Home » Posts tagged 'textual variants'
Tag Archives: textual variants
What Is the “False Doctrine” of Only One Text of the Bible? (Part Five)
Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four
So, no apology is necessary for saying there’s one Bible. Why? There’s one Bible. Is that Bible the King James Version? It is the underlying text. I recently heard someone say, the underlying text for the King James Version text didn’t happen until 1881. That’s someone not telling the truth. He’s at least not speaking to those who don’t believe that. He’s talking to his echo chamber or those who know little about the underlying text. It is not steelmanning the opposition, but purposeful misrepresentation — a work of the flesh. Call it what you want.
I’ve said again and again, the King James translators translated from something. They translated. The King James translators weren’t making the words up. The many English commentators for those centuries after the King James Version didn’t treat the translation like a text didn’t exist. They commented on that text, because they possessed it.
Men who didn’t write commentaries knew the original languages and they were preaching from a text they believe was kept pure through all the ages. They believed that because God promised it. So it wasn’t? By faith we understand that it was.
Recognition of Textual Variants
A fourth concern I’ve heard is the reality that church men have long recognized textual variants and acknowledged their existence. I don’t know who doesn’t know this. Since we know that variations exist between printed editions of the Greek New Testament, then we know scribal errors were made in hand copies. Come on! This is a red herring!
Our scriptural presupposition is not that individual manuscripts or printed editions are perfect. It isn’t even the ink or parchment, one perfect physical manuscript that survives from the beginning. The opposite. We believe in the perfect preservation and availability of the words of scripture. That’s what the Bible talks about. Godly church leaders called this, an error in one copy is corrected in another.
Error in One Copy Corrected in Another
Richard Capel wrote:
[W]e have the Copies in both languages [Hebrew and Greek], which Copies vary not from Primitive writings in any matter which may stumble any. This concernes onely the learned, and they know that by consent of all parties, the most learned on all sides among Christians do shake hands in this, that God by his providence hath preserved them uncorrupt. . . .
As God committed the Hebrew text of the Old Testament to the Jewes, and did and doth move their hearts to keep it untainted to this day: So I dare lay it on the same God, that he in his providence is so with the Church of the Gentiles, that they have and do preserve the Greek Text uncorrupt, and clear: As for some scrapes by Transcribers, that comes to no more, than to censure a book to be corrupt, because of some scrapes in the printing, and tis certain, that what mistake is in one print, is corrected in another.
Another presupposition is attack on scripture. Sometimes errors are purposeful. It took the providential handiwork of God to ensure preservation occurred through the means revealed in scripture.
Gaslit Arguments
Critical Text New Consensus, Voice of Holy Spirit
Certain various arguments seem like gaslighting to me. Here’s one: the critical text is or could be the consensus text among believers now, and this is the voice of the Holy Spirit speaking. I don’t think anyone really believes this. What’s wrong with it though, if anyone even takes it seriously?
Preservation means availability. A text not available isn’t preserved. The critical text isn’t a text that ever existed. It’s a “Frankentext” with hundreds of lines of text with no manuscript evidence. It was not available.
The church believed in perfect preservation and agreed on the text. It was settled. Modernism came up with a new text based on rationalism. That wasn’t the Holy Spirit or the church.
You don’t have something preserved, that’s the Holy Spirit, and then men replace it and now that’s the Holy Spirit. A close parallel would be restorationism. That means something is lost and the Holy Spirit returns it to what it was. The modern text doesn’t proceed from preservation or agreement of the church. It is an invention used just for what seems like gaslighting from people who don’t believe in any of what they’re saying.
English Prejudice?
Another faux argument considers an accused English prejudice. Again, these are all just reactions to already established scriptural presuppositions. Reformation era Dutch, German, Spanish, and French translations come from slightly different TR editions that some say belie a settled text or perfect preservation. Why English and not these other language translations?
Other major world languages have the similarity of all with long-time translations from the Hebrew Masoretic for the Old Testament and Textus Receptus for the New. None of them translated a critical text. That narrows it down to essentially the same text, but it’s true that each of them does not translate from an identical text. For some critical text supporters, this apparently opens a gap to drive through a critical text. To them, this must needs indicate some level of eclecticism or acceptance of it.
Again, I don’t think the critics are serious when they make the accusations of English prejudice toward an apparent bias toward the King James Version. English speaking people are embracing the King James Version. Those supportive of the King James Version also celebrate the availability of these Reformed era translations from essentially the same underlying text. They are happy about the similarity and the availability. They’re all much better than a modern critical text. There isn’t fighting between these various language translations all from the similar text.
Critical text supporters and King James critics are the ones highlighting the few differences in underlying text. They’re doing this only to undermine a doctrine of perfect preservation. They’re also trying to make it an issue of English prejudice, which there isn’t.
Why the King James?
I hate answering this question, because I doubt the sincerity of those asking. They don’t believe in the same presuppositions or even the same source for the contradictory presuppositions. I’ve been asked many insincere questions, especially teaching jr. high for decades in our school. Those kids liked asking the same type of questions to attempt to pit the teacher against their parents.
Maybe some KJV supporters have an English bias. Myself and many, if not most, don’t have one. I am just reading and calling what happened. Biblical Christianity took hold through the English and then the English sent missionaries to the whole world. English in fact became the lingua franca of the whole world. It would be like saying that there was a Roman bias for a thousand years. No, the Roman Empire ruled the then-known world. It’s just reality. The dollar is the world reserve currency. Neither is this an English bias.
Scriptural presuppositions require a settled text. To believe what God said on this, people have to bite down on what occurred. It’s like acknowledging fulfilled prophecies. What God said would happen did occur in the real world. Believing requires accepting this. If acceptance or reception (the canonicity argument) and the testimony of the Holy Spirit through believers direct to the very words, then there must be those words. It really isn’t a hard call to say it’s the English. This isn’t a prejudice. It is a conclusion. Faith requires a conclusion. Rejecting that is faithless.
More to Come
The New King James Version Does Not Come From the Same Text as the King James Version
In recent days at his youtube channel, Mark Ward again compared the New King James Version (NKJV) with the King James Version (KJV). This goes back a few years, when Ward wrote a blog post that said that the NKJV and the KJV came from an identical Greek New Testament text. In the comment section, I started giving him examples of differences, five at a time. I provided these examples after he made his claim. His claim did not come from his own personal research. After continuing to give examples about five at a time, that showed his claim was wrong, Ward admitted that the two texts were not the same in at least six places.
Systematic Search
The standard as to whether the NKJV and KJV are different, however, is not the few differences that I found in the little time after Ward made his claim. Ward speaks about the differences as though there were just six that really don’t matter much to the meaning of the text. He does not mention that he did not find these variations himself. He also treats those six like they represent all of the differences. It’s just not true though. I hardly looked for examples and found the few ones that I sent him without any systematic search.
Since Mark Ward won’t stop misrepresenting the issue of the differences between the text underlying the NKJV and the KJV, I decided to start a more systematic search in my spare time. I began in Matthew 1 to start chapter by chapter through the New Testament, and I’m to the fifth chapter of Mark So, this is just Matthew — one gospel — and then Mark 1-5. That doesn’t mean that I found every example, because I don’t have a copy of the text for the NKJV. Perhaps one doesn’t exist.
If someone were trying to study and teach from the NKJV and use the original languages, what text would he use for that study? I’m asserting there is none. It doesn’t come from the same text as the KJV so an underlying text of the NKJV, that same as that translation, is not available. That’s a tough one, wouldn’t you say?
Examples
To find my examples, I had to look at the two translations and compare them. When I saw differences, then I went to the Greek text to see if these differences were the result of a different text. Again, Mark Ward didn’t do this work. He doesn’t look for these examples. How does someone report something like fact that he doesn’t even know? All of the examples to which Mark refers came from my finding them for him.
Without further adieu, below are the most recent examples I found of differences between the underlying text of the NKJV and the KJV [CT=Critical Text, TR=Textus Receptus].
Matthew
- 1:18—KJV, TR, ”as,” gar versus NKJV, CT, no “as,” no gar
- 7:9-10—KJV, TR, “if he ask,” aorist versus NKJV, CT, “if he asks,” future
- 9:17—KJV, TR, “perish,” future middle versus NKJV, CT, “are ruined,” present passive
- 9:22—NKJV, CT, strepho, versus KJV, TR, “turned him about”epistrepho, “turned around”
- 10:19—KJV, TR, “shall speak,” future versus NKJV, CT, “should speak,” subjunctive
- 13:36—NKJV, CT, “explain,” diasapheo versus KJV, TR, “declare,” phrazo
- 16:17—KJV, TR, kai, “and” versus NKJV, CT, no kai, no “and” to start verse
- 18:6—KJV, TR, epi, about,” versus NKJV, CT, peri, “around”
- 19:5—KJV, TR, proskalleo, “shall cleave” versus NKJV, CT, “be joined,” kalleo
- 20:20—KJV, TR, ”of,” para, versus NKJV, CT, apo, “from”
- 21:25—KJV, TR, para, “with” versus NKJV, CT, en, “among”
- 22:10—KJV, TR, hosous, “as many as” versus NKJV, CT, hous, “whom”
- 23:34—KJV, TR, kai, “and” versus NKJV, CT, eliminates kai, no “and”
- 27:3—KJV, TR, apestrephe, “brought again” versus NKJV, CT, apostrepho, ”brought back”
Mark
- 1:16—KJV, TR, de, “now” versus NKJV, CT, kai, “and”
- 2:15—KJV, TR, to, “that” versus NKJV, CT, no to, no “that”
- 2:21—KJV, TR, kai, “also” versus NKJV, CT, no kai, no “also”
- 4:18—KJV, TR, no eisin, “they are” versus NKJV, CT, eisin, “they are” (in italics but in so doing accrediting the CT)
- 5:6—KJV, TR, de, “but” versus NKJV, CT, no de, no “but”
These are nineteen more examples after looking at about one and a third New Testament books. I don’t want to keep searching for these. Rather, I would wish for the other side to defer and just admit that the NKJV translators did not use the same text. In other words, I don’t want them to keep challenging this assertion. The NKJV is not the NKJV. It would come from the same text as the KJV, one would assume, if it were a “New” King James Version. The NKJV comes from a less different text than most modern versions, but it does come from a different text.
Why Does It Matter?
Why does any of this matter? It isn’t a translational issue in this case, but one of the underlying text. This is presuppositional. God promised to preserve every Word. If that’s true, which it is, then this relates to the doctrine of preservation of scripture. Mark Ward and others act like they don’t even understand it. They rarely to never mention it.
In a recent video on this same issue, Mark Ward went on the offensive against the King James Version. It wasn’t a new attack. This is the point. Textual critics say one short phrase in Revelation 16:5 wasn’t in any known manuscript, but was instead a conjectural emendation by Beza (read about this issue here). It is not a phrase that appears in a majority of presently preserved Greek manuscripts. I carefully wrote that last sentence, because a translation of the Latin of Beza doesn’t say it was a conjectural emendation, but instead he wrote:
Therefore, I am not able to doubt but that the true reading should be as I have restored it from an ancient manuscript [hand-written] codex of good faith, truly ο εσομενος.
Men like myself and others with our presuppositions from scripture believe this is what Beza did, not conjectural emendation.
A problem that Ward would not mention in his offensive against the King James Version is that almost all modern versions, ones that he supports, come from a minority of the manuscripts. Not only that, but in hundreds of lines of text in the underlying text of the modern versions there is zero manuscript evidence. They have no manuscript support. Yet, Ward and many, many others, who deny the biblical and historical doctrine of preservation, have no problem advocating most for those modern versions that translate that text.
****************************************
Addendum
I don’t plan on continuing to keep looking up more examples. It wasn’t as those examples did not present themselves as I looked. This makes the point of variations in the textual basis between the NKJV and the KJV. What made this tough is that the NKJV translators said, no differences, and yet there are.
If you trusted the translators, then you didn’t know the differences. Perhaps you never checked. Yes, there’s a difficulty sometimes in deciding translational differences. I tried to find the ones where the differences would or could reflect a difference in the text. A variant needed to exist for me to use the example. It’s easy to come later and defend it as a translational choice, but there is a there, there. If you want to criticize, you could try to do that, and I could just keep looking for more too. This is something perhaps you haven’t done, that is, look on your own.
If you haven’t looked on your own, maybe you could do that, if it matters to you. As I’ve said in the past, for a long time, I assumed the NKJV used Scrivener’s, the same text as the KJV in other words. Then I read someone who said, no, so then I began looking a little and agreed that it wasn’t the same. You really shouldn’t have it both ways, that is, a first way where you say there is no difference. And then you have a second way, where when someone looks up examples and you attack the person doing that. That is having it both ways. It isn’t honest.
New List of Reasons for Maximum Certainty for the New Testament Text (Part 4)
ANSWERING AGAIN THE “WHAT TR?” QUESTION
1. God Inspired Specific, Exact Words, and All of Them.
2. After God Inspired, Inscripturated, or Gave His Words, All of Them, to His People through His Institutions, He Kept Preserving Each of Them and All of Them According to His Promises of Preservation.
3. God Promised Preservation of the Words in the Language They Were Written, or In Other Words, He Preserved Exactly What He Gave.
4. God’s Promise of Keeping and Preserving His Words Means the Availability of His Words to Every Generation of Believers.
5. God the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity, Used the Church to Accredit or Confirm What Is Scripture and What Is Not.
Introduction to Point 6.
I hear many, what I would call, dishonest arguments. Those occur all the time from proponents of the critical text or multiple modern versions. Let me give you a couple, three, but with my focus on one in particular. One of these is the usage of the KJV translators for support of the critical text and modern versions. I agree the translators made room for improvements to their translation. They didn’t see the translation as the end of improvement in translation. They weren’t talking about improvements on the underlying text. That’s either incompetent or dishonest as an argument.
How can I be the dummy version of KJVO if I agree with the translators on the issue of improvement? I can’t be, yet this is what critical text or modern version people do all the time. Their posing as non-confrontational and with a cheery Christian spirit is nothing more than a ruse. They will treat you well if you budge to a significant degree toward their positions. That’s all. If you don’t, you get sent down the garbage disposal.
Pavlovian
There’s something Pavlovian to these modern version advocates. Young fundamentalists so want their favor, that they salivate to their positive reinforcement. This corresponds to turning on the light. The favor acts as a lure to behavior adjustment. Favored treatment is not an argument, yet is is the most convincing one in a feeling oriented world.
Can someone say the King James Version is inspired and support the 1769 update? I ask Ruckmanites this question all the time. Modern version advocates won’t acquiesce because they want to keep this second faux argument alive. If I approve a 1769 update, why would I not approve another one? Not doing an update is not the same as not approving of one. I’ve said often recently that King James Version advocates won’t update the King James Version under the pressure of modern version adherents, who don’t even use the King James. This really should be the end of this, but it won’t.
Latin Vulgate or Church Hierarchy Attack
The third bad argument from modern version proponents, the one on which I focus, has several layers. They say the King James is the Latin Vulgate to KJVO like the Latin Vulgate was to Catholics. This is to smear KJVO with Roman Catholicism. One of the layers is that it puts Roman Catholic-like power to the textual choices, putting the church over scripture. This is a category error.
Scripture, the authority, teaches that the Holy Spirit uses the church as the Urim and Thummim. God directs God’s people to the books and the words of the scripture using the church. The church is not taking preeminence over scripture by obeying scripture.
These false arguments remind me of the flailing of a losing boxer at the end of a match. Or, a basketball coach clearing the bench at the end of the game and the substitutes treating the final three minutes like they’ve won the game. No, they’re losing. These are not landing a single blow. They are what experts call “garbage time.” It’s just stat padding and not contributing toward winning at all.
6. God Declares a Settled Text of Scripture in His Word.
Settled Word
Scripture is not amoebic. Its boundaries don’t shapeshift like the Stingray nebula. The Bible doesn’t ooze and alter like the Hagfish. God declares in His Word a settled text of scripture. The Bible is a rock, not shifting sand.
God describes His Word as forever settled (Psalm 119:8-9). Deuteronomy 4:2 says:
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
Proverbs 30:6 instructs: “Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” At its very end, the Bible says in Revelation 22:18-19:
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
One cannot take away or add a word to a text that isn’t settled. No possibility of guilt could come to a person for adding or taking away from something unsettled. These warnings assume the establishment of the words. All the principles, presuppositions, and promises from scripture relate to the settlement of the text of the New Testament.
Considering the Nature of God
What God says in scripture about scripture should make sense, considering the nature of God. In Malachi 3:6, God says: “For I am the LORD, I change not.” The immutability of God, one of His attributes, provides a basis for trusting Him. God communicates the trustworthy nature of His Words with relations to His preservation of them in Isaiah 59:21:
As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth,, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.
Isaiah 40:8 says something similar: “The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.”
Received Text Mindset
Modern version and critical text advocates know that printed editions of the received text of the New Testament in the 16th and 17th centuries have few and minor variations. When I say “few and minor,” I’m not making a point that those variants do not matter. They do. The attitude at the time sounded like what Richard Capel wrote:
[W]e have the Copies in both languages [Hebrew and Greek], which Copies vary not from Primitive writings in any matter which may stumble any. This concernes onely the learned, and they know that by consent of all parties, the most learned on all sides among Christians do shake hands in this, that God by his providence hath preserved them uncorrupt. . . .
As God committed the Hebrew text of the Old Testament to the Jewes, and did and doth move their hearts to keep it untainted to this day: So I dare lay it on the same God, that he in his providence is so with the Church of the Gentiles, that they have and do preserve the Greek Text uncorrupt, and clear: As for some scrapes by Transcribers, that comes to no more, than to censure a book to be corrupt, because of some scrapes in the printing, and tis certain, that what mistake is in one print, is corrected in another.
The variation did not yield an unsettled nature. No, “what mistake is in one print, is corrected in another.” They knew errors could come into a hand copy or even a printed edition. However, that did not preclude the doctrine of preservation and a settled text. God would have us live by every Word that proceeds from the mouth of God.
More to Come
The Horrific Distortion of the Lord Now in Matthew 5:17-20
Related Post Number One Related Post Number Two Related Post Number Three
Perfect Preservation
You required payment from me on a certain future date and I had no money except the exact change for the payment in a large jar. You needed full payment and I had it in the way of coinage. It was all in one large jar, and I said to you:
I truly say to you, until the specified future required date of payment, one dime or one penny shall in no wise pass from this large jar, till the fulfillment of the whole amount of payment.
Anyone hearing this statement could and should acknowledge a promise of preservation of every coin in the large jar until the completion of the payment. One could call this a promise of perfect preservation of the coins. Every coin and all of them will survive or continue within the jar. Of course, the fulfillment of the promise depends on the trustworthiness and veracity of my words. In Matthew 5:18, Jesus says:
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
That sounds like a guarantee to me, and a strong one. When you read the previous and following verses (17 and 19-20), they do not diminish from what Jesus guaranteed in verse 18.
The Veracity of Jesus
The promise of Jesus extends to heaven and earth passing away, which has still not occurred. That event will transpire, but it remains in the future. At this date in the year 2024, heaven and earth continue. With that the case, what would one expect related to the promise of Jesus in Matthew 5:18? Of course, the perfect preservation of every jot and tittle of the law. The context says the law here was (so is) all of scripture. The words “jot” and “tittle” indicate the preservation of all of scripture goes to the very letter.
In my hypothetical for illustration, I promised the perfect preservation of every coin in a large jar. I thought the illustration would enhance an understanding of what Jesus said. The major difference between the two statements, mine and Jesus’, is that what Jesus says is the truth, always. My guarantee even for one generation is not as sure as Jesus’ is. When He promises preservation, you can count on it. He always fulfills His promises.
Jesus is truth, so what He says is always true. He also can make guarantees or promises based upon His divine attributes. He has the power to fulfill what He promises. Because of His omniscience, He also knows already He will fulfill the promise. The quality of what Jesus says depends on His attributes. Since I don’t have those attributes, my promises or guarantees are of a lesser quality than that of Jesus.
Again, in my hypothetical, let’s say that I did lose a few of my coins, so I did not fulfill my promise of perfect preservation of every coin. If that happened, it does not change the meaning of what I promised. Those words continue to mean what they meant when I said them.
High View of Scripture
Perhaps you’ve heard the terminology, “a high view of scripture.” Someone has a high view of scripture when he sees scripture elevated above feelings, man’s thinking, philosophy, tradition, and all other authority. A high view fits within the Apostle Paul’s statement in Romans 3:4: “yea, let God be true, but every man a liar.” It follows that scripture is inspired, inerrant, infallible, authoritative, perspicuous, and sufficient.
Someone with a high view of scripture will not and does not change its meaning based on circumstances. God said it, that settles it. That kind of thing. With a high view of scripture, when he reads Matthew 5:18, he takes it at face value. He explains the fulfillment based on what Jesus said and not on what he think may happen. He conforms what happened to what Jesus said and not vice versa. This also means not later changing the meaning to have it fit with how he interprets what happened.
Adapting Circumstances to What Jesus Said
John Lightfoot first wrote From the Talmud and Hebraica between 1658 and 1674. In that book, he writes about Matthew 5:18, and he already considered the repercussions of circumstances of which I speak, saying:
A second question might follow concerning Keri and Kethib: and a suspicion might also arise, that the test of the law was not preserved perfect to one jot and one tittle, when so many various readings do so frequently occur.
Do variant readings nullify what Jesus said? Instead of conforming what Jesus said to the circumstances, which is a low view of scripture, Lightfoot explained variant readings of the text to what Jesus said. John Lightfoot was not questioning or changing the meaning of Matthew 5:18. The teaching on perfect preservation was so indisputable to him, that it need no mention. That is how it reads. Bravo Lightfoot.
What we see occur today horrifically distorts what Jesus said to deprive it of its original meaning. In so doing, men eliminate a promise of preservation in lieu of textual variants. I’ve noticed they even distort much of the meaning of what Jesus said even in the entire sermon, it seems, just to eradicate a promise of perfect preservation of scripture in Matthew.
More to Come
Yes and Then No, the Bible with Mark Ward (part two)
Earlier this week, I wrote part one concerning two separate videos posted by Mark Ward. The second one I saw first, and since my name was mentioned, I answered. He cherry-picks quotes without context. Ward made what he thought was a good argument against the Textus Receptus.
In part one, I said “yes” to his assessment of IFB preaching. I didn’t agree, as he concluded, that a correction to preaching was the biggest step for IFB. A distorted gospel, I believe, is of greater import, something unmentioned by Ward.
NO
Bob Jones Seminary (BJU) invited Ward to teach on problems with the Textus Receptus (received text, TR), the Greek text behind the New Testament (NT) of the King James Version (KJV) and all the other Reformation Era English versions. It was also the basis for all the other language versions of the Bible. There is only one Bible, and subsequent to the invention of the printing press, we know the TR was the Bible of true believers for four centuries. Unless the Bible can change, it’s still the Bible.
Ward accepted the invitation from BJU, despite his own commitment against arguing textual criticism with anyone who disagrees with him. For him to debate, his opposition must agree with his innovative, non-historical or exegetical application of 1 Corinthians 14:9. It’s the only presupposition that I have heard Ward claim from scripture on this issue.
Critical text supporters, a new and totally different approach to the Bible in all of history, oppose scriptural presuppositions. They require sola scientia to determine the Bible. Modern textual criticism, what is all of textual criticism even though men like Ward attempt to reconstruct what believing men did from 1500 to 1800, arose with modernism. Everything must subject itself to human reason, including the Bible.
In his lecture, Ward used F. H. A. Scrivener to argue against Scrivener’s New Testament, giving the former an alias Henry Ambrose, his two middle names, to argue against Scrivener himself. It is an obvious sort of mockery of those who use the NT, assuming they don’t know history. The idea behind it is that Scrivener didn’t even like his Greek NT.
What did Scrivener do? He collated the Greek text behind the KJV NT from TR editions, and then printed the text underlying the NT of the KJV. It was an academic exercise for him, not one out of love for the TR. Scrivener was on the committee to produce the Revised Version.
The Greek Words of the New Testament
Did the words of that New Testament exist before Scrivener’s NT? Yes. Very often (and you can google it with my name to find out) I’ll say, “Men translated from something.” For centuries, they did.
The words of Scrivener were available in print before Scrivener. Scrivener knew this too, as the differences between the various TR editions are listed in the Scrivener’s Annotated New Testament, a leather bound one of which I own. Ward says there are massive numbers of differences between the TR editions. That’s not true.
Like Ward’s pitting Scrivener on Scrivener and the KJV translators against the KJV translation, claiming massive variants between TR editions is but a rhetorical device to propagandize listeners. The device entertains supporters, but I can’t see it persuading anyone new. It’s insulting.
When you compare Sinaiticus with Vaticanus, there you see massive differences, enough that Dean Burgon wrote, “It is in fact easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two MSS differ the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree.” There are over 3,000 variations between the two main critical manuscripts in the gospels alone. That is a massive amount. Moslem Koran apologists enjoy these critical text materials to attack the authority of the Bible. It is their favorite apologetic device, what I heard from every Moslem I confront at a door in evangelism.
There are 190 differences between Beza 1598 and Scrivener’s. Scrivener’s is essentially Beza 1598. Many of those variations are spelling, accents, and breathing marks. As a preemptive shot, I know that all those fit into an application of jots and tittles. We know that, but we also know where the text of the King James Version came from and we know that text was available for centuries. God preserved that text of the NT. Believers received it and used it.
Men Translated from Something
When you read John Owen, what Greek text was he reading? He had one. Ward says there wasn’t a text until Scrivener. Wrong. What text did John Gill use? What text did Jonathan Edwards use? They relied on an original language text. What text did John Flavel and Stephen Charnock use? They all used a Greek text of the New Testament.
16th through 19th century Bible preachers and scholars refer to their Greek New Testament. Matthew Henry when writing commentary on the New Testament refers to a printed Greek New Testament. He also writes concerning those leaving out 1 John 5:7: “Some may be so faulty, as I have an old printed Greek Testament so full of errata, that one would think no critic would establish a various lection thereupon.”
The Greek words of the New Testament were available. Saints believed they had them and they were the TR. This reverse engineering, accusation of Ruckmanism, is disinformation by Ward and others.
The Assessment of Scrivener and the Which TR Question
Ward uses the assessment of Scrivener and the preface of the KJV translators as support for continued changes of the Greek text. This is disingenuous. The translators did not argue anywhere in the preface for an update of the underlying text. They said the translation, not the text, could be updated. That argument does not fit in a session on the Greek text, except to fool the ignorant.
Just because Scrivener collated the Greek words behind the KJV doesn’t mean that he becomes the authority on the doctrine of preservation any more than the translators of the KJV. It grasps at straws. I haven’t heard Scrivener used as a source of support for the Textus Receptus any time ever. I don’t quote him. If there is a critique, it should be on whether Scrivener’s text does represent the underlying text of the KJV, and if it does, it serves its purpose.
I have written on the “Which TR question” already many times, the most used argument by those in the debate for the critical text. It’s also a reason why we didn’t answer that question in our book, Thou Shalt Keep Them. If we addressed it, that would have been all anyone talked about. We say, deal with the passages on preservation first. We get our position from scripture.
I digress for one moment. Ward talks and acts as if no one has heard, which TR, and no one has ever answered it. Not only has that question been answered many times, but Ward himself has been answered. He said only Peter Van Kleeck had answered, which he did with a paper available online. Vincent Krivda did also.
The position I and others take isn’t that God would preserve His Words in Scrivener’s. The position is that all the Words are preserved and available to every generation of Christian. That’s why we support the Textus Receptus.
Ward never explains why men point to Scrivener’s. I have answered that question many times, but he doesn’t state the answer. He stated only the position of Peter Van Kleeck, because he had a clever comeback concerning sanctification. But even that misrepresented what Van Kleeck wrote.
The position I take, which fits also the position of John Owen, I call the canonicity argument. I have a whole chapter in TSKT on that argument. I’ve written about it many times here, going back almost two decades.
If pinned to the wall, and I must answer which TR edition, I say Scrivener’s, but it doesn’t even relate to my belief on the doctrine. What I believe is that all of God’s Words in the language in which they were written have been available to every generation of believer. I don’t argue that they were all available in one manuscript (hand-written copy) that made its way down through history. The Bible doesn’t promise that.
Scriptural Presuppositions or Not?
The critical text position, that Ward takes, cannot be defended from scripture. The position that I take arises from what scripture teaches. It’s the same position as believed by the authors of the Westminster Confession, London Baptist Confession, and every other confession. That is accepted and promoted by those in his associations.
Ward doesn’t even believe the historical doctrine of preservation. Textual variations sunk that for him, much like it did Bart Ehrman. Ward changed his presupposition not based upon scripture, but based upon what he thought he could see. It isn’t by faith that he understands this issue.
Some news out of Ward’s speech is that he doesn’t believe that God preserved every word of the Bible. He says he believes the “preponderance of the manuscripts” view. I call it “the buried text view.” Supporters speculate the exact text exists somewhere, a major reason why Daniel Wallace continues looking. That is not preservation.
“The manuscripts” are an ambiguous, sort of chimera to their supporters. They don’t think they have them yet, so how could there be the preponderance of anything yet? That view, the one supported by two books by BJU authors, From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man and God’s Word in Our Hands, they themselves do not believe. Ward walked it back during his speech too. They don’t really believe it. It’s a hypothetical to them. Men of the two above books don’t believe at least that they possess the Hebrew words of 1 Samuel 13:1 in any existing manuscript. At present, like a Ruckmanite, they correct the Hebrew text with a Greek translation.
In the comment section of the above first video, Ward counsels someone in the comment section to use a modern translation from the TR, such the NKJV. The NKJV, Ward knows, doesn’t come from the TR. There are variations from the TR used in the NKJV, a concession that Ward made in a post in his comment section after being shown 20-25 examples. He wrote this:
First the concession: I am compelled to acknowledge that the NKJV does not use “*precisely* the same Greek New Testament” text as the one underlying the KJV NT.
He could not find 2 John 1:7 of the NKJV in any TR edition. Does it matter? It does, especially a translation that calls itself the NEW King James Version. The translators did not use the same text as the KJV used, however Ward wants to represent that. I would happily debate him on the subject. I’m sure Thomas Ross would.
Mark Ward has committed not to debate on the text behind the KJV. He is committed now to taking shots from afar, leaving the safe shores of vernacular translation to hit on the text. Even though he says the variations do not affect the message of the Bible, he continues to argue against the text behind the King James Version.
Recent Comments