably elsewhere. Are we not going through a trial in regard to the use of popular language on literary subjects like that through which we went, not without sad losses in regard to the use of popular language on physical subjects? If you feel now that it was, to speak humanly, necessary that the Lord should speak of the 'sun rising,' it was no less necessary that he would use the names 'Moses' and 'David' as His contemporaries used them. There was no critical question at issue. (Poetry is, I think, a thousand times more true than History; this is a private parenthesis for myself alone.)"
"I never read an account of a miracle but I seem instinctively to feel its improbability, and discover somewhat of evidence in the account of it."
"We may reasonably hope, by patient, resolute, faithful, united endeavour to find heaven about us here, the glory of our earthly life."
My dear Hort - I am glad to have seen both your note and Lightfoot's - glad too that we have had such an opportunity of openly speaking. For I too must disclaim setting forth infallibility in the front of my convictions. All I hold is, that the more I learn, the more I am con- vinced that fresh doubts come from my own ignorance, and that at present I find the pre- sumption in favor of the absolute truth - I reject the word infallibility - of Holy Scripture overwhelming."
"After leaving the monastery, we shaped our course to a little oratory which we discovered on the summit of a neighboring hill ... Fortunately we found the door open. It is very small, with one kneeling-place, and behind a screen was a 'Pieta' the size of life (i.e., a Virgin and dead Christ) ... Had I been alone, I could have knelt there for hours."
Again these are but a small fraction of the evidences available that speak to the beliefs of Westcott and Hort. Do you research and find out what sort of men these two men were.
Conclusion
Again the lie we are addressing is The new bibles are translated from the oldest and best manuscripts. Clearly they may be the oldest but they are not the best. God didn’t use the Catholic Church to preserve His word. God didn’t use two Christ denying heretics to preserve His word. The minority text is corrupted and must be rejected. Any Bible that is translated from these texts must also be rejected. Case closed. This is just as the other six a lie used to attack the superiority of the King James Bible. But it, like the other six is a lie and must be dismissed.