A WORD OF CAUTION ABOUT THE NEW BIBLES

[Wick Stick]

That is just as bad as changing the text to support Gnosticism.

Don't think Eusebius would have agreed. A little forgery is fiiiiine, just as long as it's pious forgery. Right?

 

[Lambano]

Don't think Eusebius would have agreed. A little forgery is fiiiiine, just as long as it's pious forgery. Right?

I hadn't heard that about Eusebius. Do tell!

 

[Wick Stick]

I hadn't heard that about Eusebius. Do tell!

I assumed you would have known. I did not come equipped with sources.

I'll just say that The Father of Ecclesiastical History has a bit of a reputation for Revisionist History.

 

[Deborah_]

I just remembered that your newer Bibles use the Alexandrian texts which include the Sinaiticus & Vaticanus. These manuscripts arent in agreement with each other so how do you know which one would give the right Bible translation

Bibles are translated from a text based on all manuscripts, compiled by textual experts (just as Erasmus compiled the Textus Receptus). Now ALL manuscripts have variations - but there are well established principles for deciding which is closest to the original.

 

[Deborah_]

Ok so there are variations between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. There are only 45 manuscripts of these texts and they are in disagreement 70% of the time. It would have been solely subjective to decide which text was the correct one. They kept revising these texts so how do you know the verse they decided was correct was later found to be wrong and was corrected.

That's nothing unusual for manuscripts of that length. There are, for example, whole books missing in places - but nobody thinks that those books aren't part of the canon.
I'm not into the finer details of textual criticism but the decisions made are not arbitrary or subjective. Many of the differences are obvious errors. Other variations are looked at in the context of the entire manuscript witness.

 

[Athanasius377]

I don't have a deep extensive knowledge of the origins of the Bible. I have delved into the Alexandrian family of Biblical manuscripts. This family consists of the Sinaiticus, the Vaticanus, and the Alexandrinus texts. These manuscript's came out of Alexandria Egypt, which was an epicenter of Gnosticism. These manuscripts were used to create the newer Bibles. I believe they were coopted to counter belief in scripture alone as the basis of faith and practice. These manuscripts along with higher textual criticism cast doubt as to whether we have the Word of God, or not. You have a will and can continue to use and defend these newer Bibles, but you might want to consider if contributing to their popularity, along with under minding the KJV furthers their aims.

Paul said there were letters circulating purported to be from him. ( 2 Thessalonians 2:2) so forgeries are nothing new for scripture.
There were Gnostics in Alexandria, Egypt,
These Gnostics may have created the Alexandrian manuscripts (Sinaiticus/Vaticanus/Alexandrinus)
The Catholic church in Rome placed the Vaticanus in the Vatican library to make it available to scholars and the public
The reformation promoted scripture only for faith and practice, which eroded the authority of the Catholic church.
Textual criticism further eroded confidence in the Bible. Catholic priests were instrumental in fostering Biblical criticism. Richard Simon was a Catholic priest in the 17th century and was called one of the fathers of textual criticism.
Catholic priests were involved in some of the new Bible translation committees
Ecumenical movements continue to erode the exclusivity of scripture, and the KJV in particular.

[Romans 10:17 KJV] "So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." ********** Some knew if you take away the Word you take away faith

A couple of things to point out.

First, Gnosticism was not a monthlithic movement. It existed in many different forms all over the Roman Empire and beyond. So there was nothing unique about gnostics in Alexandria any more then gnostics in Asia minor. They wrote their own "scritpure" that can still be read online. So to suggest they were involved in the transmission of the NT reeks of Gail Riplinger. Who, I would add, is as useful to biblical scholarship as a screen door is to a submarine. There is no evidence that I am aware of that gnostics anywhere that were attempting to re-write the Christian scriptures. Like I said before, they were writing their own; those that actually wrote anything at all.

Second, the KJV translators of the NT did not use any manuscripts. Period. They relied on the first 5 editions produced Erasmus, 1550 Stephanus and a later edition by Theodore Beza, all PRINTED editions. Those 3 scholars used what they had available, mostly Greek manuscripts that were circulating in Europe following the conquest of Constantinople in 1453. Furthermore, Beza placed his variant readings in a footnote at the bottom of the page much like a modern critical apparatus would today. And yes, between the manuscripts these three had, there are differences between them. So they were engaging in textual criticism.

Third, Erasmus was a Roman Catholic scholar. He was working so furiously to become the first one to publish a Greek NT that he didn't bother to get an episcopal imprimatur; so he dedicated it Pope Leo X (yes, the same Leo that excommunicated Martin Luther). He managed to get his edition of the Greek NT (really a Latin/Greek Diglot) published before Cardinal Jimenez published his Complutensian Polyglot. So if the accusation that Roman Catholics had something to do denigrating the integrity of the Scripture, they sure did a lousy job of it.

Fourth, you are conflating textual criticism with higher criticism. No, Richard Simon is not the father of textual criticism, he is father of modern HIGHER CRITICISM. They are not the same. Textual criticism tries to reconsctruct the orignal text. Higher criticism is attempting to reveal the world BEHIND the text. Textual criticism was used for centuries before Richard Simon. For example, in the 15th century, Lorenzo Valla, using textual critical methods among other methods, discovered that the "Donation of Constantine" was 7-8th century forgery. This was the foundational document used to bolster Papal power for centuries! Textual criticism is useful to many christians then as well as today. That is why there are texutal notes, even in the KJV of 1611!

Fifth. The Textus Receptus (TR), is a Greek translation of an English text. Yes, it is a translation of a translation. Don't believe me, you can buy it still today. You can find it here. The TBS also has, in my opinion, the best printed copy of the KJV available today in the Westminster reference bible. Great edition for the money btw.

Lastly, a previous poster mentioned that we have the great Uncial texts. Meaning, capital lettered texts as opposed to the miniscule texts. These findings along with finding of Sinaticus and Vaticanus codices have shed a great deal of light on the transmission of the text. We also have many, many, many papyri and fragments to supplement our knowledge of the NT. Christians have an embarrassment of riches when it comes to early manuscripts that few (if any that I am aware of) can come close to. Compare the Mss of the NT with the Mss of Homer, or Cicero. The fact is, the bible was not a fax from heaven. God inspired many people across over 3 thousand years using fallible people, handwriting Holy Scripture, first in scriptoriums, then in monasteries, then in printing presses and now computers. The Bible has survied countless persecutions, natural disasters, apathy and heresy, and yet it still stands. Are there differences between Mss? Yes. But we are not like what Islam did under Uthman, who gathered up all the variant Korans and had them burned. So what will happen if a pre-Uthman Koran is ever found and widely decimated? The faith of a billion Muslims will be affected. We do not have this problem.

The fact is the KJV is an Anglican translation from the 17th century that has served the English speaking world greatly. It is not, however, the only, the most pure, or even the best translation into English available today. If you like the KJV, then use it. if not, then get a faithful translation and use it. A lot.

 

[Deborah_]

Everything your Bible omits is in the KJV
You dont have all of the Word of God
No need to respond if you are ok with tons of missing words

My Bible omits nothing. If I want to read the extra stuff, it's all there - either in small print, in a footnote, or elsewhere in Scripture.

 

[Athanasius377]

The Catholic church vehemently opposed the translation of the Bible into English, German, etc, for centuries. When they finally relented, they were NOT involved in many translation committees, but instead sought to create a single standard Bible for themselves. In English, that's the Douay Rheims Bible.

Yes, the RCC demanded that everyone use the Vulgate, a Latin translation largely translated by Jerome in the 4-5th centuries. The problem is, by the 16th century, it contained errors from copying, editing and/or the language simply changed in the thousand years since the Vulgate first appeared. So it would be correct to say there were Vulgates circulating in Europe in the 16th century. To rectify this, the RCC published the Sistine edition of the Vulgate to be the error free and used for theological study and disputations. Embarrassingly, the holy see needed to publish another edition to rectify the errors in the Sistine Vulgate in the newer Clementine Vulgate. This is the standard Latin text the RCC used from the 16th century until the late 20th century.

The Douay-Rheims is interesting because the version we have today is not anywhere close to the version that was produced in the late 16th to early 17th centuries. The original version is almost unintelligible in places because it kept the Latin syntax and sentence structure. The version we have in circulation today is a revision by Bishop Challoner in the 1750's. It is almost a completely new translation and heavily influenced by the KJV.

I didnt know it was online
can you please provide a link

Sure!

Nag Hammadi Library

The Nag Hammadi Library (Nag Hammadi Scriptures and the Gnostic Gospels). The site includes the Gnostic Society Library with the complete Nag Hammadi Library and Scriptures - the Gnostic Gospels - and a large collection of other primary Gnostic scriptures and documents. A vast collection of...

www.gnosis.org

I cannot vouch for how accurate the translations are, since I have little interest in studying this library. I have enough to study with the God-Breathed Scripture.

I would mention that I believe there are other collections of gnostic texts. This one is the most famous from the Nag Hammadi Library in Egypt.

EDIT: I didn't mean to combine these two posts. My apologies.

 

[shepherdsword]

Fifth. The Textus Receptus (TR), is a Greek translation of an English text. Yes, it is a translation of a translation. Don't believe me, you can buy it still today. You can find it here. The TBS also has, in my opinion, the best printed copy of the KJV available today in the Westminster reference bible. Great edition for the money btw.

the TR is a translation of an English text? That's over the top. It's not a translation at but was collated from the texts that were available to Erasmus at the time. Yes, the last few verses of Revelation were back translated from latin but for the most part, it was compiled from greek texts.

The fact is the KJV is an Anglican translation from the 17th century that has served the English speaking world greatly. It is not, however, the only, the most pure, or even the best translation into English available today. If you like the KJV, then use it. if not, then get a faithful translation and use it. A lot.

I agree 100%. I use the KJV out of habit and because I have large portions memorized in that version. However, if I am recommending a translation to use for a new believer, I would suggest the ESV.

 

[Athanasius377]

I wouldnt deem a Bible reliable if it removed Jesus and removed Christ from it

The question is, was Jesus Christ removed or was it added later. Since the earliest texts we have do not contain a phrase, or Jesus Christ, it stands to reason that it was added later. Some of the texts reflecting this change are clearly added by a different hand at a later time. Sometimes it is written in margin, written above or below the text, and so forth. These are pretty easy to identify. The most famous of these addition is the comma johanneum, 1 John 5:7-8. You can find one such image here. There are a couple of reason for this.

-First, it is likely that a scribe thought he was correcting the text. This is especially true if a scribe was used to hearing scripture read from a lectionary a certain way. Perhaps, unaware that the church service books did not accurately quote the text. Why? Lectionaries use readings from scripture for the service (daily prayer offices used in monasteries for example) where the sentence began with He where He is Jesus Christ but the reading would not indicate the subject. So the service book would insert Jesus Christ so the those hearing the office would know what He is referring to.

Another reason for the correction is that scribes were trying to make clear texts so as to guard against error and heresy. We know of many of the big heresies, e.g. Arianism, Nestorianism, Apollinarism, but not so much of the errors that would have been local to where the scribe lived at a particular time. So the scribe added text to help defend against said heresies. Either way, there is nothing nefarious regarding these emendations.

Yet another reason is that a scribe would be emendating the text so it matches a hymn. We in the west usually don't think of hymns carrying doctrinal weight similar to that of a confession, but in the east, hymns can and do. All of this is to say there was a clear, demonstrable expansion of piety that produced readings with extra verses and phrases.

Lastly, scribes often could not speak or read the Greek texts they were copying. Some of the readings contained in the expanded Mss are from scribes that confused the different Greek letters or the source text they were copying was not legible due to damage or poor penmanship. A famous example of the later is that Erasmus had to use a Latin commentary for the last six verses of Revelation and translate it back into Greek for his Greek/Latin diglot. That was because the last page of the Mss was missing (likely disintegrated over the years being the last page of said Mss). To this day, it contains readings that no Greek texts have and continued into the TR of which the KJV is based.

So how do we know all of these things? Well, we have tools like Coherence Based Genealogical Method (CBGM), where we can track changes in a text over time. We can also tell with a high degree of certainty which texts are related and part of which family of texts they belong. We can also tell which texts are more reliable in a given section over and against other texts.

If reliability is your concern, you should be asking yourself, what did Paul actually write, or what did Matthew actually write, not what you wanted them to write. Therefore, the most reliable texts we have are, in fact, the modern critical texts, not the expanded texts of the Majority Text or the Textus Receptus. If you still prefer the expanded texts, I would suggest a translation like the NKJV. The language is more up to date, and they give you textual notes alerting the reader that there are differences between Mss.