The "Oldest" and "Best" Manuscripts Part One
(Oldest is Not Always Best)

All scripture is from the King James Version unless otherwise noted.
Before beginning this study, I suggest you pray and ask God to guide you through this study.
I also suggest that you do you own study of this material in order to ensure its accuracy.
Copyright Notice
_________________________________________

NOTE: Roll mouse pointer over scripture references to view scripture in a pop up box.

Foreword

This work is produced by an English-speaking student of the Bible. I have no formal training in the original languages (Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic). Consequently, the majority of the information I write about the original languages is from a source other than me. I do have some limited knowledge of the original languages because of the years of personally study I have completed in these languages. Nevertheless, I rely heavily on the works of others in my understanding of these languages.

My sources are many and varied. I have access to several grammars, to many lexicons, to several morphologies, and to many language scholars' writings. When I make statement concerning a particular point in the original languages, I normally base it upon several of my sources.

Some say that unless one has actually experienced a thing, he has no business commenting on that thing. There is some merit to that statement. Experience is the best teacher and with experience, one will be better prepared to comment on a thing. However, people without experience in a particular thing may yet make accurate comments on that thing. They may do so by reading and studying what the experts say on that thing and by applying rational thinking and logic to it. Using these techniques, I strive to be as accurate as possible when I make comments about the original languages. I am certainly always open to legitimate correction. If you feel I have made an error, please write to me and express your concern.

Realizing that I will probably take a lot of heat because of my stand on the KJV and the Majority Texts, let me begin by telling you a little about my history with modern translations. When I first was saved (nearly twenty years ago) and had a thirst for reading the Bible, I went out with the express intent to purchase a Bible that was easily read and understood. I had very little experience in Bibles. I had been raised with the KJV and when I went to church as a child and young adolescent, we used mostly the KJV. There were a couple of folks that had the American Standard or New American Standard Version. But not many. Because of my inexperience, my wife and I went to the local Christian bookstore. After looking at several (I confess I do not remember which ones), I settled on the New International Version. I can gaze at that old NIV at this very moment I am writing this. It is sitting right in front of me on the shelf. It is worn, ragged, and much used. I have even taped it up where it is falling apart. I read the Bible through several times in that old NIV. I learned much from it. I used it for nearly ten years before I ever heard of the KJV controversy. My first experience was when I moved here to Pensacola. My wife and I were visiting churches trying to decide where to go regularly. I visited one church that was Independent Baptist. The pastor came to my home to visit me and he told me that his church used the King James only and that I would be expected to leave my NIV at home. For that reason I rejected that church.

But that incident began, meagerly at first, a long search for the answer to which Bible translation to use. My opinion at that time was that the modern translations were great and they helped me to really understand the Word. I could not understand why anyone would be opposed to them. That remained my opinion for several years. During those years I was called to the ministry. I began to study at and attend Bible institutes and seminary classes and I began to build my library. Since then, I have also purchased several Bible software programs, with many English translations. I have a plethora of English translations at my fingertips. I have used them all. I have even recommended using several translations in Bible study (which I still do but with caution). I used many translations in my studies.

But, recently, the Lord began to show me things about these translations that I have been unable to ignore. When I say that God did it, I mean that he has guided me to studies about the new translations and has led me into fellowship with Godly men who have insight into these things. When I say recently, I mean over the last four or five years. God has helped me to gradually open my eyes to see the problems with these new translations. I started out my Christian walk using the modern versions of the Bible, effectively, I might add, to gain understating and insight into the things of God. I have gradually become a staunch advocate of the King James Version (but not, however, KJV-only) and an opponent of the modern translations . I have written these things to show you that I am not a narrow-minded individual who has not even considered other versions. I have not joined a cult, nor was I brought up in one. There is nothing in my background that has made me a KJV advocate without due consideration of the facts. No one person has convinced me to be a KJV advocate-I am following no one individual who has convinced me to do so. I have come here on my own with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Now let us go on to the study of the versions.

I would like to attempt to persuade you with a concise presentation of my case. The first part of this treatise concerns the preservation of God's Words, that is, of the Scriptures. After that, in part two, I will delve into the subject of the manuscripts used in the translations of the Bible more thoroughly.

Part One: Preservation

This begins the concise presentation of the case for the King James Version and the Majority Texts. The case begins with a look at the preservation of the Word of God. For a look at the manuscript evidence, see Part Two, which is being prepared at this time. It will be posted when it is complete. This may take several weeks.

1. The Case From The Word Itself.

Before we begin with scripture, let me address preservation as seen in two different schools of thought. School one is the inspirational (and thus traditional) view, and two is the rationalist view (the modern view).

The Traditional View. One who believes in the Divine Inspiration of scripture also necessarily believes in the preservation of scripture. For if God inspired men to write scripture, then for scripture to be eternally enduring as the Psalmist tells us in Psalm 119:160, this same inspiration must also have caused men to diligently transmit scriptures as accurately as possible. If His word is settled in Heaven forever (Psalm 119:89), then it stands to reason that God inspired men to keep it settled. This school teaches that men were inspired by the Spirit to write the word and they were equally inspired to transmit the word as nearly perfectly as possible. This school teaches that God, not man, controls the transmission of His Holy Words to succeeding generations.

We have a model of this transmission of the Scriptures in the Hebrew Massoretic texts. The Hebrew copyist was under the strict control of important rules and regulations that would not allow him to make mistakes. A single mistake upon one leaf of a scroll caused that entire leaf to be discarded and re-written. When a page was completed a careful count of all the letters, including the "jots" and "tittles" was made, and if there was a difference between the copy and the original, then there was a mistake made and the page was discarded and re-written. The scribes took their job so seriously because they knew they were transmitting the very words of God. They reverently and accurately copied the scripture. They were so accurate that the Massoretic texts are usually within 99.9% agreement with one another. That means that one out of a thousand pages may have one error on it. The Massoretes maintained a measuring standard called the Massorah. It contains the number of words, letters, diacritical marks, etc. in the Scripture. The copyists had this standard to help make their work accurate. For a good essay about the Massorah, see Dr. Bullinger's Appendix 30, the Massorah.

While the Greek copyists had no such standard as the Massorah, they also took their work seriously for they knew they were transmitting scripture. They were very careful to make their copies as accurately as possible. The Majority text, of which about 5000 currently exist, are in 98% agreement with each other. They date from about 900 AD. Papyrus fragments of the Book of John, to about the middle of the Second Century, proving that current copies are substantially identical to the originals.

Certainly there have been corrupt copies and copyists who, for reasons of their own, changed the Scriptures to fit their ideologies. The Gnostics from the Second and Third Centuries changed the manuscripts to meet their own beliefs. There are copies of those still extant. There are also aberrant Hebrew maunscripts. But the vast majority of all extant manuscripts are accurate.

The Modern View. The other school of thought says that God was not involved in the transmission of the scriptures to posterity. Rationalism teaches that men decided whether or not to transmit the word accurately. Rationalism teaches the many scribes added to or subtracted from the manuscripts they copied based on their own inclinations. If they thought the scripture was inaccurate, then they would change it to make it accurate to their own standards. If a certain scriptural truth did not agree with the copyist's own beliefs, well then he went ahead and changed it. Because of these things, the modernist teaches that the closer to the original one gets, the less changes are made, hence the copy is better. Thus the modernist believes that the oldest manuscript is always the best. This is the view held by modern textual criticism and thus the purview of most modern translations.

The rationalist says the transmission of the Holy Writ was up to the individual men who copied it, while the traditionalist believes that God controlled the transmission of scripture and therefore inspired men to be as true to the original as possible. Which do you accept? Your answer will determine how you understand God's Word. If you believe that its transmission was under control of the Spirit, you will believe in the inerrancy of scripture. If you fall on the rationalists' side, then you will not have such a strong faith that the words you are reading in your translation are true. You will not necessarily believe in the inerrancy of scripture.

Again I also state unequivocally that there have been copyists who transmitted scripture based on their own inclinations. There are many extant manuscripts that prove the truth of this statement. A simple study of the western texts will confirm this. One will find many emendations, cross outs, and corrections in these manuscripts. In fact, it is these manuscripts to which the title of this essay alludes.

But one may also find manuscripts that have no evidence of the rationalist model. These manuscripts are in close agreement with many thousands of other extant manuscripts. The physical quality of the manuscripts is not always the best, but the quality of the writing is above reproach, though modernists would argue against such a declaration.

Now, let us examine the case from scripture. Let us consult several passages of scripture. We will begin with Psalm 12:6-7:

"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. {7} Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

Yes, yes, there is a controversy concerning this passage. Before we deal with that controversy, let us consider the context of this passage. David is comparing the words of the ungodly with the words of God. He is telling what the words of the ungodly will do to Godly people and how God will deal with them. God says he will protect the needy and stop the ungodly. David then says that God's words are pure, indicating that what God protects are His the pure words. He then says that God will preserve them.

Here is the controversy. Does the "them" that God will preserve apply to His Words or to the poor and needy? Well it can be read either way. Briefly, the pronoun "them" is masculine while the antecedent (the word to which the pronoun refers), "words" is feminine. The next previous antecedent, "the needy" is masculine, so one argument states that the masculine pronoun "them" belongs to the masculine antecedent "the needy", making David say that God will preserve the poor and needy. This argument, as far as it goes, is on solid ground. Certainly, the pronoun and antecedent should match.

In English, when speaking of a woman, assuming her name is Agnes, the feminine pronoun would always be used with the name Agnes when referring to this woman. One would not say, "The balloon belongs to Agnes and he will hold it." The correct statement would be, "The balloon belongs to Agnes and she will hold it." Antecedent and pronoun agree: Agnes is feminine and so is 'she'. However, In English the gender of most nouns is not nearly as substantial as in Greek or Hebrew. We usually refer to a ship as feminine ("She's a great ship, is the USS George Washington!"), but that is by no means a hard and fast concept. In many languages most words are associated with gender, so antecedent-pronoun agreement is usually required. In Biblical Hebrew a word is either masculine or feminine; there is no neuter gender in Hebrew.

There is a rub, however. In many cases the Hebrew writer will use a feminine pronoun with a masculine antecedent (or vice versa) to make the point stronger. David is certainly making a strong case here. He may have added emphasis by using the feminine emrah (words) instead of the masculine emer for the antecedent "words". If this is the case, then David is saying that God will preserve His Words. There are several examples in the Psalms of the mismatch of gender between antecedent and pronoun. Let me quote Dr. Thomas Strouse, of Emmanuel Baptist Theological Seminary:

"Next, [Academic Dean William Combs in an article for the Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary Journal] argues that the grammar of [Psalm 12] vv. 6-7 is against the word preservation interpretation. Instead, the gender differences between the masculine plural pronominal suffix 'them' and its antecedent feminine plural 'words' forces one to look for another antecedent which is masculine plural (i.e., 'poor' and 'needy' in v. 5). "However two important grammatical points overturn his argument. First, the rule of proximity requires 'words' to be the natural, contextual antecedent for 'them.' Second, it is not uncommon, especially in the Psalter, for feminine plural noun synonyms for the 'words' of the Lord to be the antecedent for masculine plural pronouns/pronominal suffixes, which seem to 'masculinize' the verbal extension of the patriarchal God of the Old Testament. Several examples of this supposed gender difficulty occur in Psm. 119. In verse 111, the feminine plural 'testimonies' is the antecedent for the masculine plural pronoun 'they.' Again, in three passages the feminine plural synonyms for 'words' have masculine plural pronominal suffixes (vv. 129, 152, 167). These examples include Psm. 119:152 ('Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou has founded them for ever')…"

Dr. Strouse shows several incidences in the Psalms where the feminine synonyms for "words' become the antecedents for masculine pronouns. The reason for this is not to show God, who is masculine, in a feminine sense. The passages where this happens are listed in the quote. Note that all of his examples are from Psalm 119, which was written exclusively about the Word of God.

Dr. Strouse also discusses another grammatical tenet called the rule of proximity. This rule states that the nearest antecedent is usually the one associated with a particular pronoun. In Psalm 12:6-7 the nearest antecedent to 'them' is the noun, 'words'. It is natural and contextual. One must look too far afield to find another antecedent for 'them' in v. 7. It is not natural or contextual to assign the poor to the pronoun 'them'.

So there is a case for both arguments. Can we find a tie-breaker? Yes, at least two.

The theme of the entire psalm is words. David speaks of the words of men and the words of God more that he speaks of the poor and the needy. The poor and needy accent the theme of words, but the main theme or emphasis is on words. In the first verses, David speaks about the words of men. In fact, he refers to the words of men nine times (speak, lips, speak, lips, tongue, speaketh, said, tongue and lips) in verses 1-4. In verse five he tells of God's promised deliverance of the Godly. Of that promise (which is God's Word), David uses the metaphor of purified silver to show the strength and reliability of that promise, which is the Words of God. There is a parallel here that would be left hanging if the preservation referred to the people and not the words. Let me diagram the structure to make the point:

A. Men's words are flattering, deceitful, and proud.

a. Those words are to be cut off.

1. The humble oppressed. God will deliver them.

B. God's Words are pure, tried, and purified seven times.

a. Those words are preserved forever

1. Like purified silver

Here is another way to view it:

Men's words are:

flattering, double hearted, proud
who have said, "we shall prevail"
yet they will be cut off

God's words are:

Pure, tried, purified seven times.
thou shalt keep them, O Lord,
thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever

This makes good sense when poetry is employed instead of prose. The parallel is between the words of men and the Words of God. The first part of the psalm refers to the words of men, words that cannot be relied upon. The second Part refers to God, Words that are eternally true and potent. I believe this parallelism of the poetical structure of the Psalm leaves it in no doubt that David refers to the Words of God when he says they are to be preserved from generation to generation. Amazingly, the NIV shows this parallelism in its interpretation of the poetical structure. Yet, the NIV goes on to say in verse 7, "O LORD, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever", following Modern Textual Criticism.

The second tie-breaker is the traditional understanding of this psalm. Has it been traditionally understood to mean that the people are preserved forever or that the words are preserved forever?

Torch Bible Commentaries, written by J.H. Eaton states: "...but we may rather follow the main Hebrew tradition: "Thou O Lord shalt keep them (i.e. watch over the words to fulfill them…)"

Eaton claims that the main Hebrew tradition is that God will preserve His words rather than He will preserve the poor and needy. The following authorities agree that this passage refers to the words and not the poor and needy: Rabbin Ezra (Aben Ezra) of the 11th Century, Michael Ayguan (14th Century), Martin Luther, Coverdale Bible (16th Century), Geneva Bible (16th Century), Henry Ainsworth (17th Century), and John Wesley (18th Century). Matthew Poole (17th Century) says it can be taken either way.

Even with these tie-breakers, we must accede that there is not a general consensus in Christian circles as to the exact meaning of this passage. Having said that, then we must decide for ourselves which is true.

I opt for the words. I agree with Michael Ayguan, who said, "Keep them: that is, not as the passage is generally taken, Keep or guard Thy people, but Thou shalt keep, or make good, Thy words: and by doing so, shalt preserve him--him, the needy, him, the poor--from this generation." If God's words are preserved forever and from generation to generation, then so are His people.

Another reason that I believe that David was speaking of the Words of God is that the new translations, based on eclectic Hebrew texts, declare otherwise. Since this text completely discredits their premise that the new translations are best, they used a reading that is in opposition to the preserved words point of view. I do not accuse any person of that tactic because I cannot prove it. But I can assure you that Satan is subtle and crafty enough to use such a tactic without the knowledge of the person making the choice of readings. More about the texts underlying the modern versions later.

One more statement will make this discussion complete. There has always been ambiguity in this passage. I believe the ambiguity is placed here because God will preserve both the people, and His words. In fact that is the theme of Peter Van Kleeck, in The Genius of Ambiguity . He summarizes,

"...the only sure conclusion is that there is no consensus within the English Bible tradition for the interpretation of "them" in Psalm 12:7 and it was precisely this lack of agreement within the tradition which was the genius of the ambiguity of the King James Version's rendering. ... by choosing a Greek-Latin basis the modern versions elect to overlook the Reformation's Hebrew basis for translation in Psalm 12:6-7; and the churchly tradition in the new versions is censored by not including a translation that is broad enough to include both interpretations--oppressed people and God's words."

Ps 100:5 For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations.

Ps 119:89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

Ps 119:152 Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever.

Ps 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

Isa 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

Isaiah 55:11 "So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it."

Matthew 24:35 "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

1Pe 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

Since God's Word abides forever, and from generation to generation (Psalm 100:5), then that means (at least to me) that His Word is pure (Psalm 12:6) and will be available to all (every, not missing any-Psalm 100:5) generations. If that is the case (and it is), then His Word must have been extant from the time that Vaticanus was shelved in the Twelfth Century until it was rediscovered in the Nineteenth Century. That is seven hundred years. If the new versions, based on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are truly the Word of God, then why were they hidden from view for seven hundred years (400 in the case of Sinaiticus)? Since many modern version supporters militantly dislike the King James Version and cast dispersions on its accuracy, then, accordingly, the English-speaking world was without the true Word of God for those several hundred years.

In the Next Segment we will look at the manuscript evidence.