Program Notes – William Finck's July 24th Presentation
for the European Fellowship Conference (See the audio & file links at the bottom of the page):
What
is the Bible?
Most Christians tend to have a Bible version which they
love above all others, and which to them, as they are often taught to
believe, represents the inerrant Word of God. But is that a healthy
Christian attitude, inasmuch as Christians are urged by scripture in
nearly any translation, to prove and to scrutinize all things? We
have been raised and taught to love our King James Version, or
Luther's version, and much esteem is held for these books among the
English or German peoples. These versions contributed so much to
Western culture that they even helped build and unify our very
languages! But are they really scripture? Should they be blindly
accepted as inerrant? The King James version has thousands of known
mistranslations. It can clearly be demonstrated that nouns were
translated into verbs, verbs into nouns, and even that the
grammatical object and subject were reversed in many sentences. Could
these errors possibly be by the inspiration of Yahweh? Or rather, do
Christians not have an obligation to examine all of these things?
Here we will discuss the possible avenues of investigation, since
most Christians seem to be ignorant of the sources of their dearest
treasure: which is their Bible.
The
earliest known manuscripts of the Old Testament
The
Silver Scrolls:
The
earliest known bible fragments were found a decade ago, when there
was announced the discovery of tiny silver scrolls, once worn as
amulets, found in Jerusalem in a layer ascertained to predate the
final Babylonian deportations of Judah. These are fragments of text
found at Numbers 6:24-26, translated by Coogan as follows: “May
Yahweh bless you and keep you; May Yahweh cause his face to Shine
upon you and grant you Peace” [Coogan, Michael D., 1995, 10
Great Finds. Biblical Archaeology Review 21.3: 36–47. This
translation was on p. 45]. The existence of these scrolls more or
less demonstrates the existence of scripture at this early time, and
also shows the existence of the Tetragrammaton being used as we would
assert that it was used.
The
Nash Papyrus:
This
consists of four fragments containing approximately
twenty-four lines, including a section of the 10 commandments, which
are from Exodus and Deuteronomy. The papyrus probably dates to
around the 2nd century BC., as W. F. Albright and others
esteemed it. This is just one example of many ancient papyri
fragments discovered by archaeology over the years, and while it is
not significant by itself, the total body of such findings is a
testament to the wide dissemination of scripture at an early time.
However when the Nash Papyrus was first discovered, it was quite
significant, being the oldest known Hebrew fragments of scripture.
All fragments such as this should be evaluated, recorded, and
considered a part of the general overall scriptural record, for they
all give us insight into the readings of scripture at an early time.
The
Aramaic Targums:
The
Aramaic Targums are interpretations of the Hebrew Old Testament into
Aramaic. While some of these were done at a very early time – and
some are dated by scholars to as early as the 2nd century
AD, no actual manuscripts exist which are quite that old. The need
for targums for the people in assembly was evident as early as the
time of Nehemiah (Nehemiah
8:8 reads: “So
they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the
sense, and caused them
to
understand the reading.”) While two of the known
Targums were preserved in the Babylonian Talmud, there is one
important one which was not. Talking about the early Christian era,
Bruce Metzger says in the article, "Important Early Translations
of the Bible," Bibliotheca Sacra 150 (Jan 93), pp. 35ff.
that “During the same period the Targum tradition continued to
flourish in Palestine. In addition to fragments and citations that
have been collected, the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch is
found, primarily, in three forms. The two that have been the most
studied are the Pseudo-Jonathan Targum and the Fragmentary [or
Jerusalem] Targum, which contains renderings of only approximately
850 biblical verses, phrases, or words. In the mid-20th century a
neglected manuscript in the Vatican library, identified as Neofiti 1,
was discovered to be a nearly complete copy of the Palestinian Targum
to the Pentateuch. Though claimed by some to have been copied in the
16th century, its text has the distinction of being the earliest form
of the Palestinian Targum and some scholars date it to as early as
the 1st or 2nd centuries AD. It is somewhat
less paraphrastic than Pseudo-Jonathan in that its explanatory
additions are fewer in number and more terse in expression. The wide
divergences among these Targums clearly indicate that they are
"unofficial," in that their text was never fixed. There are
no reliable data as to who the authors and compilers were, under what
circumstances and for what specific purposes they labored, and how
literary transmission was achieved.” One of the more important
targums is the Targum of Onkelos, which is believed to be at least as
early as the 4th or 5th centuries AD, and to be
more closely related to an earlier Aramaic dialect. All of these are
very important to our understanding of Old Testament scriptures and
the formation of the Masoretic Text upon which most modern Bibles are
based. It is evident that the targums are the earliest translations
of scripture, however it is not to be taken for granted that the
targums which we have are identical to the earliest of the targums.
The
Samaritan Pentateuch:
Surviving
texts of the Samaritan Pentateuch are at least as old as the earliest
surviving Masoretic texts, and maybe even older, but the jews
themselves contend over this. The texts reflect a tradition which
probably dates to the 2nd or 3rd centuries BC
and the building of the temple at Mount Gerazim which is described by
Josephus. The modern so-called Samaritan Christians possess something
called the “Abisha Scroll”, which they claim is 3,000-years old,
but the few scholars who have
seen and worked with it date only parts of it to the 11th
or 12th
century, and the rest of it to later periods
. There are several modern-day fools who claim to be experts
in palaeo-Hebrew, whom we must be wary of. While they cite the
existence of the Abisha scroll as evidence that palaeo-Hebrew
manuscripts do actually exist, the Abisha scroll is not written in
true palaeo-Hebrew, but in a Samaritan script which evolved from an
older, post-exilic, Hebrew script. The self-proclaimed “palaeo-Hebrew
experts” have never themselves seen the Abisha Scroll, and they
have never seen any other substantial palaeo-Hebrew manuscript to
compare it to. However the Samaritan Pentateuch does give us some
insight into the early books of the Bible.
The
Dead Sea Scrolls:
The
following is quoted
from parts of sections 43 and 68 of “William Finck vs. The
Paul-Bashers” “First,
there is no substantial evidence that the Dead Sea Scrolls were
written by Essenes. Reading the professional archaeology journals,
scholars and academics refer to the authors of the scrolls as the
Qumran Sect or the Dead Sea Sect, and such is proper
since a definite identification of these people with any of the
historically known sects of Judaea cannot be made. Most of the Dead
Sea Scrolls fall into one of several categories, which I would
generally identify as follows: a) Copies or targums of Biblical
books; b) Copies or targums of known apocryphal books; c) Sectarian
commentaries on Biblical books; d) Prayers and prophecies peculiar to
the sect; e) Scrolls of instruction for and governance of the members
of the sect. There are some other miscellaneous documents, such as
the calendrical documents, or the Copper Scroll which is a
description of buried treasure which the sect supposedly had in
various places, which don’t really fit into one of these
categories. Most of the scrolls are numbered in the fashion #Q#,
where the first number is the cave where the scroll was said to be
found, 1 through 11, and the second is a serial number of the scrolls
and/or fragments from each particular cave. Additionally, many of the
notable scrolls also have a familiar name. For example, the Copper
Scroll mentioned [previously] is 3Q15.
“Josephus’
description of the Essenes, found at Wars 2.8.2-3 (2: 119-122)
is very much like Luke’s of some of the first Christians (Acts
2:44-45; 4:32-37), yet that does not necessarily mean that these
first Christians were Essenes, or that Essenes were the first
Christians. While some of the sectarian documents found at Qumran do
indicate that the possessions of sect members were controlled by the
sect and not by the individual, such as 4QRule of the Community,
i.e. 4Q256 Col. IX (frag. 4) and 4Q258 Col. I (frags. 1a1, 1b), so it
may appear that these people were Essenes, yet such communal
societies were certainly not novel and they occurred elsewhere. For
instance, Diodorus Siculus said of certain Greek colonists at Lipara
that they 'took over the cultivation of the islands which they had
made the common property of the community ... their
possessions also they made common property, and living according to
the public mess system, they passed their lives in this communistic
fashion for some time' (Loeb Library edition, 5.9.4-5). Diodorus
wrote from about 50 B.C., and so it is quite possible that other
groups besides the Essenes lived in a communal fashion, this way of
life being known among both Greeks and Hebrews.
“Yet
others of the Qumran documents suggest that these people did not live
in a truly communal manner, such as 4QInstruction, at 4Q416
Fragment 2 and 4Q417 Fragment 1 which discuss the borrowing of
necessities, and advise of the need to repay such loans as quickly as
possible. These do not seem to be Essene teachings, since in a
community where all things are held in common there should be no need
for borrowing, or to make repayment for what one requires. This is
especially true if the Qumran sect was as wealthy as the treasures
which are listed on the Copper Scroll purports it to be.
Some
may point to a certain passage in Pliny’s Natural History,
at 5:73, which seems to support the identity of Qumran as an Essene
settlement, yet there is much dispute concerning this passage, for
which see Biblical Archaeology Review, July-August 2002, p.
18, 'Searching for Essenes' for the details of this argument.
Josephus testified that the Essenes 'have
no certain city, but many of them dwell in every city; and if any of
their sect come from other places, what they have lies open for them,
just as if it were their own ...'
(Wars
2.8.4). And so there are difficulties with identifying the members of
the Qumran sect as Essenes.
“The
War Scroll found in 4Q491 through 4Q497 and some other Qumran
scrolls, peculiar to the Qumran sect, was written by a vain and false
prophet who described a grandiose apocalyptic scenario depicting a
final battle between the remnant of Israel in Palestine and the
'Empire of the Kittim', which was the name that the sect gave to the
Romans, also sometimes called the 'Empire of Belial' (i.e. 4Q491
Fragments 8-10 Col. I). This battle was to end with the
aggrandizement of the remnant of Israel, which they saw as their own
sect, and [with] the fall of Rome. The sect interpreted parts of
Isaiah chapter 10 in this same manner, for which see 4Q161 Fragments
8-10. Since the Qumran sect seemed to know nothing of the destruction
of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 A.D., and even mentions the city on
occasion, (i.e. 4Q504, Fragments 1-2, Col. IV) the War Scroll
requires a dating for the Qumran sect somewhere between Pompey’s
conquest of Judaea where it was subjected to Rome, and the revolt
from Rome beginning about 65 A.D. which resulted in Jerusalem’s
destruction in 70 A.D., a period of about 132 years. Since the
scrolls lack mention of any contemporary historical figures or
specific historic events, I know nothing (though others may) by which
the scrolls can be dated more precisely. There was a fourth large
sect in Judaea, that of Judas the Galilaian, which Josephus said was
noted for their refusal to heed any authority but God, and also for
inspiring revolt from Rome. Josephus describes them at Antiquities
18.1.6 (18:23-25). This is in such agreement with the Qumran sect’s
apocalyptic documents that this sect is as good a candidate for
Qumran as the Essenes. [In fact, I am personally convinced that the
Qumran sect was that of Judas the Galilaian.]
“Yet
one thing is certain, and that is that there is no mention of Christ
or [of] anything Christian in the Qumran scrolls, and even if the
sect had heard about Christianity, they surely made no mention of it.
Even if Essenes were among the first Christians, and even if the
people of Qumran were Essenes, the people of Qumran were not
Christian! The people of Qumran were still awaiting the Messiah, who
would lead them in the destruction of the Kittim (their name for the
Romans), as evident in the eschatological scroll 4QSefer
ha-Milhamah, or 4Q285 Fragment 5, and in many places elsewhere.
“The
Qumran sect’s post-Apocalyptic New Jerusalem scroll (parts
of which are found in 1Q32; 2Q24; 4Q232, 365a, 554, 554a, 555; 5Q15
and 11Q18) talks about Passover sacrifices and offerings (i.e. 11Q18
Fragments 16, 17 and 27), so the Christian understanding of Daniel
9:24-27 and 1 Cor. 5:7 is wanting at Qumran. Other scrolls, such as
4QRitual of Purification B (4Q512) and 4QOrdinances
(4Q514) place an emphasis on ritual purification (baptism), which
after the baptism of John we see Christ rejecting before the
Pharisees (i.e. Mark 7:1-23). The Qumran sect, while anti-Roman and
separatist, surely clung to traditional Judaism. While not Pharisees,
neither were they Sadducees, since they believed in spirits and the
continued life of the soul after the death of the body: things which
the Sadducees fully rejected (Antiquities 18.1.4; Acts 23:8).
Now it should be apparent that while the Dead Sea Scrolls may have
been produced during the time of Paul of Tarsus, this is not
necessarily so, and since the sect was surely not Christian, nor were
they anti-Christian, having no apparent knowledge of Christ, they
certainly had no reason at all to make any reference to Paul of
Tarsus in their writings.
“The
Dead Sea Scrolls are an enigma to most people, who will never have
the time or the initiative to read them. The fullest published
edition of the scrolls is Discoveries in the Judaean Desert,
Oxford University Press, which is 38 volumes the last time I read
about it but may be even more now...”
Later on in that same article, I write the following: “...
contentions concerning the Dead Sea Scrolls and Paul of Tarsus hold
up only if one is led to believe that the Qumran sect members were
Christians. It has already been demonstrated here that the sect was
positively not Christian, and made no indication in their writing
that they knew anything of Christianity. Here I shall quote one more
Dead Sea Scrolls passage which fully supports my contention, and
which should remove any lingering doubts which anyone may have. From
4Q271, Fragment 5, Column I, a portion of the Damascus Document:
'No-one should help an animal give birth on the Sabbath day. And if
it has fallen into a well or a pit, he should not take it out
on the Sabbath ... And any living man who falls into a place of water
or a well, no-one should take him out with a ladder or a rope
or a utensil.' In the Christian mind, this should immediately evoke
the words of Yahshua Christ recorded at Matt. 12:9-13 and Luke
14:1-6, for He would surely want us to help the animal, and
especially the man, immediately on the Sabbath! The writers of the
Dead Sea Scrolls were NOT Christians....”
However, once the sectarian manuscripts of the Dead Sea Scrolls have
been separated and distinguished from the Biblical manuscripts, it is
evident that we have an important early witness to the extant Hebrew
text of the Bible, and the commentaries on Biblical books found among
the scrolls are also often important, for they give us insight into
some of the things that a non-Pharisaical sect in Jerusalem thought
about some of the Old Testament. And while they themselves are not
entirely perfect, they are certainly the oldest manuscripts we have
of significant portions of scripture.
The
Dead Sea Scrolls have been often abused by people with an agenda, who
need something to point to in order to support some usually false
idea, and know that the likelihood of having their assertions
investigated is quite slim.
The
Septuagint and its manuscripts:
Like
the Masoretic Text and the New Testament, the Septuagint has long
been preserved in various codices. However we have copies of the
Septuagint which predate the Masoretic and other texts by many
centuries. The Brenton translation is based on the Codex Vaticanus,
and some alternate readings are supplied from the Codex Alexandrinus,
which are 4th and 5th centuries AD codices,
respectively. I employ the Hatch & Redpath Concordance to the
Septuagint in my own Septuagint studies, which gives readings both
from those and from several other ancient manuscripts. There are
also many other such Codices of the LXX which are known to us.
Parallel Bibles containing columns of Hebrew, Greek and other
languages have been made at least from the time of Origen, and the
Hatch and Redpath concordance includes readings from Origen’s
Hexapla.
The
Septuagint suffered much criticism over the years, with the jews, in
desperate support of their Masoretic Text, leveling all sorts of
accusations against it. Therefore, quite sadly, it has fallen into
total disuse by the Western churches. Now, with the discovery and
inspection of the Dead Sea Scrolls, it has been found that not only
have fragments of the LXX been discovered among those scrolls, but
also, the Hebrew scriptures of the scrolls are often much closer to
the LXX than to the Masoretic text! But not always. The important and
often-cited Messianic prophecy found in Isaiah 9:6 is quite different
from the LXX than it is in the KJV, and yet here the DSS agree with
the KJV reading of the Masoretic Text. Also interesting is the fact
that the DSS fragments of the Greek also contain the Tetragrammaton
“Yahweh” instead of the Greek title kurios for the name of God.
In
defense of the LXX, it is without a doubt the most-often quoted
source of Old Testament scripture by the original writers of the New
Testament. However it is obviously not the only source, and therefore
it cannot be seen as an elixir for all of our woes concerning the
ancient Biblical manuscripts in general.
Caveats
about the LXX:
Many
of the names translated in the Septuagint Old Testament reflect
Hellenic-period names and not ancient Hebrew names. Neither are many
of these fair equivalents, since the Greeks were wont to call people
after their geography, and not after their race.
Since
all translation of prophecy is by necessity partly an
interpretation, and since the original prophets were indeed inspired
by Yahweh, but not necessarily the translators, I would hesitate to
dismiss the prophetic books of the Masorete, but rather I must
maintain them as a guide and a clue as to what the original text
used by the LXX translators may have read.
The
LXX is the “official” Greek version of the second temple period,
and there is little doubt that the Hebrew texts were corrupt already
by that time, for which note the text of Jeremiah 8:8.
The
Histories of Josephus:
The
real value in the works of Josephus is that his histories provide an
excellent and, I believe, a very honest account of Jerusalem from the
rise of the Maccabees through the usurpation of the kingdom by Herod,
and up to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. For Judaean history before
the period of the Maccabees, however, Josephus relied on the same
books of the bible which we have with us today. However often it is
apparent that the scriptures from which he obtained his information
were a much better Hebrew copy than any of the Hebrew copies which we
now have. One caveat, however, is that Josephus was a Pharisee, and
his learning to a great extant reflects the learning of the
Pharisees, and such learning certainly affected his interpretations
of the early books of the Bible, which are described in the early
chapters of his Antiquities. Yet the works of Josephus, like
the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls, help us to fill in several
large voids left to us by a deficient Masoretic Text.
The
Masoretic Text:
Finally
we come to discuss the Masoretic Text, and all other Hebrew
manuscripts of the Bible are Masoretic, and belong to the tenth
century or later. Some of these manuscripts are claimed to be dated
earlier. However textual critics consider these dates to be due
either to intentional fraud or to uncritical transcription of the
dates of older manuscripts. For instance, a codex of the Former and
Latter Prophets, now in the Karaite synagogue of Cairo, is claimed to
date to A.D. 895; yet some assert that it can be dated only to the
eleventh, or even as late as the thirteenth century. The Cambridge
manuscript no. 12, is dated to A.D. 856, and some claim that it is a
thirteenth-century work. The date of A.D. 489, attached to the St.
Petersburg Pentateuch, Neubauer rejects as utterly impossible (for
which see Studia Biblica, III, 22), and I must agree. In all
likelihood the earliest Masoretic manuscripts are actually the
Prophetarium Posteriorum Codex Bablyonicus Petropolitanus,
dated A.D. 916, the St. Petersburg Bible, transcribed by
Samuel ben Jacob and dated A.D. 1009, and the Codex Oriental. 4445 in
the British Museum, which is dated by scholars to A.D. 820-50. While
the textual critics differ vary widely in the dates they assign to
certain Hebrew manuscripts, very few are proven to date much before
the tenth century AD.
The
Masorah is not only a text, but also a commentary on the text,
formulated by jewish rabbis from the 6th to 9th
centuries AD. With it, they sought to regulate the content of
scripture, and use it as a rule to determine just what would be their
“official” Hebrew text. The commentary was left out of the King
James Version, however it has found its way to us in other forms,
such as the notes to the so-called Companion bible, which is based
heavily upon the Masorah. Yes, the Companion Bible actually brings to
us all of the works and commentaries of the Masoretic jews, disguised
in Christian form. Yet the older manuscripts, such as the Septuagint
and the Dead Sea Scrolls, do reveal that the Masoretic Text is not
without problems, and is far from being an ideal copy of the Old
Testament Hebrew. There are problems with the Masoretic Text. First,
the close similarity of certain letters in the newer block-type
Hebrew alphabet has caused some characters, notably the 'd' and the
'r', to be often confused, causing the misreading of many words. That
this happened frequently is fully demonstrable when one compares
passages of the Masoretic to the Greek manuscripts. Another problem
with the Masoretic Text is the vowel-pointing, and the jews have
practically invented a new language out of the old with their use of
it, creating nuances of grammar not known to have existed in ancient
times, and interpreting words for us with interpretations that are
not necessarily correct.
Sound
Old Testament Interpretation for Christians:
Because of the fact that none of the witnesses which we
currently have available for Old Testament scripture are perfect by
themselves, we need all the witnesses we can gather in order to
assist us with scriptural interpretation. Does the scripture itself
not say that every matter is established upon the testimony of two
valid witnesses, or three? Therefore, studying the Old Testament, we
need the Masoretic Text, we need the Septuagint, we need Josephus,
and we need the Dead Sea Scrolls, and we should use more than these
when we get the opportunity! But whenever we examine the Old
Testament, the soundest practice for Christians is to examine it
through a lens of understanding in the New Testament, for the Words
of our Redeemer and His apostles are the most trustworthy, and they
themselves were much closer to an understanding of the ancient
scriptures than we could ever be today. So now we should turn our
attention to the extant witnesses attesting those words.
The
New Testament Manuscripts:
Attestation
of the New Testament in early manuscripts is incredible. There are
literally thousands of ancient Greek manuscripts and fragments which
are known to exist throughout Europe and the Middle and Near East or
which have been found by archaeologists. In addition, there are also
thousands of known ancient manuscripts which contain translations of
the Greek into Latin, Syriac, Armenian or other languages. By
comparison, all other famous works of antiquity have remarkably scant
attestation from ancient manuscripts. We have very few manuscripts of
any of the Classics that are over a thousand years old, and virtually
none of any of them which can be dated so close to when they were
first written.
Of
the extant New Testament manuscripts, the most notable are the Great
Uncials. These are written on parchment, a material made from the
skins of animals and therefore much more durable than brittle
papyrus. Paul mentions parchments at 2 Timothy 4:13. We have
parchment uncials which were preserved to us from the 4th
century. Among these are the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex
Vaticanus. We also have several 5th
century uncials. The Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Ephraemi Syri and
Codex Bezae, along with many others, all date to around the 5th
century.
In
addition to the ancient codices, archaeologists have in various
places found ancient papyri manuscripts, usually consisting only of
fragments, dating to as early as the 2nd
and 3rd centuries.
One of the most notable of these is P-45, as the papyri are given a
number by scholars so that they can be referred to in academic
journals and books. In P-45 there survives large parts of the four
gospels and the Acts. The papyrus dates to the third century and
currently resides in the Austrian National Library in Vienna.
Another Papyrus, P-46, which is dated to 200 AD, contains much of
Paul’s letters from Romans to Hebrews and is currently kept at a
library of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. Yet there are
many other fragments of New Testament papyrus manuscripts dating to
the early centuries of Christianity, some of which are as old or even
older than these.
The
King James Version:
The
politics surrounding the translation of the King James Version of the
Bible is not at all as important to me as the manuscripts which were
used in the making of the translation, and the efficacy of the
translation when it is compared to the original Greek. Let me limit
the discussion to the fact that there were other English Bibles
before the King James, but the King James was purposefully translated
to be the official Biblical text of the government and its fledgling
Anglican Church, and that its language was deliberately constructed
in a manner which made it appear that the Bible actually decreed the
ecclesiastical structuring of such an official church priesthood and
the bureaucratic hierarchy by which Anglican Church was organized.
Now even without that, since all translation is in necessity part
interpretation, it is important to take both history and the Biblical
context into account while translating. In this area I think that
today we have a great advantage over the King James translators, who
did not have the benefit of 19th
century archaeology and the knowledge of history which we have
available now. And the universalism of those original translations
is mostly due to the limited knowledge of history and the need for
the translators to squeeze themselves into the covenants of Yahweh
our God. Therefore the only valid perspective in Biblical translation
can be the Christian Israel Identity perspective.
It
was Erasmus, a priest and the (clerically) illegitimate son of a
priest, born in 1466, who is primarily responsible for putting
together what was eventually the manuscript of Beza which the KJV was
originally based upon. Other modern New Testament translations are
based upon the later Elzevir manuscript, the self-proclaimed “Textus
Receptus”. Erasmus used manuscripts dating from the 11th
through the 15th
centuries in his endeavor. He eventually published 5 editions of his
manuscript before his death in 1536. It is a well documented fact
that Erasmus either included or left out readings from older
manuscripts which either fit or did not fit his particular theology.
Following
Erasmus, Robert Stephanus published 4 editions of Greek texts from
1546 to 1551. Stephanus’ editions agitated the romish catholics,
and he had to leave Paris to continue his work in Geneva. Stephanus’
later editions agreed with Erasmus’ to a great extent, however by
this time Erasmus’ Greek text had already been gaining quite a
following as having been “providentially appointed”, so we see
just how early this error got into the minds of churchmen. Stephanus
used a wider collection of manuscripts in his New Testament
publication, placing alternate readings in the margins. Some
scholars suspect that some of these alternate readings are even from
the Codex Bezae, a 5th
century great uncial, which I personally find to be quite unreliable
when compared to all of the other early codices and papyri.
Not
long after Stephanus, editions of the New Testament Greek were
published by Theodore Beza, a disciple and successor to Calvin. Beza
printed 4 Greek New Testament editions up to 1598. In the third
edition, printed in 1582, Beza lists his sources, among whom were
Stephanus, a Syriac version published by a jew, an Arabic and Latin
version, and his own Codex Bezae and Codex Claromontanus, a 6th
century manuscript closely related to the Bezae. Beza obtained
these manuscripts which bear his name from the monastery of Clermont
in northern France. One item of note is that Beza defended the
inclusion of Mark 16:9-20, a pericope which even the Latin translator
Jerome had condemned.
With
the Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza editions of the Greek New Testament
all competing for recognition among scholars, a family of Dutch
printers named Elzevir joined the fray and published editions of the
NT in 1624 and 1633. In this second edition, it is here in the
preface where the words “Textus Receptus” appear, which is
believed to be the first place in which they appeared in relation to
the New Testament. The words began as a mere boast by a printer!
Elzevir for the most part followed Beza’s editions, but also
included readings from Erasmus and from some Latin copies. The 2nd
edition of Elzevir eventually became the “Textus Receptus” on the
European continent, yet by this time, the 3rd
edition of Stephanus had already become the preferred Greek New
Testament in England.
As
Bede also attests, early Anglo-Saxon monks and priests had already
made translations of parts of the Bible when Wycliffe made his
English translation from Latin, which first appeared in 1382.
Tyndale, born in 1485, became attached to the Reformation and printed
his first New Testament editions from Germany in 1525 to 1528, with
revisions later. Following Tyndale and using much of his work,
Coverdale made an English translation of the Latin Bible in 1537, and
again in 1539 under Cromwell who made it the official Bible of the
church of England. During the reign of Queen Elizabeth two revisions
of the Coverdale Bible were made, and the latter became known as the
Bishop’s Bible, published in 1568. Yet it is evident that since
Tyndale never finished his OT from Hebrew, and Coverdale filled in
the blanks with Latin, that this Bible was not really a unified
effort. Therefore when the first King James Version appeared, it
could make the boast that it was “Newly Translated out of
the Original tongues”. Work on the KJV began in 1604,
and it was printed in 1611. The New Testament primarily employed
Beza’s edition of the Greek NT, but also consulted editions of
Erasmus, Stephanus, and the Complutensian Polyglot. However it is in
great part based upon the Bishop’s Bible, which itself was based on
Tyndale’s work.
Many
defenders of the perceived divine inspiration of the KJV – none of
whom have any apparent care for what text the apostles themselves may
have used – make their claims based on emotional appeals and
sentiment. They don’t care that so many passages were added to the
manuscripts over time. They don’t care about the meanings of Greek
words and translational errors. They got their doctrine from bad
manuscripts and bad translations and now they don’t want to review
the translations because they insist that their doctrine is correct
and inspired. They claim that the popularity of the King James is
providential, and yet they totally ignore the fact that once it was
published and made “official”, all other English versions were
banned by King James! So people had no choice but to use the
official government version, for which reason it became so popular!
The bottom line is this: we have access to many ancient manuscripts
today, that are much better than those used to create the King James
Version since they are much closer to the actual events which they
describe. We also have a much better understanding of Greek, of
history, and of the Bible through history. Therefore we would be
ignoring our obligation to God NOT to reconsider the King James along
with other extant and ancient versions, while also employing the most
original ancient manuscripts that we can find!
A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles is currently being presented by William Finck on Christogenea Internet Radio every Friday night at 8PM Eastern.
