Post by Paddy by Grace on Jan 31, 2010 23:11:03 GMT -7
Pictures Of Some Of The Earliest Greek N.T. Fragments:
Hat tip: Israel Shomer
[PHOTO ABOVE: Earliest fragment of the Gospel of John. (Ryland p52) – Shown: John 18:31-33 in part; Reverse side: John 18:37-38 in part. This fragment is accurately dated between 98-138 A.D., which places it at either only a few years from the time John wrote it, to about a max. of 40 some years from when it was written….And yet a copy of it was already in circulation amongst the Believers in Alexandria! - Rylands Library, Manchester.]
[PHOTO ABOVE: Fragments of Matthew 26 / Magdalen Papyrus (P64): The papyrus scraps had been housed at the library of Magdalen College for more than 90 years, the gift of a British chaplain, Rev. Charles Huleatt, who bought them at an antiquities market in Luxor, Egypt. Using new tools such as a scanning laser microscope along with more conventional handwriting analysis, Thiede re-dates the fragments, previously dated in the mid- to late second century, to sometime between 30 and 70 A.D., though some contest that early of a date.]
[PHOTO ABOVE: Fragment from Qumran cave 7: 7q5 is “thought” to be Mark 6:52-53, was originally dated to 50 A.D., but definitely before 68 A.D..]
[PHOTO ABOVE: More fragments from Qumran cave 7, “thought” to be: 7q4 1,2 is 1 Timothy 3:16-4:3 / 7q8 is James 1:23-24 / 7q6 1,2 is Mark 4:8 and Acts 27:38.]
In this 2nd Email, I’ll expand and give a few more facts and details (out of a very great many that could be given, but I don’t have the time to do a more detailed study on this) in apologia. - To show that this false notion, promoted by either the ignortant or the deceived, that the Written Word of YHVH Elohim/God is able now days to only be interpreted by us/man through study as to what is valid and what is not, because (they say) it has been modified and changed so much for 1000’s of years now that much/most of it is not the Word of Elohim/God YHVH – is totally incorrect!...
FOREMOST!: THE PLENARY INSPIRATION Premise vs. THE CRITICAL Premise….
The first belief held in the ‘Plenary Inspiration’ premise view of YHVH’s Elohim/God’s Holy Word The Bible, is that the original autographs (written mss.) are Inspired and were given without error. This is also the view of “some” who take the ‘Critical’ approach towards The Bible; but that is where the similarity ends….
Plenary Inspiration continues on to believe that YHVH who is Over all and was able to give us His Word originally without error, is likewise able to watch over His Word to preserve It for His people, even a Sanctified version if translated into another language…down through all the ages. However: Those who follow a Critical premise view of Scripture state that while the original autographs “may” have been Inspired and without error (I say “may” as some holding this view don’t even agree on this major and vital point!), they then go on to say that Scripture has been so corrupted down through the centuries, that it is left to man (them) by their personal critical analysis (agenda) to tell you what ‘might’ have been the original (& often they’re seeking to promote themselves)! - This critical view both I, and many scholars (and yes, even many modern scholars), do NOT agree with at all! These two differing premises of how to view The Bible might be shown somewhat and stated in brief by these examples: Plenary requires a starting premise of an absolute Belief and Faith in YHVH’s Written Word The Bible; while the Critical approach exhibits a premise of a general doubt about YHVH’s Written Word. So then: The Plenary approach will always first look past the plethora of critical arguments on minutia over “supposed” discrepancies and errors; and instead will focus to see beyond this: Both the Integrity of YAH’s Word and His Faithfulness to preserve It….And only then will go back and examine the arguments from this beginning (Plenary) premise/perspective. The Bible Itself in fact shows the Plenary view of Itself in many places: Isaiah 55:10-11; Matthew 5:18; John 10:34-36; 2 Peter 1:19-21 – for only a few examples.
As in so many cases which we see happen with other subjects: The Critical view could be likened to not seeing the forest for the trees; or even: Ever learning, and never coming to the knowledge of the Truth. – Another way to look at this matter, is that: In the Banking system the tellers who are instructed in how to detect counterfeit money, are first shown real money, and then when they are totally familiar with it, they are seen as being able to recognize the fake when they come across it. – By the same token: Believing in Faith in YAH’s Word and His ability to watch over It, and starting from that premise, will more easily expose the motives of those who have an agenda (sincere or not) to constantly find error in The Bible. One premise then is based on Faith in God’s Word, the other (to one level or another) on doubt about God’s Word. – This is an important point to pray about that you are given Discernment and Wisdom from Above in!
All too often (but not always though) those ‘scholars’ who take the Critical approach are mainly just trying sell books, build a following, or in many cases they have a strong desire to find The Bible in error so they can then feel comfortable with themselves for excluding The Word from being any Authority in and over their lives – in short: To justify in their mind their remaining carnal, and/or promote a personal agenda, or they are attempting to hide and justify a false doctrine(s) they hold to. – Also several scholars in the “Critical” camp (again not all), if you look up their bios, aren’t even really Believers, it’s just an occupation to them.
The carnal mind is introspective and can perhaps even be somewhat objective; but it can’t attain to the circumspection (the ability to see all things from an Unction from the Ruach/Spirit of YAH) that the Spiritual transformed renewed mind can in Messiah Yeshua/Jesus. – I pray then your minds may be guarded in this generation that no longer endures Sound Doctrine.
THE GIVING OF THE N.T. SCRIPTURE TO ALL PEOPLE IN GREEK….
As I noted in a prior Email: When the Disciples / Apostles wanted to take The Word of the New Testament to the Diaspora Jewish Believers and the Gentiles/Nations, they chose the only logical and available method to do so – the Greek language. That was because much like today, (perhaps even more so), the areas where the Jewish people lived, and the various nations where they lived, spoke Greek as a 2nd language – much like English is a universal 2nd language today. Greek as a 2nd language had survived from the time that the Grecian Empire had occupied all the various regions before the Roman Empire did. Had they chosen any other language, including Latin or even Hebrew, they would not have been able to share the Good News to all the various groups throughout the world. (The exceptions to this was: The Syriac N.T. was ALSO given [as O.S. & Penutsta] somewhere towards the close of the 1st century to the Jewish and Gentile Believers who spoke Biblical Aramaic in that specific region; but this was not given in Mishnaic-Hebrew that was spoken in Israel, rather it was in their language of Biblical-Aramaic, a ‘sister’ language of Hebrew. And this was translated from the earlier Greek N.T. ms.. – Also very early on the Bible was translated into Latin [O.L. & Vulgate], but this was perhaps in the early 2nd century, and so shortly after the time of the Apostles/Disciples, even though being translated from the earlier Greek N.T. ms..) It’s been pointed out that the N.T. given to the world was written in a distinct dialect of Hellenistic Greek that was particular to Israel in the 1st Century A.D., and not in a classical/formal Greek. Notwithstanding the discussion of certain evidences of their having been early mss. in Mishnaic-Hebrew of Matthew, Mark, and the 1st half of Acts that were done in 1st century Israel -(Of which we don’t have; and laying aside discussion on the altered Shem-Tov Matt. mss..)- since the Greek N.T. Scriptures were unquestionably used universally by the Jewish and Gentile Congregations across the world from the 1st Century A.D. and on, this will be our main focus….
Some facts of interest….
QUOTES FROM THE WRITINGS OF THE ‘EARLY CHURCH FATHERS’ OF THE N.T….
Dean Burgon in his research… (McDowell 1990:47-48; 1991:52). In fact, there are 32,000 quotations from the New Testament found in writings from before the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. {!}-[MY NOTE: In fact some of those are from people who knew the disciples of the Disciples & Paul, even early in the 2nd Century before the 2nd destruction of Jerusalem, and even earlier than that if you consider for example Clement of Rome, and Polycarp and Papias – who themselves were disciples of John Yeshua’s Disciple.], (Mcdowell Evidence, 1972:52). J. Harold Greenlee points out that the quotations of the Scripture in the works of the early church writers are so extensive that the New Testament could virtually be reconstructed from them without the use of New Testament manuscripts.
Sir David Dalrymple sought to do this, and from the second and third century writings of the church fathers he found the entire New Testament quoted except for eleven verses {!}-[MY NOTE: And the fact that it is only eleven verses that they didn’t happen to quote from, further shows in many cases where verses are quoted that are missing in the later Alexandrian Egyptian minority Gr. texts, that those minority texts are in error – more on this later.] (McDowell 1972:50-51; 1990:48)! Thus, if the New Testament manuscripts were all destroyed it could still be reassembled using the writings of the early church fathers. By the end of the third century virtually the entire New Testament could be reconstructed from the writings of the Church fathers. Norman Geisler and William Nix sum up the position of the New Testament Scriptures in the early Church in these words: "In summary, the first hundred years of the existence of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament reveal that virtually every one of them was quoted as authoritative and recognized as canonical by men who were themselves the younger contemporaries of the apostolic age" (Norman Geisler and William Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago: Moody, 1980), p. 190). (http://www.christiantruth.com/solascriptura.html) - www.firstbaptistchurchoc.org/BibleIssues/versions.htm
“…Tertullian stated that by 150 A.D., the Church in Rome (MY NOTE: Which was not the Catholic Church) had compiled a list of the New Testament books matching our list of today. We have 32,000 quotes from before 325 AD, from Irenaeus (182-188 AD), Justin Martyr (before 150 AD), Polycarp (107 AD), Ignatius (100), Clement (96 AD) and many other second and third century fathers. All but eleven verses of the New Testament could be reconstructed through their writings alone. The Muratonian Canon Fragment dating from 170 AD lists the same New Testament that we have. See the Ante-Nicean Fathers, a 32 volume Encyclopedia of the writings of the Early Church, by Eerdmans Publishing. Or on the Internet see the Early Church Fathers” - www.biblefacts.org/history/oldtext.html
NOTE: Now stop and think about this….The entire Greek N.T. minus only 11 verses is quoted from, and that as Canonical, BEFORE there even was a Catholic Church or Council of Nicea in 325 A.D.! – And in many cases about 200 years before! – The contention then that the Catholic Church modified the prior texts is shown to be a completely false notion! This fact in itself should show the Integrity of N.T. Scripture! – Why don’t we hear about this that much then? – Because it sure doesn’t help to sell the books of those who always want to bring up some Critical contention for their personal agenda, whether their motives are sincere or not!
MAJORITY TEXT MSS. & OTHER AGREEMENT OF THE N.T….
“…There are over 5,300 known ancient Greek manuscript copies (MSS) and fragments of the New Testament in Greek that have survived until today. Counting an additional 10,000 Latin Vulgate and over 9,300 other early manuscript versions in Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Gothic, and Ethiopic, totaling over 24,000 surviving manuscripts of the New Testament. Small changes and variations in manuscripts affect none of the central Christian doctrines, nor do they change the message.” - www.biblefacts.org/history/oldtext.html
NOTE: While the above statement is true, it needs to be clarified with the following… While there is 97% agreement of all the 1000’s of various hand-written texts (that in itself is amazing); the bulk of the 3% variation comes from the corrupted 45 Alexandria Egypt / Western mss. (more on this shortly). While amongst what was/is known as the Majority Greek Texts - (which is almost all of the 1000’s of we have), the variance amounts to only aprox. one page written on both sides, and most of those are spelling, grammatical and name variations. That leaves us with only about 40 verses that are questioned, and out of those 40 that number is further reduced to a very few in number when one looks at their usage in the “Early Church Father’s” writings which were earlier than the manuscripts that we have copies of….Most all of these very few verses that are still in question, are in question only from those who only looking at certain mss. evidences. But these verses are seen as having been in use and as Authoritative, even as Canonical, from the earlier “Early Church Father’s” writings -(as noted in the section above). For one example: Cyprian, who is regarded as one who quotes copiously and textually, quotes in 250 A.D. from even earlier N.T. writing, as being authoritative both 1 John 5:7, and Acts 8:37. This then places these verses as being in use 100+ years before the earliest Alexandrian Egyptian / Western Greek mss. that exists today….
THE CORRUPT EGYPTIAN / WESTERN GREEK MINORITY MSS….
…I mentioned above and previously how the very few in number Alexandrian Egyptian / Western Minority Greek mss. we have -[and usually it is only 4 mss. that are cited from the 45 mss. from the corrupt Western Greek group; vs. the 1000’s of mss. in the Majority text group!]- are among the most corrupt of all the many 1000’s of mss. that are in existence. Yet when they were brought forth just over 100 years ago in the 1800’s they caused a stir. Since they contained the two oldest ‘complete’ mss. yet found, and they lacked some material, it was suggested that they were superior/better to the other 1000’s of mss. that we have. Recent scholarship by many has shown that not only was that an invalid assumption, but that in fact they are far inferior to the Majority / Receptus / Byzantine text group. They contain excessive deletions, paraphrases, often a single manuscript was amended by several different scribes over a period of many years, and the Minority Texts contradict themselves in hundreds of places, also by mss. examination we can see that often the copyists didn’t speak Greek from the types of mistakes they made. Also historically we are shown that they were the work of unbelieving Egyptian scribes who did not accept the Bible as the Word of YHVH or Yeshua/Jesus as the Son of Elohim/God! While these mss. are from the 4th century, and were copied from faulty sources from the mid-2nd century, yet they sprang from a cultic form of Christianity….Because if all the above wasn’t enough: ‘Titus Flavius Clemens (Clement of Alexandria; not Clement of Rome) who was the the head of the noted Catechetical School of Alexandria, which had oversight of the Egyptian copyists. He united Greek philosophical traditions with Christian doctrine and valued gnosis…He used the term "gnostic" for Christians who had attained the deeper teaching…He developed a Christian Platonism…Like Origen, he arose from Alexandria's Catechetical School and was well versed in pagan literature…’ -In short, he was a heretic who mingled the Holy and the profane! And his student ‘Origen (Origen Adamantius) who succeeded Clement as head of the school’ and who continued the oversight of the Egyptian copyists, was even worse! ‘He interpreted scripture allegorically and showed himself to be a Neo-Pythagorean, and Neo-Platonist. Like Plotinus, he wrote that the soul passes through successive stages of incarnation before eventually reaching God. He imagined even demons being reunited with God…. His views of a hierarchical structure in the Trinity, the temporality of matter, "the fabulous preexistence of souls," and "the monstrous restoration which follows from it" were declared anathema in the 6th century.’ –In short, he was a mega-heretic! [Prior citations in quotes on Clement & Origen: Wikipedia] And yet such as these two are the heretical heads who were the first ones in charge of directing the copying of the earliest Alexandrian Egyptian / Western Greek mss. stratum!!! – This 2nd A.D. century heresy was mostly stamped out in the 6th century; but now with the 19th century discovery of these certain Egyptian / Western Greek Texts, this heresy has again had an influence on us even today.
Gosh folks, with all the above, how any serious “scholar”, who actually Believes the Bible, could continue to call Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209 and Codex Sinaiticus two of the best mms. is well…go figure! L
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION….
IN SUMMARY: The upside is that 97% of all the mss. agree….But that is also the downside: This 3% variance is shown to exist almost entirely in the corrupt 45 Alexandrian / Western texts. However that number is closer to 0% though for the 1000’s of Majority / Receptus / Byzantine mss.. You may think that 3% isn’t all that important, but I already told you earlier about a well know Messianic teacher who advocated that the Book of Hebrews should be ripped out of the N.T., and one of his main contentions was that it said: The “Golden Altar” was in the Holy of Holies, as that’s what the Minority/Alexandrian texts say. - But had he been reading from a Receptus in the Majority based translation, it would have said correctly, even as it does in The-Torah/The-Law of Tanakh/[O.T.]: “Golden Censer”. This controversy caused major division in the Messianic movement and the Body of Messiah, and yet it never even need have happened.
So is 3% important? – Yup!
You could try telling your friends: My Bible was given through the Apostles and the Disciples, and so was 97% of yours. When they say then: What?! – You could then tell them: Yup, because 3% of yours was edited by Egyptian copyists who’s leaders were two well know heretics! –(But then the rest of the dinner conversation might not be as pleasant as you’d hoped!) - Ok, so that was my attempt at humor in this article J
IN CONCLUSION: I believe that the Greek N.T. Scriptures are what YHVH Elohim used to relay His Word to the world at large, and It was given through the Disciples and Apostles beginning in the 1st Century A.D.. – I believe that YHVH not only gave us His Inspired, intact, and Holy Word in the original Autographs, but that He likewise is ever able to preserve It for all generations, and that He has done so. I believe that the Receptus / Majority / Byzantine Mss. are the correct group of Greek mss.; but that the Minority Alexandrian Egyptian Greek / Western mss. are not correct. I note that there is simply too much evidence, if one is truly objective, to come to any other conclusion. – Furthermore: I believe that YHVH not only allowed the KJV to be written in English to relay His Word to the world at large (noting the world at large spoke English first through the influence of the British Empire being throughout the world, and then later through the USA’s influence of the English language being spoken at large) for almost 400 years, but that He in fact Sanctioned it….And that He sanctioned It because the KJV followed the correct Greek mss. group. Almost all modern translations follow the corrupt Alexandrian / Western mss. -(there are a few exceptions, but they have never been as widely known nor circulated as the KJV)- and as a result: I believe that these modern translations from the corrupt mss. do NOT enjoy the Sanctification from YHVH that the KJV does.
My final statement on this matter then?: I think the Body of Messiah on this issue needs to come out of Egypt again!
BRIEF ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS ON THE INTEGRITY OF TANAKH [THE O.T.]….
I mentioned in a prior Email how some Critical ‘scholars’, and scoffers, used to falsely state that we cannot know, and they believed, that The Tanakh [O.T.] is reliable, and they were saying this because our oldest complete mss. of It was only from about a 1000 years ago. – And how that argument pretty much disappeared though when not that long ago it was discovered in the Dead Sea Qumran Community Scrolls and fragments from almost all of the Book of Tanakh [O.T.]. – And that how even though the Jewish Qumran Dead Sea Community hadn’t been following the Scribes, Sadducees and Pharisees for some time, because they felt they had been corrupted by Rome, yet: Their copies of The O.T. were virtually the same as the 900 years later Massoretic Hebrew Texts that we have!
And further: I had commented on the contention from some people saying that the O.T. is not reliable, since the Sopherim noted in 134 or 135 places where they had ‘supposedly’ changed YHVH to Adonai, (even though they DO have YHVH in the O.T. 6,519 times!), that this is a non-argument. Why? First: Rather than their having ‘changed it’, I feel they were simply drawing attention to the reader to note they felt YHVH SHOULD be read/understood there. I state this for several reasons, in brief:
1). It is because they did have so much respect for The Name of YHVH and The Tanakh/O.T. that I believe they would NOT have removed It.
2). Reading YHVH in those places would add to the understanding, not take away from it.
3). In some places where it notes (supposedly) they removed YHVH, it is still there!
4). The usage of YHVH was not as restricted in 410 B.C. as it became in later Temple times – such as in the 1st Century A.D. Pharisaic rulings.
5). History states the Sopherim began their Codifying of Tanakh/O.T. during the time period of the Bible Itself, under the direction of Ezra and Nehemiah, who being instructed I fully believe from YAH Himself. That to me supports It’s integrity, not diminishing it! – We read: “…Their work, under Ezra and Nehemiah, was to set the Text in order after the return from Babylon; and we read of it in Neh. 8:8 (*1) (cp. Ezra 7:6, 11). The men of "the Great Synagogue" completed the work. This work lasted about 110 years, from Nehemiah to Simon the first, 410 - 300 B.C….”-(Note from the Companion Bible.)6). While the Text Itself was codified, the Sopherim’s notes were not. These notes are not found together in every mss., but are spread out in several mss.. So then, again: I feel all the Sopherim’s notes were important ‘commentary’, and were alerting the reader to important considerations, but that they were not substitutions or corrections. One illustration of this is: In Genesis 18, the Sopherim note that the phrase should read: Abraham stood before YHVH. But was it ‘changed’ by them - or rather was it just ‘noted’ for the reader that it should read the other way than it now reads in their view, that: YHVH stood before Abraham? Also, if you read YHVH in the places they note that say Adonai in Genesis 18, it doesn’t diminish the fact that in all the other places they do have written YHVH in the chapter, the person speaking is still identified as YHVH. If they were going to take it out of the few places, then why retain it the even more and important places that they did, if their view was to guard the usage of YHVH? – However, if you read, as they note: YHVH in those places where it says Adonai, it sheds even more light on the fact that YHVH is One of the three who visited Abraham. So, again: If they were trying to avoid that conclusion, would they have put a note to the side telling you it did (or should) say this? – That would then have the opposite effect they were trying to produce, if their intention was to ‘hide’ it! – And even if they did do these ‘corrections’ (which I feel they didn’t) The Word of God is still preserved for us in that it was so noted. - Anyway, pray about it J7). Finally: Over 300 years later after the Sopherim had Codified The Torah/Tanakh [The O.T.], Yeshua/Jesus Messiah stated: 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. - Mt 5:18. The Jot is a Yud, the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet. The Tittle is the small decorative ‘crown’ which we see added to some letters which we see in the Sopherim Codified Hebrew Text Scripture. Yeshua/Jesus not only knew what the Sopherim had done over 3 centuries prior, but in this verse the way it is worded He appears to even acknowledge it. - But the most important part of this verse is: “…shall in no wise pass…”!
I Believe what Yeshua Messiah said, I Believe YHVH’s Word is intact and did in “no wise pass”….Do you?!
May YHVH Elohim, in Yeshua HaMashiach YAH HaDavar shel Elohim, bless you.
Shalom.
Here is just one additional URL’s on this subject should you feel led to begin to study more, there are thousands!http://logosresourcepages.org/Versions/uncials.htm
Hat tip: Israel Shomer
[PHOTO ABOVE: Earliest fragment of the Gospel of John. (Ryland p52) – Shown: John 18:31-33 in part; Reverse side: John 18:37-38 in part. This fragment is accurately dated between 98-138 A.D., which places it at either only a few years from the time John wrote it, to about a max. of 40 some years from when it was written….And yet a copy of it was already in circulation amongst the Believers in Alexandria! - Rylands Library, Manchester.]
[PHOTO ABOVE: Fragments of Matthew 26 / Magdalen Papyrus (P64): The papyrus scraps had been housed at the library of Magdalen College for more than 90 years, the gift of a British chaplain, Rev. Charles Huleatt, who bought them at an antiquities market in Luxor, Egypt. Using new tools such as a scanning laser microscope along with more conventional handwriting analysis, Thiede re-dates the fragments, previously dated in the mid- to late second century, to sometime between 30 and 70 A.D., though some contest that early of a date.]
[PHOTO ABOVE: Fragment from Qumran cave 7: 7q5 is “thought” to be Mark 6:52-53, was originally dated to 50 A.D., but definitely before 68 A.D..]
[PHOTO ABOVE: More fragments from Qumran cave 7, “thought” to be: 7q4 1,2 is 1 Timothy 3:16-4:3 / 7q8 is James 1:23-24 / 7q6 1,2 is Mark 4:8 and Acts 27:38.]
In this 2nd Email, I’ll expand and give a few more facts and details (out of a very great many that could be given, but I don’t have the time to do a more detailed study on this) in apologia. - To show that this false notion, promoted by either the ignortant or the deceived, that the Written Word of YHVH Elohim/God is able now days to only be interpreted by us/man through study as to what is valid and what is not, because (they say) it has been modified and changed so much for 1000’s of years now that much/most of it is not the Word of Elohim/God YHVH – is totally incorrect!...
FOREMOST!: THE PLENARY INSPIRATION Premise vs. THE CRITICAL Premise….
The first belief held in the ‘Plenary Inspiration’ premise view of YHVH’s Elohim/God’s Holy Word The Bible, is that the original autographs (written mss.) are Inspired and were given without error. This is also the view of “some” who take the ‘Critical’ approach towards The Bible; but that is where the similarity ends….
Plenary Inspiration continues on to believe that YHVH who is Over all and was able to give us His Word originally without error, is likewise able to watch over His Word to preserve It for His people, even a Sanctified version if translated into another language…down through all the ages. However: Those who follow a Critical premise view of Scripture state that while the original autographs “may” have been Inspired and without error (I say “may” as some holding this view don’t even agree on this major and vital point!), they then go on to say that Scripture has been so corrupted down through the centuries, that it is left to man (them) by their personal critical analysis (agenda) to tell you what ‘might’ have been the original (& often they’re seeking to promote themselves)! - This critical view both I, and many scholars (and yes, even many modern scholars), do NOT agree with at all! These two differing premises of how to view The Bible might be shown somewhat and stated in brief by these examples: Plenary requires a starting premise of an absolute Belief and Faith in YHVH’s Written Word The Bible; while the Critical approach exhibits a premise of a general doubt about YHVH’s Written Word. So then: The Plenary approach will always first look past the plethora of critical arguments on minutia over “supposed” discrepancies and errors; and instead will focus to see beyond this: Both the Integrity of YAH’s Word and His Faithfulness to preserve It….And only then will go back and examine the arguments from this beginning (Plenary) premise/perspective. The Bible Itself in fact shows the Plenary view of Itself in many places: Isaiah 55:10-11; Matthew 5:18; John 10:34-36; 2 Peter 1:19-21 – for only a few examples.
As in so many cases which we see happen with other subjects: The Critical view could be likened to not seeing the forest for the trees; or even: Ever learning, and never coming to the knowledge of the Truth. – Another way to look at this matter, is that: In the Banking system the tellers who are instructed in how to detect counterfeit money, are first shown real money, and then when they are totally familiar with it, they are seen as being able to recognize the fake when they come across it. – By the same token: Believing in Faith in YAH’s Word and His ability to watch over It, and starting from that premise, will more easily expose the motives of those who have an agenda (sincere or not) to constantly find error in The Bible. One premise then is based on Faith in God’s Word, the other (to one level or another) on doubt about God’s Word. – This is an important point to pray about that you are given Discernment and Wisdom from Above in!
All too often (but not always though) those ‘scholars’ who take the Critical approach are mainly just trying sell books, build a following, or in many cases they have a strong desire to find The Bible in error so they can then feel comfortable with themselves for excluding The Word from being any Authority in and over their lives – in short: To justify in their mind their remaining carnal, and/or promote a personal agenda, or they are attempting to hide and justify a false doctrine(s) they hold to. – Also several scholars in the “Critical” camp (again not all), if you look up their bios, aren’t even really Believers, it’s just an occupation to them.
The carnal mind is introspective and can perhaps even be somewhat objective; but it can’t attain to the circumspection (the ability to see all things from an Unction from the Ruach/Spirit of YAH) that the Spiritual transformed renewed mind can in Messiah Yeshua/Jesus. – I pray then your minds may be guarded in this generation that no longer endures Sound Doctrine.
THE GIVING OF THE N.T. SCRIPTURE TO ALL PEOPLE IN GREEK….
As I noted in a prior Email: When the Disciples / Apostles wanted to take The Word of the New Testament to the Diaspora Jewish Believers and the Gentiles/Nations, they chose the only logical and available method to do so – the Greek language. That was because much like today, (perhaps even more so), the areas where the Jewish people lived, and the various nations where they lived, spoke Greek as a 2nd language – much like English is a universal 2nd language today. Greek as a 2nd language had survived from the time that the Grecian Empire had occupied all the various regions before the Roman Empire did. Had they chosen any other language, including Latin or even Hebrew, they would not have been able to share the Good News to all the various groups throughout the world. (The exceptions to this was: The Syriac N.T. was ALSO given [as O.S. & Penutsta] somewhere towards the close of the 1st century to the Jewish and Gentile Believers who spoke Biblical Aramaic in that specific region; but this was not given in Mishnaic-Hebrew that was spoken in Israel, rather it was in their language of Biblical-Aramaic, a ‘sister’ language of Hebrew. And this was translated from the earlier Greek N.T. ms.. – Also very early on the Bible was translated into Latin [O.L. & Vulgate], but this was perhaps in the early 2nd century, and so shortly after the time of the Apostles/Disciples, even though being translated from the earlier Greek N.T. ms..) It’s been pointed out that the N.T. given to the world was written in a distinct dialect of Hellenistic Greek that was particular to Israel in the 1st Century A.D., and not in a classical/formal Greek. Notwithstanding the discussion of certain evidences of their having been early mss. in Mishnaic-Hebrew of Matthew, Mark, and the 1st half of Acts that were done in 1st century Israel -(Of which we don’t have; and laying aside discussion on the altered Shem-Tov Matt. mss..)- since the Greek N.T. Scriptures were unquestionably used universally by the Jewish and Gentile Congregations across the world from the 1st Century A.D. and on, this will be our main focus….
Some facts of interest….
QUOTES FROM THE WRITINGS OF THE ‘EARLY CHURCH FATHERS’ OF THE N.T….
Dean Burgon in his research… (McDowell 1990:47-48; 1991:52). In fact, there are 32,000 quotations from the New Testament found in writings from before the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. {!}-[MY NOTE: In fact some of those are from people who knew the disciples of the Disciples & Paul, even early in the 2nd Century before the 2nd destruction of Jerusalem, and even earlier than that if you consider for example Clement of Rome, and Polycarp and Papias – who themselves were disciples of John Yeshua’s Disciple.], (Mcdowell Evidence, 1972:52). J. Harold Greenlee points out that the quotations of the Scripture in the works of the early church writers are so extensive that the New Testament could virtually be reconstructed from them without the use of New Testament manuscripts.
Sir David Dalrymple sought to do this, and from the second and third century writings of the church fathers he found the entire New Testament quoted except for eleven verses {!}-[MY NOTE: And the fact that it is only eleven verses that they didn’t happen to quote from, further shows in many cases where verses are quoted that are missing in the later Alexandrian Egyptian minority Gr. texts, that those minority texts are in error – more on this later.] (McDowell 1972:50-51; 1990:48)! Thus, if the New Testament manuscripts were all destroyed it could still be reassembled using the writings of the early church fathers. By the end of the third century virtually the entire New Testament could be reconstructed from the writings of the Church fathers. Norman Geisler and William Nix sum up the position of the New Testament Scriptures in the early Church in these words: "In summary, the first hundred years of the existence of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament reveal that virtually every one of them was quoted as authoritative and recognized as canonical by men who were themselves the younger contemporaries of the apostolic age" (Norman Geisler and William Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago: Moody, 1980), p. 190). (http://www.christiantruth.com/solascriptura.html) - www.firstbaptistchurchoc.org/BibleIssues/versions.htm
“…Tertullian stated that by 150 A.D., the Church in Rome (MY NOTE: Which was not the Catholic Church) had compiled a list of the New Testament books matching our list of today. We have 32,000 quotes from before 325 AD, from Irenaeus (182-188 AD), Justin Martyr (before 150 AD), Polycarp (107 AD), Ignatius (100), Clement (96 AD) and many other second and third century fathers. All but eleven verses of the New Testament could be reconstructed through their writings alone. The Muratonian Canon Fragment dating from 170 AD lists the same New Testament that we have. See the Ante-Nicean Fathers, a 32 volume Encyclopedia of the writings of the Early Church, by Eerdmans Publishing. Or on the Internet see the Early Church Fathers” - www.biblefacts.org/history/oldtext.html
NOTE: Now stop and think about this….The entire Greek N.T. minus only 11 verses is quoted from, and that as Canonical, BEFORE there even was a Catholic Church or Council of Nicea in 325 A.D.! – And in many cases about 200 years before! – The contention then that the Catholic Church modified the prior texts is shown to be a completely false notion! This fact in itself should show the Integrity of N.T. Scripture! – Why don’t we hear about this that much then? – Because it sure doesn’t help to sell the books of those who always want to bring up some Critical contention for their personal agenda, whether their motives are sincere or not!
MAJORITY TEXT MSS. & OTHER AGREEMENT OF THE N.T….
“…There are over 5,300 known ancient Greek manuscript copies (MSS) and fragments of the New Testament in Greek that have survived until today. Counting an additional 10,000 Latin Vulgate and over 9,300 other early manuscript versions in Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Gothic, and Ethiopic, totaling over 24,000 surviving manuscripts of the New Testament. Small changes and variations in manuscripts affect none of the central Christian doctrines, nor do they change the message.” - www.biblefacts.org/history/oldtext.html
NOTE: While the above statement is true, it needs to be clarified with the following… While there is 97% agreement of all the 1000’s of various hand-written texts (that in itself is amazing); the bulk of the 3% variation comes from the corrupted 45 Alexandria Egypt / Western mss. (more on this shortly). While amongst what was/is known as the Majority Greek Texts - (which is almost all of the 1000’s of we have), the variance amounts to only aprox. one page written on both sides, and most of those are spelling, grammatical and name variations. That leaves us with only about 40 verses that are questioned, and out of those 40 that number is further reduced to a very few in number when one looks at their usage in the “Early Church Father’s” writings which were earlier than the manuscripts that we have copies of….Most all of these very few verses that are still in question, are in question only from those who only looking at certain mss. evidences. But these verses are seen as having been in use and as Authoritative, even as Canonical, from the earlier “Early Church Father’s” writings -(as noted in the section above). For one example: Cyprian, who is regarded as one who quotes copiously and textually, quotes in 250 A.D. from even earlier N.T. writing, as being authoritative both 1 John 5:7, and Acts 8:37. This then places these verses as being in use 100+ years before the earliest Alexandrian Egyptian / Western Greek mss. that exists today….
THE CORRUPT EGYPTIAN / WESTERN GREEK MINORITY MSS….
…I mentioned above and previously how the very few in number Alexandrian Egyptian / Western Minority Greek mss. we have -[and usually it is only 4 mss. that are cited from the 45 mss. from the corrupt Western Greek group; vs. the 1000’s of mss. in the Majority text group!]- are among the most corrupt of all the many 1000’s of mss. that are in existence. Yet when they were brought forth just over 100 years ago in the 1800’s they caused a stir. Since they contained the two oldest ‘complete’ mss. yet found, and they lacked some material, it was suggested that they were superior/better to the other 1000’s of mss. that we have. Recent scholarship by many has shown that not only was that an invalid assumption, but that in fact they are far inferior to the Majority / Receptus / Byzantine text group. They contain excessive deletions, paraphrases, often a single manuscript was amended by several different scribes over a period of many years, and the Minority Texts contradict themselves in hundreds of places, also by mss. examination we can see that often the copyists didn’t speak Greek from the types of mistakes they made. Also historically we are shown that they were the work of unbelieving Egyptian scribes who did not accept the Bible as the Word of YHVH or Yeshua/Jesus as the Son of Elohim/God! While these mss. are from the 4th century, and were copied from faulty sources from the mid-2nd century, yet they sprang from a cultic form of Christianity….Because if all the above wasn’t enough: ‘Titus Flavius Clemens (Clement of Alexandria; not Clement of Rome) who was the the head of the noted Catechetical School of Alexandria, which had oversight of the Egyptian copyists. He united Greek philosophical traditions with Christian doctrine and valued gnosis…He used the term "gnostic" for Christians who had attained the deeper teaching…He developed a Christian Platonism…Like Origen, he arose from Alexandria's Catechetical School and was well versed in pagan literature…’ -In short, he was a heretic who mingled the Holy and the profane! And his student ‘Origen (Origen Adamantius) who succeeded Clement as head of the school’ and who continued the oversight of the Egyptian copyists, was even worse! ‘He interpreted scripture allegorically and showed himself to be a Neo-Pythagorean, and Neo-Platonist. Like Plotinus, he wrote that the soul passes through successive stages of incarnation before eventually reaching God. He imagined even demons being reunited with God…. His views of a hierarchical structure in the Trinity, the temporality of matter, "the fabulous preexistence of souls," and "the monstrous restoration which follows from it" were declared anathema in the 6th century.’ –In short, he was a mega-heretic! [Prior citations in quotes on Clement & Origen: Wikipedia] And yet such as these two are the heretical heads who were the first ones in charge of directing the copying of the earliest Alexandrian Egyptian / Western Greek mss. stratum!!! – This 2nd A.D. century heresy was mostly stamped out in the 6th century; but now with the 19th century discovery of these certain Egyptian / Western Greek Texts, this heresy has again had an influence on us even today.
Gosh folks, with all the above, how any serious “scholar”, who actually Believes the Bible, could continue to call Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209 and Codex Sinaiticus two of the best mms. is well…go figure! L
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION….
IN SUMMARY: The upside is that 97% of all the mss. agree….But that is also the downside: This 3% variance is shown to exist almost entirely in the corrupt 45 Alexandrian / Western texts. However that number is closer to 0% though for the 1000’s of Majority / Receptus / Byzantine mss.. You may think that 3% isn’t all that important, but I already told you earlier about a well know Messianic teacher who advocated that the Book of Hebrews should be ripped out of the N.T., and one of his main contentions was that it said: The “Golden Altar” was in the Holy of Holies, as that’s what the Minority/Alexandrian texts say. - But had he been reading from a Receptus in the Majority based translation, it would have said correctly, even as it does in The-Torah/The-Law of Tanakh/[O.T.]: “Golden Censer”. This controversy caused major division in the Messianic movement and the Body of Messiah, and yet it never even need have happened.
So is 3% important? – Yup!
You could try telling your friends: My Bible was given through the Apostles and the Disciples, and so was 97% of yours. When they say then: What?! – You could then tell them: Yup, because 3% of yours was edited by Egyptian copyists who’s leaders were two well know heretics! –(But then the rest of the dinner conversation might not be as pleasant as you’d hoped!) - Ok, so that was my attempt at humor in this article J
IN CONCLUSION: I believe that the Greek N.T. Scriptures are what YHVH Elohim used to relay His Word to the world at large, and It was given through the Disciples and Apostles beginning in the 1st Century A.D.. – I believe that YHVH not only gave us His Inspired, intact, and Holy Word in the original Autographs, but that He likewise is ever able to preserve It for all generations, and that He has done so. I believe that the Receptus / Majority / Byzantine Mss. are the correct group of Greek mss.; but that the Minority Alexandrian Egyptian Greek / Western mss. are not correct. I note that there is simply too much evidence, if one is truly objective, to come to any other conclusion. – Furthermore: I believe that YHVH not only allowed the KJV to be written in English to relay His Word to the world at large (noting the world at large spoke English first through the influence of the British Empire being throughout the world, and then later through the USA’s influence of the English language being spoken at large) for almost 400 years, but that He in fact Sanctioned it….And that He sanctioned It because the KJV followed the correct Greek mss. group. Almost all modern translations follow the corrupt Alexandrian / Western mss. -(there are a few exceptions, but they have never been as widely known nor circulated as the KJV)- and as a result: I believe that these modern translations from the corrupt mss. do NOT enjoy the Sanctification from YHVH that the KJV does.
My final statement on this matter then?: I think the Body of Messiah on this issue needs to come out of Egypt again!
BRIEF ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS ON THE INTEGRITY OF TANAKH [THE O.T.]….
I mentioned in a prior Email how some Critical ‘scholars’, and scoffers, used to falsely state that we cannot know, and they believed, that The Tanakh [O.T.] is reliable, and they were saying this because our oldest complete mss. of It was only from about a 1000 years ago. – And how that argument pretty much disappeared though when not that long ago it was discovered in the Dead Sea Qumran Community Scrolls and fragments from almost all of the Book of Tanakh [O.T.]. – And that how even though the Jewish Qumran Dead Sea Community hadn’t been following the Scribes, Sadducees and Pharisees for some time, because they felt they had been corrupted by Rome, yet: Their copies of The O.T. were virtually the same as the 900 years later Massoretic Hebrew Texts that we have!
And further: I had commented on the contention from some people saying that the O.T. is not reliable, since the Sopherim noted in 134 or 135 places where they had ‘supposedly’ changed YHVH to Adonai, (even though they DO have YHVH in the O.T. 6,519 times!), that this is a non-argument. Why? First: Rather than their having ‘changed it’, I feel they were simply drawing attention to the reader to note they felt YHVH SHOULD be read/understood there. I state this for several reasons, in brief:
1). It is because they did have so much respect for The Name of YHVH and The Tanakh/O.T. that I believe they would NOT have removed It.
2). Reading YHVH in those places would add to the understanding, not take away from it.
3). In some places where it notes (supposedly) they removed YHVH, it is still there!
4). The usage of YHVH was not as restricted in 410 B.C. as it became in later Temple times – such as in the 1st Century A.D. Pharisaic rulings.
5). History states the Sopherim began their Codifying of Tanakh/O.T. during the time period of the Bible Itself, under the direction of Ezra and Nehemiah, who being instructed I fully believe from YAH Himself. That to me supports It’s integrity, not diminishing it! – We read: “…Their work, under Ezra and Nehemiah, was to set the Text in order after the return from Babylon; and we read of it in Neh. 8:8 (*1) (cp. Ezra 7:6, 11). The men of "the Great Synagogue" completed the work. This work lasted about 110 years, from Nehemiah to Simon the first, 410 - 300 B.C….”-(Note from the Companion Bible.)6). While the Text Itself was codified, the Sopherim’s notes were not. These notes are not found together in every mss., but are spread out in several mss.. So then, again: I feel all the Sopherim’s notes were important ‘commentary’, and were alerting the reader to important considerations, but that they were not substitutions or corrections. One illustration of this is: In Genesis 18, the Sopherim note that the phrase should read: Abraham stood before YHVH. But was it ‘changed’ by them - or rather was it just ‘noted’ for the reader that it should read the other way than it now reads in their view, that: YHVH stood before Abraham? Also, if you read YHVH in the places they note that say Adonai in Genesis 18, it doesn’t diminish the fact that in all the other places they do have written YHVH in the chapter, the person speaking is still identified as YHVH. If they were going to take it out of the few places, then why retain it the even more and important places that they did, if their view was to guard the usage of YHVH? – However, if you read, as they note: YHVH in those places where it says Adonai, it sheds even more light on the fact that YHVH is One of the three who visited Abraham. So, again: If they were trying to avoid that conclusion, would they have put a note to the side telling you it did (or should) say this? – That would then have the opposite effect they were trying to produce, if their intention was to ‘hide’ it! – And even if they did do these ‘corrections’ (which I feel they didn’t) The Word of God is still preserved for us in that it was so noted. - Anyway, pray about it J7). Finally: Over 300 years later after the Sopherim had Codified The Torah/Tanakh [The O.T.], Yeshua/Jesus Messiah stated: 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. - Mt 5:18. The Jot is a Yud, the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet. The Tittle is the small decorative ‘crown’ which we see added to some letters which we see in the Sopherim Codified Hebrew Text Scripture. Yeshua/Jesus not only knew what the Sopherim had done over 3 centuries prior, but in this verse the way it is worded He appears to even acknowledge it. - But the most important part of this verse is: “…shall in no wise pass…”!
I Believe what Yeshua Messiah said, I Believe YHVH’s Word is intact and did in “no wise pass”….Do you?!
May YHVH Elohim, in Yeshua HaMashiach YAH HaDavar shel Elohim, bless you.
Shalom.
Here is just one additional URL’s on this subject should you feel led to begin to study more, there are thousands!http://logosresourcepages.org/Versions/uncials.htm