Tertullian, John 5:3-4

John 5:3b-4 ...waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.

Though the above text is in the majority of Greek manuscripts, the critical text and many modern translations omit it because it is not in early manuscripts such as א. However, notice that Tertullian, who lived circa AD 155 to 220 (before א), had this text in his Bible, and addressed it in his writing on baptism.

If it seems a novelty for an angel to be present in waters, an example of what was to come to pass has forerun. An angel, by his intervention, was wont to stir the pool at Bethsaida. They who were complaining of ill-health used to watch for him; for whoever had been the first to descend into them, after his washing, ceased to complain.

Tertullian, in De Baptismo (On Baptism, chapter 5)

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!

Quoting another text critic

In the past I have presented quotes that reveal the thinking of modern textual critics. Today’s quote if from Jan Krans (or, Jan Krans-Plaisier). Krans is a text critic and Fellow at the Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, Netherlands. Previously we have noticed Krans’s statement “In practice New Testament textual critics today tend to be Christians themselves, but not always. It does not matter, for the quality of their work does not depend on their faith but on their adherence to academic standards.” This longer quote is an excerpt from the same source of writing, “Why the Textus Receptus Cannot Be Accepted.”

The second position regards the establishment of the correct text of the Greek New Testament—the text closest to what the authors wrote and published—as a purely scholarly endeavour. Textual criticism of the New Testament does not fundamentally differ from that of any other text from Antiquity. The basic task is always clear-cut: charting the entire transmission—everything preserved as manuscripts and other sources—and finding out by means of the best text-critical method available what is oldest and most original. Needless to say the transmission of each text may have had special characteristics which scholars will have to take into account.

An immediate consequence of this position is that in principle the text-critical task is never finished. Methods can be refined and fresh manuscript finds can be made. Readers of the New Testament—just as for instance readers of Plato’s works—will have to live with a degree of uncertainty, even more so since there are cases that the available evidence does not allow for firm conclusions. Regrettably Bible translations and even source text editions more often than not hide even this relatively small degree of doubt from their readers.

Krans here is clear on what some text critics and critical texts defenders hem-haw about. He is adamant that textual criticism is “a purely scholarly endeavour,” and that “the text-critical task is never finished.” He tries to make readers feel good that “a degree of uncertainty” in inherent their process. If you are satisfied with a purely scholarly endeavour that is ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of the text, you go for it. It’s not for me. 

Farewell, farewell to all who doubt;
My Savior calls us to come out;
The truth, the truth, shall set me free —
Their scheme is not the thing for me.
(Adapted from words in the song Arkansas by S. P. Barnett)

“neither be ye of doubtful mind.”  Luke 12:29

The order of Philippians 1:16-17

King James Bible:
15 Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: 16 the one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: 17 but the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel. 18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

English Standard Version:
15 Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. 16 The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17 The former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. 18 What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice.

Q. Why does the English Standard Version (ESV) reverse the order of verses 16 and 17 in Philippians chapter 1?

A. The ESV (as well as most modern translations) is following the NA-UBS (CT) texts, which flip-flop the order of verses 16-17 from what is found in the Received Text. The CT follows Codex Vaticanus, while the RT order agrees with the majority of extant texts. 

15 τινὲς μὲν καὶ διὰ φθόνον καὶ ἔριν, τινὲς δὲ καὶ δι᾽ εὐδοκίαν τὸν χριστὸν κηρύσσουσιν

16 οἱ μὲν ἐξ ἐριθείας τὸν χριστὸν καταγγέλλουσιν οὐχ ἁγνῶς οἰόμενοι θλῖψιν ἐγείρειν τοῖς δεσμοῖς μου

17 οἱ δε ἐξ ἀγάπης εἰδότες ὅτι εἰς ἀπολογίαν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου κεῖμαι 

↑ Received Text

versus

↓ Critical Text

15 τινὲς μὲν καὶ διὰ φθόνον καὶ ἔριν, τινὲς δὲ καὶ δι᾽ εὐδοκίαν τὸν χριστὸν κηρύσσουσιν.

16 οἱ μὲν ἐξ ἀγάπης, εἰδότες ὅτι εἰς ἀπολογίαν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου κεῖμαι,

17 οἱ δὲ ἐξ ἐριθείας τὸν Χριστὸν καταγγέλλουσιν, οὐχ ἁγνῶς, οἰόμενοι θλῖψιν ἐγείρειν τοῖς δεσμοῖς μου.

Here is an example of a defense of the CT/Vaticanus reading from the Contending for the Faith commentary (Charles Baily, editor). “The King James Version follows the Received Text in reversing the order of verses 16 and 17. This change seems to have been made to conform the text to the order of the two classes of preachers mentioned in verse 15; but the change is not supported by the best textual witness, and it is not followed in most translations. The authentic text has a chiastic (crisscross) order; that is, verse 16 discusses what is mentioned in verse 15b, and verse 17 refers to the content of verse 15a (Loh and Nida 23-24).”

How it appears in Vaticanus

In contrast, the Received Text makes more sense. It follows through with the same order of sense and argument in verse 15, then verses 16-17, and then verse 18. Some indeed preach Christ even of (a) envy and strife; and some also of (b) good will: the one preach Christ of (a) contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: but the other of (b) love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel. What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in (a) pretence, or (b) in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

The Contending for the Faith commentary’s argument rests on accepting the Vaticanus reading, and making an argument to explain it. My argument is based on accepting the majority reading as found in the Received Text, and making an argument based on that. While I believe the TR/KJV reading is correct, I don’t, however, suppose that Paul’s sentence order alone makes so strong of a case to prefer one reading over the other. Other factors should be included, such as the majority of textual evidence, and faith in God’s providential preservation of his word (versus the modern reconstruction of it from variant choices of corrupted manuscripts).

Dan Wallace on his NKJV work

The following is my transcription of Daniel Wallace’s comments on the New King James Bible in his lecture “Which Translation is Best” (comments on the NKJV start about 18 minutes and 14 seconds in).

“The New King James Version, done in 1982, is a curiosity. Now, I’m going to say some things that are negative about it. But the reason I’m saying this is because I worked on it. I was Arthur Farstad’s assistant for quite some time. He was the senior editor of the New King James Bible, and I did a lot of proofreading and a little bit of editing. And basically, the New King James takes exactly the same Greek and Hebrew texts as the King James Bible took, and gives them a modern translation. The kind of translation (they had a lot of scholars, a lot of these scholars worked on some of these other translations), the basic kind of translation that the New King James Version has is along the lines of the New American Standard. It’s not as elegant as the ESV; it’s not quite as rigid as the New American Standard Bible. The problem with it is its textual basis is so bad. Now, it’s not that it is heretical, it’s just -- why use a Bible that in 5000 places isn’t the word of God, when you can use one that is the word of God in those 5000 places? It just makes no sense to me, and yet Christian after Christian loves the New King James Bible and say – ‘Oh, but I just love this translation I know it’s inferior in terms of textual basis, but wherever it’s translated it’s really good.’ Then use an ESV and you have a much better textual basis and you’ve got great notes. It just troubles me that we want these things just because of how it sounds rather than because of the textual basis, on which it’s based. Again, I worked on the New King James Version. In fact, I was kind of the watchdog to make sure the translators were translating from the Textus Receptus. In one or two places they weren’t, they used a modern Greek text and I really nailed these guys. I said, ‘No, that’s not right. You’ve got to do the TR.’ So, not a single one of the translators, not a single one of the editors of the New King James Bible thinks that the Greek text that they translated is the best one available today. Not one of them. And over 100 scholars worked on this. They just wanted to do it so it was in line with the old King James, so, it’s a throwback, it’s a nostalgia thing that I just think we need to get past.” [18:14-20:24]

Next is the transcript provided by BiblicalTraining.org to go with the lesson. From that you can see that the above transcription is a spoken and expanded version of this:

“The New King James version of 1982 is a curiosity. I am going to say some negative things about it and I can say this because I worked on it. This Bible takes the same Greek and Hebrew text as the King James Bible and gives it a modern translation. The basic kind of translation that the New King James Version has is similar to the New American Standard. It isn’t as elegant as the ESV or as rigid as the NASB. The problem with it; its textual basis is so bad. Interestingly, none of the translators involved with the NKJV thought the manuscripts which they used were the best manuscripts to use and over a hundred scholars worked on this translation. They wanted it done in line with the old King James Version. It was a nostalgia thing that we need to get past.”

This material is worth considering because Daniel Wallace, who at the time worked on the NKJV as an assistant to the senior editor Arthur Farstad, relates some of its history and work-in-progress, even pointing out that none of the NKJV translators believed the Greek text basis they were using was really what they should use – and some even tried to use something other than what they were instructed to use. I have previously pointed out that the NKJV and NIV has several translators in common. Wallace indicates that some NKJV translators worked on more than just that one modern translation.

Dan Wallace is obviously very biased against the NKJV, and some of what he says needs to be seasoned with a few grains of salt. The (then) young whippersnapper’s assessment that “I really nailed these guys” trying to use the CT must be judged in light of the product – there are several places where the NKJV translation better matches other modern translations based on the Critical Text than the King James Version based on the Textus Receptus. Some of his “nails” apparently did not hold.

Ever learning

Modern textual criticism, in the opinion of some of its leading minds, has given up its so-called search to recover the words of the original text or autographs. They are satisfied they cannot recover it, and seek now for the Ausgangtext (or texts), “a hypothetical, reconstructed text, as it presumably existed, according to the hypothesis, before the beginning of its copying.” Some more conservative (relatively speaking) text critics have pushed back against this. In the “Conclusion” of the book Can We Recover the Original Text of the New Testament (p. 87), editors Abidan Paul Shah and David Alan Black write:

“Lack of a settled original text only leads to a lack of a settled biblical theology which only leads to uncertain Christian doctrines and practice.”

This is most certainly true. No settled text = no settled theology = no settled faith and practice for modern Christians. Unfortunately, these authors’ solution is “to continue to practice a scientific approach to retrieving the original text of the New Testament.” What is the fruit of the scientific approach or method? The same kind of fruit against which they complain. Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the text leads to Christians tossed about by every wind of doctrine.

Let us look for a more stable foundation, a settled text that has been preserved and in the hands of the churches and Christians all along. Why go look for something you already have?

Do evangelical scholars believe in the orthodox corruption of Scripture?

In his book The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Bart D. Ehrman asserts as an historical fact that orthodox Christian scribes altered the New Testament texts in order to conform them to orthodox Christian beliefs. Or, put another way, because of various unorthodox views in early Christianity (such as teaching that Jesus was a man and not God), the scribes might alter original passages in order to strengthen the orthodox teaching against heretical teachings. Boiled to its essence, the idea of “Orthodox Corruption of Scripture” claims that early Christian scribes made changes, that the changes were deliberate, and that these changes were in favor of orthodoxy against heterodoxy (i.e., heresy).

Consider the New English Translation Bible (NET) footnotes concerning some passages of Scripture.[i]

John 7:8-10 in the NET

You go up to the feast yourselves. I am not going up to this feast[s] because my time has not yet fully arrived.” When he had said this, he remained in Galilee. But when his brothers had gone up to the feast, then Jesus himself also went up, not openly but in secret.

NET footnote “s.”

Most MSS (P^66,75 B L T W Θ Ψ 070 0105 0250 ƒ^1,13 M sa), including most of the better witnesses, have “not yet” (οὔπω, oupō) here. Those with the reading οὐκ are not as impressive (א D K 1241 al lat), but οὐκ is the more difficult reading here, especially because it stands in tension with v. 10. On the one hand, it is possible that οὐκ arose because of homoioarcton: A copyist who saw oupw wrote ouk. However, it is more likely that οὔπω was introduced early on to harmonize with what is said two verses later. As for Jesus’ refusal to go up to the feast in v. 8, the statement does not preclude action of a different kind at a later point. Jesus may simply have been refusing to accompany his brothers with the rest of the group of pilgrims, preferring to travel separately and “in secret” (v. 10) with his disciples.

In contrast to “not go up” in modern translations from the critical text, the King James Bible and Textus Receptus says “not yet” – “Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast…” How does the NET footnote explain the variant? By charging most manuscripts with being the victim of “orthodox corruption of Scripture.” Their thought is that οὐκ/not go is correct, and that the most likely explanation of what happened is “that οὔπω was introduced early on to harmonize with what is said two verses later.”

So, they say, copyists saw a problem in the meaning of the text. They fixed it. Is that not, in effect, Bart Ehrman’s principle of “the orthodox corruption of Scripture”?

Below see two other examples where the notes in the NET Bible indicate that they think that the Byzantine text tradition was infiltrated by “the orthodox corruption of Scripture.”[ii] 

Mark 1:2 in the NET

As it is written in the prophet Isaiah,[d] “Look, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way,

NET footnote “d.”

“…the reading of the later MSS [“in the prophets”] seems motivated by a desire to resolve this difficulty [i.e. ‘written in the prophet Isaiah’ immediately followed by a reference to the prophet Malachi]”

1 Timothy 3:16 in the NET

And we all agree, our religion contains amazing revelation: He[x] was revealed in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among Gentiles, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.

NET footnote “x.”

“It appears that sometime after the 2nd century the θεός [God] reading came into existence, either via confusion with ὅς [who] or as an intentional alteration to magnify Christ and clear up the syntax at the same time.”

In both the second and third examples, the NET Bible footnote suggests, at the least, a possible intentional change (“motivated by a desire,” “an intentional alteration”) from the original reading to one that is more “orthodox.” 

Do evangelical scholars believe in the orthodox corruption of Scripture? Yes. I would say so, that some of them do, based on these representative examples from the footnotes in the NET Bible.

---

[i] Matthew 19:17 is another example of the charge of intentional alteration by scribes: “There is only one who is good…” (NET). They believe that copyists added “God” to the text (although they generally ascribe it to clarification rather than specifically doctrinal reasons). Many other evangelicals make these same kinds of claims. I am using the NET Bible because their notes are online and handy. Positionally, the NET editors are representative of other evangelical scholars. 

[ii] These editors and others are careful how they state their opinions. They are evangelicals who claim to hold the inerrancy of Scripture. Bart Ehrman is an agnostic and does not need to appear to support the inerrancy of Scripture. This admits a difference in degree between such evangelicals and Ehrman, but not a difference in kind. Saying scribes deliberately altered some places in Scripture for “orthodox” purposes is saying scribes deliberately altered some places in Scripture for “orthodox” purposes – regardless of who says it and what explanation give for it after saying it.

An independent variety of the Textus Receptus

In his work The King James Version Defended, Edward F. Hills referred to the Authorized (King James) Bible as “an independent variety of the Textus Receptus.”

“The translators that produced the King James Version relied mainly, it seems, on the later editions of Beza’s Greek New Testament, especially his 4th edition (1588-9). But also they frequently consulted the editions of Erasmus and Stephanus and the Complutensian Polyglot. According to Scrivener (1884), (51) out of the 252 passages in which these sources differ sufficiently to affect the English rendering, the King James Version agrees with Beza against Stephanus 113 times, with Stephanus against Beza 59 times, and 80 times with Erasmus, or the Complutensian, or the Latin Vulgate against Beza and Stephanus. Hence the King James Version ought to be regarded not merely as a translation of the Textus Receptus but also as an independent variety of the Textus Receptus.”

And sought to slay him

John 5:16 (KJV) And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.

John 5:16 (ESV) And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath.

John 5:16 reveals another variant which the light of theological study and biblical context will help explain. The Textus Receptus includes the words και εζητουν αυτον αποκτειναι – which are left out the NA & UBS Critical Texts. Which is correct? The Textus Receptus. Notice the context and meaning by reading John 5:16-18 –

And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day. But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

The answer is found in comparing verses 16 and 18. The former says the Jews “sought to slay him” and the latter says “the Jews sought the more to kill him.” In context the phrasing of verse 18 supports the Textus Receptus reading και εζητουν αυτον αποκτειναι (and sought to slay him). Why? It explains that adding the accusation blasphemy to breaking the Sabbath, the Jews sought “the more” (all the more, additionally, even harder) to kill Jesus.

• KJV: Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him
• ESV: This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him,
• NET: For this reason the Jewish leaders were trying even harder to kill him
• NIV: For this reason they tried all the more to kill him

“All the more” means more seeking to kill Jesus than has previously been mentioned. However, in the Critical Text it has NOT previously been mentioned (i.e. και εζητουν αυτον αποκτειναι is missing). “All the more” refers back and connects to nothing if και εζητουν αυτον αποκτειναι (and sought to slay him) is removed. So much for touting “neutral” textual criticism done academically “as if God does not exist.” Such an approach removes theological tools that are needed to understand why certain words do or do not belong in the Bible.

I must work

Q. “Why do modern Bible versions use ‘We’ rather than ‘I’ in John 9:4?”

• KJV: I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.
• ESV: We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work.

A. The short answer is because most modern translations are translating based on the NA-UBS Critical Text, which has the third person plural (ημας) instead of the first person singular (εμε) which is in the Textus Receptus. Most modern translations translate that way (we). Generically all do not, such as MEV, NKJV, and WEB, since they are consulting the TR tradition. This is not a TR issue only. The Majority Text also has εμε, and any Majority Text English translation will have the translation “I” as well.

This variant in John 9:4 (I/εμε vs. we/ημας) demonstrates the problem of exempting text criticism from the light of biblical theology. Who is this “we” that “must work the works of him who sent me”? My first inclination, were I thinking “we” is correct, would be that “we” means the Divine Trinity (i.e., Father, Son, and Holy Ghost). However, that interpretation does not fit how Jesus ties that statement together – with “the works of him that sent me.” Also, the singular nominative “I” better matches the singular predicate “me” (though I don’t consider that conclusive in itself). Using the “we” text as his base, Everett F. Harrison says Jesus was “linking the disciples with himself.” (So, to Harrison, “we” is Jesus and his disciples. The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1093) Jesus has just said that the works of God will be displayed in this blind man. The “we” of “Jesus and the disciples” together did not work the work, but rather the “I” of Jesus alone. 

• v. 4 “I must work”
• v. 5 “I am in the world”
• v. 5 “I am the light of the world”
• v. 6 “he had thus spoken”
• v. 6 “he spat on the ground” 
• v. 6 “and [he] made clay of the spittle
• v. 6 “he anointed the eyes of the blind man
• v. 7 “and [he] said”
• v. 11 “A man that is called Jesus…”
• vs. 35-37 “the Son of God…Jesus said…Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.”
• v. 39 “I am come into this world, that they which see not might see”

These disciples, after asking Jesus the question recorded in verse 2, do not again come in sight in this chapter. Jesus is the light of the world who gives this blind man light (sight). “I” represents the theological and contextual fit. “We” does not.

Raise the Dead, Matthew 10:8

KJV: Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.

WEB: Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, and cast out demons. Freely you received, so freely give.

The presence or absence of the words “raise the dead” is a substantial difference in teaching! I took a look at the controversy and found a few interesting things. I will report a few things below.

Of the 62 versions/ translations of Matthew 10:8 on BibleGateway, every version has “raise the dead” or an equivalent expression – with one exception, the World English Bible. (Darby does put [raise the dead] in brackets.) The NET Bible has this note about “raise the dead”: “The majority of Byzantine minuscules, along with a few other witnesses (C3 K L Γ Θ 579 700txt* 1424c sa mae), lack νεκροὺς ἐγείρετε (nekrous egeirete, ‘raise the dead’), most likely because of oversight due to a string of similar endings (-ετε in the second person imperatives, occurring five times in v. 8). The longer version of this verse is found in several diverse and ancient witnesses such as א B C* (D) N 0281vid ƒ1, 13 33 565 579mg lat bo; P W Δ 348 syh have a word-order variation, but nevertheless include νεκροὺς ἐγείρετε.”

In a commentary edited by Charles John Ellicott, chairman of the 1880s New Testament revision company (the same revision with the better-known names Westcott and Hort) this statement is made about “raise the dead” in verse 8: “Raise the dead.—The words are omitted by the best MSS., and their absence is more in accordance with the facts of the Gospel history...” Nevertheless, both the RV of Ellicott/ Hort/ Westcott and its younger sister ASV both include “raise the dead” in Matthew 10:8. (Ellicott is the editor of the commentary and Edward Hayes Plumptre is the writer of the comments on Matthew. According to Ellicott, Plumptre served on the Old Testament revision committee.)

For what it’s worth, the Pulpit Commentary makes this observation:

“According to the true order of these commands, solely physical ills are mentioned first in their partial (sick) and in their final effect (dead); then physical and ceremonial pollution (lepers), which forms a transition to the mention of ills primarily spiritual, even though they ultimately affect the body (devils).”

It seems this author thinks the reading is correct, but does not like the order in the King James Bible.

Lastly, the giving of power to the apostles to “raise the dead” is in fact consistent with what actually happened in New Testament history. See Acts 9:36-42 and Acts 20:9-12.

My NAS-B Ryrie Study Bible has no comment whatsoever on “raise the dead.” If I were James White, I might say something about the tenacity of the reading “raise the dead.” But I’m not James White; I’m just a poor TR/KJV guy. So, instead I’ll just say “raise the dead” is the correct reading!

Much more could be said. These are just a few observations after quickly researching the passage.

CT vs. MT vs. TT

When it comes to printed Greek texts of the New Testament, they fall into three groups:

• Critical Text - this term refers to texts that are created from the process of collating and comparing the extant Greek manuscripts using a complex and varied set of rules (eclecticism) to determine the “original” or “earliest” reading. By far the most commonly used is the NU - the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies text, which are the same text with different “apparatus.” The majority of modern translations of the Bible are based on the Critical Text.
• Majority Text - this term refers to texts that are created from the process of collating and comparing the extant Greek manuscripts to find which readings are in the majority in available manuscripts. The primary Majority Texts are those by Hodges-Farstad, Robinson-Pierpont, and Wilbur Pickering. There are no major or common Bible translations based on the Majority Text.
• Traditional Text - this term refers to a line of texts more commonly referred to as the Textus Receptus, descending originally from the work of Desiderius Erasmus, and including printed texts by Stephanus, Beza, and the Elzevirs. The Traditional Text in most common use today is the Scrivener Text printed by the Trinitarian Bible Society. The traditional text is also called the Confessional Text. The text is “traditional” in being commonly and widely used since the 1500s by so-called “Protestant” churches, and in distinction of the Roman Church and its Latin text. Reformation-era translations were based on the Traditional Text, and it is the preferred underlying New Testament text for translations made by the Trinitarian Bible Society.

I do not intend to go into great detail. Hopefully the above statements are simple and fair representations of each type, category, or group of  texts. I do not doubt that my own preference affects how I try to define them. The above is primarily an introduction to the two points below.

The Majority Text and Traditional Text are closer textually. The Traditional Text has minority readings in a few places, but contains mostly majority readings, making it very close to any reconstructed text based on majority readings. The Critical Text has many more minority readings than either of these two, as well as many patchwork readings that are not found in any manuscript.

The Majority Text and Critical Text are closer philosophically. They are both achieved by ongoing reconstruction and then because of their method are never finally settled. New discoveries can change their form and content. Though there are some variant Traditional Texts (TRs), those who use the Traditional Text are settled and the only changes likely are in the form of minor editing (which could be correction of typographical errors or simple formatting).

Acts 8:37 again

And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

On Re-Baptism (Anonymous) 3rd century?

Just as the Ethiopian eunuch, when he was returning from Jerusalem and reading the prophet Isaiah, and was in doubt, having at the Spirit's suggestion heard the truth from Philip the deacon, believed and was baptized...

On Baptism, Chapter 18 (Tertullian)

The Scripture which he was reading falls in opportunely with his faith: Philip, being requested, is taken to sit beside him; the Lord is pointed out; faith lingers not; water needs no waiting for; the work is completed, and the apostle snatched away. 

Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews (Ad Quirinium), Cyprian, Book 3, Treatise 12, chapter 43 (written in the 250’s, in Latin)

In the Acts of the Apostles: “Lo, here is water; what is there which hinders me from being baptized? Then said Philip, If you believe with all your heart, you may.”

A Greek scholium attributed to Irenaeus

Philip...easily persuaded him to believe on Him, that He was Christ Jesus...

[This can be found in Catenae Graecorum Patrum, Volume 3, edited by John Anthony Cramer, on page 144.]

Avoiding pejorative labeling

(...like I avoid eating ice cream on a regular basis.)

I sincerely wish to avoid pejorative labeling, but I simply cannot avoid the parallels. There is massive overlap between the arguments made by those who claim Textual Confidence (those who use NA/UBS and modern translations) and the arguments made by those who are Textual Skeptics (those who hold a postmodern skepticism toward the text of Scripture).

• Both groups hold that we do not know the original words of the biblical writers.
• Both groups use the same key words to describe the transmission of the New Testament text: initial text, the evidence, science, academic standards, copyist errors, shortest is best, oldest is best, etc.
• Both groups agree that inspiration does not demand perfect preservation, and insist that we do not now have a text of exactly what the authors of the New Testament wrote.
• Both groups insist that preservation of biblical text is natural rather than supernatural, and what we do now have are chance survivals from the past.
• Both groups surmise that having only one Bible is mala doctrina.
• Both groups minimize the differences between the various transmitted Greek manuscripts.
• Both groups call the Textus Receptus corrupt.
• Both groups functionally resort to anything that is not the TR.
• Both groups do not put which Greek text in their church (and other institutional) statements and fail to specify on which they rely.
• Both groups assert intellectualism and credentialism to prop and promote their views.
• Both groups dismiss and ignore my arguments. Everyone should have to answer to me.

Note: (to make a point) a parody of comments made by Mark Ward HERE.

Hills on Burgon

Below we can notice how Edward Freer Hills agrees and differs with John William Burgon regarding the Textus Receptus.

It was Burgon’s high Anglicanism which led him to place so much emphasis on the New Testament quotations of the Church Fathers, most of whom had been bishops. To him these quotations were vital because they proved that the Traditional New Testament Text found in the vast majority of the Greek manuscripts had been authorized from the very beginning by the bishops of the early Church, or at least by the majority of these bishops. This high Anglican principle, however, failed Burgon when he came to deal with the printed Greek New Testament text...

If we believe in the providential preservation of the New Testament text, then we must defend the Textus Receptus as well as the Traditional Text found in the majority of the Greek manuscripts. For the Textus Receptus is the only form in which this Traditional Text has circulated in print. To decline to defend the Textus Receptus is to give the impression that God’s providential preservation of the New Testament text ceased with the invention of printing. It is to suppose that God, having preserved a pure New Testament text all during the manuscript period, unaccountably left this pure text hiding in the manuscripts and allowed an inferior text to issue from the printing press and circulate among His people for more than 450 years. Much, then, as we admire Burgon for his general orthodoxy and for his is defense of the Traditional New Testament Text, we cannot follow him in his high Anglican emphasis or in his disregard for the Textus Receptus.

From The King James Version Defended, page 192 (the 1984 edition by The Christian Research Press)

Epp and Fee on the Textus Receptus

Eldon Epp and Gordon Fee use “military imagery” to describe the assault leveled against the Greek Textus Receptus over a course of about 100 hundred years, from Griesbach to Westcott & Hort (Epp, Eldon Jay; Fee, Gordon D. Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism. Studies and Documents, Vol. 45. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1993).

“…J. J. Griesbach’s Greek NT of 1775-77, which – along with its subsequent editions and his influential canons of criticism – constituted the first daring though measured departure at numerous points from the TR. Thus, it was with Griesbach that a decisive break with the TR had arrived in theory – but only in theory…” page 20

“The decisive departure from the TR in actual accomplishment and practice arrived with the next fifty-year landmark, now 150 years ago: Karl Lachmann’s Greek NT of 1831.” page 21

“…one of the leading ‘generals,’ soon on the scene, was Constantin Tischendorf, whose eight editions of the Greek NT between 1841 and 1872 and whose nearly two dozen volumes publishing new MSS were major factors in the occupation of the newly won territory.” page 21

“Tregelles’s aim was ‘to form a text on the authority of the ancient copies without allowing the ‘received text’ any prescriptive rights.’” page 22

“…V-Day – fifty years later at our next landmark – belonged to the undisputed ‘general of the army,’ F. J. A. Hort, and his ‘first officer,’ B. F. Westcott. The Westcott-Hort text (WH) of 1881 – just about one hundred years ago – resulted from a skillful plan of attack and a sophisticated strategy for undermining the validity of the TR.” page 22

“The vast majority of the errors in the NT MSS occurred during the period that is also the most difficult to reconstruct – the first four Christian centuries.” page 9

And from F. J. A. Hort, against the TR: 

“I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of texts, having read so little Greek Testament, and dragged on with the villainous Textus Receptus…Think of that vile Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late MSS.; it is a blessing there are such early ones.” (“To the Rev. John Ellerton, December 29-30, 1851,” Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, Arthur Fenton Hort, editor. London: MacMillan and Co., Ltd, 1896, p. 211)

“Our object is to supply clergymen generally, schools, etc., with a portable Gk. Test., which shall not be disfigured with Byzantine corruptions.” (“To the Rev. John Ellerton, April 19th, 1853,” Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, Arthur Fenton Hort, editor. London: MacMillan and Co., Ltd, 1896, p. 250)

The Tyranny of the Experts

Trust but verify.

(Somewhat related to yesterday’s “Genesis 5, Genesis 11: Primeval Chronology.”) In a recent online discussion, an internet acquaintance argued against the reading of Cainan in Luke 3:36. He emphasized Bodmer papyrus P75 as the best support for his position, writing:

“P75 of the Bodmer Papyri collection is the earliest copy of the Book of Luke, dating from 175AD to 225AD. It has virtually the entire book of Luke and is the oldest copy of the book of Luke on record. It does NOT have Cainan as mentioned in the KJV of Luke 3:36.”

In doing so, the writer fell prey to the tyranny of the experts. He trusted, but did not verify. Since I was aware that the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts has scans of Greek manuscripts online, I decided to look for P75. I found it there.

A bit of history.

𝔓⁷⁵ (according to the Gregory-Aland numbering)[i] was discovered in the 1950s and was published in 1961 by Victor Martin and Rodolphe Kasser.[ii] Martin and Kasser thought they identified a fragment that contained a few letters of Luke 3:36. They “reconstructed” Luke 3:35-36, conjecturing this would have had “σαλα του αρφαξαδ” (Sala [the son] of Arphaxad) – without the intervening “του καιναν” ([the son] of Cainan).[iii]

The claim of Martin and Kasser made its way into the critical apparatus of the Nestle-Aland Greek Text. Probably from that foundation – which many scholars, researchers, translators, and commentators have and use (Martin and Kasser, not so much) – “Cainan is not in P75” has evolved into a veritable “Christian urban myth.”

“Proving” and promoting an error.

This P75 factoid led Edward D. Andrews, chief translator of the Updated American Standard Version (2022), to bracket the words [the son of Cainan,] in Luke 3:36. This footnote excerpt explains the reasoning.

P⁷⁵ and D do not contain “son of Cainan,” in agreement with Gen. 10:24; Gen. 11:12, 15; 1Ch 1:18. Some manuscripts contain a second “Cainan,” between Arphaxad and Shelah. (Lu 3:35-36; compare Gen 10:24; 11:12; 1Ch 1:18, 24.) Most scholars take this to be a copyist’s error. “Cainan” is not found in this same position in the Hebrew Scriptures, the Samaritan texts, nor the Targums, but it is found in the Greek Septuagint (Alexandrine Manuscript of the fifth century C.E.)...P⁷⁵ is the absolute best Greek NT manuscript, the weightiest of them all. It is for this reason that the Updated American Standard Version has placed [the son of Cainan] in square brackets, which indicates that there is some doubt as to its originality.

The New English Translation (2017) Bible contains this note:

“Luke 3:36 tc It is possible that the name Καϊνάμ (Kainam) should be omitted, since two key mss, P^75vid and D, lack it. But the omission may be a motivated reading: This name is not found in the editions of the Hebrew OT, though it is in the LXX, at Gen 11:12 and 10:24. But the witnesses with this reading (or a variation of it) are substantial: א B L ƒ1 33 (Καϊνάμ), A Θ Ψ 0102 ƒ13 M (Καϊνάν, Kainan). The translation above has adopted the more common spelling ‘Cainan,’ although it is based on the reading Καϊνάμ.” [That is, the NA has Καϊνάμ. The TR has Καϊνὰν. rlv]

In his commentary on the Gospel of Luke (1994), Darrell L. Bock writes,

Καϊνάμ (Cainan)—This name lacks a Hebrew equivalent in the MT. It is, however, present as Καϊνάν in the LXX of Gen. 11:12 and 10:24 and in manuscript A of 1 Chron. 1:18. Most take this as evidence that Luke is using the LXX (Marshall 1978: 165; Schürmann 1969: 201 n. 101). More difficult is the order of names in the LXX, for there Cainan appears as the father of Sala, not his son, as here (Plummer 1896: 104). Plummer regards the name in the LXX text as possibly a late insertion, since it is not attested independently until Augustine. However, he is clear that the LXX addition cannot find its source in Luke, since the order differs. The possibility that Luke had access to a different source containing this name in a different order cannot be excluded. There is good possibility that the name should be omitted in Luke, since 𝔓⁷⁵ and D omit the name here and it reappears in 3:37. If it is omitted, then the eleven groups of seven noted in the translation include Joseph. Again, there is too little evidence to make a clear decision.[iv]

I have read a number of scholars claim Cainan in Luke 3:36 inauthentic based on, primarily, P75. General descriptions of P75 often state concerning Luke that it contains most of the Gospel of Luke 3:18–24:53. However, when I looked at the scan of P75 at Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts site, the actual picture makes the story clearer. In its present state, it provides no witness on verse 36. Even the description of the text at CSNTM is – “Text: Luke 3.18, Luke 3.19, Luke 3.20, Luke 3.21, Luke 3.22, Luke 4.4.”

Two links to P75.

Take a look for yourself:

• Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts
• DVL, Digital Vatican Library

Making sense of it.

The note about P75 placed in Nestle-Aland apparatus really should not even be there, in my opinion. Nevertheless, it should give pause. P^75vid (i.e., videtur) in this context means “it seems to be but is uncertain.” Good reason not to propose this “variant” as certain proof! Some academics, if they took the time to look at P75, must not have wanted to question “the experts.” Maybe they were like me. (And realize, P75 was not readily available for inspection until recent years.) Initially I thought I must be wrong about something. The more I looked, however, I thought “no” mine eyes deceive me not. I felt better when I found that others more knowledgeable than I had concluded the same. Recently Kris Udd, Associate Professor of Biblical Languages and Archaeology of Grace University, has provided a new look at this fragment in “Luke 3:36 in P75 -A Misidentified Fragment?” His conclusion, better attested than that of Martin and Kasser, is that P75 does not preserve any portion of Luke 3:36. Therefore, it cannot be used to prove either the absence or presence of “Cainan” in that verse. Moreover, he shows that more likely the fragment in question comes from the first chapter of Luke instead of the third.

Interestingly, every single English Bible translation at Bible Gateway (about 60) has Cainan in Luke 3:36 (most with the traditional spelling, but a few otherwise, such as Ca-i′nan, Kainan, Keinan). See Luke 3:36 on Bible Gateway. The fact of the matter is that most Bible translations keep “Cainan” in Luke 3:36 because it is in the vast majority of Greek manuscripts. Truth be told, once P75 is removed from equation, contra Cainan, only D (GA 05, Codex Bezae) remains of those I have seen mentioned.

Codex Bezae, in Greek and Latin, does not have “Cainan”

Images,: P75 and Bezae: Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts.
Used in accordance with federal fair use doctrine.

In whatsoever manner the “problem” of Cainan in Luke 3:36 is to be resolved, the resolution is not to try to harmonize that verse with Genesis 10:24, Genesis 11:12, 15, and 1 Chronicles 1:18 by removing the name from Luke 3. It belongs there.

Trust but verify.

---

[i] Other names used for identifying this manuscript are Papyrus Bodmer XIV–XV and Hanna Papyrus 1. Currently this manuscript is in the Vatican Library in Vatican City, Rome, Italy.
[ii] Victor Martin and Rodolphe Kasser, Papyrus Bodmer XIV. Évangile de Luc, chap. 3-24, Cologny-Genève: Bibliotheca Bodmeriana, 1961. See, for example “The Bodmer Papyri: An Inventory of ‘P.Bodmer’ Items ,” by Brent Nongbri.
[iii] Martin dated P75 to the early third century, and possibly most often we will see the claim of AD 175 to AD 250. In “Reconsidering the Place of Papyrus Bodmer XIV-XV (𝔓75) in the Textual Criticism of the New Testament” (Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 135, Issue 2, June 2016, pp. 405–437), Brent Nongbri has argued that both “paleographically and codicologically” P75 fits in the fourth-century.
[iv] Darrell L. Bock, Luke: 1:1–9:50, Volume 1, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1994, pp. 358–359.

Heels and Horns and Horses

In October of 2020, James White and Jeff Riddle engaged in a Textus Receptus vs. Critical Text Debate – especially in reference to Mark 16:9-20 and Ephesians 3:9. In the debate White made an admission that keeps coming back to haunt him. Here is a question from Riddle and the answer by White.

Jeff Riddle: “Based on your method, if there were a discovery of ancient documents that most scholars agreed that this makes this the earliest reading, you would be willing to change your position on any text in the New Testament, based on evidence that might be uncovered? Is that correct?”

James White: “Yes!” (listen approximately 1:06:30 to 1:06:52)

When Peter Van Kleeck debated White on September 24, 2022, Van Kleeck pursued this line of questioning. White avoided the implications of the “Yes” answer he gave to Jeff Riddle. He simply refused to answer Peter Van Kleeck. He claimed “facts not in evidence,” asserted “asked and answered,” and otherwise danced around hoping no one would notice his unwillingness and inability to answer. Even in the debate with Riddle, after emphatically answering “Yes,” White later back-pedaled to try to avoid the implications of his answer. 

A short video created by Jeff Riddle – “James White and the Achilles’ Heel of Modern Textual Criticism” – highlights White’s willingness to use the “hypothetical” or “theoretical” implications of new manuscript discoveries when trying to use that argument against Riddle. However, he wants to avoid the implications of new manuscript discoveries when impaled on the horns of his own dilemma – both against Riddle and Van Kleeck. The problem for White is this. The “hypothetical” (or actual) discoveries do not touch the theological position of a settled text. Nevertheless, they (discoveries, whether hypothetical or actual) really throw a monkey wrench in White’s evidentiary position. “Yes,” White said to Riddle, “I would be willing to change my position on any text in the New Testament.” He is hoised with his own petard, whether he realizes it or not. (I think he realizes it, but tries to avoid it with sufficient obfuscating rhetoric.)

A theological bibliology based on what the Bible says about itself is not tossed to and fro by every wind of new discoveries. The evidential bibliology based on manuscript discoveries is necessarily so.

Unfortunately, the “Achilles’ Heel” of modern textual criticism has become the “Trojan Horse” of modern evangelical Christianity. May God expose it for what it is.

“the KJV has 1,000 different words...”

Several days ago, a member on the King James Bible/Textus Receptus Defenders Facebook group posted a link and wrote:

“I’m looking for sincere and respectful discussion if possible. King James only folks, how would you respond to this information?”

His sincerity is questionable, since he only seemed to engage with those with whom he could start an argument, or wanted to start an argument with him. Those who were “sincere and respectful” did not rate replies, apparently. After too much pushback, he took the post down. I am saving my reply by posting it here.

The statements to which he sought discussion is this below, which originated HERE.

“What do you do with the fact that the KJV has 1,000 different words that do not mean today what they meant in 1611, even having the opposite meaning? Our understanding of Hebrew and Greek has astronomically improved since 1611. There have been thousands of manuscripts discovered since 1611, and we now have 5,898 Greek NT manuscripts and numerous ones dating within decades of the originals. And the 1611 KJV translators said in the 1611 PREFACE that a new revision should be made upon such circumstances. So, why reject efforts to do so with the 1881 English Revised Version (ERV), the 1901 American Standard Version (ASV), the 1952 Revised Standard Version (RSV), the 1995 New American Standard Bible (NASB), the 2001 English Standard Version (ESV), and the forthcoming Updated American Standard Version (UASV)? Are not these revisions simply following the instructions of the 1611 KJV translators?”

1. “What do you do with the fact that the KJV has 1,000 different words that do not mean today what they meant in 1611, even having the opposite meaning?”

A. First, I would ask from whence this number comes? It sounds excessive and doubtful. I have an Excel file of “hard/difficult” words in the KJV (so-called archaic, obsolete, and “false friends”) compiled from the works of Mark Ward and others. I have only 123 words in that file – far off from 1000! Another inaccuracy is saying that the words “do not mean what they meant in 1611.” This is a loose way of stating something that often does not agree with the facts. For example, take the word “suffer.” Many people would say it has “changed meaning.” However, it is not hard to search for the word “suffer” in the KJV and find there it can mean either “allow” and “to endure pain.” Look it up on Dictionary.com and definition 7 is “to tolerate or allow” (the same meaning some claim no longer exists!). Possibly what people mean is that we seldom use it that way anymore. That is not the same as it no longer carrying that meaning in its semantic range.

Another is the word “let.” The meaning of “let” has not evolved from “to hinder” into “to allow” over the course of 400 years since the KJV was produced. Search the King James Bible and we will find that “let” has the meaning of “to allow” which was in use in 1611 (even in the same chapter, cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:3, e.g.). The varying or opposite meanings of the word “let” is not a case of a word altering its meaning over time. The etymology of these words show that the “let” that means “to allow” and the “let” that means “to hinder” are homonyms – two different English words that are spelled the same but mean something different. The words each have a different origin or entrance into the English language.

2. “Our understanding of Hebrew and Greek has astronomically improved since 1611.”

A. To this assertion, I would ask, “Has it really improved?” Perhaps in some ways, yes, but even if so astronomical is a ridiculous adjective to use. However, even if it has improved in some ways (there are always new discoveries) it clearly has not in others.

Let me quote Bart Ehrman, a recognized top-notch text critic (and specifically referenced since he is obviously not KJV-even, much less KJVO). Speaking of the KJ translators, he says, “...the best answer is that there were forty-seven translators, who were all skilled, highly skilled, in Greek and Hebrew. Today when somebody is highly skilled in Greek, like Jeff Siker and me, we’re considered highly skilled – that means we can kind of slosh our way through a Greek text if we have a good dictionary sitting next to us. These guys, including King James, could speak Greek and did speak Greek to each other when they felt like it. They could read Hebrew like the newspaper. These were serious serious scholars. They didn’t have TV – no ESPN. So what did they do? They sat around and studied Greek. This is what they did. And Latin, and Hebrew...” (From Ehrman’s keynote address at the “Manifold Greatness: The Creation and Afterlife of the King James Bible” exhibition at the William H. Hannon Library at Loyola Marymount University in 2013.)

Daniel R. Streett passed out a Greek quiz at the Evangelical Theological Society in November 2008. He summarized the experience this way, “...my audience was made up of mostly Greek professors and doctoral-level students who had probably taken, on average, 4-7 years of Greek by now and some of whom had been teaching Greek for 20-30 years by now. After the audience had finished, I collected their quizzes. The average ‘grade’ was 0.4 out of 10 correct.” That doesn’t sound astronomical, or even good, to me.

For more information on these, see “Do they know Greek?”

3. “There have been thousands of manuscripts discovered since 1611, and we now have 5,898 Greek NT manuscripts and numerous ones dating within decades of the originals.”

A. I understand that many manuscripts have been discovered. I assume “thousands” would be an accurate representation (although, something recently “discovered” may have been known to those in prior times, and the exact total number we have today is a matter of continuing debate). It is worth mentioning that thousands of manuscripts have been lost from the 1st century until now. So those were accessible to others but not to us.

Interestingly, the primary Greek text promoted today often ignores the thousands (majority) and go with the minority (especially Sinaiticus & Vaticanus). The “embarrassment of riches” of thousands of manuscripts are embarrassingly disregarded in favor of two older manuscripts that have many disagreements just between themselves. An interesting way to look at this is to notice that the majority texts of Hodges-Farstad, Robinson-Pierpoint, and Pickering exhibit much closer agreement with the Textus Receptus than with the Critical Text. Why? Because the “embarrassment of riches” of thousands of manuscripts usually, though not always, favor the readings in the TR. The “thousands of manuscripts discovered since 1611” usually support the TR rather than the CT. Further, the KJV translators and others even before their time knew about the variants most commonly cited today.

4. “And the 1611 KJV translators said in the 1611 PREFACE that a new revision should be made upon such circumstances. So, why reject efforts to do so with the 1881 English Revised Version (ERV), the 1901 American Standard Version (ASV), the 1952 Revised Standard Version (RSV), the 1995 New American Standard Bible (NASB), the 2001 English Standard Version (ESV), and the forthcoming Updated American Standard Version (UASV)? Are not these revisions simply following the instructions of the 1611 KJV translators?”

A. To what statement in the 1611 does this refer? It is hard to address unidentified assertions, that is, whether I think they are following the instructions of the translators without inspecting the statement. Even if they were, which is doubtful, the specific efforts mentioned (ERV, ASV, RSV, NASB, UASV) are based on different Greek texts.

Too often “The Translators To The Reader” by Miles Smith (the 1611 Preface) is bone-picked by both sides to see what meat they can find for their arguments, with really trying to understand it in context. Some people think the King James translation is a poor translation and try to convince others so. Some of these same people, when they write about the preface in the King James, then act as if everything in it must be taken as if it were inspired! It would be comical if not such as serious issue.

[Note: this version has been slightly modified, with typographical and grammatical corrections, and formatting not available in the Facebook group.]

B. Keach on the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures

“IX. To these astonishing miracles we may fitly add, the preservation of these holy writings for so many ages, being itself little less than miraculous, and such as is a great argument, that they belong to God, as the Author and Parent of them: it being reasonable to derive that from God, as a book of his own dictates, about which he has exercised a peculiar care. Were not the Bible what it pretends to be, there had been nothing more suitable to the nature of God, and more becoming divine Providence, than long since to have blotted it out of the world: for why should he suffer a book to continue from the beginning of times, falsely pretending his name and authority?” p. xv

“…though the Romans were so careful for the preservation of the books of the Sybils, that they locked them up in places of greatest safety, and appointed special officers to look after them; yet many ages since they are gone and perished, and only some few fragments do now remain. Whereas, on the contrary, the Bible, notwithstanding part of it was the first book in the world, (as we proved in the second argument) and though the craft of Satan, and the rage of mankind, have from time to time combined utterly to suppress it; yet it has borne up its head, and remains not only extant, but whole and entire, without the least mutilation or corruption.” p. xv

“Since therefore the Bible has thus wonderfully surmounted all difficulties and oppositions, for so many generations, and in so many dangers, and against so many endeavours to root it out of the world, we may, (according to that maxim in philosophy, Eadem est causa procreans et conservans; the procreating and conserving cause of things, is one and the same) conclude, that the same God is the Author of it, who hath thus by his special providence preserved it, and faithfully promised, and cannot lie, that heaven and earth shall pass away, but one iota or tittle of his word shall not pass away.” p. xvi

“The penman of the Scriptures, good, pious, honest, holy men, delivered it out as the Word of the Lord, and ever since there have been thousands, and hundreds of thousands, that have believed and testified the same down from age to age in a continual uninterrupted succession…” p. xvi

“XVI. The divine composition of this blessed book is not a little manifested by the continual rage of the devil against it, which appears not only in the stirring up of his instruments utterly to suppress it, (for what book in the world ever met with such opposition? as aforesaid), but also in those temptations with which he assaults the hearts of men, when they apply themselves to the serious study of it.” p xx

“We shall therefore conclude this brief discourse on this subject, with those excellent words of a learned man upon the same occasion:—“Let this remain and be received as an established truth, that those whom the Spirit hath inwardly taught, do solidly acquiesce in the Scripture; and that the same is (αυτοπισον) self-credible, or for its own sake worthy of belief, and that it obtains that certainty which it justly deserves with us, by the testimony of the Spirit....Calv. Instit. lib. 2.” p. xxiv

Quotations from 17th century English Baptist Benjamin Keach (1640-1704), in his book Tropologia; a Key to Open Scripture Metaphors...to Which are Prefixed, Arguments to prove the Divine Authority of the Holy Bible (from the section entitled “The Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures”).