Richard Simon, text critic from the past

Philip Schaff identifies Catholic priest Richard Simon as the first theologian to “confine inerrancy to these non-existing original autographs,” which idea A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield would later popularize among American conservatives. Simon often is dubbed the “father of Biblical criticism.”

In the footnote, second paragraph, p. 393, Schaff writes:

“The distinction between ‘inerrant autographs’ and errant copies seems to have been first made by Richard Simon (1638-1712), the father of biblical isagogic, to prove the necessity of textual criticism and to silence the attacks of Protestant and Roman Catholic champions for the inerrancy of the existing text of the Bible.[i] He also intended to show ‘que les protestants n’avait aucun principe assurè de leur religion, en rejetant la tradition de L’Eglise’ (Preface to his L’histoire critique du V.T.)” This French sentence translates roughly “that Protestants had no assured principle of their religion, in rejecting the tradition of the [Roman Catholic] Church.”[ii]

Simon rejected the principle of sola scriptura, and rejected the authority of the apographa.

“Fourthly, The great alterations which have happened, as we have shewn in the first Book of this Work, to the Copies of the Bible since the first Originals have been lost, utterly destroy the Protestants and Socinians Principle, who consult onely these same Copies of the Bible as we at present have them.”[iii]

“When we have not the Originals, upon which one may ground the truth of the Copies which are taken from them, we have still reason to doubt.”[iv]

Some Catholics thought Simon did not sufficiently support the authority of the Church Fathers. Protestant theologians opposed the work of Simon, especially since he attacked Sola Scriptura. He held other views in common with modern liberals, such as teaching that Moses did not write much of the work in the Pentateuch commonly attributed to him. Like Simon before them, many modern-day Protestants and Evangelicals are adrift on a textual sea whose wind bloweth them where it listeth.

---

[i] biblical isagogic – introductory study; study of the literary and external history of the Bible prior to exegesis; that is, prior to trying to interpret the Bible itself. Schaff uses (Biblical) Isagogic as a noun meaning the historico-critical Introduction to the Bible – “a literary history of the Bible from its origin to the present time. Theological Propædeutic; a General Introduction to the Study of Theology, Exegetical, Historical, Systematic, and Practical, including Encyclopædia, Methodology, and Bibliography; a Manual for Students, Second Edition, Philip Schaff and Samuel Macauley Jackson, New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1894, p. 149.
[ii] Ibid., Schaff and Jackson, p. 393.
[iii] A Critical History of the Old Testament, Richard Simon (1638-1712), London: Walter Davis, 1682 (Preface).
[iv] Ibid., Simon, Book II, Chapter IV, p. 32.

Pericope Adulterae Again

Defending the woman taken in adultery.

Nearly five years ago, I addressed the “Pericope Adulterae in early church writings.” In doing so, I somehow greatly misread that Bruce Metzger claimed that the Pericope Adulterae was not referenced by any church father prior to the 12th century, when he clearly wrote about Greek church fathers. (Not sure how the brain works sometimes!)

“No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth century) comments on the passage...”[i]

In continuing to research about this passage, I have discovered more about this. It was available then, but somehow I did not find it. Metzger was wrong about the “Greek church fathers.” I also found a passage in John Burgon’s The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels that addresses the importance of this claim of Metzger and others before him. First, Burgon.

“For now, for the first time, it becomes abundantly plain why Chrysostom and Cyril, in publicly commenting on St. John’s Gospel, pass straight from ch. vii. 52 to ch. viii. 12. Of course they do. Why should they,—how could they,—comment on what was not publicly read before the congregation? The same thing is related (in a well-known ‘scholium’) to have been done by Apolinarius and Theodore of Mopsuestia. Origen also, for aught I care,—though the adverse critics have no right to claim him, seeing that his commentary on all that part of St. John’s Gospel is lost; but Origen’s name, as I was saying, for aught I care, may be added to those who did the same thing. A triumphant refutation of the proposed inference from the silence of these many Fathers is furnished by the single fact that Theophylact must also be added to their number. Theophylact, I say, ignores the pericope de adultera—passes it by, I mean,—exactly as do Chrysostom and Cyril. But will any one pretend that Theophylact,—writing in A.D. 1077,—did not know of St. John vii. 53–viii. 11? Why, in nineteen out of every twenty copies within his reach, the whole of those twelve verses must have been to be found.

“The proposed inference from the silence of certain of the Fathers is therefore invalid. The argument e silentio—always an insecure argument,—proves inapplicable in this particular case. When the antecedent facts have been once explained, all the subsequent phenomena become intelligible.”

Burgon shows that this argument of Metzger and others who say that Tertullian, Origen, Chrystostom, etc. “knew nothing of it...is to misrepresent the entire case…”[ii] Burgon continues to explain the weightiness of the voices of “Patristic authority.” Their words are important, “their approval, if they approve, so weighty; their condemnation, if they condemn, so fatal. But then, in the present instance, they do not condemn. They neither approve nor condemn. They simply say nothing. They are silent: and in what precedes, I have explained the reason why.”[iii] Clearly, these critics are making an argument from silence, and not a good one at that. For more detail from Burgon, see “Appendix I (Pericope de Adultera)” in The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, pp. 232-265.

What was not available to Burgon when he wrote, but was available to Metzger when he wrote, is the testimony of Didymus the Blind of Alexandria – a Greek Church Father. So, Metzger was factually incorrect on this point, even though he should have had access to know the fact. The writings of Didymus of Alexandria (born circa AD 310 died circa AD 398) were among papyri discovered near Tura, Egypt in 1941, including part of his commentary on Ecclesiastes.[iv]

Disclaimer: I have not been able to find access to this commentary on Ecclesiastes itself anywhere online.[v] However, the information related below generally seems to be agreed upon by all sides, and therefore unquestionable to those of either opinion for or against the Pericope Adulterae. The following translation of the relevant parts are found in “Jerome, Paula, and the Story of the Adulteress: Why Did Jerome Overrule His Old Greek Copies,” by Peter E. Lorenz.

We find, therefore, in certain gospels [the following story], A woman, it says, was condemned by the Jews for a sin and was being sent to be stoned in the place where that was customary to happen. The Savior, it says, when he saw her and observed that they were ready to stone her, said to those who were about to cast stones, “He who has not sinned, let him take a stone and cast it.” If anyone is conscious in himself not to have sinned, let him take up a stone and smite her. And no one dared. Since they knew in themselves and perceived that they themselves were guilty in some things, they did not dare to strike her.[vi]

Didymus refers to the Pericope Adulterae when commenting on Ecclesiastes 7:21-22:

Also take no heed unto all words that are spoken; lest thou hear thy servant curse thee: for oftentimes also thine own heart knoweth that thou thyself likewise hast cursed others.

Here a master is encouraged to “take no heed” to everything he hears. He might hear his servant curse him. However, he is reminded of his own sins, that he (the master) has cursed others also. Like those in the story of the woman taken in adultery, whoever has not sinned may cast the first stone. The master must consider this example; no one dared stone the adulterous woman because, under the weight of Jesus’s words, they understood that they were not without guilt.

Didymus, a Greek Church Father, in the fourth century, in Alexandria, knew manuscripts that contained the Pericope Adulterae and referenced the story as authoritative biblical teaching. It was known earlier than has previously been posited some textual critics. It was known in Alexandria, from whence also comes the so-called Alexandrian text type, which omits these verses in John 7:53-8:11.

Some possible resources for further research on this subject include (also try searches for “Didymus of Alexandria Commentary on Ecclesiastes” etc.):

• Donaldson, Amy M. “Explicit References to New Testament Variant Readings among Greek and Latin Church Fathers” (PhD dissertation, University of Notre Dame, 2009)
• Ehrman, Bart D. “The New Testament Canon of Didymus the Blind,” Vigiliae Christianae, 37(1), 1983, 1-21.
• Robbins, Jeremy D. “Explicit References to Textual Variants in the Pastoral Epistles by Greek and Latin Church Fathers” (MA dissertation, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2021)
• The Tura Papyri

---

[i] A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd edition, Bruce M. Metzger. Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1994, p. 188.
[ii] The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels (Being the Sequel to the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels), John William Burgon, Edward Miller, Editor. London: George Bell and Sons, 1896
[iii] Ibid., pp. 257-258.
[iv] This discovery was made 30 years before Metzger’s first edition of A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament in 1971. “A cache of papyri discovered in 1941, in Tura, Egypt, contained primarily material eventually ascribed to Didymus. The papyri contain several ‘commentaries’ on Genesis, Job, Ecclesiastes, the Psalms,
and Zechariah, all of which the editors finally ascribed to Didymus…” Kellen Dale Plaxco, “Didymus the Blind, Origen, and the Trinity” (PhD dissertation, Marquette University, 2016).
[v] Die Kölner Tura-Papyri: Ekklesiastes-Kommentar has scans from these papyri, but does not appear to have the one relevant to this discussion.
[vi] Pp. 165-166. Citing Bart D. Ehrman, “Jesus and the Adulteress,” New Testament Studies 34 (1988): 24-44 at 25, translating Didymus of Alexandria, Commentary on Ecclesiastes 223.6b-13a.

This really puts me off

Biblicaltraining.org – “You now have a world-class education from premiere professors so you can learn and grow spiritually, for free.” I have been familiar with this site for quite some time, even creating an account there several years ago. There may be some good stuff there somewhere, but over the years, I have increasingly become suspect of Bill Mounce and crew. Those who get caught up with this site just might be running a fool’s errand, biblically speaking. You do not need this kind of free “world-class” education.

Last night, while searching for articles on “Which Textus Receptus” I got a Google hit on “Lecture 20: The Greek Text of the KJV (Part 2).”[i] (It has that phrase several times.) From there, I also looked at “Lecture 21: Textus Receptus and the Doctrine of Preservation.” In it, I found disrespect for and accusations against Edward F. Hills that really set me off![ii]

Some excerpts from “Lecture 21.” (I researched back to the originator, and the site says these lectures are “by Dr. Daniel Wallace.”)

...the doctrine of preservation, in as much as the TR people are using it, ends up being a Marcionite view (Marcionists believe that the Hebrew God was a separate and lower entity than the all-forgiving God of the New Testament…Marcion came to believe that the God of the Old Testament was an evil deity and wasn’t the same as the God of the New Testament.

A scholar by the name of Hill (sic) was the only scholar of the 20th century who was a textual critic that defended the Textus Receptus. He got his Ph.D. in Textual Criticism at Harvard University. He was dropped from the Ph.D. program at Chicago University but Harvard was unaware of this. In Harvard, he actually changed his views in terms of what he presented and what he believed. He did a fairly good dissertation on the Cesarean (sic) text and had some articles published in the Journal of Biblical Literature. Once he got his Ph.D., he then revealed that he was a Textus Receptus advocate. I thought that in the Textus Receptus, like in the King James Bible, thy (sic) shall not lie, but apparently that only applies in other contexts than at Harvard. There is nobody alive today that is a bonafide (sic) textual scholar who holds that the TR is the best text to follow. There are two or three majority text advocates but no TR advocates. Hill (sic) was really the last one and perhaps the only one.

If you can’t talk about the Old Testament that way, then by definition you are a Marcionite when it comes to the two testaments.

To argue for this doctrine [i.e., the doctrine of preservation of the scriptures, rlv] is bibliological schizophrenic marsionite (sic).

Inflammatory language.

Now some of this might seem like the same-old same-old debate and argumentation that we all do, and in some ways, it is. However, in Lecture 20, Dan Wallace claims that inflammatory language is inappropriate. He lectures us on leaving off the vitriol. If Wilbur Pickering says either “Alef” or B have lied, it is inflammatory and inaccurate, according to Wallace. Yet apparently this is only inappropriate when others do it. Wallace can sure spew it out in Lecture 21! Those whom he thinks approaches the Old and New Testament preservation issue differently than he believes that they should are Marcionite heretics! Calling someone a “bibliological schizophrenic marsionite (sic)” is not inflammatory, vitriolic, and inaccurate? My, my, Dan. Let him that is without sin cast the first stone. (Oh, I forgot, you don’t believe that is really in the Bible, do you?)

Calling someone a liar is inflammatory, too.

Lying.

Calling someone a liar is inflammatory and vitriolic, too, is it not? Maybe not…if he is a liar. Wallace implies that Edward F. Hills, after being booted from the University of Chicago PhD program, lied to get into Harvard.[iii] Then Hills deceived the Harvard crew about what he believed and sprung it on them after he got his PhD. All without any evidence. Just take it on credit, ’cause inflammatory Dan says so!

In addition, Wallace hints that Hills was a bit “less than” the modern boys since he only wrote “a fairly good dissertation” under Henry J. Cadbury and Kirsopp Lake at Harvard.[iv] Then he lets it all hang out. There are now no bona fide TR textual scholars living – and only two or three [bona fide?] majority text advocates! Only two or three – even though he already named three in Lecture 20![v] Fib much, McGee? (Maybe you just forgot? I hope so.)

I thought “do not give false testimony” was in the CT, as well as in the NET Bible, but apparently that only applies in contexts other than BiblicalTraining.org?

Pot, meet Kettle Dan.

A hymn to accompany the blog post.

Oh, Danny boy, the texts, the texts are calling
From Aleph to B, and the scholar’s pride.
The Bible’s gone, and all our doctrines falling,
It’s you, it’s you must go and it must bide...
The light is gone and the truth in shadow
Oh, Danny boy, your views, your views have got to go!

(Sing to the tune of Londonderry Air/Danny Boy)

---

* On 8 January 2024, I intended to look back at these transcriptions and found they are no longer available on the site. Apparently some links have changed as well (such as to Bill Mounce and Dan Wallace). Video lessons by Wallace on “Textual Criticism” can be found HERE (at least for now).

Somewhat related, Christopher Yetzer found some comments on the NKJV in Wallace’s lecture “Which Translation is Best” (starting about 18 minutes and 35 seconds in), “The New King James Version done in 1982 is a curiosity...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...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 have to use 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.”

---

[i] Wednesday, February 23, 2022.
[ii] For those in “The Academy” who rely on credentials, they should find Edward Freer Hills’s are quite impeccable. Of course, once his views do not agree with theirs, his credentials are invalidated. James Price, for example, writes that “his [Hills, rlv] subsequent adoption of an essentially King James Only position disqualified him from being a credible textual critic.” The real text critics are only the ones who agree with me. Cancel culture is alive and well in modern textual criticism (except they never cancel the heretics and unbelievers) (King James Onlyism: A New Sect, James D. Price, By the author, 2006, p. 265). Others are more charitable. “For men who accept the Bible as the Word of God, inerrant in the original manuscripts, it should be out of the question to engage in the textual criticism of the Scriptures in a ‘neutral’ fashion—as if the Bible were not what it claims to be…All along the line it is necessary to insist, as [Edward F.] Hills does, that ‘Christian, believing Bible study should and does differ from neutral, unbelieving Bible study.’ He is quite correct when he reminds us that ‘to ignore...the divine inspiration and providential preservation of the New Testament and to treat its text like the text of any other book is to be guilty of a fundamental error which is bound to lead to erroneous conclusions.’” (The New Testament Student and His Field, Vol. 5, John H. Skilton, Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1982, pp. 5-6)
[iii] In contrast to some of the inordinate mumbo jumbo floating around the internet, Bruce Metzger told Theodore Letis that he believed the University of Chicago wronged Hills, taking his money for two years, they deciding he was not liberal enough for them to give him a PhD! (Edward Freer Hill’s Contribution to the Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text, Theodore P. Letis, Philadelphia, PA: Institute for Renaissance and Reformation Biblical Studies, 1987, p. 106)
[iv] Hills’s ThD Dissertation was “The Caesarean Family of New Testament Manuscripts,” Harvard University, 1946.
[v] Zane Hodges, Wilbur Pickering, and Maurice Robinson.

Church Psalter, and other music and worship links

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

• A Glimpse of Buddy Holly -- “It wasn’t until decades later that I learned Holly was born and raised in Lubbock and that the world’s best Buddy Holly museum sits in the heart of the Hub City.”
• Christ Reformed Church Psalter -- “...we are seeking to sing these Psalms in the most helpful way for God’s saints. This project is intended for our congregation, but we hope that it will lead others as well to be singing Psalms and the Scripture privately and in public worship...”
• Fanny Crosby: The blind saint who could see -- “The great hymns from the past are rich songs full of deep meaning as well as doctrinal truth that transforms people’s lives.”
• Just As I Am ... The Life of Charlotte Elliott -- “The granddaughter of Henry Venn, a clergyman and friend of leading evangelical politicians like William Wilberforce, she grew up in Clapham, the village near London where her uncle ministered as vicar and where these politicians also lived.”
  
• “Like Pieces in a Puzzle”: Online Sacred Harp Singing During the COVID-19 Pandemic -- “Following the implementation of lockdown protocols to combat the COVID-19 pandemic, groups of Sacred Harp singers quickly and independently devised a variety of means by which to sing together online...”
• Michael Nesmith: Founding member of The Monkees -- “Nesmith, who has died aged 78, was a founder member of the band and a lyricist who penned several of their songs. He was instantly recognisable among the four for his good looks, trademark green beanie hat and quiet demeanour.”
• On The New Details of Country Legend Tom T. Hall’s Death -- “When country music Hall of Famer Tom T. Hall passed away on August 20th, 2021 at the age of 85, it was safe to assume his death was due to health or natural causes, as is commonly the case with someone at such an advanced age.”
• The Final Resting Places of 3 Classical Music Composers -- “The final resting places of three classical music composers – Beethoven, Bach, and Mozart – remind us of a musician’s ability to ‘let the last note linger.’”
• Top 25 Christian Songs Named For Bible Verses - Scripture Inspired Hymns -- “One of the most popular Christian hymns of all time has a title that includes words from the prophets.”
• We’ve No Less Days to Sing God’s Praise, But New Worship Songs Only Last a Few Years -- “Worship songs don’t last as long as they used to. The average lifespan of a widely sung worship song is about a third of what it was 30 years ago, according to a study that will be published in the magazine Worship Leader in January.”
• Why Sing the Psalms? -- “Do we have room in our songbooks for hundreds of uninspired songs, but none for the ones God has specifically given us to sing to Him?”
• 1 out of 3 New Guitars Are Purchased for Worship Music -- “No one knows the first person to bring a guitar into church, but it became common in charismatic congregations in Southern California in the 1970s.”

If settled right

“By the Bible all men, all creeds, all nations, and all problems must be settled, if settled right.”

Among the “Five Sources of Evidence” that the Bible is inspired, E. C. Gillentine lists first “The Indestructibility of the Bible.”

“The Bible is absolutely incapable of being destroyed. It cannot be shaken or changed—it is the ‘Rock of Ages.’ It is one Book, every word in it is essential. Jesus said, ‘Not one jot or tittle shall pass away until all shall be fulfilled,’ Matt. 5:18. ‘Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away,’ Mark 13:31. The Lord hath set His seal to it, ‘The Scriptures cannot be broken,’ John 10:35. The Scripture cannot be set aside, whatever it says is true. ‘And he said unto them, ‘These are the words which I spake unto you while I was with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and in the psalms concerning me,’ Luke 24:44. Whatever Moses, the prophets, and David wrote was true. It must be fulfilled. ‘The word of God which liveth and abideth for ever.’ I Peter 1:23.”

Ezra C. Gillentine, Baptist Doctrine: a Study Course, Texarkana, AR/TX: Bogard Press, 1949, pp. 10-11

The way of access

John Newton (well known as the author of “Amazing Grace”) wrote this hymn, which is found in Olney Hymns: In Three Books (Book III, Hymn 41, p. 320). He titled it “The way of access.” Through Jesus Christ, the one mediator between God and men (cf. 1 Timothy 2:5), we have access unto the Father (cf. Ephesians 2:18). A footnote on the third line of stanza 7 references 2 Corinthians 5:21, For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

The hymn is in common meter, and might be well matched to Detroit or Ortonville, but any solid common meter tune will work.

1. One glance of thine, eternal Lord,
Pierces all nature through;
Nor heav’n, nor earth, nor hell, afford
A shelter from thy view!

2. The mighty whole, each smaller part,
At once before thee lies;
And every thought, of every heart,
Is open to thine eyes.

3. Though greatly from myself concealed,
Thou see’st my inward frame;
To thee I always stand revealed,
Exactly as I am.

4. Since therefore I can hardly bear
What in myself I see;
How vile and black must I appear,
Most holy GOD, to thee.

5. But since my Savior stands between,
In garments dyed in blood;
’Tis he, instead of me, is seen,
When I approach to God.

6. Thus, though a sinner, I am safe;
He pleads before the throne,
His life and death, in my behalf,
And calls my sins his own.

7. What wondrous love, what mysteries,
In this appointment shine!
My breaches of the Law are his
And his obedience mine.

John Newton was a prolific writer with amazing output – not only many other hymns, but also theology, journals, letters, and sermons. His life story is intriguing.

77% Of Students, 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.

• 77% Of Students At One Baltimore High School Read At Elementary, Kindergarten Level -- “In reading, 628 Patterson High School students took the test. Out of those students, 484 of them, or 77%, tested at an elementary school reading level...Just 12 students tested at Patterson High School, were reading at grade level, which comes out to just 1.9%.”
• A Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Lockdowns on COVID-19 Mortality -- “An analysis of each of these three groups support the conclusion that lockdowns have had little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality.”
• Balthasar Hubmaier and His Eighteen Articles -- “Forbidding priests to marry and to mock them for their wantonness and misery is like freeing Barabbas and murdering Christ.”
• Can a Pedophile Be Redeemed? -- “The easiest way to see through the pedophile’s spin is to notice how he speaks about himself. An unrepentant pedophile keeps the narrative focused on himself.”
• Canadian Conservatives Call Out Trudeau’s ‘Fringe Minority’ Comments After Driver Runs Over COVID-19 Protestors -- “A freedom protester was mowed down by an SUV late last night. Suspect has been arrested. Trudeau vilified these peaceful protests, and now this happens. Shocking.”
• DeSantis Announces Florida Will Investigate GoFundMe After Company Shut Down Freedom Convoy -- “Also, West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey urged residents in his state to contact his office to let him know if they had ‘been victimized by a deceptive act or practice’ by GoFundMe.”
• Federal officials deny transgender inmate’s request for gender-affirming surgery -- “The inmate was housed in a men's prison from 1994 until last May, when Iglesias was transferred to the women’s prison in Fort Worth after she filed for preliminary injunctive relief in court.”
• Free thoughts on the spirit of free inquiry in religion -- “The most effectual means of producing a uniformity in religion, upon any other plan that that of rational conviction, would be to deprive the common people of the use of the Bible, in their mother tongue...”
• Hair Culture among Generational Apostolic Pentecostal Women -- “In both interviews, the mother took the responsibility of establishing the family’s belief and interpretation of scripture concerning hair.”
• GiveSendGo -- “Outside the obvious funding for mission trips, GSG also can be used to raise funds for medical expenses, business ventures, personal needs, churches, nonprofits, ministries or any ‘God Adventure’ on which you embark.” (A Christian alternative to GoFundMe)
• GoFundMe CEO Slammed for Being a ‘Coward’ in Backlash to Freedom Convoy Move -- “It’s likely Trudeau or someone else in the Canadian government asked Cadogan to seize and divert the GoFundMe cash. But that decision came too late.”
• I’ve lived in New York for over 50 years — here are 43 of the best places where you should actually eat -- “Although the city has more than its share of splurge-worthy fine dining, you don't need deep pockets to eat regally, as inexpensive, excellent restaurants can be found all over town.”
• PayPal Plunges, Forced to Close 4.5 Million Accounts -- “PayPal Holdings Inc. said it closed 4.5 million accounts and lowered its forecast for new customers after finding “bad actors” were taking advantage of its incentives and rewards programs.”
• Presuppositions in Approaching the Textual Debate -- “Sadly, many professing believers seem to find difficulty believing in the perfect providential works of God in practical application.”
• Professor Temporarily Removed From Campus After Defending Pedophilia -- “Professor Stephen Kershnar of State University of New York-Fredonia said in a video posted to Twitter that it wasn’t clear to him that adults having sex with children ‘is in fact wrong.’”
• Raising Honest Kids in a Post-Truth World -- “Kids can lie like an ugly old rug and not give it a second thought. It falls to us as parents to teach them to override the impulse to lie.”
• Royal Society: Don’t Censor Misinformation; It Makes Things Worse -- “For one thing, terms like ‘misinformation’ (and ‘fake news’) have become manipulative terms of art, to justify cracking down on unpopular (but not disproven or even disprovable) viewpoints.”
• The Preservation of Scripture: Historical Evidence from a Perfect Preservationist, TR/KJV Perspective -- “The video below presents a summary of the historical evidence from a perfect preservationist perspective, combining the Biblical view that God has preserved His words with historical evidence for the preservation of Scripture.”
• USA Swimming announces new policy for elite transgender athletes -- “A panel of three independent medical experts will be charged with reviewing applicants and implementing the policy.”
• What Is Pentecostalism? What Do Pentecostals Believe? -- “In brief, the modern Pentecostal movement began in the first decade of the twentieth century even though it had older roots.”

Whither have we come?

Whither have we come? Swift, safe, and sanitary “Supper,” but is it the Lord’s?

Luke 9:23-24 And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.

We Christians in the United States might well be called Christianity-lite, or diet Christianity. The comments on this post suggest we are not ready to deny ourselves and take up a cross, but rather prefer what is convenient and safe, and come to communion with at least a wee bit of irreverence.

The not-too-much Fellowship Cup ® sold by Lifeway (and many others, I expect) is advertised as “Prefilled” and “Ready to Serve,” with “Easy Access to Elements” that provides “‘One Pass’ Serving.” No refrigeration is needed! And it’s “guaranteed to be fresh” (if used by the date stamped on the box)![i] What more could the modern Christian ask for to knock out a quick communion and get home to watch the game or hurry to a favorite restaurant? Key take-aways I saw in the comments:

• convenient
• health and safety
• saves lots of time

In addition, one comment reveals a disdain for church communion itself, which might be an underlying part of the problem.

“I can ‘do this’ by remembering Him whenever I eat or drink. No officiant or rules to adhere to...”

Now, I am not opposed to sanitation and care, but have we gone a bit nuts? When I was a child the church passed one cup from which all the participants drank. There were no mass outbreaks of disease and death, though it is possible that someone got sick in the process. You can get sick at the game, in the restaurant, and at Wal-Mart, too. I notice many who have changed their church practices have not changed those other practices. In the latest issue of Voice of Faith, Glen Stuart censured the general Covid-era trend, “It cannot be justified to venture out into the world for six days and neglect the church on the Lord’s Day.”

’Twas for my sins my dearest Lord hung on the cursed tree, and groaned away a dying life for thee, my soul, for thee! He gave his back to the smiters, and his cheeks to them that plucked off the hair. They pierced his hands and his feet. Jesus bare our sins in his own body on the tree, in pain and agony and blood. Yet when we remember his death, we want it to be painless – prepackaged, safe, sanitary, and soon over with? Shame.

Call me old-fashioned (I know you already have), but there is something significant to be said for beginning the communion service reverently with the scriptural symbol of one body / one loaf and one cup. And perhaps, just perhaps, we also should take our time observing the Lord’s Supper rather than saving lots of time?

---

[i] However, TrueVine Chalice Prefilled Communion Cup is “easier and quieter to open.” It has an “elegant shape” as well.

In Remembrance of our Lord

 ...in some hymns.

1. ’Twas on that dark, that doleful night

When powers of earth and hell arose

Against the Son of God's delight

And friends betrayed him to his foes.

2. Before the mournful scene began,

He took the bread and blessed and brake.

What love through all his actions ran!

What wondrous words of grace he spake!

3. “This Is my body, broke for sin;

Receive and eat the living food”;

Then took the cup and blessed the wine:

“Tis the new covenant in my blood.”

4. “Do this,” he said, “till time shall end,

In memory of your dying Friend.

Meet at my table and record

The love of your departed Lord.”

5. Jesus, thy feast we celebrate;

We show thy death, we sing thy name,

Till thou return and we shall eat

The marriage supper of the Lamb. (Isaac Watts)

When I survey the wondrous cross

On which the Prince of glory died,

My richest gain I count but loss,

And pour contempt on all my pride.

See from His head, His hands, His feet,

Sorrow and love flow mingled down!

Did e’er such love and sorrow meet,

Or thorns compose so rich a crown? (Isaac Watts)

See the cross, the cross of Jesus,

Crimson with his own life’s blood;

Thus he died, lest we should perish,

Wondrous love! Thou Son of God. (Silas G. Odell)

Thou Man of grief, remember me,

Thou never canst thyself forget.

Thy last expiring agony,

Thy fainting pangs and bloody sweat. (Charles Wesley)

Alas, and did my Savior bleed

And did my Sovereign die?

Would He devote that sacred head

For such a worm as I?

Was it for sins that I had done

He groaned upon the tree?

Amazing pity, grace unknown

And love beyond degree. (Isaac Watts)

As on the Cross the Saviour hung 

And wept, and bled, and died, 

He poured salvation on a wretch 

That languished at his side. (Samuel Stennett)

Agonizing in the garden,

Lo! your Master prostrate lies;

On the bloody tree behold him,

Hear him cry before he dies;

“It is finished!”

Sinners will this not suffice? (Joseph Hart)

There he bled and died, an off’ring

For the world of sinners lost;

Oh, what pangs his visage marring!

Sinner, this thy soul has cost. (Daniel S. Warner)

He the true David, Israel’s King,

Blessed and loved of God,

To save us rebels dead in sin,

Paid his own dearest blood. (Isaac Watts)

I’m not ashamed to own my Lord

Or to defend his cause;

Maintain the honor of his word,

The glory of his cross. (Isaac Watts)

Must Jesus bear the cross alone,

And all the world go free?

No, there’s a cross for everyone,

And there’s a cross for me. (Thomas Shepherd)

Young and old earth creationism

Awhile back I read a proposal that young earth versus old earth creationim should be an issue over which we should separate (in the senses of both church membership and interchurch fellowship). I can agree, with caveats. Foremost in my mind is the question of what constitutes a young-earth view and an old-earth view of the creation. Obviously, evolution and theistic evolution are old old earth! However, by young earth do we mean one must hold creation very close in the vicinity of just over 6000 years ago? For example, below I notice two persons (one living and one dead) who propose a view of the earth created some 13,000 to 15,000 years ago. They seem to build the case on an interpretation of the Bible, without reference to scientific explanations of the age of the earth. Those calculations are over twice the age of standard young earth interpretation. On the other hand, this view is still a very young earth in comparison to the billions of years proposed by the theories of evolution and theistic evolution.

Baptist missionary to China T. P. Crawford wrote a curious book titled The Patriarchal Dynasties from Adam to Abraham, shown to cover 10,500 years, and the highest human life only 187 (Richmond, VA: Josiah Ryland & Co., 1877). In it he proposed the idea that the long years of time recorded of various antediluvians were the length of their patriarchal dynasties rather than the years of their physical life. Below from page 7, showing in 1876 he thought the age of the earth was 14,376 years old.

From Adam to the flood,                                             7,737 years.

" the flood to the birth of Abraham,                            2,763    "

            10,500

" the birth of Abraham to Christ,                                            2,000

            12,500  

" Christ to the present time,                                                    1,876

Making a sum total of                                                             14,376

I found this intriguing especially because I had run across such an idea probably 15 or 20 years ago on the Mountain Retreat website, an article by Tony Warren titled “The Biblical Timeline of Creation.” 

“The key to understanding the truth which is locked in the genealogies of scripture is in comprehending the differences in how God, rather than man, recorded the passing of time…they are meant to be understood as ‘Patriarchal References’ in God’s system of documenting time. In other words, God is using certain genealogical names as Patriarchs to date the world in those early years. Each Patriarch or father reference, is a family name representing a chunk or epoch of time.” 

Warren’s assessment is a little “younger” than Crawford’s – by 1488 years – as Warren dates 13,008 years from creation to the time of his writing in 1996. It is beyond my purpose to figure out where these diverge. Unless I missed it, Warren does not credit anyone else with the idea. I would doubt he knew about Crawford’s book. Nevertheless, by T. P. Crawford shows the idea preceded Warren by at least 120 years.

An approach to resolve the young-earth old-earth “gap” is the Gap Theory (aka Gap Creationism and Ruin-Reconstruction Theory), popularized by the Scofield Reference Bible. This theory holds that Genesis 1:1 refers to the original creation, but the fall of Satan formed a cataclysmic event that ruined it. Thus, the 24-hour days of creation recorded in the rest of the chapter are days of “re-creation” or “restoration,” rather than the beginning of a creation. In effect, this allows one to hold to “creation” in six literal 24-hour days while at the same time embracing an old earth of billions of years. Scofield’s original notes make this clear, but some of that clarity has been revised out of later editions.

“…three creative acts of God are recorded in this chapter…The first creative act [v. 1] refers to the dateless past, and gives scope for the geologic ages…Neither here [v. 3] nor in verses 14-18 is an original creative act implied…Relegate fossils to the primitive creation, and no conflict of science with the Genesis cosmogony remains.” (C. I. Scofield, Scofield Reference Bible, 1917, pp. 3-4.)

The Gap Theory entered into the mainstream of conservative biblical theology in response to the attacks of science, falsely so-called. The timeline of the appearance of this theory, as well as its use, define it as a scientific view looking for scripture to support it. It becomes a dumping ground for whatever “science” the theory holder cannot fit into his or her understanding of the Bible. When I was young, I knew a lot of the older generation Christians who had picked up the gap theory from their Scofield Bibles. Most of the regular church folks had not thought too much about it, had not teased out it, and accepted it as reasonable (because Scofield had included it in his Bible notes, and maybe also because they felt it answered some questions they did not know how to answer). However, once it is teased out, it creates more biblical and scientific problems than it solves. It is unsound, biblically. For example, advanced versions add pre-Adamic man before Adam (who the Bible says is the first man), and death before the fall (which the Bible says is the cause of death).

The Gap Theory is an old earth creation view that holds a “young earth” view from Genesis 1:3 forward. It distorts a normal reading of Genesis chapter 1. There are those who hold the Gap Theory unadvisedly (without due scrutiny), and those who hold it adamantly (as an integral part of their view of the Bible and creation).

The Patriarchal Dynasties Theory is still a young earth creation view though seeing the earth as slightly older than the predominant young earth view. It does not try to subsume the billions of years of evolutionary theory into its system. It does, however, adapt an unusual reading of the ages of the antediluvian patriarchs as not being particular father/son relationships. It does not, in my opinion, actually address the six 24-hour days of creation differently. It differs chronologically in interpreting the early years of the history of man.

All that said, I come back to the issue of separating, both in church membership and church-to-church fellowship. Views in the evolutionary realm are unquestionably unacceptable. In other cases, approach this carefully and individually. Take each case on its merits. What does the individual hold and what is he promoting? What does the church teach about the Bible, the creation, and what are they trying to promote? What will be results of fellowshipping or disfellowshipping?

A Supputation of Years and Times

While researching the grand old 16th century Geneva Bible, I found in its back matter A Perfite Supputation of the Yeres and Times from Adam unto Christ. Supputation, no longer at the top of the charts in word lists, means a reckoning, accounting, or calculation. Perfite is an older form of the word perfect, here probably connoting complete and/or accurate. This supputation counts 3974 years, 6 months, and 10 days from the creation of Adam to the birth of Jesus Christ.

“…whereupon we recken, that from Adam unto Christ are 3974 yeres, six moneths and ten dayes…”

Biblical chronology has been and is a subject of interest to me. On the one hand, it is intriguing to compare when secular history and biblical history intersect (using common historical dating), but on the other hand, it is more important to fix biblical events by the Bible’s own timeline. I was excited to find that my calculations were similar to those made by men much my betters. When I posted A Biblical timeline from creation in 2009, I had calculated 4238 or 4048 yeres (years), the two differences showing my struggle with fixing the beginning of the 430-year period when Israel went out of Egypt. I have revised that downward, with 4002 years from Adam to Christ in the 2017 posting of Biblical timeline from Creation to Christ and Biblical timeline from creation, posted in 2019. However, in calculations not posted on Seeking the Old Paths, prepared for a handout at church called “Toward a Biblical Timeline from Creation,” I posited 3992 years the sixth day of creation to Christ. I need to go back through my calculations and compare my addition. Math is not always my best subject!

Long story short, my 3992 years varies 18 yeres from the supputation in the Geneva Bible. It will be interesting to compare the similarities and differences. I do not feel competent to calculate down to the months, weeks, and days.

Let Lent Alone

• What is Lent?
• Why Not Lent?

Last summer I happened upon the article On Common Objections to the Observation of Lent by Phillip Powers. Powers is a Southern Baptist preacher and member of South Caraway Baptist Church in Jonesboro, Arkansas. In the essay he attempts to obliterate three common objections to Lent, concluding that “In the final analysis, we must conclude that the decision to observe the season of Lent, whether that observance is personal or corporate, it must remain at the level of Christian freedom. The three objections he considers most common are that Lent is too Catholic,[i] too works-oriented,[ii] and that it “is nowhere explicitly commanded in Holy Scripture.”[iii] Those, all true, might seem sufficient to most Baptists, but Pastor Powers tries to work around them.

Clearly, both its origins and purpose is based on the practice of the Roman Catholic Church. In responding to these two objections, Powers boosts a baseless historical boondoggle – that “the Roman Catholic Church was the only church for the first 1500 years of Christian history.” If the church of grace died, only to be replaced by the church of works alone, we run afoul of the promises of the head of the church. The “holy season of Lent” is theirs in a works-based religion and tainted by that association. Let those who glory in works have it.

Answering the third objection, Powers rejects the Regulative Principle for Worship. Since churches do many things “that are not directly commanded in Scripture” and “no one follows the RPW absolutely,” the writer thinks we should jettison the RPW and embrace Lent. Why not instead jettison the things we do that are not commanded in Scripture and more fully and faithfully embrace the word of God as the regulator of our faith and practice?

In Why I Encourage People Not to Observe Lent, Bart Barber answers this argument well, writing, “Movement toward Lent is movement away from the idea that the New Testament should give us the pattern for ecclesiastical celebrations or individual spiritual formation…I argue that having taken some steps in a bad direction is no good reason to continue further along the path.”

In making his argument, Pastor Powers reveals its weakness when he cannot base it on the Scriptures, but must fit it in at the level of Christian freedom. If he will settle it there, I urge him (and others like him) to apply the Christian charity of 1 Corinthians 8-10, and not let this liberty or freedom become a stumblingblock to others. Concerning Lent, Jon Shaff, a Free Will Baptist preacher from Oklahoma, said “there are many brothers and sisters like myself that have been ‘taken out of Rome’ by the Grace of God and it makes us cringe to hear the words like ‘Lent’...Show your brothers and sisters kindness and gentleness...do not entice them to go back to things from which the Lord has delivered them.”

---

[i] “One of the primary objections that is most often given against the practice of Lent, as well as any other practice that might remotely be considered liturgical, is that it comes to us from the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church.” Lent is intrinsic in the Roman church calendar and holy week observances. Lent is not a biblical observance, and the long tradition of its observance by Catholics does not make it so.
[ii] “In some traditions, Lent is presented as a way of ‘earning’ God’s forgiveness, as a meritorious act by which we might deserve God’s grace, even as a kind of penance.” Lent restricts certain matters of separation and holiness to a certain time of year. “Self-reflection, examination, confession, and repentance” should be daily rather than seasonal Christian practice (cf. Luke 9:23).
[iii] “A final objection that is often raised in this conversation is that the practice of Lent is nowhere explicitly commanded in Holy Scripture.” There is no positive command in the New Testament to observe any season of the year as holy. Bible believers should not be seeking religious traditions to borrow from others, but rather search the scriptures daily to see whether such things are so.