WIXLIB

Issue Number: 581 – October to December 2007Greek minority reading8 when that readingwas backed with nearly universal Latinsupport; and that thereby, throughconsulting an overwhelming Latin witness,the true readings were restored universallyon the printed page.4. We in the fourth place shall show that theso-called Byzantine majority texts of bothHodges and Farstad, and Pierpont andRobinson, are fatally flawed, in that, by theirown confession,9 their editors reliedprimarily upon the work of BaronHermann von Soden and his text of 1913.Herman Hoskier, an advocate of thetraditional text, cites in his 1914 review ofvon Soden’s text in the Journal ofTheological Studies indisputable proof thatvon Soden’s Greek text is, in his words,‘honeycombed with errors’.10 SimilarlyFrederick Wisse, who is himself verysympathetic of von Soden’s aims thoughfrank about his inaccuracies, says that‘ von Soden’s inaccuracies cannot betolerated for any purpose. His apparatus isuseless for a reconstruction of the text ofthe MSS he used’.11 Accordingly, we shallcite specific instances from both Hoskierand Wisse that fully demonstrate the errorsand inaccuracies of the von Soden text, andtherefore also of the Hodges-Farstadmajority text and the Pierpont-Robinsonmajority text. Therefore, we must censurethe New King James Version for includingthe error-riddled readings of the so-calledmajority text in its margins.5. We shall then, as enabled, address thetranslational flaws of the NKJV in both theOld and New Testaments. We shalldemonstrate that these flaws are not minorin nature, but that, to the contrary, togetherwith the marginal notes, they impact keydoctrines of the Word of God: doctrinessuch as the hypostatic union of the twonatures in Christ, the incarnation, theeternal generation of the Person of the Son,the divinity of Christ, and the eternalpunishment of the wicked in hell.6. In the last place, we shall exhort ourreaders to cling to the tried and provenAuthorised Version, and, where difficultiesare encountered with archaic language,simply to use a commentary like MatthewHenry’s (which is now free online) todetermine the meaning.In this instalment, we hope to cover thefirst two points. We shall cover them in apanoramic history of the text, and then weshall enlarge on point one, namely, thecorruption of the Egyptian text, and with itthe Nestle-Aland/UBS text, bydemonstrating its corruption from theEgyptian translations of the New Testament,by demonstrating the corrupting influenceof Origen upon that text, and bydemonstrating the emasculating influencesof heretics upon certain of its texts. We nowproceed, and may the Lord help us in thismost important endeavour.The corruption of theEgyptian text provenFirst, we consider the corruption of theEgyptian text, which is commonly called theAlexandrian text, after Alexandria, Egypt,which was a centre of Greek learning and oftextual criticism, it being founded byAlexander the Great on the coast of theMediterranean.13

Trinitarian Bible Society – Quarterly RecordThe corruption of the Egyptian Greektexts can be seen in many ways—by thehigh numbers of contradicting variationsamong its own texts, by the high numbers ofCoptic (Egyptian) spellings, by theimposition of Egyptian word order on thetext, by the Greek text being made to followthe Coptic (especially the Sahidic orSouthern Coptic); and by its beingdeliberately altered by Origen and hisfollowers and by outright heretics. Butbefore we consider these materialevidences, we must consider the most surewitness—the Word of God itself. What doesthe Word of God say of its own preservationand how this preservation would come tobe? Do we not have a ‘thus saith the LORD’?We consider, then, Isaiah 59.20–21: ‘Andthe Redeemer shall come to Zion, and untothem that turn from transgression in Jacob,saith the LORD. As for me, this is mycovenant with them, saith the LORD; Myspirit that is upon thee, and my words whichI have put in thy mouth, shall not depart outof thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thyseed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’sseed, saith the LORD, from henceforth andfor ever’.We may notice the following from the text:1. The Redeemer Christ the Lord ispromised to come to Zion, the Church, tothem that turn from transgression in Jacob.We must understand by Zion both theChurch Invisible and Visible—both as theChurch which is composed of true, bornagain believers, and also as that Zion whichhas an outward form, with ordinances, moreor less pure: the faithful preaching of theWord, the keeping of the sacraments as14instituted in the Word of God, and churchdiscipline rightly maintained.2. The promise that the Lord makes to Zionis that His words, which He has put in theirmouth, shall not depart out of their mouth,nor out of the mouth of their seed, nor theirseed’s seed, from henceforth, even for ever.Likewise, His Spirit which is upon themshall abide with them for ever.3. The significance of the Lord’s wordsbeing in their mouth is that His Word, Hisinspired Word, would be confessed publiclyby them, and fed upon by them, with themouth of faith, and that in all generations.Now, we note that the above promise isnot made to individual believers,considered as individual believers per se.The promise is rather made to Zion, to theChurch. Thus, though there may have beenindividual true believers, particularlyduring the times of persecution, who didnot have the purest text, yet the purest textremained in Zion as a whole. In time thattext prevailed over the other texts, we mightsay, as Aaron’s rod prevailed over the rods ofthe magicians of Egypt. Thus it is that,though we see distinctive (and corrupted)textual readings in the papyri and uncial(similar to capital letters) texts—in whatwe now call the Alexandrian and Westerntext families—which were preserved in thesands of Egypt from the 2nd, 3rd, and 4thcenturies, yet by the end of the 4th centurythe text which we call the Byzantine textascended and prevailed over all the others.The Church Fathers from Chrysostom of the4th century AD onward we find universallyquoting the Byzantine text, the text thatprevailed in the area we now call Asia

Issue Number: 581 – October to December 2007Minor, then called the Byzantine Empire,over which Byzantium was the capital. Itwas this locale where most of the churchesfounded by the apostles themselves were—Colossae, Thessalonica, Ephesus, Philippiand Corinth. We may believe that this wasthe text that prevailed amongst those verychurches. Indeed, this was so because, asTertullian of Carthage tells us in thebeginning of the 3rd century, faithfulapographs, precise copies of the apostolicoriginals, were maintained in the apostolicchurches as the standard for all copies.In his famous The Prescription againstHeretics, Tertullian says:Chapter XXXVI. The ApostolicChurches the Voice of the Apostles.Let the Heretics Examine TheirApostolic Claims, in Each Case,Indisputable. The Church of RomeDoubly Apostolic; Its Early Eminenceand Excellence. Heresy, as Pervertingthe Truth, is Connected Therewith.Come now, you who would indulgea better curiosity, if you would applyit to the business of your salvation,run over the apostolic churches, inwhich the very thrones of the apostlesare still pre-eminent in their places,in which their own authenticwritings are read, uttering the voiceand representing the face of each ofthem severally. Achaia is very nearyou, (in which) you find Corinth.Since you are not far from Macedonia,you have Philippi; (and there too) youhave the Thessalonians. Since you areable to cross to Asia, you get Ephesus.Since, moreover, you are close uponItaly, you have Rome, from whichthere comes even into our own handsthe very authority (of apostlesthemselves).12 [emphasis added.]Notice that Tertullian speaks of theapostolic churches—Philippi, Corinth,Thessalonica, Ephesus, Rome—where the‘thrones of the apostles are still eminent’,which is to say, where there were stillfaithful presbyters who were pastors overthose congregations and who were yetteaching and preaching the apostolicdoctrine. Not only that: notice also thatTertullian tells us that the authenticwritings of the apostles themselves werestill read in those churches.What does Tertullian mean by ‘authenticwritings’? He means that there were yetfaithful apographs, that is, precise copies,or perhaps even the autographs or originalcopies themselves, in those churches, andwhich the presbyters read from everyLord’s Day.Given that the Church Fathers even inTertullian’s day found many variations intheir texts through copyists’ errors, towhence do we think they would have lookedto correct their copies? Why, of course: tothe ‘authentic copies’ which were yetmaintained in ‘the apostolic churches’.And where were these apostolicchurches? Outside of Rome, they were allin the area of the Byzantine Empire.From the writings of Tertullian we haveextant, we know that he was fluent inGreek, but that, he being from Africa—from Carthage—his New Testament copies15

Trinitarian Bible Society – Quarterly Recordwere primarily of a ‘Western’ text-type.13What do we mean by the terms‘Alexandrian’ or ‘Western’?The Alexandrian text, with its distinctivereadings, came primarily from Alexandria,Egypt, though its origin was actually fromsouthern Egypt—near the Nag Hammadilibraries, where the Sahidic or Southerndialect of the Egyptian or Coptic languagewas spoken. We know this because of theaffinity of the Alexandrian text for the earlySahidic Coptic translation of the Bible. Inmany instances, we may believe that verseswere directly translated from the SahidicCoptic back into the Greek, and we shallgive instances of this shortly.The Western text was so called, notbecause it was from the west but ratherbecause it is a text that also came fromAlexandria, Egypt, from a different schoolof textual criticism within that city. But thattext-type ended up being translated intothe Old Latin versions and into the LatinVulgate, which were then used by most ofthe churches of the Latin west after the 5thcentury AD. We see the early Church FatherClement of Alexandria, in the 3rd centuryAD, primarily quoting a Western text;hence, we know the origin of that family oftext to have been from Alexandria.14 (TheWestern text may also have been influencedby the Old Latin versions that were thencurrent in northern Africa.) But we alsoknow that the Latin versions weresubsequently all related to this text, andbecause the Latin versions became theBible used by the western churches ofEurope for a time, that text family came tobe known as the Western text. (The earliestLatin versions came from Africa, not Rome.16The Old Latin versions came from northernAfrica, and worked their way up intoEurope, as C. P. Hallihan well notes in theQuarterly Record.15)Tertullian had copies that primarilyreflected a Western text, as were most of thecopies in northern Africa where he lived.But Tertullian was very limited in his choiceof text. The age in which he lived—the late2nd and early 3rd centuries AD—saw timesof great persecution. Many were martyred.Christians were not free to travel. Believers,particularly in Egypt and Africa, did nothave free access to the authentic copies thatwere yet maintained in the apostolicchurches within the Byzantine Empire.Thus, corruptions entered the manuscriptsfor a time, particularly in Egypt and Africa,through copyist errors, through outrightemendations of the text, and throughheretics who wilfully corrupted the SacredText. But always, the saints like Tertullianpointed to what standard? To the ‘authenticcopies’, as he called them, which were storedin the apostolic churches in the area aroundByzantium. That he did so, we see from hisown words in Prescription against Heresieswhich we already have quoted. Thus, a verystrong case can be made for believing thatTertullian himself would much haveapproved the Church’s return to theByzantine text readings which began inthe 4th century AD.A misunderstanding byDr Harry Sturz cleared upAt this point, we must address a statementby Dr Harry Sturz concerning the Biblicaldoctrine of Providential preservation.

Issue Number: 581 – October to December 2007Dr Sturz is a refreshing voice in manyways amongst modern Biblical textualcritics. He at least would give the Byzantinetext a fair hearing. We certainly mustwarmly commend his work entitled TheByzantine Text-Type and New TestamentTextual Criticism, where he lists 150 specificinstances of Byzantine readings in theEgyptian papyri which are extant from thefirst four centuries. That said, however, it isclear from his book that he does notcompletely understand the Scriptures (hecertainly did not understandIsaiah 59.20–21) and what they sayconcerning their own preservation.Dr Sturz says (in trying to respond toquoted statements of Dr Edward Hills):One is tempted to ask: how can God’sprovidence be limited to men of theByzantine area? For example, there isno question about the belief ofIrenaeus, Origen, and Augustine inthe inspiration of the Scriptures. ButIrenaeus used a ‘corrupt’ Western text,and Origen and Augustine arepainfully aware of variants in theirmanuscripts. Athanasius wascertainly orthodox, and he used aGreek text, yet it was Alexandrian anddifferent from the text of Antioch ofthe 4th century. These men werebelievers and took a supernaturalview of the text of Scripture, and yet,in God’s providence, they used textsother than the Byzantine.16In answer to this, we must say that, as wehave shown from Isaiah 59.20–21, Godmade a covenant to preserve His word, notwith every individual true believer, butrather with believers consideredcorporately as Zion—the Church of God.It was with this Church (that is with Zion)that God made this covenant, for theRedeemer’s sake, and it is with this Churchthat God fulfilled that covenant.We have seen how Tertullian used aWestern text primarily, and yet Tertullianalso clearly pointed to the Byzantine textmaintained in the apostolic churches in theauthentic copies as being the true standard.Thus, we must be persuaded that Tertullianhimself, and not only Tertullian but alsoIrenaeus (but not Origen, as the reader willshortly see for himself) would havefavoured the movement of the Church inthe 4th century to restandardise all thecopies to conform to the faithful apographsmaintained in the apostolic churches (whichwere, for the most part, within theByzantine Empire).There were several factors that hadpreviously prevented the standardisation ofthe Greek text, several of them political andecclesiastical in nature. There were certainlythe ten persecutions against the Christianscarried out by the Roman emperors in thefirst three centuries and in the beginning ofthe fourth—the last one, that of Diocletian,being the worst. There was also the Arianheresy, which had dominion in the universalChurch for about forty years after thepersecutions and which continued to be adominant force in the Church until theEmperor Justinian crushed it by conqueringthe Lombards, the Vandals and theOstrogoths—three Arian kingdoms—inAD 533.17 Prior to this, there had been anArian influence upon the copies of the NewTestament in Egypt, as we shall see.17

Trinitarian Bible Society – Quarterly RecordThere was also the influence of Origenand the Origenists, which had favoured amystical/allegorical interpretation of theScriptures, and which also had modified thetexts to favour their interpretations. TheByzantine emperor Justinian also broughtan end to the influence of Origenism whenhe called the council of Constantinople inAD 543, which condemned Origen andOrigenism, particularly Origen’s heresy ofuniversal redemption (that all souls, after athousand years of purgatory, would besaved). Certainly, the facts that: (1) theEgyptian text differed from the apographswhich had been maintained in theByzantine apostolic churches; (2) Egypt,notwithstanding that there were championsof orthodoxy within her midst, nonethelessalso had many heretics within her who wereknown to have tampered with the text; (3) itwas well known that Origen had altered theEgyptian text, and that he with his followershad just been condemned by a Council inByzantium in AD 543; and (4) the entireCoptic (that is, Egyptian) Church wasexcommunicated from the communion ofthe orthodox churches in the 5th centurybecause of their monophysitism18 (whichthey have named miaphysitism19)—thesefacts, we affirm, would have caused theorthodox churches to look askance, andrightly so, at the Egyptian text. So, duringthe 5th century, all hands agree that theByzantine text gained dominance20—theChurch began to shelve the Egyptian text,and to promote copies after the apostolic,Byzantine standard—and that by the 9thcentury all remnants of the Alexandrian textin essence died out. It was no longer in themouth of any segment of the Church at all,save the Coptic Church and her allies, whohad universally been excommunicated in18the 5th century for refusing to comply withthe Council of Chalcedon.We are thus persuaded that the earlyChurch universally embraced the standardof Tertullian—namely, that the truereadings of New Testament Scripture wereto be found in the faithful apographs orcopies of the apostolic congregations, wherethe apostolic pastorates were still in place.We believe that, after the persecutionsceased, and Arianism, Nestorianism,Monophysitism and Origenism were routed,the Byzantine text rightly gained theascendancy and that permanently, thusmanifesting itself to be the text that wouldbe the Scriptures in the true Church’smouth, from generation to generation, evenfor ever, in accordance with the promise ofIsaiah 59.20–21.The Egyptian text cannot bethe Providentially preservedtext, because it was notpreserved in all generationsnor in the Church’s mouthin all agesWe have shown that the true text, the wordsof God promised in Isaiah 59.20–21, wouldbe that which would be in the mouth of thetrue Church, in the mouth of her seed andher seed’s seed, from henceforth and forever. Thus, any text that was obliterated andforgotten for 1,400 years cannot byScriptural standards be the Providentiallypreserved words of God, because it was notthe text that was in the Church’s mouth, thatis, in her profession and in her feeding upon

Issue Number: 581 – October to December 2007it as it was being expounded from herpulpits from generation to generation. Ofcourse, where the Alexandrian and Westerntexts agree with the Byzantine text, thosereadings were preserved, those words werepreserved—but not the distinctiveAlexandrian or Western readings. They werenot preserved from generation to generationin the Church’s mouth, in her confession andpreaching, because they simply were not theProvidentially preserved words of God.Thus, the Egyptian text cannot be theProvidentially preserved words of God, savewhere it agrees with the Byzantine

King James Version, the Thomas Nelson Publishing Company set forth this aim, among others: to produce an updated English Version that follows the sentence structure of the 1611 Authorized Version as closely as possible. As much of the original King James Version as possible will be preserved. The intention i