The History of the Bible: Part 1 (of 3)

Is the Bible the Word of God?  That is a question that only faith can answer.  Is the Bible we have today an accurate representation of what its authors originally wrote?  That is a question that evidence can prove.  The Bible is by far the most well attested ancient document with a rich manuscript history and a fascinating story of ordinary people who rose to the occasion to protect it, or sank to the depths to try to keep it from the people.  It is a story of hand-written copies, and a story of translation efforts from the original Greek and Hebrew.  This three part series will open the door to the much larger subject of the history of the text of the Bible, its preservation and transmission from the ancient world to the plethora of English Bibles that we have available to us today.  Along the way, it will help answer questions about the reliability of our text, the affect that variants have upon our confidence in the text, as well the reasons why we have so many translations in English today.

            There are skeptics who don’t believe that we can have any confidence that our text is the same as what was originally written. Amazingly, they agree with the essential facts of history that the Bible’s manuscript tradition is rich and ancient, sadly, they draw opposite conclusion from this evidence and end up with nothing but doubt. There are “perfect” Bible zealots who have complete confidence in one particular translation of our text, made 400 years ago, who are immune to evidence because their belief in the text of the Bible is a matter of faith not facts.  Both of these groups think that ordinary Christians will have their faith destroyed if they learn the truth about the history of the Bible, they’re both wrong.  The Word of God has been handed down to each new generation throughout the history of the Church, and that story is something that every Christian should want to know.

Parts 2 & 3 to follow (previous versions already available via the History of the Bible tab at the top of the web page) next week and the week after.

Why Christians should care about the work of CSNTM

I would imagine that most pastors, let alone most Christians, are unfamiliar with the work of CSNTM (gotta love acronyms).  The Center For The Study Of New Testament Manuscripts is an organization founded by noted New Testament manuscript expert, Dr. Daniel B. Wallace (a personal favorite) in 2002.  What does CSNTM do?  The organization's mission is to utilize emerging technologies to preserve and study Greek New Testament manuscripts. Since then, CSNTM has collaborated with more than forty institutions on four continents to produce hundreds of thousands of images of New Testament manuscripts. In the process, CSNTM has discovered dozens of New Testament manuscripts. - From the About page of the CSNTM Website
What is the importance of this work?  By cataloging surviving NT manuscripts, and digitally preserving them, CSNTM is helping to add further depth and breadth to our understanding of the original autographs of the NT. 
Why don't we just look at the originals?  Easy enough to answer, they no longer exist.  No autograph (original from the hand of the author) of any ancient document {excluding those carved in stone, not exactly an option for the entire NT) has survived to the modern age.  Time, wear and tear, natural disasters, and deliberate destruction (think marauding barbarians gleefully setting fire to libraries) have seen to that. 
What do we have then?  Around 5,800 NT manuscripts (some whole, some very fragmentary) in Greek, 10,000 in Latin and 9,300 in various other languages (the non-Greek being translations, still useful, but not as much as those in the original language, Greek).  The further beauty of CSNTM is that they have discovered, cataloged, and digitally photographed 90 previously undocumented NT manuscripts.  In other words, the surviving evidence of the original NT text is getting stronger thanks to this work.
How is the work of CSNTM utilized?  Scholars are able to remotely study individual manuscripts much easier than finding them and gaining permission to view them, without risk of damaging this delicate ancient documents.  In addition, the printed Greek text that underpins nearly all English translations (exceptions being the KJV and NKJV which use the Textus Receptus, and the Douay-Rheims based on the Latin Vulgate {the Catholic Bible, based on Jerome's 4th century translation into Latin}) is today the Nestle-Aland's 28th Edition or the United Bible Societies' 5th Edition both of which are in a continual process of being updated to take advantage of new discoveries and new scholarship (like that of CSNTM) to further refine the 99% accuracy of our current text.

For further study, check out my 6 hour lecture on the History of the English Bible (located conveniently at this blog), where I delve into the history of the copying by hand of the NT, the advent of printed editions, and the translation work that brought the Bible from its original hand copied Hebrew and Greek manuscripts to our printed English texts today.

Sexist Gospels? Another reminder that Inspiration and Inerrancy matter

In a recent essay entitled, Toward non-gendered language for God, that was published in The Christian Citizen, which is a publication of the American Baptist Home Missions Societies (I am an ABC pastor, serving an ABC church), Dr. Molly T. Marshall who is the president of Central Baptist Seminary, argued that the Church's historic emphasis upon male language (pronouns, imagery) when speaking of God is exclusionary and thus harmful to women.  This particular point is controversial, and is of course wrapped in all manner of cultural and political debates beyond this specific point that Dr. Marshall is advocating.  That being said, a Bible-based conversation about gender equality can certainly be both helpful and necessary; for example, a discussion based upon Paul's words in Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Or perhaps a discussion pondering God's intentions for gender roles that examines texts like Genesis 2:18 18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”  There is room within the Church for various understanding of the role of women in ministry, the way in which husbands and wives complement each other and work together, as well as what a Biblical view of gender within society as a whole ought to be.  That Dr. Marshall is advocating a particular view on these things bothers me not at all.  That others might see things rather differently is also not unexpected nor particularly worrisome provided that we can appreciate our diversity of viewpoints within the Church and still both love each other and work together for the sake of the Gospel.
So, that being said, why am I mentioning the article by Dr. Marshall at all?  The essay contains one paragraph that strays from the issue at hand and instead becomes her commentary upon the creation of the Gospel accounts about Jesus (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), and in particular a critique of the authors.  In this paragraph (below), it becomes clear that Dr. Marshall's viewpoint of Inspiration and thus Innerancy {A definition: "The Bible, when correctly interpreted in light of the level to which culture and the means of communication had developed at the time it was written, and in view of the purposes for which it was given, is fully truthful in all that it affirms." - Erickson, Introducing Christian Doctine} does not seem to be within the bounds of the traditional/apostolic Church.
{Dr. Marshall readily admits to not accepting the doctrine of inerrancy in this essay: The peril of selective inerrancy , While I eschew the proposition of inerrancy,  believing that it claims for Scripture something it does not claim for itself}

In addition, the language Jesus used for God is warrant for many to speak of God only as Father.  Jesus’ language is much more about filial intimacy than ascribing literal gender. It is easy to see the growth of a tradition from Mark to John. In Mark, Jesus names God Abba 11 times; by the time John is written, this naming for God occurs 120 times. In the midst of great strides to include women begun by Jesus, the writers and editors of the Gospels wanted to ensure that a masculine vision of God safeguarded men’s prerogative and that women would remain secondary. We can see this effect by comparing the treatment of Peter and Mary Magdalene. Recent scholarship suggests that there was a concerted effort to subordinate her leadership to her male counterpart. - Dr. Molly T. Marhsall

Dr. Marshall is operating under the presupposition that the Gospel accounts are not the product of the authors that tradition ascribes to them, but rather an ongoing process of writing and editing that was affected by tradition, resulting in the earlier Gospel, Mark only using Abba 11 times, but the Gospel which was written last, John, using it 120 times {while there are various theories about the dates of the writing of each of the Gospels, John is generally understood to be last}.  Rather than wondering why the term 'Abba' might have more significance for John than Mark, as all 4 Gospel account are only snapshots of Jesus' life and hardly exhaustive {thus all 4 had their own moments and ideas to emphasize drawn from the larger tapestry of Jesus' life, ministry, and teaching}, Dr. Marshall instead chooses to see this 'growth' as the result of an Early Church tradition that was hostile to women, even ascribing nefarious (and sinful) motives to these unknown editors as sexist men who decided to warp Jesus' message in order to keep women in their place.  In other words, the writers/editors of the Gospels were unrepentant sexists opposed to the message of Jesus, working against his efforts, NOT honest and sincere chroniclers.  In addition to the 'evidence' of the use of Abba, Dr. Marshall also offers and argument from silence (a logical fallacy) in which the role of Mary Magdalene is alleged to have suppressed by these same wicked Early Church leaders in favor of elevating Peter {Set aside for a moment the actual portrayal of Peter in the Gospels, it is more often embarrassing than flattering}.
Where do these ideas for analyzing the text come from and what do they tell us about Inspiration and Innerancy?  Treating the text of the Bible like this is not new, it began to pick up steam in the 19th century and has since become the hallmark of liberal (not the political use of the term, think Bart Ehrman or John Shelby Spong as current examples) interpretation of Scripture.  What was once a 'high' view of Scripture, has become an extremely 'low' view.  What was once considered the sacred Word of God, as Paul declares it, 'God-breathed' (theopneustos in Greek, 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,) and created when its authors were 'carried along' by the Holy Spirit in Peter's description of it (2 Peter 1:21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.), has now become the work of various writers and editors according to their own agendas and steeped in their own sinful attitudes which must, presumably, then be purged from the text.  The Word of God, has become the flawed words of men.
The traditional view of Scripture, emphasized by the Reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin, is by contrast a 'high' view, one in which the Scriptures are suitable to be the sole source of faith and practice (Sola Scriptura) precisely because they are God-breathed and thus not subject to the same errors and biases as the writings/utterances/ideas of sinful men and women.  God used the human authors, purposefully choosing to work through their viewpoints and vocabulary, but NOT allowing their flaws (for all of the authors of Scripture were sinners needing to be saved by grace) to be transmitted into what they wrote.  It thus remains a divine document, one central to our faith, and one worthy of our trust.
Once the Scriptures have been downgraded from a product of the human/divine partnership described within Scripture itself, all bets are off regarding which can be called into question and thus targeted for removal/dismissal.  Let me emphasize this: These are not questions of interpretation, places where Christians who hold equally high views of Scripture can strongly disagree {a famous example in our generation has been the debate about the intended meaning of the Creation account in Genesis: Was it supposed to be a 'literal' account of events that occurred over a 6 day period 6,000 years ago, or a symbolic/allegorical account emphasizing God's role as Creator without answering questions of how or when?  Both interpretations come from a high view of inspiration and inerrancy, neither is treating the text like a myth or fairy tale}, but rather more fundamental questions of the nature of Scripture itself.  Using the methodology that influences Dr. Marshall's conclusions about Abba and Mary Magdalene, how could one defend against Bart Ehrman's contention that Jesus never claimed to be God, didn't believe himself to be God, and didn't rise from the dead?  Ehrman believes these elements were added to the Gospels centuries after Jesus lived by a militant Church hierarchy intent upon squashing disent (contentions based upon Ehrman's conjecture and anti-supernatural presuppositions, but lacking in actual historic evidence) and thus we should view Jesus as a good ethical teacher, but nothing more.  If Scripture represents the flawed views of its authors, what in it can be taken at face value?  On what basis do we declare any portion of Scripture to be Truth and not simply the opinion of one man?
We can, and should, have conversations within the Church about our failure to treat everyone equally, failures regarding both race and gender.  We can, and should, seek to be more Biblical in our understanding of how we ought to treat each other.  These things are necessary.  What we cannot do, what we must not do, is jettison the bedrock belief in the Inspiration and Inerrancy of Scripture simply because flawed human beings have failed to properly interpret and apply what God has written.  The Word of God was here before us, and it will be here after us, we cannot tear it down to compensate for our own mistakes or to make it conform to our opinions.

Sermon Video: The Supremacy of the Son of God - Colossians 1:15-20

Having finished his introduction, Paul now turns in his letter to the church at Colassae to the budding heresy there that prompted the writing of this letter.  The proto-Gnosticism at Colassae denied the full deity of Jesus Christ, Paul chooses to confront this error head-on by repeatedly emphasizing the nature of Jesus as the one in whom the "fullness" of God dwelt, and the one who was intimately involved in the creation of everything that exists, both in the physical and spiritual realms, going so far as to say that "all things" were created, by, through, and for him.  In addition, Paul confirms that Jesus was both the means and the end of God's reconciliation of humanity to himself.  In the end, Paul rejects soundly the still to come Arminian heresy, a heresy that will later be revived by the Jehovah's Witnesses.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Defending the Word of God: A task that never ends.

It was just two weeks ago that I wrote about a syndicated article in the paper in which a Mormon and a Unitarian both challenged the Orthodox understanding of the Bible that the Church has held throughout its history.  For the Mormon, the challenge came in the form of believing in an Open Canon, i.e. that new revelation beyond that of the Apostles was possible.  For the Unitarian, the challenge came via disbelief in the accuracy of the Bible that we have today and ultimately doubt as to the divine origin of the original anyway.
In a recent letter to the editor, a local resident made an accusation about why he believes America is in moral decay, a position all too readily assumed by many Christians, regardless of the actual evidence, a reflection of a deep seated pessimism about the future.  The comment in question was the worst sort of guilt-by-association and causation fallacy (that because A precedes B, A must be the cause of B).  The writer was listing the signs of the "downfall" of America and claimed that this trend began in earnest in the 1970's with the legalization of abortion and the publication of the NIV Bible.  It should go without saying that one of those two things is a moral evil and truly a sign of trouble in society (although certainly not a harbinger of the end, the society into which the Gospel began its mission of transformation was well known for its infanticide, not to mention rampant slavery).  To equate the two, as if there is some sort of connection between them (other than happening in the same decade) is of course nonsense, but in this case it is part and parcel with the type of "argumentation" often put forth by those who see the world through a KJV Only set of glasses.
If I believed, for a second, that the only true Christians were those attending independent, fundamentalist, KJV Only churches in America, I'd be a pessimist about the future too.  If the Gospel were failing in our world that badly, if only .001% of the world's population were being saved by the power of the cross and the empty grave, where would hope come from?
Thankfully, the truth is far different.  The work of the Gospel, through the universal Church of Jesus Christ, is being carried out all over the world, in hundreds of languages (thanks to the tireless efforts of Bible translation teams from organizations like Wycliffe Bible Translators).  His Church is making tremendous progress throughout Africa, and is growing rapidly in Southeast Asia.  Nobody knows what the future holds for any nation, America included, but the Church of Jesus Christ is not whimpering in a corner, huddling with a few link-minded individuals, it is out there in the world today, reclaiming lost souls for the kingdom, and doing it using a variety of the many wonderful translations of the Bible that we have today.
The task of defending the Word of God never ends.

Why the history of the Bible should matter to you.

In two weeks I will finish teaching my seminar on the history of the Bible for the sixth time in the past three years.  I am thankful for each chance that I have had to share the history of how the modern English Bible came to be, from its original Greek and Hebrew autographs to our text today.  An article on today's local newspaper (a syndicated column in the religion page) illustrated to me once again the need for an accurate understanding of the Bible based in historical fact not fantasy.  The two columnists were asked to answer the question, "Why are there so many arguments about what's in the Bible?"  An excellent question, unfortunately this particular question was put to two men who don't actually believe in the Bible, a dubious start to an answer.  The first of the two is an Elder in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; a Mormon.  Mormons believe that the canon of scripture remains open, that new revelation continues to occur.  The Elder, after referencing "errors" in the modern text, offers up the solution of instead consulting the new revelation of the Book of Mormon (among other new texts).  In the end, a non-Christian Mormon perspective advocates for turning away from the Bible instead of answering the question at hand; not overly helpful.
The second columnist is a pastor of a congregation, but in his attack on the Biblical text, which I will quote shortly, he makes error after error of outright historical falsehoods, all while positing that the Biblical text today is more/less worthless for anything other than being a "moral compass".  The pastor, whose name I will omit so as to not make this personal, claimed that the Bible "has been tweaked, touched up, added to and deleted from to fit the viewpoints of the ruling class as well as serve the personal interest of religious authorities."  There's just one problem with this oft-repeated conspiracy theory, it has no basis in history.  Manuscripts of the Bible have been uncovered, lost in the Egyptian desert since the 2nd and 3rd century, that confirm the accuracy of the hand copied manuscripts (in their thousands, over 5,000 total copies have survived) that supposedly went through this revision.  Why have there been zero new readings found in the recently uncovered manuscripts, does he really believe that the Church changed these copies as well?  And how would they have done so, when there were copies of the text being made all over the Mediterranean world by countless copyists?  Historical fantasy of conspiracies does not make them real.
The line that really made me understand that this particular pastor's education has been sorely lacking in the history of the Bible was this, "It is important to remember, when we read the Bible today we are reading a translation of a translation of a translation in a language that didn't exist when the original Bible was written."  He is absolutely right that English didn't exist when the Bible was written in Greek and Hebrew.  The rest of the sentence is so laughably inaccurate as to be akin to claiming the moon landing was faked.  The modern English Bible (and the not-so-modern KJV as well) is a direct translation from the original Greek and Hebrew with no intermediary languages involved.  The KJV is based upon Erasmus' 16th century printed Greek text, the modern translations (NIV, NASB, ESV, etc.) are all based upon the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Society eclectic text which takes into consideration all of the over 5,000 surviving Greek manuscripts to determine the most accurate original reading.  If you don't understand a simple fact such as how the Bible was translated from its original languages into English, how can I take seriously anything else you say?  The line following that whopper was this, "Scholars agree there are more than 20,000 inconsistencies in the Bible as the result of different people with different viewpoints."  Another ludicrous figure pulled out of a hat to fit the pre-supposition that the Bible is a product of men not God.
When I looked up the columnist's church on the internet, I was not surprised to find that it is a Universalist Church built upon "Spiritual Principles"; Jesus is nowhere to be found on their website, evidently not a part of the equation.
Why does it matter that pastors and the laity know the history of the Bible?  If the faith of the Apostles, and the actual teaching of Christ matter to you, then so does the history of the Word of God.  The world has plenty of people willing to reject the Bible and search for answers elsewhere, we have nothing to fear from the truth, the history of the Bible is plain and clear for all to see, only ignorance.

King James (or TR) Onlyism as a logical syllogism

In order for a logical syllogism to be valid, all premises must be true, and the conclusion must be forced by the premises.  With that in mind, and knowing that many KJV (TR) Only advocates will howl at the idea that something they take on faith is evaluated on the basis of logic, I offer this:

1. The Bible promises that God will preserve his Word

2. The only possible definition of preserve is "perfection"

3. The only text that is "perfect" is the KJV (TR).

The first premise is entirely true.  God did promise to preserve his Word.
The second premise is an interpretation of Scripture, that can be debated, as all interpretations must be, it is not correct by the standards of Church history to say that it MUST be the only interpretation.
The conclusion can no longer be valid, since the 2nd premise is untrue, but even if it was, the conclusion is not a result of the first two premises.  There is nothing different about the KJV (TR) from any other text or translation that sets it apart as "perfect".  Advocates of that position will claim otherwise, will make their chosen favorite the standard by which all others are judged, but they cannot escape the clear facts of history, and must in the end retreat into saying that their position MUST be taken by faith (with all the dire consequences of apostasy heaped upon those who disagree).

There is a lot of confusion, name calling, tangents that have nothing to do with the main issue, and outright lies being spread about this issue within the Church.  It is enough to make the head of an ordinary lay person spin, and not a few pastors as well.  But, in the end, everything comes back to premise #2 and the desperate attempt to prove that the KJV (or TR) satisfies that standard.

The sad thing is, none of this is necessary, we have an amazingly, providentially, preserved Word of God, living and active, powerful and mighty, available to us in English in an array of sound and beneficial choices.  Not only that, but this entire discussion relegates God's work through his Word among the other peoples of the world to sideshow, when in reality God's work among the English speaking peoples, and the Western cultures is but one part of his amazing work all over the world.  Everyday the percentage of Christians reading the Bible in English shrinks because the number of Christians reading it in other languages is growing by leaps and bounds!

An evaluation of the TR (and/or KJV) Only position's presuppositions

The presuppositions of the TR Only position, which for the most part match up with those of the KJV Only position seem to be as follows: (1) That the Bible’s passages on the preservation of Scripture require a “perfect” Bible, anything less makes God a liar and is thus a perversion of Scripture. (2) That the definition of “perfect” envisioned by this viewpoint can allow for no textual criticism, no revisions, no corrections of the text.  {Some of the KJV Only would add “no variants” to this list}(3) That other than the original autographs, this “perfect” example of Scripture exists only in the TR (or KJV). 

Let us for a moment assume each proposition to be true and see what the results would be. (1) If the passages of Scripture about preservation require a “perfect” Bible, they do not in any way indicate which text that would be.  Since it must be available in every generation, it must have first existed in the Hebrew manuscripts (aside from the Dead Sea Scrolls, all of which were lost prior to the Middle Ages), then in the Greek manuscripts, although it could only be in one text type, but without the original autographs there is no basis for choosing one and only one text type as the “perfect” text when the only thing we have to compare them to is each other. (2) If no textual criticism is to be allowed, and how can it be when the text is “perfect”, there is no ability to answer the clear evidence of a text which changed over time, with additions and corrections, throughout its history (NT in particular given the wealth of manuscripts we have of it).  If the text was already “perfect” and needed to remain “perfect” each and every generation, it could not change, at all, not even a single word.  Yet that is not the history of the manuscripts.  By comparing one generation of them to another, in any text type, this becomes clear, copyists made mistakes, both intentional and accidental that became accepted (for at least a time, by an unsuspecting Church).  But if God’s power and veracity stands or falls based upon an unchanging text, the only possible explanation is to ignore history and evidence and claim that the text must be taken on faith no matter what (that’s Sam Gipp’s stated position, any fault in the KJV, even typographical mistakes of the printer, are to be ignored and the result taken on faith). (3)  Who is the authority, Scripture is certainly silent about which future text will be the “perfect” one and which will be the corrupted ones, that determines that the TR, and only the TR (and hence the KJV) are to be deemed perfect over and against the Byzantine text, the Alexandrian, the Majority (which will always represent the Byzantine as the number of those manuscripts is such a clear majority), or the Eclectic blending of all sources?  Who designated Erasmus as the final authority on the preservation of Scripture, who sanctified his work and declared it without error?  Keep in mind, that Erasmus himself made significant changes to his printed editions with each new one, as did Stephanus and Beza after him.

In the end, I see no compelling reason to belief that we MUST believe any of those suppositions, if a TR Only (or KJV Only) advocate wishes to tweak them somewhat, fine, but the primary issues remain.  The Scriptures do promise preservation, but are silent as to how that will occur and by what agency, The text tradition does include many variants, all of them do, there are no perfect manuscript traditions, even within Erasmus’ exceedingly limited number of manuscripts representing one text tradition, there were variants that he had to sort out by doing textual criticism.  Lastly, the only way that the TR, and only the TR, can be elevated to such a status is an appeal to tradition or authority, both of which were supposed to be rejected by the Reformers, to resurrect them now would be a disservice to the ideals of men like Tyndale, Luther, and Calvin.

If you need a good laugh, watch Sam Gipp's, "What the big deal about the KJV?" video

I needed a macabre laugh today so I re-watched "Dr." Sam Gipp's "What's the Big Deal about the KJV?" video.  From the very first scene, this 40 minute video is one ridiculous example after another of the worst KJV Onlyism set in a fake college setting where "professor" Gipp enlightens his students about the "perfect" Word of God.  Straw Men abound, as per usual, as well as illogical argument like this: The KJV is from Antioch through the TR (not actually true, the 6 manuscripts Erasmus had were medieval Byzantine copies, but let that go for a minute), the Eclectic Critical text ("you should know that there's a problem right there when they say their text is critical", as if the term Biblical Criticism was somehow an evil practice, forget that Erasmus, the father of the TR engaged in Biblical Criticism, as did the translation team utilizing Tyndale, the Bishop's Bible, and Erasmus to put together the KJV and every other copyists or translator) is from Alexandria (Of course this too isn't true, the Modern Critical text utilizes all of the manuscripts Western, Alexandrian, and Byzantine, far more of them {5,500+ vs. 6} than the TR, plus Church Fathers, and other early translations).  Gipp then explains that Antioch is where the followers of Jesus were first called Christians, that must mean it is a holy place of all goodness and its manuscripts are perfect (forget that heresies also came from Antioch, such as Monothelitism and Nestorianism), and Egypt is always called a bad place in the Bible (forget for a moment, "Out of Egypt I called my son"), thus Alexandria is written off as a place full of heretics whose manuscripts must therefore be 100% corrupt.  FYI, Guilt by Association, even weak association, is a favorite KJV Only tactic.  (Such as labeling anything they don't like "Catholic" as if that somehow ruins and taints whatever person or manuscript they need to discredit).

Everything goes downhill from there, including a hilarious scene where Gipp has a Bible study group read Psalm 23 in half a dozen different translations to show them the "confusion" that results, as if unison reading not lining up somehow proves anything.  Another favorite "proof" of Gipp is that the Modern Critical Text omits verses from the Bible, thus throwing off the numbering system of the 16th century (What, those guys can't even count, he says).  Don't stop and wonder why those verses are in the margins in the modern text, don't ask why scholars know for certain that they were added later, just go along as Gipp tells you that they're taking things out of the Bible because he has already set up the KJV as the only standard, therefore any "change" in the text from the KJV is what counts, and don't worry about what the original Greek text says regarding the "changes" he points out, he doesn't say so in this particular video but he's said elsewhere that he wouldn't care if original autographs were found, he already has a perfect KJV.

The proof text of any KJV Only fanatic is I John 5:7, a verse that has zero manuscript evidence in Greek before the 16th century, which by the way Gipp accuses the Alexandrians of removing from the Bible because they hate the Trinity (something they couldn't have done, of course because it didn't appear until later Latin copies of the Vulgate), sad for him that none of the Byzantine manuscripts have it either, and that none of the Church Fathers quote the verse despite their blood feud with the Arians.  Thus in this one instance, Gipp is accusing other Christians of denying the Trinity by relying upon an verse addition that comes from the Latin Vulgate, the Bible of the Catholic Church (which Gipp and those like him hate with white hot fury).  Forget for a moment that the trinity is found elsewhere in the NT (in the modern texts as well), forget for a moment the horror if such an important verse could be expunged from the manuscript tradition for 1,600 years, all of this isn't supposed to matter as you feel anger toward those who deny the trinity by changing God's perfectly preserved Bible, the KJV.

In the end, "Dr." Sam Gipp, along with Peter Ruckman, Gail Riplinger, and those who follow in their wake, have faith in a perfect Bible, the same blind faith of the world's Muslims who also allow no variants in their text, and treat any questions as those of heretics, and they have a skeptics doubts about the Early Church, the manuscript copying process, and the preservation of the original text, just like that of Dr. Bart Ehrman who has no faith because the text isn't "perfect".

Keep making your propaganda movies, they're good for a laugh, at least they would be if you weren't trying to destroy Christian fellowship, the reputations of devout men of God whose work as scholars has only increased our knowledge of the real reason why our Bible can be trusted, and making things up as you go to fit a conclusion that you reached long before you started making up your conspiracy theory.  While you're at it, say hi to Dan Brown, he enjoys a good conspiracy theory.

The unexpected agreement between Dr. Bart Ehrman's skepticism and the KJV Only fanatics

"When you subjugate it to the human laboratory for testing and twisting and probing, it takes on a different nature.  If it isn't preserved perfectly, then it lacks in authority, something less than full authority."  This is a quote about the Bible from Kent Brandenburg, and it has something that he might not be happy to hear about in common with the leading agnostic critic of Biblical accuracy alive today, Bart Ehrman.  Bart is a well known critic, with best selling books like Misquoting Jesus and How Jesus Became God to his name.  One of the most crucial conclusions that Dr. Ehrman makes in his rejection of the Bible that we have today is that it isn't the same as the original as penned by the Apostles.  If we don't have the original, God must not have preserved it, if God didn't perfectly preserve it, he must not have given it in the first place.  If the modern Bible isn't a perfect copy of the original autographs, if it has any errors (despite its historically unheard of 97% accuracy), it is no longer the Word of God.  KJV Only fanatics take this same view of the preservation of Scripture.  Their answer to Bart's dilemma is to posit a new revelation from God that occurred in 1611 (don't mention to them the typographical/spelling/printing mistakes of that edition, it won't be welcome).  The King James Bible to them is a perfectly preserved English version of what the Apostles wrote, so much so that many of them have dismissed the relevance of an original autograph should one be found in some cave like the Dead Sea Scrolls, and so much so that some of them (Sam Gipp for example) contend that the only way to hear the Word of God today is for the people of the world to learn English to read the KJV (Don't point out the obvious racist white superiority behind this line of thinking, just because God treats all men equally doesn't mean they have to).  How do we know that the KJV is a perfect edition in every way, especially since in their view that's the only way it will be God's Word?  You'll have to take that on faith.
  Dr. Ehrman yearns for a perfect Bible, doesn't have one, and has lost his faith, the KJV Only crowd yearn for a perfect Bible, so they've pretended they have one.
The sad thing is, we have an amazing Biblical text today.  All of the original readings have been preserved within the manuscript tradition, none of what the Apostles wrote has been lost.  The Bible is more readily available and accessible than ever before all over the world in hundreds of languages with new ones being translated every year.  The Word of God has never been closer to ordinary people, too bad the skeptics and the fanatics can't see it.

* Note * Kent Brandenburg should not be identified with the KJV Only crowd of Ruckman/Gipp/Riplinger (which he rightly dismisses as an untenable position), both groups believe in "perfect preservation", the first as found in the KJV, Kent's group as found in the Textus Receptus (TR definition).  To prefer the TR is a defensible position, just as it is defensible to prefer the KJV, the TR was the Greek text basis for Tyndale, the Bishop's Bible, the KJV, the Geneva Bible, Luther's German NT, and the New King James, but to be TR ONLY is almost as erroneous as the KJV Only position in that it posits a perfect moment in Church history when the text of God's Word needs to be frozen, when all scholarship and textual criticism needs to cease.  The problem with that, is that there is no one TR (it isn't a manuscript, but a published collation of a few late Byzantine texts that were available to Erasmus), there are many published additions of Erasmus/Stephanus/Beza that were the result of their efforts at textual criticism, so why must these men be the only authorities that can offer God's people his Word?  The TR is a good text, but the Majority text is better, and the Critical Eclectic text is better still.  Christians in the 16th century like Erasmus did a great job considering the manuscripts they had available to them at the time, but we have no need to limit ourselves to what they knew then.  God has indeed preserved his Word, in EACH generation, that effort continues to this day through the work of Godly men who continue the work of their ancestors in the faith. 

The History of the Bible: Lecture series

Is the Bible the Word of God?  That is a question that only faith can answer.  Is the Bible we have today an accurate representation of what its authors originally wrote?  That is a question that evidence can prove.  The Bible is by far the most well attested ancient document with a rich manuscript history and a fascinating story of ordinary people who rose to the occasion to protect it, or sank to the depths to try to keep it from the people.  It is a story of hand-written copies, and a story of translation efforts from the original Greek and Hebrew.  This three part series will open the door to the much larger subject of the history of the text of the Bible, its preservation and transmission from the ancient world to the plethora of English Bibles that we have available to us today.  Along the way, it will help answer questions about the reliability of our text, the affect that variants have upon our confidence in the text, as well the reasons why we have so many translations in English today.

            There are skeptics who don’t believe that we can have any confidence that our text is the same as what was originally written.  Amazingly, they agree with the essential facts of history that the Bible’s manuscript tradition is rich and ancient, sadly, they draw opposite conclusion from this evidence and end up with nothing but doubt.  There are “perfect” Bible zealots who have complete confidence in one particular translation of our text, made 400 years ago, who are immune to evidence because their belief in the text of the Bible is a matter of faith not facts.  Both of these groups think that ordinary Christians will have their faith destroyed if they learn the truth about the history of the Bible, they’re both wrong.  The Word of God has been handed down to each new generation throughout the history of the Church, and that story is something that every Christian should want to know.

In order to best understand the lecture, please take the time to download the PowerPoint, Word document, and especially the manuscript chart.  Having them in front of you while you listen will allow you to more fully understand the information that is being presented.

To watch part 1 in the series, click on the link below:

The History of the Bible video, 1 of 3

The History of the Bible video, 2 of 3

The History of the Bible video, 3 of 3 

To look at the PowerPoint slides used in the presentation, click on the link below:

 History of the Bible PowerPoint (for all 3 parts)

To view the manuscript evidence Word document, click on the link below:

Manuscript evidence

To view the manuscript history chart created by Pastor Powell and Pastor Scott Woodlee, click below:

Manuscript History chart 

Why the Bible skeptics and KJV only fanatics have something in common.

As I continue to prepare for my upcoming History of the Bible series, I’ve been watching some of the Youtube videos of James White’s debates with both Biblical skeptics and KJV fanatics.  In doing so I’ve come to a realization, although I’m sure someone else has noticed this already, to me it was still worth noting.  The skeptics and the KJV fanatics are two sides of the same coin.  Now, they certainly won’t say that, and would likely have a hard time having a civil conversation, but that doesn’t change the fact that both groups are over-reacting to the same historical fact that we don’t have a perfectly preserved New Testament text, a fact which has been known since at least Erasmus first published his Greek NT over 500 years ago, but one that both groups never tire of using as some sort of “secret” that the Church doesn’t want you to know.

            The skeptics, like Bart Ehrman and John Shelby Spong, look at the textual history of the NT, see that there are certainly uncertainties, (which any rational Bible believing scholar readily admits without fear) and erroneously and over-zealously concludes that the entire NT is therefore untrustworthy, that Jesus never claimed to be God, that the resurrection and the virgin birth are myths, and that the Church has been part of some Dan Brown-like conspiracy to hide the truth from the rubes that still believe such things.

            The KJV only fanatics, like Peter Ruckman and Sam Gipp, look at the textual history of the NT, see that there are certainly uncertainties, and erroneously and over-zealously conclude that the only solution is to posit a perfect re-inspiration of the Bible in the form of the KJV, thus concluding that whatever mistakes the KJV contains don’t actually exists, that all further scholarship and all modern translations are perversions of the devil, and that the only option for the Church is blind faith in the KJV to the extent that even foreign missionaries should teach illiterate tribes English so that they can read the KJV instead of doing new translation work.

            That both of these positions are clearly unnecessary and exceedingly dangerous is clear.  If either group had their way, the Church as we know it would be destroyed and be replaced by something that either has no soul, because it has lost its faith to doubt, or no mind, because it has had to silence its intellect to exist. 

            The history of the Bible isn’t a fairy tale full of perfect people, but it also isn’t something to be afraid of.  For those who wish to maintain both their faith and their intellect, the study of the history of how the Bibles we have today came to exist is both enlightening and enriching.  Don’t let the skeptics or the fanatics scare you away, the truth is not our enemy.

* On a personal note.  This observation of the connection between these two groups occurred to me as I lay in bed, rather than hoping I remembered it the next day, I got up to post it to my blog.  I assumed that somebody else had noticed this before be, and of course they had.  Two days later I was watching a debate between Dr. Bart Ehrman and Dan Wallace, during which Wallace drew the comparison between skeptics like Bart and KJV Only advocates.  Thus my "original" observation lasted only two days before I found out it had already been made by a NT expert, oh well.

Thoughts about the history of the Bible & KJV Onlyism

As I prepare to teach my series on the history of the English Bible for the third time, beginning on August 10th, I've been reminded of the zeal with which advocates of KJV Only positions have often disparaged the faith of fellow Christians in the name of defending God's Word.  That the Word of God should not be used to tear asunder the Church of God seems like an obvious truth, but sadly it is not.  That historic facts should be the basis of our faith, and our faith in the accuracy of the Scriptures also seems like an obvious truth, but it is routinely tossed aside when passion replaces reason and personal attacks replaces evidence.
As I was continuing to refine my presentation I came across several resources that might be helpful to those confused about the KJV Only debate that I would like to share here.

This first one is a web page by a man named Derek Oulette who created it in response to a "historic" chart that he was given by a KJV Only advocate.  It answers the fundamental questions of text types, copies, and reliability in an accessible manner.  To look at the web page, click here: KJV Debate web page

The second is series of TV shows recorded about twenty years ago that feature James White, one of the best authors on this subject, The King James Only Controversy, as well as representatives from the translation teams of the NKJV, NIV, and NASB, along with three KJV Only advocates, among them the notorious "Dr." Samuel Gipp.  As you watch, notice the use of evidence and facts on the side of those representing the modern texts, and the complete disdain for them on the other side along with circular arguments and personal attacks.  To begin watching the videos, click here: John Ankerberg TV show videos
** There are 39 videos in this series, but they average about 5 minutes each.  Also, the KJV Only advocates in these videos are fond of accusing those representing the modern translations of being on the side of their arch-villain, the Roman Catholic Church.  This attitude of acting toward the Catholic Church like the year is 1611 instead of 2014 is beyond sad; We're 500 years out from the Reformation, isn't it time to start building on our common love of Christ and stop acting as if the next Pope is likely to be the Anti-Christ?  Fear of the Catholic Church runs right alongside anti-intellectualism in the KJV Only circles.**

The whole issue of NT textual criticism can frighten lay Christians without cause (which is one of the reasons for my desire to teach the history of the Bible), this webpage does a good job of explaining some of those historical issues in a brief format. To visit the webpage, click here: NT Textual Criticism

The last is a portion of a video from a physics teacher in England who regularly posts video that explain complicated things like the European Union or the American Electoral College.  This particular video is a Q&A that delves into the subject of opinions and why people hate to change them.  Skip ahead on the video to 1:15 to start the question about opinions.  To watch the video, click here: CGP Grey video

** I know that some will say, "the Bible isn't an opinion to be dropped when I learn something new!!"  Of course not, and if you think that you've missed the point.  The authority of the Bible is foundational to who we are as Christians, the history and exact text of the Bible is different, however, because it involves evidence and ongoing research.  When Nesle-Aland and UBS (the two primary Gk. texts for modern Bibles) issue an updated version of their text they're doing so because ongoing study in the fields of Biblical archaeology and textual criticism continue to help us move closer to the original text; the accuracy is already 98%+, but why shouldn't we be willing to continue working on that last 2%?  To fix the errors of the past is not to denigrate God's Word at all, rather it shows our reverence for it, thus when the text can be corrected we must do so instead of clinging to it like an out-dated or erroneous opinion.  That is the fundamental error of the KJV Only advocates, and the reason for referencing Grey's video.**

Lastly, let me make it clear that I appreciate the KJV Bible, it was a remarkable Bible in its day made by men who loved God and served his Church.  It has stood the test of time far better than many other translations, but it isn't perfect.  It has errors, these can be corrected, it has archaic language, this can be updated.  I have no problem with those who love the KJV, or with those who only use the KJV, but those who insist on KJV Only, and attack anyone who uses any other translation (even the NKJV), are wolves in sheep's clothing, they can only destroy the Church through their work.

Thankfully, I have encountered only reasonable ministers here in West PA, men and women eager to serve the Church of God, more interested in saving the lost and shepherding their flock than fighting their brothers and sisters in Christ.  This sort of environment doesn't exist in a vacuum, however, it continues to need education and ecumenical cooperation to feed it and keep it strong.  In my own way, I'm happy to be contributing to that effort.

Jerome, Erasmus, the KJV, and the Wycliffe Bible Translators

The science/art of translation work will always lead to controversial decisions when the material in question is the Bible.  This isn’t new, not by a long shot.  When Jerome’s Latin Vulgate (so called because it was “vulgar”, like the way common people spoke in his day) was first read in St. Augustine’s parish the people rioted.  They had previously used the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the O.T.’s Hebrew, and didn’t want anything new.  In what seems ridiculous to us today, the people’s objection centered around Jerome’s more accurate translation of the plant that shaded Jonah from the gourd that the LXX had rendered it, to the caster-oil plant of the Vulgate.  Who cares which plant shaded Jonah?  This incident illustrates how seriously Bible translations can be taken by the people they are intended to help.

            Fast forward 1,300 years to Erasmus’ work on a Greek NT (basically returning the text in the West to its original language).  Erasmus was criticized heavily by his contemporaries when he made changes to Jerome’s now nearly sacred Latin Vulgate to the extent that he changed one important text (I John 5:7-9) to reflect the Vulgate’s reading even though it was not in any of the Greek texts that he was working with.  The Vulgate, received with skepticism at first, had become too loved to correct.

            The King James Bible followed this same pattern.  It was not preferred over the Geneva Bible for over forty years, but eventually became the primary Bible of the English speaking world.  When modern scholarship and archaeological discoveries enabled experts to correct some of the errors found in Erasmus’ Greek NT (he only had 7 of the now 5700+ manuscripts that we have to consult), the resulting modern translations came under fire by lovers of the KJV for daring to challenge their beloved text.  Even though genuine errors that had resulted from copyists’ errors were being corrected involving the 2% of the text that needed to be fixed (the other 98% was not affected, even with only 7 manuscripts, Erasmus’ work had been extraordinary), the ardent supports of the KJV were not willing to consider that a new translation of their 400 year old Bible was needed.

            The recent controversy involving Wycliffe Bible Translators regarding the use of “Allah” in Muslim countries for God, and how to best translate the familial relationship between God the Father and God the Son when our understanding of it is difficult to put into the receiving language’s cultural context, illustrates the same passion for Bible translations that plagued Jerome, Erasmus, and the teams that produced the NASB, NIV, ESV, and all the rest.

            I have no problem with those who raise well informed objections to any part of the translation process, from the Greek/Hebrew text being used, to the translation theory behind the words chosen in the new language.  Such conversations can be a useful part of the process.  What I do not accept, and will not have any patience with, is the use of personal attacks used against these men and women whose lives are in service to the Church, such that they are accused of being under Satanic influence simply because somebody doesn’t like their choices in the translation process.  How ridiculous is it for Christians to accuse other Christians of evil simply because they can’t agree on how best to convey the Word of God to the lost?  It would be laughable if this joke wasn’t so serious.  Jerome wasn’t evil when he brought the “vulgar” Bible to the people in a language they could understand, neither was Erasmus when he sought to return to the original Greek as a basis for translation work into new vernacular languages.  The modern Bible translators had no nefarious plans when they updated the text behind the KJV and corrected the minor errors that were found, and neither are the Wycliffe Bible Translators tools of Satan simply because they’re trying to bring Jesus Christ to Muslim lands.  Stop the invective, stop the pronouncements of doom from on high; it sounds ridiculous and only shows that the person making it cares more about being right in their own mind than they do about the work of the Gospel.  Informed and knowledgeable Christians can, and will, disagree about translational issues, but they cannot treat those they disagree with like enemies and lob at them baseless accusations no more accurate than a politician’s TV ad; the only one laughing at this sad joke when they do, is the person they’ve accused their opponent of serving.