Q. Does the Scofield Reference Bible and its editor C. I. Scofield support the King James Bible and/or Textus Receptus?
A. The short answer is no.
I have not written much on my blog about C. I. Scofield or his reference Bible, but I can easily be classified as “not a fan.” The Scofield Reference Bible was compiled and edited (with the help of “consulting editors”) by Cyrus Ingerson Scofield (1843-1921), a popular American theologian and Bible conference speaker, who is best remembered for his teachings on dispensationalism and eschatology.
The first edition of the the Scofield Reference Bible appeared in 1909, published by the Oxford University Press in Oxford, England. A revised second edition came out in 1917. It is the most popular and best representative of Scofield’s work and theology. In 1967, 46 years after Scofield’s death, Oxford University published a revision of Scofield’s Bible, The New Scofield Reference Bible (edited by E. Schuyler English). It included some updated or modernized words inserted in the King James text, and changed some of the old study notes (which sometimes muted or disputed the notes of Scofield himself). The 21st century saw another edition of the Scofield Bible, with the Scofield reference notes made available in the ESV, HCSB. NASB, NIV, and NKJV in addition to the KJV.[i]
Though Scofield placed his cross references and study notes within the text of the King James Bible, some notes make it apparent that he was committed to textual revision above any support of the King James Bible. His revisionism is quite muted compared to what we see among the text critics of the 21st century. However, he was not committed to the King James text and translation. The following notes demonstrate his position on textual variants, the Greek manuscripts, and the Critical Text.
Matthew 23:14
- s. The best MSS. omit v. 14.
Mark 16:9
- 1. The passage from verse 9 to the end is not found in the two most ancient manuscripts, the Sinaitic and Vatican, and others have it with partial omissions and variations. But it is quoted by Irenaeus and Hippolytus in the second or third century.
John 5:3
- m. The Sinai MS. omits “waiting for the moving of the water,” and all of v. 4.
John 7:53
- 1. John 7.53-8:11 is not found in some of the most ancient manuscripts. Augustine declares that it was stricken from many copies of the sacred story because of a prudish fear that it might teach immorality! But the immediate context (vs. 12-46), beginning with Christ’s declaration, “I am the light of the world,” seems clearly to have its occasion in the conviction wrought in the hearts of the Pharisees, as recorded in verse 9; as also, it explains the peculiar virulence of the Pharisees’ words (v. 41).
Acts 8:37
- h. The best authorities omit v. 37.
Hebrews 10:23
- s. confession of the hope.
1 John 5:7
- o. It is generally agreed that v. 7 has no real authority, and has been inserted.
The above notes demonstrate that C. I. Scofield was not a proponent of the TR, neither an avid defender of the KJV. However, in contrast to many in the Critical Text camp today, Scofield seems noncommittal on Mark 16:9-20, and seems to support the Pericope Adulterae. There are no notes at Matthew 6:13; Luke 23:34; Ephesians 3:9; Revelation 16:5; 22:19, some verses which are hotly discussed today.
There are additional problems with Scofield and his notes, such as his universalist dispensationalist ecclesiology, and the promotion of the Gap Theory (a long gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2).
Genesis 1:2
- 3. Jer. 4.23-26, Isa. 24:1 and Isa. 45.18, clearly indicate that the earth had undergone a cataclysmic change as the result of divine judgment. The face of the earth bears everywhere the marks of such a catastrophe. There are not wanting intimations which connect it with a previous testing and fall of angels. See Ezk. 28.12-15 and Isa. 14.9-14, which certainly go beyond the kings of Tyre and Babylon.
The Scofield Reference Bible and its editor C. I. Scofield do not and did not support the King James Bible and/or Textus Receptus. Neither do its past and current publisher.
[i] For more on the history of the Scofield Bible, see Gordon Campbell, Bible: The Story of the King James Version, 1611-2011 (pp. 241-248).
8 comments:
i am not sure what is meant by "universalist dispensationalist ecclesiology"?
as far as the "gap", not sure i want to die on any hill here or there, but i have not found the gap to be a deal breaker in any capacity. i have gone back and forth with it for twenty odd years, and feel there are some good biblical arguments to support it.
if my purpose was to use it as a reason for evolution/darwiniansim...then no!, i do not think that would be the purpose or any justification for either the gap or evolution. i believe in 6 literal days as outlined in the Bible for the establishment of the world/earth in which we live in currently. i read the first verse of the Bible and it states: "heaven and earth" - then suddenly find out that the earth is now submerged in water in the following verses.
interesting.
Disingenuous Revelings, thanks for reading and stopping to comment. The primary reason for this post grew out of some folks discussing whether or not C. I. Scofield was a KJV or TR supporter. I think the preponderance of the evidence was that he was not. The other two things were just extra points of what I think about Scofield's theology and study notes.
His "universalist dispensationalist ecclesiology" is a reference to Scofield's view of the church as all the saved from Pentecost to the Rapture. To him this is the "true church" and local congregations are some sort of tasteless biproduct, evidently.
As far as the "gap theory", I do not see that a some high heresy, just problematic -- especially when used as a catch-all to toss in science we don't know what to do with. Some very important and meaningful brothers in my life held the gap theory, but it still nevertheless seems like a new thing that grew up after the popularity of Darwinian evolution, as a simple way to deal with it.
this is actually me Alex Hanna, Google or Blogspot changed something and it reverted to a blog id that i attempted some years past. and did not realize that it had id'd me this way. (just being transparent)
No problem, Alex. Thanks for the clarification. I hope the explanations were helpful.
as far as the universalist disp. ecc. - how would that differ from your perspective, excluding the "local church byproduct" view?
i think the main opposition to the gap is that people associate it with a bucket with the use of throwing enlightenment and post enlightenment science into, in order to harmonize and play in the middle. in that respect i can see why most would reject and double down on young earth creationism. and i would agree - modern science and scientific theories have no bearing. if that is what Scofield was promoting that he needs a good chastisement.
as for me, i see it as something happened between verse 1 and verse 2, and there was a judgment of satan and the angles that sinned, it is logical to me; Peter states: 2Pe 3:5-6 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:.
the six days after that picks up in verse 2 until the end of the chapter are the reformation after that judgment into what Peter refers to in 2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
Hi, Alex. On the first question, I would say that I emphasize the local congregation, where Scofield always seems to devalue it, as almost a "necessary evil." Obviously he doesn't say that, but that is the impression I get. I have not used a Scofield Reference in over 40 years, but that impression still sticks with me. Not blaming this next point on Scofield, but I see much devaluing of the local assembly and assembling together in our day -- with many excusing it by saying "I am a member of the universal church."
As far as the dispensation, I see it differently from many evangelicals and fundamentalists, but mostly (though not exactly) in accord with what I taught growing up. As I divide the word of truth, to me it seems obvious that God has already divided it -- into Old and New Testaments. That may seem odd or simplistic; but I see an overlap in the change from old to new, from law to grace; with the change beginning with the fulfillment of the promised birth of the Lord, the Master, the Head. The law and the prophets were until John, and the church of the New Testament starts when Jesus starts calling John's disciples to himself (rather than on the day of Pentecost). Most people prefer a clean-cut everything before this exact point was the old dispensation, and everything after it is the new dispensation. God is working out in time what is already settled in heaven.
As I mentioned previously about the "gap theory", I do not see it as a big heresy, just something I don't agree with. But I think far too many do see it as the throw-away bucket, and furthermore only hold it for that reason (and that it was in their Scofield notes), rather than having a studied opinion about it, as you have stated.
My experience in my youth was that it seemed that a lot of people believed a lot of what they believed (not just the gap theory) because Scofield said so. They read it right there in their [notes in the] Scofield Bible! That's certainly not a good reason. Again, of course, that is not Scofield's fault, but the fault of those who do not act like Bereans.
i appreciate your openness to explain where you align. i believe there is a bit more to it -but i am not here to try and sway you one way or another, i was just curious.
i had acquired a scofield ref. Bible sometime in the early 2000's. several years after i got saved, moving from the parallel KJV/living Bible my mom and dad gave me for a wedding gift. i really never knew what it was other than a Bible that was a hand-me-down from my father-in-law who never read it, or even opened it, and i am sure he got it as a gift. but all that to say, that i never read the notes the whole time i had it; then after learning dispensational thought, i then found out what i had...and i still did not read the notes and still have not. i suppose i am the odd one out.
i will have to look into the local church ideology with scofield.
today, i believe that the local church is failing and suffocating is because the natural tendencies of our society and culture which, like all cultures before us, go through a cyclical downward trend. i think it has to, because that is a Biblical perspective. but the way mainstream evangelicalism is, and tv charismatic ministries et al is also a huge contributor to the BoC wanting to stay home, and with the advent of megachurch, the small local church of which i believe was what Paul was advocating for, has been pushed to the wayside. covid also was quite a blow a lot have not recovered from.
by saying that i do not diminish the local church as defined by Paul in his epistles nor would i advise someone not to go and participate, i believe it is an important institution and will more than likely be an important factor for rewards at the judgment seat of Christ.
gap-wise: i somehow feel you are thinking i am a heretic. : /
No, I do not think just believing the gap theory makes one an heretic.
Yes, I think Americans have made quite a mess of what church is supposed to be.
Have a blessed day.
Post a Comment