The Church that John the Baptist Prepared

The Church that John the Baptist Prepared: A Study of the Life, Ministry, and Theology of the Messiah’s Forerunner (2nd Edition, Revised) Joel R. Grassi, Cromwell, CT: Bible Baptist Theological Press, 2021.

The author, Joel R. Grassi, is pastor of Commonwealth Community Baptist Church in Bronx, New York. The book The Church that John the Baptist Prepared is a revised edition of Joel Grassi’s doctoral thesis at Emmanuel Baptist Theological Seminary in Newington, Connecticut.

In the “Foreword,” Thomas Strouse explains “The organization of the book follows the words of Mt. 3:1-2a made into Four Sections: I. ‘In Those Days;’ II. ‘Came John the Baptist;’ III. ‘Preaching in the Wilderness of Judaea;’ and IV. ‘And Saying.’ Within these Four Sections are twenty-three chapters with 841 pages and 1542 footnotes” (p. 12). In addition to the meat of the work, the book includes a Foreword, Preface, Overview, and Bibliography. No index is provided.

Grassi’s work accepts the high esteem that Jesus Christ places on John the Baptist (Matthew 11:11). This accepted, the author mines the Scriptures to develop the proper view of John’s baptism and theology in relation to New Testament theology and ecclesiology. “Christ’s church did not fall out of heaven to Him. Rather, the disciples of Christ were passed to Him via the hands of John the Baptist, who preached the Lamb of God unto them and immersed them upon seeing the fruits of their repentance” (p. 19). He is rightly convinced that the “Biblical record must be the final authority for assessing the significance of John the Baptist” (ibid).

I am uncertain whether there is any other in-depth development of the theology of John the Baptist as what is found in this work. Grassi looks at John’s bibliology, theology proper, Christology, pneumatology, soteriology, ecclesiology, and eschatology. Most readers – even Baptists – will likely be forced to consider John in detail far beyond what they have previously considered.

A detailed review of a book this large would take more time than I have, and more words than my readers might read. Suffice it to say, for students interested in Bible study, ecclesiology, and Baptists, this will be an instructional and beneficial read that I recommend to you.

Other works by Grassi include

• A Critical Analysis of the English Standard Version of 2001

For more information, see also:

• New Bible Baptist Church Books
• Second Edition of John the Baptist Book is Now Available
• The Church that John the Baptist Prepared

Baptismal Anthem, by B. F. White

First published in The Sacred Harp, 1844

The Brief History of Korean TR/KJV Translation

I think my readers might enjoy this history of Textus Receptus Bible translation in South Korea. It was written by 방성진 (Daniel Bang) and posted on the Textus Receptus Academy Facebook group on July 27, 2022. Used by permission.

The Brief History of Korean TR/KJV Translation

(Updated in 7.28)

When the missionary John Ross translated the Bible into the Korean language in 1884, he used WH Critical Text for translating the NT. Thus, Korean Churches started with CT-based Bible. Through several revisions, most Korean Churches have been using the Korean Revised Version and New Korean Revised Version, and a few Korean Bible believers are using KJV-based translation.

The Word of God Preservation Society

Dr. Song Lee (1939-2022) was a leader of The Word of God Preservation Society and a pastor of Bible Baptist Church (Gimpo, Korea). After he was saved (1978.7.23) and studied Theology, he realized that TR-based Korean translation is necessary. He individually translated TR ‘Interlinear English translation (English literal translation under Greek TR of Interlinear Greek NT)’ into Korean, and called it ‘새성경 (New Bible-NT)’ in the early 1990s.

In 1991, Dr. Song Lee met Peter Ruckman and had a deep fellowship with him. He followed Ruckmanism (including Double-Inspiration) and his ‘attitude,’ so this attitude became a negative trigger in Korean Presbyterian churches. After meeting Ruckman, he firstly published Korean KJV in 1994 with his fellow translators. Though he included KJV OT and NT (based on TR-interlinear English translation) and titled it Korean KJV, this was the start point to spread TR-based Korean translation in South Korea. Until his death, his Korean KJV was revised and corrected many times.

Though Korean Baptist believers disagree with Calvinism, insulting Calvinism with rudeness is not proper. However, Dr. Song Lee strongly criticized Calvinism, and he regarded the Korean Revised Version as a Satanic Bible. Because of his rude attitude which comes from Dr. Ruckman, ‘The General Assembly of Presbyterian Church in Korea’ and ‘The Presbyterian Church of Korea’ hereticated Dr. Song Lee and Word of God Preservation Society in the late 1990s (the former Assembly hereticated him in 1998.).

Dr. Song Lee certainly played his role as a pioneer, but due to his self-righteous nature, the translators who were with him left him, and a few years later, they joined Pastor Jung and translated another Korean King James Bible.

In Christ Jesus Publications / KeepBible

Dr. Jung Dongsoo is a pastor of Charity Baptist Church (Incheon, Korea), and an administrator of KeepBible website. He is the main translator of the Korean KJV. He learned the fundamental doctrine of Christianity in the U.S. and had an interest in KJV. Later, Dr. Jung had a close relationship with Dr. Waite, and Dr. Waite sent him to Korea. [http://www.biblefortoday.org/idx_Pages/idx_missionaries.htm]

Dr. Jung started translating KJV into Korean in 1992. When he was in the process of translation, Pastor Jack Kim (One of the Korean KJV translators) contacted him for the accurate translation of the Korean KJV, so some pastors (who set themselves apart from the Word of God Preservation Society) and other IFB pastors helped Dr. Jung to translate it accurately. The first edition was printed in 2000. 11 years later, The 400th Anniversary edition of the Korean KJV (5th edition) was sold by many Korean Christians. The logo ‘Spiritus Gladius’ was used for this edition. However, Dr. Jung’s translation was corrected again for improving grammar and readability, so the recent edition was printed in 2021 which title is called ‘Majesty Edition (6th edition).’

Sadly in 2016, Dongwoo Kwon (a Korean Bob Jones student in the past) criticize Dr. Jung that he is KJVO. Dr. Jung states that he is KJVO but he does not follow Ruckmanism. Kwon’s work was like the low rank of Mark Ward. He has criticized Dr. Jung for about 4-5 years. To this effect, The General Assembly of Presbyterian Church in Korea stated that “Dr. Jung’s bibliological aspect is dangerous, and he does not follow Korean Presbyterian church tradition.” Because most Korean churches are Presbyterian, this could happen.

Though many trials passed him, Korean IFB churches are still using Dr. Jung’s Korean KJV. I also have used and read his translation.

Difference Between Each Translator

The main problem of Dr. Song Lee was his contradictory attitude. He had kept in contact with Dr. Ruckman, but he did not follow that KJV is the final authority. The Word of God Preservation Society has translated many books written by Ruckman. In fact, he defended Ruckman for getting commercial gains by translating Ruckman's books.

Because Dr. Song Lee studied NT Greek at first, he could not give up his NT translation from TR-English Interlinear Bible. Therefore, he could not state that English KJV is his final authority, and he emphasized that his translation (Dr. Song Lee’s Korean KJV) is the final authority (more than English KJV). His society still teaches this wrong confession. Finally, his wrong perspective brought division.

However, Dr. Jung and proven translators commonly agree that KJV is the final authority for Bible believers. They directly translated KJV into Korean without any impurities. Moreover, various experts helped for improving translation and readability. In many ways, their coherent path gives credibility to Dr. Jung’s translation.

I recommend Dr. Jung’s translation because it was not biased by Ruckmanism, and reliable Bible Believers helped for accurate translation, and it has been widely spread.

Andrew Willet on the LXX

As for the Greeke translations of the old Testament, of them all the translation of the Septuagint was of greatest account; who are said to have beene put apart in 72. celles, and to have all agreed in their translation: But S. Hierome holdeth this to be a fable, of the 72. celles, the ruines whereof a long time after were shewed at Alexandria, seeing that neither Aristaeus, who was a chiefe man about King Ptolomie, that set 70. interpreters on worke, nor Josephus maketh any mention thereof. And as touching the interpreters themselves, hee saith, Aliud est vatem agere, aliud interpretem: It is one thing to be a Prophet, another to bee an interpreter. And as for the translation, he saith, Germana illa & antiqua translatse corrupta & violate est:  That ancient and true translation of the Septuagint, is corrupted and violated, which, as Hierome saith, was agreeable to the Hebrew: but so is not the Greek copie now extant, which is full of corruptions, and seemeth to be a mixt and confused translation of many: wherefore our adversaries doe labour to justifie the Latine translations: some of their arguments let us see.

Synopsis Papismi, that is, a Generall Viewe of Papistrie, Andrew Willet, London: John Haviland, 1634, pp. 20-21

Saul’s Armour

The name of the hymnwriter John Newton is well-known, but often many of his good hymns are not. In Olney Hymns, Newton’s hymn “Saul’s Armour” is No. XXVII (pp. 32-33), included in the hymns on the book of 1 Samuel. I am not aware of its presence in any common hymnals or hymn books. The meter is 7s.6s., Doubled. I looked at Sacred Harp tunes in this meter. Holy City (101b), Heavenly Armour (129), Hosanna (178), and World Above (551) seem to be good possibilities. I would be interested in folks trying those and letting me know what you think. Webb (“Stand up, stand up for Jesus”) is a more generally-known tune which also fits this meter.

XXVIII. SAUL’s armour. Chap. xvii. 38-40.

1. When first my soul enlisted,
My Saviour’s foes to fight;
Mistaken friends insisted,
I was not arm’d aright:
So Saul advisèd David
He certainly would fail;
Nor could his life be savèd,
Without a coat of mail.

2. But David, tho’ he yielded,
To put the armour on,
Soon found he could not wield it,
And ventur’d forth with none.
With only sling and pebble,
He fought the fight of faith:
The weapon seem’d but feeble,
Yet prov’d Goliath’s death.

3. Had I by him been guided,
And quickly thrown away
The armour men provided,
I might have gain’d the day,
But arm’d as they advis’d me,
My expectations fail’d;
The enemy surpriz’d me,
And had almost prevail’d.

4. Furnish’d with books and notions,
And arguments and pride;
And practis’d all my motions,
And Satan’s pow’r defy’d:
But soon perceiv’d with trouble,
That these would do no good,
Iron to him is stubble,[i]
And brass like rotten wood.[i]

5. I triumph’d at a distance,
While he was out of sight,
But faint was my resistance,
When forc’d to join in fight,
He broke my sword in shivers,
And pierc’d my boasted shield;
Laugh’d at my vain endeavors,
And drove me from the field.

6. Satan will not be bravèd
By such a worm as I:
Then let me learn with David,
To trust in the Most High;
To plead the name of Jesus,
And use the sling of pray’r;
Thus arm’d when Satan sees us,
He’ll tremble, and despair.

I really like this hymn, and think it would be good to find use in church music. It sends a message, from an historical Old Testament account of Saul and David, that the proper armour is essential. “Saul’s Armour on Christ’s Churches” is a theme that must be developed to address problems in our day. Rejecting old standards such as sola scriptura, the Bible as our sole rule of faith & practice, the Regulative Principle, and apostolic practice as normative, many of the Lord’s churches have become comfortable going forth in the wrong armour, the wrong tools for the job to which God has called us.

“For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds” (2 Corinthians 10:4).

---

[i] For these two lines, Newton places a note referencing Job xli. 27.

DeSoto’s detailed review of Ward’s “Authorized”

The following links are to Taylor A. DeSoto’s detailed review of Mark Ward’s book, Authorized.

• A Review of “Authorized: The Use & Misuse of the King James Bible”: Introduction -- “Interestingly enough, Ward’s audience seems to be those that do not read the KJV rather than those that do.”
• Authorized Review – Chapter 1: A Strange Start -- “In the first chapter of his book, Ward makes a compelling argument for the benefit of retaining the KJV, and highlights the damage that modern versions have had on unity in the church and Christian apologetics.”
• Authorized Review – Chapter 2: Jokes & Anecdotes -- “Ward attempts to convince his reader, with anecdote, that the passage is impossible to understand in the KJV.”
• Authorized Review – Chapter 3: Not so Difficult to Read -- “The reader should take notice of the conflicted messaging in Ward’s book exemplified by the quotations above, which is why I’ve decided to highlight the rhetoric so heavily.”
• Authorized Review – Chapter 4: Learning Words is Difficult -- “Okay Mark Ward, you say that ‘people’ are the best gauge for determining readability, but when a person tells you that people living in jungles can understand it, you don’t believe him?”
• Authorized Review – Chapter 5: The KJV as a Second Language -- “He reveals most clearly what he has been getting at up to this point, that the KJV as it exists now should not be read any longer...the objective has become clear: to convince people not to read the KJV.”
• Authorized Review – Chapter 6: Reading the KJV is Sinful -- “In opposition to how he views himself in the opening words of the chapter, he is being extremely quarrelsome, even divisive.”
• Authorized Review – Chapter 7: Don’t Be a Berean! -- “See yet another example of Ward admitting he cannot understand an English passage (Psalm 16:6), despite claiming to read other languages fluently and being a ‘language nerd’.”
• Authorized Review – Textual Criticism and the Scholarly Guild -- “Ward demonstrates either a) that he does not know much about textual criticism or b) that he isn’t willing to give his reader an accurate picture of textual criticism.”
• Authorized Review – Does Authorized Need to Be Updated? -- “I could make a list of Ward’s use of uncharacteristically difficult words that he apparently understands better than the much simpler vocabulary of the KJV...If I were to take Ward’s vernacular argument and apply it to his book, there would be many places that I would recommend an update. ”
• Authorized Review – Mark Ward’s Compelling Response to Pastor Joel Beeke -- “It is common for opponents to address Pastor Beeke in their attacks on the King James Bible, because he is one of its most stalwart defenders.”
• Authorized Review – Decidedly Different: An Admission That Doctrine is Affected -- “It should not surprise anybody that this kind of thinking allows post-Barthian and higher critical scholars to heavily influence the field of textual scholarship. ”

Help us fund a new roof

The Days of Noah

…and the Days of Now.

Genesis 6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that (1) every imagination of (2) the thoughts of his heart was (3) only evil (4) continually.

1. The wickedness of man is total, all-encompassing. 
2. The wickedness of man is inherent, internal.
3. The wickedness of man is impudent, unmitigated.
4. The wickedness of man is constant, unrelenting.

Total hereditary depravity.

Evil spirits, exorcism, and book burnings

Acts 19:13-20 Evil spirits, exorcism, and book burnings

Verse 13: These unusual “goings-on” encouraged certain Jews to try to take up the business of exorcism in “the name of the Lord Jesus.” The men are described as (1) vagabond Jews, and (2) exorcists. They were already “exorcists” practicing their incantations. Now, seeing the power of God wrought through Paul, they imagine they can tap in to that power. “Adjure” means to command, especially under oath. They adjured or commanded the evil spirits to depart in the name of Jesus, adding “whom Paul preacheth.” They act presumptuously, without authority. They were willing to try any possible method to ply their trade.

 

• vagabond, traveling from place to place, περιερχομενων
• exorcists, those who expel or pretend to expel devils, εξορκιστων

Verse 14: “And there were seven sons of one Sceva…which did so” – as placed in these two sentences, suggests that these may not have been the only ones who acted in this rash manner. Acts records one representative incident of what can happen to those who illicitly undertake to redelegate the power of God.

 

Sceva, the father, was not only a Jew, but also a priest. “chief of the priests” does not mean he was the high priest, but most likely that he was or had been head of one of the twenty-four divisions of priests. See I Chronicles 24:7-19.[i]

 

Verses 15-16: Seven stupid scoundrels are in for the surprise of their lives. Not only did the evil spirit not depart from the man they possessed; he spoke boldly to them, challenging their authority. He knew Jesus, and he knew Paul (indicating he recognized Paul’s authority to speak for Jesus) – “but who are ye?” Now the evil spirit has their attention! And men possessed of devils are also possessed of ferocity and great physical strength. See Mark 5:3-4; Luke 8:29. The one possessed man leaped on the seven quack exorcists, leaving them bruised and bloody (“wounded”). They bolted the house, leaving behind their profession, their dignity, and their clothes!

 

Verse 17: The event, as well as the contrast between the authority of Paul and these exorcists became known to the Jews and Greeks dwelling at Ephesus. The effect was a fear that “fell on them all” – a reverential fear of the power and authority of God, in general and over evil spirits in particular. Because of all this “the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified.” Contrast “name” here with “name” in verse 13.

 

Verses 18-19: When the name of Jesus was magnified people believed and were saved. “shewed their deeds” at least in the case of those who embraced magical and superstitious practices, probably includes revealing the secrets of their “curious arts” (περιεργα πραξαντων). The removal of secrecy destroys the secret’s hold.

 

• A Christian response. “many that believed came, and confessed” They did not reform and then become Christians. They became Christians and then reformed, under the power of the word and the Spirit.
• A voluntary undertaking. “brought their books” The Christians openly confessed, then brought their books; they were not seized by church authorities.
• A settled conviction. “burned them” They are convinced of what is truth and what is false, and make a distinct and final separation between the two.
• A public statement. “before all men” In a public manner and open testimony, they signal to all men their determined change of faith and practice.
• A sincere renunciation. “the price of them” Sincerity is seen in what it cost them. The worth of these books added up to fifty thousand pieces of silver.[ii] The counted as financial loss what had been a gain to them.

The Ephesian example instructs us to “be ye separate,” for there is no fellowship of righteousness with unrighteousness and no communion of light with darkness. William J. Larkin warns:

 

“Today the temptation is still present to syncretize a newfound faith with pre-Christian ways of using ‘power’ to cope with life…those who live under Jesus’ lordship must sooner or later come to terms with any compromise in these matters and follow the Ephesian Christians’ example of making a clean break with their ‘power’ past.”[iii]

 

Verse 20: A summary statement; compare Acts 12:24. This mighty Christian commitment was followed mighty growth of the word of God. “So” in this manner, by salvation and sanctification, “grew the word of God,” the cycle repeating, and “prevailed” (ισχυεν cf. v. 16). The church at Ephesus was “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone,” and “all the building fitly framed together [grew] unto an holy temple in the Lord” (Ephesians 2:19-22).

---

[i] Additionally, this far from Jerusalem, perhaps he operated in some unauthorized priestly fashion.
[ii] Various guesses of today’s worth, however accurate, range from an estimated 100,000 thousand to several million dollars (in modern U.S. currency). Regardless, it was a lot of money. The books were a valuable commodity, whose loss was a financial sacrifice for the cause of truth.
[iii] William J. Larkin, Jr., Acts, InterVarsity Press, 1995, p. 278.

John Canne and his Bible notes

Yesterday I posted a transcription “To the Reader” from John Canne’s publication of the King James Bible with marginal notes (The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, Newly Translated out of the Original Tongues and with the former Translations diligently Compared and Revised, With Marginal Notes, Shewing The Scripture to be the best Interpreter of Scripture).

John Canne was an English separatist minister, theologian, and author. He was also a printer. He ministered both in England and in Holland. In the early 1620s, Canne succeeded Henry Ainsworth as pastor of a congregation of English independents in Amsterdam, staying there almost 20 years. In the 1650s he was at Hull. While there his wife Agnees and daughter Deliverance died and were buried at the Holy Trinity Church graveyard. Canne later went back to Holland, and it is believed he died in Amsterdam circa 1667. He was the author of several works, his Bible with marginal notes probably being the most important and enduring. Some others are:

• (1634) A Necessitie of Separation from the Church of England, prooved by the Nonconformists Principles. Specially opposed vnto Dr Ames, his Fresh Suit against humane ceremonies in the point of separation only. Also Dr Laiton, Mr Dayrel, and Mr Bradshaw are here answered, etc.
• (1639) A Stay against Straying; Or an Answer to a Treatise, intituled: The Lawfulnes of hearing the ministers of the Church of England. By John Robinson. Wherein is proved the contrarie, viz: The unlawfulnes of hearing the ministers of all false churches.
• (1647) The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, Newly Translated out of the Original Tongues and with the former Translations diligently Compared and Revised, With Marginal Notes, Shewing The Scripture to be the best Interpreter of Scripture.
• 1656) Truth with Time: or, Certain Reasons proving that none of the seven last plagues, or vials, are yet poured out : neither will the time of their pouring out begin, till after the rising of the Two Witnesses and fourty two months of the Beasts reign be expired. Likewise, an answer to the said reasons; with a reply. Further, the author hath here set down (in a brief exposition) his opinion of the first vial.
• (1657) The Time of the End: Shewing, First, Until the Three Years and an Half are Come (which are the last of the 1260 dayes) the Prophecies of Scripture Will Not be Understood, Concerning the Duration and Period of the Fourth Monarchy and Kingdom of the Beast. Then, Secondly, when that Time Shall Come ... the Knowledge of the End ... Will be Revealed by the Rise of a Little Horn, the Last Apostacy, and the Beast Slaying the Witnesses; Contemporizing the Characters of which the Little Horn, the Last Apostacy and the Beast ... are Here Faithfully Opened, Etc.

There has been some idea that Canne was possibly a Baptist. Champlin Burrage pushes back against that idea in “Was John Canne a Baptist? A Study of Contemporary Evidence.”

Matthew Verschuur has an abbreviated transcription of “To the Reader” HERE.

More biographical information on Canne can be found in Dictionary of National Biography:

“Canne, John,” W. E. A. Axon, Dictionary of National Biography, Volume VIII (Burton—Cantwell), Leslie Stephen, editor. New York, NY: Macmillan and Co., 1886, pp. 411-413. (This can also be found on Wikisource.)

John Canne, to the Bible reader

The following exhortation to the Bible reader was written by John Canne, as an introduction to his The Holy Bible ... with Marginal Notes, Shewing The Scripture to be the best Interpreter of Scripture. It is very instructive and illuminating. This is transcribed from the 1662 printing (no publisher or location given). It was published first in 1647, but this (1662) is the earliest edition I found online. I felt the earlier the better, with less likelihood of editorial changes and interpretations.

To that end, I have tried to reproduce as best I could the original formatting, spelling, italics, etc., so as to not add my own interpretations of what was written. However, I may have introduced my own errors. There is a later better typesetting (from 1747), which I consulted in places I found hard to read. All below was written by John Canne.

To the Reader.

IT is a Truth acknowledged by all, of all persuasions, viz. The Scripture to be the best interpreter of Scripture. To this I shall add a few things.

I. Such is the fulness and perfection of the holy Scripture, as it hath enough, and sufficiency in it self for the Explanation and opening of the Sence and meaning of it.

II. That this Explanation and Opening of Scripture by Scripture, is attainable; and (by Gods blessing) may be done, and with such fulness of matter, and clearness to the truth of the Sence, as there will be little need for other Interpreters, much less for men to impose their private Interpretations, and bold Glosses upon the Text.

III. I do not know any way whereby the Word of God (as to the Majesty, Authority, Truth, perfection, &c. of it) can be more honored and held forth: and the Adversaries of it (of all sorts) so thorowly convinced, and silenced, as to have the Scripture to be its own Interpreter. This I am sure, did men in their Expositions on the Scriptures speak less themselves, and the Scripture more, the Scripture would have more honour, and themselves less.

But here I must confess, to have a Scripture-interpreter, in the way I speak, Viz. of that Sufficiency and Fulness, as there should be no need to seek farther for the Sence and meaning of the Text: There are many things first to be done; among which some particulars I shall briefly set down.

I. That the Original Text of Scripture be rightly Translated, and, as much as possible, even word for word, without departing from the Letter of Scripture in the least. For it is necessary to preserve the Letter intire, how inconvenient, yea, how absurd soever and harsh it may seem to men’s carnal Reason: because the foolishness of God is wiser then men.

II. That Scripture Metaphors be not omitted, nor mistranslated one for another, but rightly opened.

III. Concerning the various Readings: here all care, study, and endeavour ought to be used, that nothing be taken but what is breathed by the Spirit of God in the Text.

IV. That the Genuine and proper signification of the Original words be truly opened, and explained; for this is of great use and furtherance to the work I mention.

V. The doubts and seeming differences be carefully heeded, and by Parallel Scriptures reconciled.

VI. That some words which are in the Original Tongues left untranslated be translated, and their signification opened. For howsoever such words to some may seem unfruitful, and afford not such matter in the Letter, yet according to the manifold wisdom of God, (and as the spiritual man judgeth) there is an excellent meaning of the Spirit in them.

Lastly. The Original particles are to be minded, and special notice taken of them, as a thing of great Concernment, to shew the Connexion of the Text and Context.

There are other particulars besides these, to have an exact and full Scripture-interpreter, but I shall refer them to another Time, and Place more proper. What I have done concerning this work, the thing it self will shew when it cometh forth: and therefore I will say nothing more  or less: but onely as Christ said of the woman, I have done what I could.

Something I will speak of the Reasons and Grounds whereby I have been encouraged in this kinde of labor.

1. The sweetness and great content that I have had all along in this Scripture work, hath caused me to account other studies and readings (which I formerly used) very low in comparison of it. It is said of Jacob, that he served seven years for Rachel, and they seemed but a few days, for the love he had to her. I can truly speak it, I have served the Lord in this work more than thrise seven years, and the time hath not seemed long, neither hath the work been any way a burden to me, for the love I have had to it.

But 2. That which hath more encouraged me, hath been a perswasion and good hope, that many will have much Soul good, and spiritual Comfort by it. For 1 Some people wilbe the more willing and forward to read and Search the Scriptures; having by them a Guide and Help: as when they meet with any place which is dark and they understand it not, then by direction to some other Text of Scripture immediately to be informed and satisfied, without looking into Commentaries which may be they have not. 2. A Scripture Interpreter will encourage men to exercise themselves, and in the meditation and Study of the Scriptures: as when a man hath a light carried before him, he goeth more cheerfully, then if he were in the dark, and groped for his way. 3. By this means not onely the knowledge of God and his Truth will grow and increase: But the Scriptures wilbe unto people more familiar and more their own (as I may say) then they were before: For those things which we hear from others, or have out of Books, usually soon come, and soon gone: whereas such Truths as are gotten by our own searching the Scriptures (the Lord giving a blessing to it) doe abide and continue with us.

4. Seeing it is the Spirit of God, that inlivens and breathes in the Scriptures, where can we expect the presence of this good Spirit, if not in the search and Meditation of the Scriptures. I speak not to the derogation of Commentators and other works of godly men: yet this I say, we making our prayer to the onely wise God, may expect the pouring out of the Spirit, as to be guided into the truth of the sence of the Scriptures in Reading and Studying them, more then in reading other Books.

5. That the Scriptures every where, are so much Neglected, so little honoured and regarded among men, one reason is, their Ignorance of them: to have therefore this Ignorance removed, and the word of God loved and delighted in, there cannot be (as I humbly conceive) a better way and meanes then a Scripture self-Interpreter.

6. It is not the Scripture that leadeth men into Errours and By-wayes, but the Misinterpretations, and false Glosses imposed upon it, as when men by perverting the Scripture to their own Principles and purposes will make them speak their sence, and private Interpretation. Laying therefore aside mens Interpretations, and onely following the Scripture Interpreting it self, it must needs be the best way, and freest from Errors.

But 3, That which hath most encouraged me is, the honour and glory of God: which I hope and desire will redound to his holy Name by it. And therefore whosoever shall reap any benefit either by this or what followeth, I beg of him for Christs sake that he give praise to God alone.

For conclusion, These Scripture-References, they are FEW, to those I could have produced.

But I have made it a great part of my work to comprise much in a little room, and therefore have viewed over all my Larger Notes, and with my own hand from beginning to the end, verse after verse, have chosen the most principall and proper Texts, so far as the Margin could contain. Besides I have used what care and diligence I could, to avoid all Mistakes in the Notes, and to have them placed in a right and due order.

Moreover (Reader) I intend God assisting with health and life, to set forth an Edition of the Bible in a large and fair Character, with large Annotations (a work I have been many years upon) and to make what speed I can. But the work will be heavy and require Care and Time.

For I purpose Therein to set forth all that I have done concerning the Scripture interpreter: whether I shall live to see it finished, God onely known: Howsoever it is ready and prepared for the press: so that if the Lord take me away before it be published, what remains of the Copy unprinted I shall leave in such hands as will (I doubt not) be both carefull and faithfull in accomplishing my Intentions; which that it may be to the glory of God, and good of his people every where, is my earnest prayer.

John Canne.

Edmund Wilson quote

Edmund Wilson writes on the influence of biblical language. The quote is apropos to our struggles over the language of the Authorized King James Version of the Bible:

“Here it is, that old tongue, with its clang and its flavor, sometimes rank, sometimes sweet, sometimes bitter; here it is in its concise solid stamp. Other cultures have felt its impact, and none–in the West, at least–seems quite to accommodate to it. Yet we find we have been living with it all our lives.”

A Piece of My Mind, Edmund Wilson, the 20th century’s most influential American literary critic.

In the Old-time Way

Acts 1:13-14 ...they went up into an upper room...These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication...

The words and music to In the Old-time Way were written by Baylus Benjamin “B.B.” McKinney. It is number 305 in The Broadman Hymnal, a songbook edited by McKinney. The meter of the stanzas is 8.7.8.5., with an irregular refrain. I did not find the words to this hymn online, so I decided to reproduce them here. It is a prayer, exposition of prayer, and exhortation to prayer “in the old-time way.” This represents one of the two genres in which McKinney usually wrote – prayer and praise.

While I believe in prayer and exalt “the old-time way,” it seems to me that this text comes too close to expecting another “Pentecost” – a spectacular and wonderful event, but also very unique and therefore outside of continual repetition. (Note, McKinney does not directly call for another “Pentecost,” but invokes it with the use of the “upper room” motif.)

B. B. McKinney (July 22, 1886 – September 7, 1952), was a Southern Baptist singer, songwriter, teacher, and music editor. For a fuller biography, see last week’s post on “Glorious Is Thy Name.”

1. As he heard his waiting people
In the upper room one day,
God will hear us when we seek him
In the old-time way.

Chorus:
In the old-time way (old-time way)
In the old-time way (old-time way)
Lord, revive and save they people,
In the old-time way.

2. He will bless the Gospel story,
He will save the lost today,
He will give them grace and glory
In the old-time way.

3. He who walked upon the waters
Is the very same today;
He can still the storm and tempest
In the old-time way.

4. Send the old-time power upon us,
Cleanse each waiting heart we pray;
Let they mighty zeal possess us
In the old-time way.

Reaching the Next Generation, and other links

The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the sites linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the specific posts linked.

• What level of confidence we should have in reconstructions of fragmentary papyrus texts? -- “This test case confirms that we should be extremely cautious about appeals to reconstructed text in the use of fragmentary material.”
• The Sword and the Trowel, 1868 -- “Baptists were always equally prepared for conflict and for persecution.”
• The Significance of the Lollard Bible -- “From 1374 to the condemnation of certain points of Wycliffe’s teaching in the summer of 1382, Wycliffe was the most respected doctor in Oxford, and he worked in Oxford only.”
• Search the Largest Archive of Historical Newspaper Birth Announcements -- “This searchable archive contains over 70 million birth announcements printed in the largest online newspaper archive spanning three centuries.”
• Regulative Discipleship: Why a Full Calendar Doesn’t Necessarily Produce Mature Church Members -- “... if we affirm the regulative principle for the Sunday morning gathering, shouldn’t we also apply the same conviction to the rest of our discipleship ministries?”
• Reaching the Next Generation -- “...belief in the Bible is a work of the Spirit to sanctify the believer by means of the Spirit of God speaking through the word of God to the people of God who accept those words by faith.”
• Parris, Paris, Therond, and Blayney -- “It is ultimately Dr Blayney who gets the credit for the work even though the preparation was undertaken by others for his famous edition.”
• New List of Reasons for Maximum Certainty for the New Testament Text What I’ve witnessed for decades now exclusively with modern version and critical text adherents is the absence of a biblical presupposition about the preservation of scripture.
• Mark Ward / Thomas Ross Videos on King James Version English -- “There are some serious problems in Ward’s response to my argument, although I appreciate that he actually offered a response. (James White just ignored it, so good for Dr. Ward.)”
• Four Reasons to Preach the Psalms as a Book -- “The intentional ordering of the 150 psalms may have been only recently rediscovered in academia, but it has very practical benefits for the Christian in the pew.”
• Don’t Lose Your Church Website! -- “Did you know that when a church lets their domain registration lapse, that it often gets bought up by an adult video site, a gambling site, or some other entity looking to make use of the domain’s Google search ranking?”
• Does the Wycliffe Bible Follow the Jerome Text? -- “The movement to translate the word of God into Middle English starting with the labor of John Wycliffe can not be called a movement leaning on the Jerome text.”
• Critiquing Margret Deanesly 98 Years Late -- “Fristedt went on to author three books on the Wycliffe Bible that demonstrated clearly that Deanesly was wrong in her conclusion that the line of vulgar bibles petered out.”
• Church Discipline and Expressive Individualism -- “Expressive individualism, the phrase coined by philosopher Charles Taylor in A Secular Age, captures the largest ideological shift in America during the twentieth century.”
• Christ’s Genealogies: Eusebius / Africanus on Matthew & Luke -- “I am not sure which explanation is correct, but I am sure that there is an explanation, because God does not contradict Himself or lie.”
• Cemetery Picnics Our Ancestors Attended -- “Since many municipalities still lacked proper recreational areas, cemeteries were the closest things, then, to modern-day public parks.”
• Assessing the New Appalling Slander of Thomas Ross -- “Mark Ward Says in a Recent Youtube Video Concerning Thomas Ross: ‘I Regard Him as an Extremist of a Particularly Dangerous Kind, the Kind that is Super Intelligent.’”
• Andrew Willet (1562-1621) on the Ten Churchly Exegetical Renderings of Romans 7 -- “Contrary to this erroneous assertion, Willet is still arguing in his exegesis and commentary for the history, geography, diction, phonics, grammar, syntax, and manuscript support of the given passage in question.”

Himes on Providential Preservation

Saving this here. Comments by John R. Himes, grandson of Sword of the Lord editor John R. Rice. He seems to be a supporter of the Byzantine text generally, and not of the Textus Receptus specifically.

Has God providentially preserved His Word in the original languages? I believe He has. There is not much debate over the text of the Hebrew Old Testament (the Masoretic text), but criteria that to me are fulfilled by the Byzantine textform include:

1. It was the most widely dispersed and thus widely used of the early church. I know, I know, the Alexandrian text type has earlier mss, but then those early mss were not copied by Christians much.

2. It is the most coherent text with the best Greek. It seems to me that the Lord would inspire and preserve good grammar. This is not much of an argument on its own, though.

3. It is the text used most by those to whom Greek was a first language. In the Alexandrian and Western areas, where those two text types were preserved, the Byzantine area (including Antioch) is where Greek was usually the first language of the copyists. Being fluent in Japanese as my second language, I know how easy it is to make semantic mistakes and copy errors in one’s second language, even if one’s grammar is perfect. Caveat: I realize there were probably Greeks living in Alexandria, but the MSS we know to be copied in that area (Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, etc.) are noted for copyist errors.

4. The Byzantine is right in the middle linguistically between the Alexandrian and Western text types. That is, the Alexandrian has fewer words and the Western has more. Thus, it makes sense to me to call it a neutral text (no apologies to Westcott and Hort) by virtue of its centrally located content, if I may phrase it that way. Remember that there is a curse on those who add to or take away from Revelation (22: 18-20), though I do not say that means a careless copyist or printer is headed for Hell!

C. M. Du Veil says:

A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, by Charles Marie Du Veil

Older printing of Du Veil

Pure Cambridge and Acts 11:12

The Pure Cambridge Edition is a nice and accurate printing of the King James Bible. This printing of the King James Bible can be found online, for example at Bible Protector PCE, KJVPCE.com, and Pure Cambridge Edition. However, some supporters set it up as the (one and only) correct printing of the King James Bible, against all others. According to Matthew Verschuur in “How to Know the Pure Cambridge Edition of the Bible,” a Pure Cambridge Edition of the KJV can be identified because it by its conformity to the following test in 12 places.

• 1. “or Sheba” not “and Sheba” in Joshua 19:2
• 2. “sin” not “sins” in 2 Chronicles 33:19
• 3. “Spirit of God” not “spirit of God” in Job 33:4
• 4. “whom ye” not “whom he” in Jeremiah 34:16
• 5. “Spirit of God” not “spirit of God” in Ezekiel 11:24
• 6. “flieth” not “fleeth” in Nahum 3:16
• 7. “Spirit” not “spirit” in Matthew 4:1
• 8. “further” not “farther” in Matthew 26:39
• 9. “bewrayeth” not “betrayeth” in Matthew 26:73
• 10. “Spirit” not “spirit” in Mark 1:12
• 11. “spirit” not “Spirit” in Acts 11:28
• 12. “spirit” not “Spirit” in 1 John 5:8

Verschuur also adds that the Concord Cambridge Edition has departures in the following areas, where the correct PCE text has (among other things) “rasor” instead of “razor” (Numbers 6:5, et al.), “inquire” instead of “enquire” (Genesis 24:57, et al.), “counseller” instead of “counsellor” (2 Samuel 15:12, et al.), “expences” instead of “expenses” (Ezra 6:4,8), “ancle” instead of “ankle” (Ezekiel 47:3; Acts 3:7), “Geba” rather than “Gaba” at Ezra 2:26, and lower case “spirit” at Acts 11:12, 28 and 1 John 5:8.

I have mentioned the test before in passing. Now let us look at it more directly. One of the identifiers of the Pure Cambridge Edition is the lower case “spirit” at Acts 11:12. Using this as a test case shows the arbitrary nature of choosing this printing as “the correct, perfect and final text of the King James Bible.”

• “And the spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting…” (Acts 11:12)

However, in this same edition the Spirit in Acts 10:19-20 who bids Peter go, doubting nothing, is capitalised “Spirit.”

• “While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee. Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them.” (Acts 10:19-20)

The Spirit/spirit in Acts 11:12 is the selfsame Spirit/spirit in Acts 10:19-20. How can it be that it is correct to capitalise the word in Acts 10:19 and not capitalise it in Acts 11:28? If it is not wrong to capitalise “Spirit” in Acts 10:19, it cannot be wrong to capitalise it in Acts 11:12. Defenses of the distinction devolve into disconcerting disputations, of doubtful merit. If one will be led of the Spirit of truth rather than the spirit of defending a particular printing at all costs, this is easy to see.[i]

The problem with “PCE-ism” is not the Pure Cambridge printing itself, but rather the arbitrary induction of only one early inexactly-dated 1900s printing of the King James translation as “the” Bible. This subtly shifts the time-honored, God-given interpretation method of comparing Scripture with Scripture to a new-fangled method of interpretation based on one typography frozen in time.

This Cambridge printing of the King James Bible is clean, nicely done, and highly recommended. However, it is not the one and only final edition to the exclusion of all other King James Bibles. If your Bible has “Spirit” instead of “spirit” in Acts 11:12 (and 11:28) don’t throw it away! Continue to use it, with God’s blessings. It is the Spirit of God speaking in those places.[ii]

---

[i] This could also cause a misunderstanding/misinterpretation of who the Spirit is in Acts 11:28. However, be aware, it is the responsibility of the Bible reader to interpret based on context rather than English capitalisation, which has not always been (and may not now always be) standardized. For example the 1611 Barker printing has lower-case “s” in Acts 10:19, 11:12, and 11:28, the 1618 Norton & Bill printing has capital “S” in all three places, while the 1631 Barker printing has a lower-case “s” in 10:19 and capitalization in chapter 11. See also endnote 2. Note, however, that trying to find the best printing of the King James Bible is not immaterial. If the Bible is God’s word (it is), then we should want the best printing of it, with the least number of typographical errors, defects (smudges, page bleed-through, etc.), and so on. But we should not let it become a dogma inhering in the defense of the King James Bible.

[ii] It is well to note that the history of this (capital versus lowercase) is entrenched in the history of the English language, which has gone through many uses of and attempts to standardize the capitalization of words. See the 1611-1768 chart for some history of the printing of these verses in the King James Bible.

Spirit and spirit in Acts 10 and 11

The chart below gives some history of the capitalization of Spirit/spirit, 1611-1769, in Acts 10:19, 11:12, and 11:28. It “proves” two things:

1. There is enough variation for anyone who wants to do so, to base some theological or orthographical view on it.
2. More seriously and more importantly, it illustrates the rules of capitalization in English were not fixed during this period of time.[i]

I hope the chart will be large enough to see; it appears to be kind of small. I think perhaps you can enlarge it on your computer. All of these Bibles are King James Bibles. The chart gives the Bible printing year and by whom it was printed (if known). A URL is provided for anyone who wants to check out the printings. I may have made some mistakes. After looking at one word that long, they can all start to look alike! Additionally, I discovered when I was using the tab in Excel, the program was “correcting” every entry to lower-case spirit. I believe I readjusted and corrected all those Excel “corrections.” If any readers find mistakes in the chart, please let me know.

When the entry has two years (e.g., 1640/39), that means the frontispiece of the Bible and the front of the NT had different dates.

---

[i] And I would add that they probably are still not as fixed as some people assume they are.

“Ellipsizing” in a point

“Baptists and the American Standard Version of the Bible” by Doug Kutilek was first published in As I See It, Volume 19, No. 3.[i] It has been republished at Sharper Iron, and Kutilek (on 16 Feb 2024) republished it to the Baptist History Preservation group on Facebook. Doug Kutilek is a very active anti-King James Onlyist promoter of modern versions.

This curious excerpt from his post obtained perhaps more notice and discussion than the rest of what he wrote about the ASV.

“In a book written around 1967, Dr. Richard V. Clearwaters, founder of Central Baptist Seminary of Minnesota and Pillsbury Baptist College, and widely recognized during his lifetime as a ‘Fundamentalist’s Fundamentalist,’ wrote:

“Honesty compels us to cite the 1901 American Revised as the best English Version of the original languages which places us in a position 290 years ahead of those who are still weighing the King James of 1611 for demerits.[ii] ... We know of no Fundamentalists ... that claim the King James as the best English translation. Those in the mainstream of Fundamentalism all claim the American Revised of 1901 as the best English translation.”[iii] The Great Conservative Baptist Compromise, pp. 192, 199.

The excerpt is curious in what it asserts and what it leaves out. The quote below includes a bit more material from before and after what Kutilek shared, plus a full sentence on page 199 without the ellipsis.

“One mark of scholarship at Central is that the Revised Standard Version of the Bible is never given praise or blame over the ‘straw man’ of the Authorized Version, either orally or in writing as some schools have delighted to do to impress people that they are up-to-date. Honesty compels us to cite the 1901 American Revised as the best English Version of the original languages which places us in a position 290 years ahead of those who are still weighing the King James of 1611 for demerits…We know of no Fundamentalists except the Carnell variety that claim the King James as the best English translation. Those in the mainstream of Fundamentalism all claim the American Revised of 1901 as the best English translation. We know of no competent scholar who would not rate it far above the Revised Standard Version, which Carnell quotes throughout his book.” The Great Conservative Baptist Compromise, pp. 192, 199.

By means of ellipsis (... three-dot punctuation to indicate material passed over, omission of words, admitting alteration of a direct quote), Doug Kutilek would have Richard Clearwaters say that no Fundamentalists thought the the KJV was better than the ASV. Additionally, Clearwaters himself creates some “plausible deniability” for his comment by later using the phrase “the mainstream of Fundamentalism,” thereby simply writing out of “the mainstream” those who disagree with him about the ASV!

However, we could take for example Philip Mauro. Mauro was a contributor to the original fundamentalist series The Fundamentals: A Testimony to The Truth. Surely one of that pedigree could not be written out of “the mainstream.” He wrote Which Version in 1924, defending the King James Version over and against the English and American revisions, as superior in underlying text, the quality of translation, as well as in its style and composition.

While Clearwaters touts the ASV as the Bible of “The” Fundamentalists, the editors of The Fundamentals: a Testimony, and particularly the author James M. Gray (then dean of Moody Bible Institute), criticizes the English Revised and ASV translation of 2 Timothy 3:16 – noting the superiority of the King James translation.

“As this verse is given somewhat differently in the Revised Version we dwell upon it a moment longer. It there reads, “Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable,” and the caviller is disposed to say that therefore some scripture may be inspired and some may not be, and that the profitableness extends only to the former and not the latter.

“But aside from the fact that Paul would hardly be guilty of such a weak truism as that, it may be stated in reply first, that the King James rendering of the passage is not only the more consistent scripture, but the more consistent Greek. Several of the best Greek scholars of the period affirm this, including some of the revisers themselves who did not vote for the change.” The Fundamentals: a Testimony to the Truth, Volume II, R. A. Torrey, editor. Los Angeles, CA: BIOLA, 1917, pp. 16, 21[iv]

When Richard V. Clearwaters writes “the Carnell variety” of Fundamentalists, he means the type of Fundamentalist mentioned by Edward John Carnell, a Baptist preacher and president of Fuller Seminary, in his book The Case for Orthodox Theology. Clearwaters is not identifying Carnell as a Fundamentalist. Rather, in his book Carnell complained of Fundamentalists clinging to the King James Version, writing:

“The mentality of fundamentalism is dominated by ideological thinking. Ideological thinking is rigid, intolerant, and doctrinaire…The fundamentalists’ crusade against the Revised Standard Version illustrates the point. The fury did not stem from a scholarly conviction that the version offends Hebrew and Greek idioms, for ideological thinking operates on far simpler criteria. First, there were modernists on the translation committee, and modernists corrupt whatever they touch. It does not occur to fundamentalism that translation requires only personal honesty and competent scholarship. Secondly, the Revised Standard Version’s copyright is held by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ. If a fundamentalist used the new version, he might give aid and comfort to the National Council; and that, on his principles, would be sin. By the same token, of course, a fundamentalist could not even buy groceries from a modernist. But ideological thinking is never celebrated for its consistency.” The Case for Orthodox Theology (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1959), p. 114

“The intellectual stagnation of fundamentalism can easily be illustrated. Knowing little about the canons of lower criticism, and less about the relation between language and culture, the fundamentalist has no norm by which to classify the relative merits of Biblical translations. As a result, he identifies the Word of God with the seventeenth-century language forms of the King James Version. Since other versions sound unfamiliar to him, he concludes that someone is tampering with the Word of God.” The Case for Orthodox Theology, p. 120

So, Clearwaters is not trying to make an accurate historical statement, but rather a polemical point, to distance himself from the Fundamentalists that Carnell criticized – and in doing so to assert that the “true” Fundamentalists are those who do not hold such a position. Carnell knew better, Clearwaters knew better,[v] and we know better. Kutilek should know better. This claim cannot be considered a completely valid historical statement of the relationship of the Fundamentalists (or Baptists) to the King James Bible.

Ellipses serve a purpose. When we quote authors there is not usually room to reproduce everything they said. Brevity has its place. However, we should not “ellipsize” out the facts in order to make our point – most especially when that point contradicts the original source.[vi] Too many “Bible version arguers” of all stripes do just that. Let us resolve to do better!

---

[i] Probably published in March 2016, though I have not seen the year clearly given anywhere I have looked. As to Clearwaters’ book, The Great Conservative Baptist Compromise, it is hard to date as well. It is a mix of writings from various times. Chapter 12 was written in or after 1965, for at the time Blain Myron Cedarholm had served his 18 years as General Director of the Conservative Baptist Association (1947-1965; p. 180); it also mentions receiving a letter dated November 17, 1967 (Compromise, p. 184). So after 1967.
[ii] 290 is the number of years from the King James Bible of 1611 to the American Standard Version of 1901. This is a confusing comment, since Clearwaters and those in his orbit can only be ahead of others who are “still weighing the King James of 1611 for demerits” by the amount of time they began using the ASV to whenever this “still weighing” is occurring.
[iii] After this sentence Clearwaters writes, “We know of no competent scholar who would not rate it far above the Revised Standard Version, which Carnell quotes throughout his book.”

[iv] This is not to say that Gray consistently preferred the KJV above the ASV, but simply to show he did not think the ASV was always better. Gray acknowledged some Christians “who would be willing to retain the rendering of the Revised Version as being stronger than the King James” by introducing a word to make it say, “Every scripture (because) inspired of God is also profitable” (p. 16). Both J. M. Gray and L. W. Munhall take the position that translations are not inspired (p. 37).

[v] Thomas Cassidy, a former student and friend of Richard Clearwaters, in his praise of him included this telling statement: “Doc Clearwaters was my pastor and mentor while I was a member of Fourth Baptist and a student at Central Seminary. He was a truly great man. A bit flawed where his ego was concerned, but a great man nevertheless.” It is worth noting that Carnell’s position, against which Clearwaters argued, is the position of the modern text critic – that Bible “translation requires only personal honesty and competent scholarship.” The modern fundamentalist followers of Richard Clearwaters are, on this matter, closer in belief to Carnell than to Clearwaters, who held that “‘natural’ men who ‘receive not the things of the Spirit of God’ and hence totally unfit to translate or interpret what God has inspired” (Compromise, p. 199).

[vi] I also use ellipses (plural of ellipsis); most every one who quotes anyone does at some point. I am sad to say many King James Defenders use them ill-advisedly (see Getting It Right, for example). The wide distribution of material (books, tracts, etc.) has made it much easier to check original sources to see what had been left out of quotes. Many times we need to do so. It is worthwhile every time we have the sources to do so.