|
|
|
On a visit to Bob Jones University's book store in December I purchased another copy of "Trusted Voices on Translations," a pamphlet published by Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, South Carolina, where Mark Minnock, a part-time professor at BJU, is senior pastor. I have been aware of this pamphlet since its publication in 2001 and have observed that it has been popular with some pastors who have used it as an excuse for lightly discounting the position defending the Greek Received Text and the King James Bible and for not looking carefully into all sides of the issue. Rather than giving a substantive refutation of so-called "King James Onlyism," this 12-page pamphlet is effective as smokescreen and strawman to draw the reader's attention away from the substantive issues of this debate and to give them the false impression that "King James Onlyism" is indefensible and that it is a new, rather cultic position. The pamphlet gives quotations from a variety of men and women from the past that allegedly refute the position that is described in the author's words as "only one Greek New Testament (the textus receptus) or only one English translation of it (the Authorized or King James) is the preserved Word of God." WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY? The pamphlet begins with the claim that this view "is neither taught nor even implied by any verse of either the textus receptus or the King James Version." In fact, the opposite is true. One will search in vain from Genesis to Revelation for support for the idea that God gave a multitude of texts by divine inspiration or that He has been so careless in the field of preservation that we should accept a multiplicity of texts and versions today. According to the testimony of Scripture, there can only be one divinely inspired text of the Bible and all others must be wrong. To say that the situation existing today, with three competing Greek texts (the Received Text or Textus Receptus, the Critical Text, and the Majority Text) that differ massively and even doctrinally, is an acceptable situation and that God could somewhat be pleased with all three texts or that the inspired Scripture somehow could be furtively scattered throughout these texts is ridiculous upon its very face. Paul said, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God," and that means that only that Scripture given by divine inspiration is correct. God did not give three differing Greek texts by divine inspiration. And to say that we do not know for sure which is the correct text today is to disbelieve God's promise of preservation, which is exactly what most of the authors of the critical text have done, as we have carefully and extensively documented in the book "The Modern Version Hall of Shame," which is available from Way of Life Literature. WHAT ABOUT THE VOICE OF "PAST CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN SPOKESMEN"? After claiming that the Bible nowhere promises that God would keep the one inspired text of Scripture, the author of "Trusted Voices on Translations" makes another claim: "Furthermore, neither was it taught by the majority of past conservative Christian spokesmen. If you are searching for help on the translation issue, a sampling of testimonies from some of these trusted voices is reprinted here for your prayerful consideration." Thirty-three men, women, and organizations are then quoted as evidence of the pamphlet's thesis. We will reply to these quotations under the following headings, and we will see that the quotations themselves are either not very trustworthy or are taken out of context or miss the heart of the issue entirely. SOME OF THE QUOTES IN "TRUSTED VOICES ON TRANSLATIONS" ARE TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT. For example, the King James Translators are quoted as follows from The Translators to the Reader, the original introduction to the KJV: "We do not deny, nay, we affirm an avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession ... containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God." (the ellipsis is from "Trusted Voices") To understand what the King James Translators were saying here we have to understand the historical context and we have to see the context of the passage in which the statement is made. As for the historical context, the Puritans among the KJV translators had appealed to the king for a new English version because they considered the Bishops' Bible "a most corrupted translation." It is obvious, then, that they did not accept all translations as truly accurate and that they made serious distinctions between translations. As for the context of the "the very meanest translation" we need to go back to "The Translators to the Reader" and get a fuller context: "Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God: as the King's speech which he uttered in parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like graceŠ" Obviously when the KJV Translators referred to "the very meanest translation of the Bible in English," they were not referring to a translation that is wrong in meaning or corrupt in text; they were referring rather to one that is lowly in literary style. The example they used about translating the king's speech proves this. The KJV translators would not have supported a translation either of the king's words or of God's words that was corrupt. To translate something with a lack of grace is not the same as translating a Bible from a corrupt text or in a corrupt manner such as the modern versions are guilty of doing. FURTHER, WE KNOW FOR SURE THAT THE KJV TRANSLATORS REJECTED THE CRITICAL GREEK TEXT THAT UNDERLIES THE MODERN VERSIONS. From the time of Erasmus in the early 1500s to 1611 when the King James Bible appeared the Greek editors and Reformation Bible translators were aware of the alternate readings of manuscripts such as the Vaticanus. They knew that some manuscripts removed the last 12 verses of Mark 17, for example. In 1533, Sepulveda furnished Erasmus with 365 such readings from the Vaticanus, but these were rejected not only by Erasmus but also by Stephenus, Beza, Luther, Reina, Valera, Olivetan, Tyndale, Whittingham (the Geneva Bible), and by all of the roughly 50 translators on the KJV committee. Beza owned a famous old Greek manuscript containing some of the readings preferred by the modern textual critics, but he considered it of little value and gave it away. In reality, there is no evidence whatsoever that the KJV translators would have accepted either the modern critical Greek text or a modern "dynamic equivalency" translation such as the New International Version (not to speak of wretched corruptions such as the Today's English Bible and The Message). The KJV translators called the Scriptures "a fountain of most pure water springing up unto everlasting life" (The Translators to the Readers). It is obvious that they would not look lightly upon a translation that polluted that fountain. It is important also to note that the King James translators are not our authority. Even if they had said that all versions are valid and none to be condemned (which they definitely did not), this does not mean that we should follow them in such a position. I have a high regard for the KJV translators. I have had the privilege of studying their lives from a wide variety of resources and multiple times visiting many of the sites pertaining to them, such as Cambridge, Oxford, and Westminster Abbey, but I believe that the KJV translators were wrong in many of the things that they believed and put into print. MANY OF THE QUOTATIONS IN "TRUSTED VOICES ON TRANSLATIONS" REFUTE RUCKMANISM AND NOTHING ELSE. For example, John Smyth is quoted as saying: "The holy Scriptures viz. the Originalls Hebrew & Greek are given by Divine Inspiration & in their first donation were without error most perfect and therefore Canonical ... no translation can possibly express all the matter of the body originals, nor a thousand things in the Grammar, Rhetoric, & character of the tongue." This is supposed to refute "King James Onlyism" but I know hundreds of men who defend the King James Bible and its underlying Hebrew and Greek texts who would agree with Smyth's statement. It does not refute any sort of reasonable defense of the TR and the KJV. It only refutes Ruckmanism with its cultic arguments that the English KJV has replaced the Greek and Hebrew, being superior thereto and advanced beyond it, being itself given by inspiration, etc. "Trusted Voices on Translations" further quotes Benjamin Keach from 1682: "Now though some translations may exceed others in Propriety, and significant rendering of the Originals; yet they generally, (even the most imperfect that we know of), express and hold forth so much the Mind, Will, and Counsel of God, as is sufficient ... to acquaint a Man with the Mysteries of Salvation, to work in him a true Faith, and bring him to live godly, righteously, and soberly in this World, and to Salvation in the next." Again, we agree with this statement, especially when its historical context is taken into consideration. The modern versions, though textually and (oftentimes) translationally corrupt, contain sufficient truth to save the soul and give general instruction in God's will. Romans 1:16 says it is the gospel that is the power of God unto salvation, and the NIV or the NASV, for example, contain the gospel of Jesus Christ. On another occasion I explained that during the first few years of our missionary work in Asia we were forced to use a national translation based on the English Revised Version of 1885. This was the best Bible then available. In addition to the textual corruptions, it contained many translational errors. Yet a Bible-believing church was built using that Bible. At the same time, the weakness of the Bible hindered the ministry and we prayed earnestly for the Lord to raise up a translation team to produce a Bible in that language based on the King James. Later when this prayer was answered and we were able to obtain such a Bible it strengthened the work. We must also remember that in Benjamin Keach's day in the 17th century there were not a slew of translations in English. There were not the bewildering variety of versions and perversions that are available in the average Christian book store of our day. In Keach's day there was nothing on the popular level equivalent to the deep corruption found in the Living Bible, the Today's English Version, or The Message. Further, Keach was not confronted with the critical Greek text. The Received Text was the only one that was available in any popular sense. It is presumptuous to infer that Benjamin Keach would have supported the critical text and the modern versions based on it, when he was never faced with such a decision and obviously never wrote a word on the subject. Keach's statements are supposed to refute "King James Onlyism," but in fact they only refute Ruckmanism. MANY OF THE QUOTATIONS IN "TRUSTED VOICES ON TRANSLATIONS" ARE FROM MEN OF WHOM THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THEY HAD GIVEN SERIOUS STUDY TO THE TEXT-VERSION ISSUE. Of the 33 men, women, and organizations that are cited as authorities on this subject, there is no evidence that most of them did any sort of serious study in the field of texts and versions. To quote the statements on this topic of D.L. Moody and C.H. Mackintosh and Arno Gaebelein and Oswald Chambers and R.A. Torrey and G. Campbell Morgan and Amy Carmichael and Harry Ironside and Wendell Zimmerman proves nothing, because they were simply passing along the party line that they had been taught. Further, their very ignorance of the issue is obvious in their statements. There are exceptions, but there is no evidence that the average fundamentalist leader of old devoted serious study to the subject of modern textual criticism. They faced many fierce doctrinal battles and they could speak authoritatively on many subjects, but the Bible version issue was not one of them. Therefore, to quote these men on the subject of Bible texts and versions has no significance for the simple fact that most of them did not know enough about the subject to make authoritative statements based on firsthand research. For example, "Trusted Voices on Translations" quotes Harry Ironside as follows: "The differences are not very important, but are based upon some older texts which were not in evidence when the Authorized Version was being translated" (Trusted Voices on Translations, p. 9). Ironside was a man of God who loved the Scriptures, but in this particular statement he was wrong. Ironside's brief statement encompasses two serious errors. First, he said the differences are not very important, whereas the differences between the texts and versions are, in fact, dramatic. To say that removing 2,886 words, including 45 entire and 185 partial verses, from the New Testament (equivalent to removing the entire books of 1 and 2 Peter), as the critical Greek text does, and that removing "God" from 1 Timothy 3:16 and the last 12 verses from Mark, etc., is not important is, in my estimation, ridiculous. Second, Ironside said the textual differences were not known when the AV was translated, but this is not true. From the time of Erasmus, beginning in the early 16th century, the Reformation editors and translators were aware of the textual differences; they even possessed more than 350 of the readings from the Vaticanus manuscript; but they rejected them as corrupt. Had Ironside read the works of men such as John Burgon, Edward Miller, Herman Hoskier, Robert Dabney, or Philip Mauro, he would have known better than to have made such statements, but it is obvious that he was merely repeating the opinion of others. Statements by an ill-informed man, regardless of how sincere he is or how learned in some other area, have no weight, and every man, regardless of how godly or scholarly, is ill-informed in many ways. Another example of an individual who is quoted in "Trusted Voices on Translations" but who did not understand the Bible text-version issue was Charles Spurgeon. He is quoted as follows: "Concerning the fact of difference between the Revised and the Authorized Versions, I would say that no Baptist should ever fear any honest attempt to produce the correct text, and an accurate interpretation of the Old and New Testaments. For many years Baptists have insisted upon it that we ought to have the Word of God translated in the best possible manner, whether it would confirm certain religious opinions and practices, or work against them. All we want is the exact mind of the Spirit, as far as we can get it. ... By the best and most honest scholarship that can be found we desire that the common version may be purged of every blunder of transcribers, or addition of human ignorance, or human knowledge that so the word of God may come to us as it came from his own hand" (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, vol. XXVII, pp. 342-243). This statement by Spurgeon was made in 1881, the year the Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament and the English Revised New Testament were published. It is patently obvious that Spurgeon simply did not understand what was happening on the Bible text-version front. To his credit, the same was true for most Christians in England and America at the time. One reason was that there was a studied attempt on the part of those who were promoting the critical Greek text to downplay its significance and its dramatic dissimilarity from the Received Text and to promote their program as a simple desire to perform some minor updates on the King James Bible. Spurgeon calls for the acceptance of "any honest attempt to produce the correct text" and the "most honest scholarship that can be found." That Spurgeon could mention honest scholarship in the context of Bible revision in 1881 is proof that he did not know of the dishonesty that characterized practically every aspect of the Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament and the English Revision Version based on it. We have carefully documented this in the 775-page book Faith vs. the Modern Versions. There was dishonesty in the way that Westcott and Hort weighed the textual evidence in their zeal to overthrow the Received Text. The entire Westcott-Hort theory of textual criticism is dishonest in the way that it uses the evidence. We have demonstrated this in the book Faith vs. the Modern Versions. There was also dishonesty in the way that Westcott and Hort downplayed the significance of their Greek New Testament and how radically it differed from the Received Text. Hort said: "... the amount of what can in any sense be called substantial variation is but a small fraction of the whole residuary variation, and CAN HARDLY FORM MORE THAN A THOUSANDTH PART OF THE ENTIRE TEXT" (The New Testament in the Original Greek, 1882, vol. II, p. 2). Hort's deceptive statement has been repeated many times by fundamentalists in their zeal to support the critical Greek Text. ACTUALLY THE DIFFERENCES AFFECT SEVEN PERCENT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. "The fact of the matter is that the Critical Text of Westcott-Hort differs from the TR, mostly by deletions, in 9,970 words out of 140,521, giving a total of 7% difference. In the 480-page edition of the Trinitarian Bible Society Textus Receptus this would amount to almost 34 pages, THE EQUIVALENT OF THE FINAL TWO BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, JUDE AND REVELATION" (Thomas Strouse, Review of "From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man," November 2000). Jack Moorman made an extensive study of the differences between the modern critical text and the Received Text and published his conclusions in Early Manuscripts and the Authorized Version--A Closer Look. He found that there are 2,886 words omitted in the Nestle/Aland text. This is equivalent to omitting the entire books of 1 and 2 Peter from the New Testament. Moorman also demonstrates that the differences are significant not only quantitatively but also doctrinally. He examines 356 doctrinal passages that are affected by these textual changes. There was also dishonesty in way the Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament was introduced into the revised translation committee. The Committee, which had no authority to replace the Greek New Testament underlying the King James Bible, allowed Westcott and Hort to introduce a pre-publication edition of their critical Greek New Testament privately to the committee members SECRETLY! Further, there was dishonesty in the way the Revision committee completely disregarded its orders. The English Revision committee was charged with a simple update of antiquated language and "obvious errors." Samuel Hemphill observed: "AS TO THE GREAT BULK OF CHRISTIAN ENGLISHMEN, THEY WOULD MUCH RATHER HAVE APPOINTED A COMMITTEE TO REWRITE THEIR SHAKESPEARE THAN THEIR VENERATED AND BELOVED BIBLE" (Hemphill, A History of the Revised Version, 1906, p. 26). On May 23, 1870, Charles Ellicott, who was appointed to head up the revision committee, said, "Nothing is more satisfactory at the present time than the evident feelings of veneration of our Authorized Version, and the very generally-felt desire for as little change as possible" (Ellicott, Considerations on Revision, p. 99). In that speech he estimated that the changes introduced by the revision would not amount to more than one in every five verses or under 1,400 in all, whereas the actual changes made by Ellicott and the Revisers numbered 36,000! I repeat, he said they understood that the English people wanted as little change as possible and they therefore didn't contemplate making more than 1,400 changes in all, but when the Revision was published it actually contained 36,000! It is painfully obvious that the esteemed Spurgeon did not understand this issue. In fact, with his own weighty pen Spurgeon had proclaimed his love for the King James Bible and his unwillingness to see it replaced. In the Preface to Mrs. H.C. Conant's The English Bible (London: Arthur Hall, Virtue, & Co., 1859), Spurgeon wrote: "As for the present version, I THINK IT A KIND OF TREASON TO SPEAK OF REJECTING IT FOR ANOTHER. IT IS ALMOST MIRACULOUSLY GOOD. Its noble Saxon, its forcible idioms, its sweet simplicity, its homely sentences, all commend it to the Englishman as a treasure to be preserved with scrupulous care. I ask, that from the love of this very best of translations; that its obsolete words, its manifest mistranslations and glaring indecencies, should be removed." While we don't agree with Spurgeon's idea that the King James Bible contains manifest mistranslations and glaring indecencies that need to be corrected, it is obvious that Spurgeon was in favor of a only minor revision and that he was opposed to any type of wholesale replacement of the King James Bible and its underlying Greek text that has come by way of the modern versions of the past century. I have a high regard for H.A. Ironside and Charles Spurgeon, but they were wrong on this issue and were merely repeating the popular line of their day. The same is true for the statements of the majority of other people quoted in the mis-named "Trusted Voices on Translations." MOST OF THE QUOTATIONS IN "TRUSTED VOICES ON TRANSLATIONS" COMPLETELY IGNORE THE TEXTUAL ISSUE. Speaking for hundreds of King James defenders that I have personal knowledge of, I can say that a foundational issue here is the Hebrew and Greek texts. This is not to say that the King James Bible itself is not a foundational issue, because it is, but to disregard the underlying textual issue is to build a house on thin air. A translation can rise no higher than its source, so the foundational matter is to determine the textual issue. The text underlying the modern versions is the critical Greek text that differs dramatically from the Reformation Greek New Testament underlying the King James Bible, and from extensive study into the history and nature of the critical text I am convinced that it is corrupt and that it should be rejected. It is based on manuscripts that came from Egypt, a hotbed of theological heresy and particularly a hotbed of heresy pertaining to the Person of Jesus Christ. In light of this it is not surprising to me that the modern versions are weak on the deity of Christ (and that remains a fact in spite of the attempt by James White and others to deny it). Further, the authors of the critical text in the 18th and 19th centuries were largely heretics themselves, denying the infallible inspiration of Scripture and its divine preservation. Many Unitarians are numbered among the architects of the critical text. And nothing has changed in the field of modern textual criticism. Its chief proponents are still false teachers such as Kurt Aland and Bruce Metzger who deny the infallible verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture. We have documented this extensively and conclusively in the book "The Modern Version Hall of Shame," available from Way of Life Literature. As for the evangelicals in this field, they did not invent modern textual criticism; they adopted it from "the mint of infidel rationalism," as Robert Dabney once said. As a small sample of its doctrinal corruptions, the critical Greek text removes "Lord" from Luke 23:42, "which is in heaven" from John 3:13, "the Lord" from 1 Corinthians 15:47, "by Jesus Christ" from Ephesians 3:9, "God" from 1 Timothy 3:16, and seriously questions the last 12 verses of Mark 16, thus ending this Gospel with the disciples in fear and doubt. These are only a few examples of how the critical text weakens the doctrine of Christ's deity, the atonement, and other key doctrines. It is called "the Alexandrian text" because the manuscripts upon which it is based originated in Egypt in the second to fourth centuries, when Egypt was a hotbed of Gnostic and other theological heresies. Yet these foundational facts about the textual issue are ignored in "Trusted Voices on Translations." For example, Amy Carmichael is quoted as saying: "In case any are puzzled by the different translations from which I draw strength and help and delight, it is like this: In studying any object with the microscope we use different lenses and turn the mirror in various ways; such change brings out some new wonder and beauty. So it is for those who are not Greek or Hebrew scholars, and who use the work of scholars to open the meaning of the inexhaustible Word--the Bible is richer than any single version can fully show." This statement is a mixture of truth and error and doubtless arises from the author's sincere ignorance of the subject. Amy Carmichael had a commendable missionary ministry in India in many ways, but there is no reason to quote her as an authority on the subject of Bible texts and versions. To say that using different translations is like studying an object with a microscope completely ignores the critical fact that the King James Version and the modern versions are based on differing and contradictory Greek texts. It also ignores the fact that many of the modern versions in the last 50 years use an entirely different translational technique than the Reformation Bibles (dynamic equivalency vs. formal equivalency), which dramatically affects the meaning of the translation. For these reasons, the uninformed Bible student who uses the modern versions alongside the King James Bible can easily be confused and led astray more than he will be helped. For example, following is the rendering of the King James Bible and two modern versions of 1 Timothy 3:16: King James Bible -- "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." New International Version -- "Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory." Living Bible -- "It is quite true that the way to live a godly life is not an easy matter. But the answer lies in Christ, who came to earth as a man, was proved spotless and pure in his Spirit, was served by angels, was preached among the nations, was accepted by men everywhere, and was received up again to his glory in heaven." (By the way, it is obvious here that the King James Bible is not as difficult to understand as it is made out to be. Most of its words are simple and short, which is one thing that gives it its renowned power.) In the case of the New International's rendering of 1 Timothy 3:16, we see that a chief difference with the KJV is that the word "God" is changed to "He," which removes the verse's powerful and unequivocal testimony that Jesus Christ is God. The Living Bible, on the other hand, changes everything so that the meaning of the verse in the King James Bible is completely changed in the Living Bible. How does this comparison put a "microscope" on the subject? In fact it only greatly confuses things in the mind of the average Christian. When one looks at something through a microscope, the thing being looked at does not change, only the perspective changes; but when one looks at a passage of Scripture in the modern versions the foundational textual reality and meaning itself are changed. It should also be noted that Amy Carmichael was speaking from a 19th century perspective, which was vastly different from that of our day in regard to the multiplicity of texts and versions. Other examples could be given of how the quotations used in "Trusted Voices on Translations" completely ignore the foundational textual issue in the Bible version debate. SOME OF THE MEN QUOTED IN "TRUSTED VOICES ON TRANSLATIONS" GIVE COMPLETELY WRONG-HEADED STATEMENTS. We have already cited some examples of this, but here is another one. Wendell Zimmerman, one of the founders of the Baptist Bible Fellowship International, is quoted as saying in 1989 that the King James Version controversy among fundamental Baptists "is a recent matter that has come up." He says further, "We never heard any such discussion back years ago as we are hearing these days." In fact, putting the best spin on the matter, Zimmerman's memory must have been deeply faulty the day he made that statement because another of the founders of the Baptist Bible Fellowship, G.B. Vick, made the following statement in 1975 at the 25th anniversary of the founding of the BBFI: "It's become fashionable to use many different versions of the Bible today. It even becomes fashionable to question in some quarters and correct that Bible, that English Bible which has been the source of the greatest revivals that earth ever knew and been the result of the preaching of the gospel and the souls that were saved than even the original manuscripts were, because they didn't last very long. I'm not a crank on the subject, but I still believe that we need to shun such expressions, as we come across some word, 'You know, now that does not appear in the Original documents' or 'This verse is not found in the oldest manuscripts' or 'This could be more properly rendered as such and such,' trying to improve the Bible! Listen! THIS KING JAMES VERSION, OUR ENGLISH BIBLE, THE BIBLE OF OUR FATHERS AND MOTHERS, IS THE ONE THAT HAS COME FLOATING DOWN TO US UPON THE BLOOD OF CHRISTIAN MARTYRS, OUR FOREFATHERS. IT HAS BEEN, I SAY, THE ONE TEXT OF THE BAPTIST BIBLE COLLEGE, AND IT WILL BE AS LONG AS I HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS SCHOOL! [loud amens and applause] ... Let's stick to the old Book." We will give other examples to prove that the Bible version-text issue has been a hot one in fundamentalism since its inception and that many fundamentalists of old took a bold stand for the King James Bible on the same basis that we stand for it today. Many other examples could be given of the misguided, wrong-headed statements that are made in the quotations contained in "Trusted Voices on Translations." SOME OF THE QUOTATIONS IN "TRUSTED VOICES ON TRANSLATIONS," AMAZINGLY, ARE FROM MEN WHO BOLDLY REJECTED THE CRITICAL TEXT AND THE MODERN VERSIONS, YET THE READERS ARE NOT INFORMED OF THIS. Consider the examples of Robert Dabney and John Burgon. Both men are quoted in "Trusted Voices on Translations" in the context of a claim that it is wrong to defend a Greek text or the King James Bible itself. Dabney is quoted as saying: "No one claims for the Textus Receptus, or common Greek text of the New Testament, any sacred right, as though it represented the ipsisima verba, written by the inspired men in every case." And Burgon is quoted as saying: "Once for all, we request it may be clearly understood that we do not, by any means, claim perfection for the Received Text." While it is true that neither man claimed absolute perfection for the Received Text (which has gone through several editions and is something that contains some very slight variety), they boldly stood against modern textual criticism, the modern critical text, and the modern versions based on it, and they put their position into writing. The battle over the minor varieties within the Received Text tradition is nothing compared with the battle between the modern versions and the Reformation Bibles. Robert Dabney (1820-98) was a Presbyterian leader who taught at Union Theological Seminary. He was a scholarly man who contributed to many publications, including the Southern Presbyterian Review. In the April 1871 issue of this magazine he wrote an article entitled "The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek," which was a bold and unequivocal stand against the modern textual criticism that underlies the modern critical text and the modern English versions and that is taught at Bob Jones University. In this article he condemned the rejection of the Received Text on the part of the modern textual critics, saying, "[Textual criticism], substantially adopted by Tischendorf and Alford, no longer retains the received text as a common basis Š but proceeds to construct a text just as though it never existed. It is this objectionable and mischievous feature of the later criticism which, as we believe, especially demands the notice of biblical scholars at this time." Dabney believed it is impossible for textual criticism to create a dependable Bible. "It is very clear that, practically, the people must either trust the Bibles they have, or believe in none. For there is no practicable substitute. THIS APPEARS FROM THE FACT THAT NO TWO OF THE CRITICS ARE AGREED; no one of them is willing to adopt the text as settled by any other; their art has not found, and probably never will find, an authoritative umpire, to end their differences." Dabney believed textual criticism introduces ancient heresies and believed the textual changes were a doctrinal issue. "Their admirers [of the favored manuscripts supporting the critical text] claim for them an origin in the fourth or fifth century. The Sabellian and Arian controversies raged in the third and fourth. Is there no coincidence here? And when we remember the date of the great Trinitarian contest, and compare it with the supposed date of these exemplars of the sacred text, the ground of suspicion becomes violent. ... These variations are too numerous, and too significant in their effect upon the one doctrine [the deity of Christ], to be ascribed to chance." Dabney believed the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are totally undependable: "It is expressly admitted that neither of these has an extant history. Š Nobody knows whence the Vatican MS. came to the pope's library, or how long it has been there. ... Tischendorf himself was unable to trace the presence of his favorite codex, in the monastery of St. Catherine, by external witnesses higher than the twelfth century. THEIR EARLY DATE IS CONFESSEDLY ASSIGNED THEM BY CONJECTURE." Dabney believed modern textual criticism is not scientific but mere conjecture: "Let us test the soundness of their boast that they discard conjecture as a guide to correct readings, and rely in preference upon the testimony of competent ancient witnesses. Do they really discard conjecture? ... [It may be that] no particular reading rests upon conjectures; BUT THE GRAND FOUNDATION OF THE WHOLE IS A BUNDLE OF CONJECTURES." Dabney believed the textual corruptions of the critical Greek text might be traced to the heretic Origen: "Šthere are strong probable grounds to conclude, that the text of the Scriptures current in the East received a mischievous modification at the hands of the famous ORIGEN, which has not been usually appreciated. ... Those who are best acquainted with the history of Christian opinion know best, that Origen was the great corrupter, and the source, or at least earliest channel, of nearly all the speculative errors which plagued the church in after ages. ... He was strictly a rationalist. Š He disbelieved the full inspiration and infallibility of the Scriptures, holding that the inspired men apprehended and stated many things obscurely." Dabney believed that evangelicals borrowed textual criticism from the modernists. "Š EVANGELICAL CRITICS HAVE ADOPTED [TEXTUAL CRITICISM] FROM THE MINT OF INFIDEL RATIONALISMŠ" The professors at Bob Jones University should take note of the important truths that Robert Dabney taught on this issue. Instead, they carry and recommend the books of heretics such as modern textual critic Bruce Metzger who claims, among other things, that the Pentateuch is a mixture of myth and truth, that the flood of Noah's day was not worldwide, that Jonah wasn't swallowed by a whale, and that Job is fictional. John Burgon (1813-1888) was an Anglican Bible scholar who collated 150 Greek manuscripts and collected 86,000 Scripture quotations from ancient preachers, more than 4,000 from writers who died before 400 A.D. Though he believed the Greek Received Text could be slightly modified, he was very bold in his rejection of modern textual criticism, the modern critical Greek text, and the modern versions based upon them. Consider what Burgon believed about the Received Text: "Call this text Erasmian or Complutensian, the text of Stephens, or of Beza, or of the Elzevirs, call it the Received or the Traditional, or by whatever name you please--the fact remains that a text has come down to us which is attested by a general consensus of ancient Copies, ancient Fathers, and ancient Versions" (The Revision Revised). Consider what Burgon believed about the King James Bible: "It may be confidently assumed that no revision of our Authorized Version however judiciously executed, will ever occupy the place in public esteem which is actually enjoyed by the work of the translators of 1611,-THE NOBLEST LITERARY WORK IN THE ANGLO-SAXON LANGUAGE. We shall in fact never have another 'Authorized Version.' ... only as a handmaid is [a revision] to be desired. AS SOMETHING INTENDED TO SUPERSEDE OUR PRESENT ENGLISH BIBLE, WE ARE THOROUGHLY CONVINCED THAT THE PROJECT OF A RIVAL TRANSLATION IS NOT TO BE ENTERTAINED FOR A MOMENT. FOR OURSELVES, WE DEPRECATE IT ENTIRELY" (The Revision Revised, pp. 113,114). Burgon sounds like a King James Bible defender to me! Whatever Robert Dabney and John Burgon believed on the Bible text-version issue, they were much, much closer to the position of men today (Ruckmanites excepted) who defend the King James Bible and its underlying text against the modern versions than to the position represented by "Trusted Voices on Translations." This important fact should have been made known to the readers. The previous is part 1 of 2 parts of this report. See the Way of Life web site under "Articles Listed by Date" for the entire article. http://www.wayoflife.org/ |
|
|
|