The Faithful Witness - By Sharon Thomas Crews

7/28/2019 The Faithful Witness - By Sharon Thomas Crews

1/27


2/27

We gratefully acknowledge Theodore P. Letis forhis encouragement and generous assistance in theresearch and preparation of this book

Copyright 2003 byLu Ann Crews

All rights reserved.Printed in the USA.

Published byAmazing Facts, Inc.

P. O. Box 1058Roseville, CA 95678-8058

Cover Design by Haley TrimmerLayout Design by Greg Solie


3/27

2

1 The Faithful Witness

Have you ever been perplexed by thegreat number of English Bibleversions? Have you wondered which

one you should choose as your primary studyBible?

In the span of just a few generations morethan a hundred English Bible versions havebecome available. The King James Version(KJV), the Revised Standard Version (RSV),Todays English Version (TEV), New EnglishBible (NEB), Jerusalem Bible (JB), New

American Standard Bible (NASB), and the NewInternational Version (NIV) are just a few ofthe most popular ones in use today.

Each version has strong points and weakpoints. No version is perfect. But this does notmean that our choice of a study Bible is not

important. The Bible is Gods chosen mediumof communicating with man, and we shoulduse the best version we can find for studyingthe deep truths of His Word. But which versionis most reliable and how can we identify it?

Many scholars evaluate Bible versionsfollowing a naturalistic method. We, however,will use a faith-oriented approach that also


4/27

ever. The Scriptures were given by inspirationof God and have been preserved for use by

Gods people in every age. They have not beenhidden away from mankind but have been avisible, convicting, living part of the Christianchurch. Not only have they abided in the heartsof men, but faithful copies of the Scriptureshave been passed on from one generation to

another. Time and again both Jesus and Paulaffirmed the accuracy of the Scriptures bywidely quoting from them. Never did theywarn that the Word would be corrupted or lost.Instead Jesus declared, Heaven and earth shallpass away, but my words shall not pass away

(Matthew 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33). Evenduring the Dark Ages, the Holy Scriptures werenot lost. Revelation 11:3, 4 tell us that duringthe 1,260 years of papal supremacy, the twowitnessesthe Old and New Testamentsstillprophesied powerfully.

Psalm 12:6, 7 says, The words of the Lordare pure words. ... Thou shalt keep them, 0Lord, thou shalt preserve them from thisgeneration for ever. We can clearly see that theScriptures have been divinely preserved rightdown to our generation.

In summary, the Bible describes the Wordof God as having the following characteristics:

The Faithful Witness4


5/27

many factors that influence society. However,we can generally observe the difference

between peoples attitude toward the Bibletoday compared to their attitudes when therewas only one accepted version.

When the KJV was the primary Bible used,ministers strongly preached from it and laityeagerly committed its words to memory. As a

sacred book, it was highly respected. Faith inGod and the authority of His Word wereparamount.

Today, however, there is quite a differentoutlook. Faith in God and the Scriptures is atan all-time low. Many people have lost their

respect for the Scriptures. Ministers no longerpreach the Word, but instead deliverphilosophical sermons on the generalmessage of Scriptures. And rarely do laitycommit Bible texts to memory. An epidemic ofignorance concerning the most basic Bible

content is plaguing even churchgoing youth. 1Have the modern versions contributed to

this lamentable condition? Lets considerseveral ways that modern versions may haveencouraged such a situation.

First, there has been wide promotion inrecent years of versions using modern speech.Although these versions are helpful to some



6/27

sinners to repentance (Mark 2:17 andMatthew 9:13) or to the last line of the Lords

prayer (Matthew 6:13).Another look at most modern versionsuncovers additional perplexities. In the RSV,MV, and NEB, you will find a footnote to Luke23:34 indicating that some ancient manuscriptsomit Jesus saying, Father, forgive them; for

they know not what they do. Immediately itraises the question, Did Jesus really say that?It appears that scholars question it, so whyshouldnt you?

A comparison of the modern versions withthe KJV reveals over two hundred cases in

which a verses authenticity is seriouslyquestioned either by complete omission or byfootnote. The most pronounced of these areJohn 7:53-8:11 (Johns account of the womancaught in adultery) and Mark 16:9-20 (Marksaccount of the appearance and ascension of

Jesus). Footnotes and marginal readings can behelpful, but is it possible that modernscholarship has overwhelmed the Bible studentwith a plethora of critical readings varyingfrom version to version?

Later we will look at a major cause ofomissions. But for now, it can be postulatedthat the proliferation of versions has weakened



7/27

3 Gods Word isProfitable forDoctrine

Our second characteristic of the Word ofGod is that it is profitable for doctrine,reproof, correction, and instruction in

righteousness. This important characteristic ofthe Word of God is conditional upon the readerallowing the Holy Spirit to reveal truth. TheSpirit must not be hampered either by onesown bias or by someone elses.

Every Bible version contains bias from its

translators; the degree depends on the methodsused in translating. The freer the translation,the greater the possibility of bias, and the lessreliable the version is for study purposes. Aparaphrase, like the Living Bible, is not a goodstudy Bible. A paraphrase is largely an

interpretation of Scripturewhich bydefinition must be influenced by the authorspersonal beliefs.

Dynamic translations like the NEB, TEV,and Phillips are also not recommended as studyBibles. 4 These Bibles are translated by giving

what is assumedto be the meaning of what theBible writers wrote. Although they are very



8/27

more easily taught from one version thananother. But all doctrines common to the

Christian faith can be found in every version.Generally, however, the KJV presents manydoctrines more clearly than other versions.This is especially true of the prophecies ofDaniel and Revelation. It should also be notedthat it is much harder to prove the deity of

Christ when using modern versions. A shorttime ago I attended a meeting held by a groupof young people who seemed to be avid Biblestudents. I was amazed to find that they deniedthe deity of Christ and supported theirpositions by referring to textual renderings

from various modern versions.Between all the modern versions, you will

find that nearly every verse proving the deity ofChrist has been altered in one or the otherversions. (See 1 Timothy 3:16, Ephesians 3:9,and Romans 14:10,12 in the RSV, NEB, NASB,

TEV, NIV, and JB; and Acts 20:28 and Romans9:5 in the RSV, NEB, and TEV.) It is apparentthat there has been a fundamental change intranslations since the KJV. With that in mind,we now turn to a discussion of our lastcharacteristic of the inspired Word of God.



9/27

i.e., groups of manuscripts containing similarreadings. Throughout the years, scholars have

examined the existing manuscripts, consideredtheir various readings, and have constructedtheir own Greek or Hebrew text which theybelieve accurately represents the readings of theoriginal manuscripts.

When a translation is to be produced,

scholars either choose existing Greek andHebrew texts from which to translate, or theyformulate their own text.

The text of the Old Testament has beenessentially settled 8 since the discovery of theDead Sea Scrolls. The New Testament text,

however, has been the cause of much heateddebate. For the past hundred years there hasbeen a rivalry between two Greek textstheReceived Text 9 and the Critical Text. 10

The Received Text was derived primarilyfrom the Byzantine text-type and includes

texts published by Erasmus, Stephens, Beza,and Elzevir. The New Testament of the KingJames Version is a translation of this Greektext.

The Critical Text is derived primarily fromthe Alexandrian text-type and includes suchpublished texts as the United Bible Society,Nestle-Aland, and Westcott-Hort. The New



10/27

Sinaiticus was discovered in 1844 byConstantine Tischendorf while visiting St.

Catherine, a monastery at the base of Mt. Sinai.He found 43 leaves of it in a basket just beforeit was to be burned. 14 Several years later heacquired the remainder of the leaves from themonastery, and by 1862 he had published thecomplete manuscript.

Vaticanus history is not as dramatic asSinaiticus. Pope Nicholas V brought it to theVatican in 1448. 15 For hundreds of years, theRoman Catholic Church guarded it so closelythat no Protestant scholar of ability was allowedto study it for any length of time. 16 Those who

were granted permission to look at themanuscript were searched to assure they didnthave paper or ink. Then if they were caughtlooking too closely at any passage, two attendantswould snatch the manuscript from them! 17 In1866, however, the Vatican finally allowed

Constantine Tischendorf, under supervision, tocopy the manuscript. In 1867 he published it.

Realizing that these old manuscriptscontained significantly different readings thanthose of the Received Text, Tischendorf was

jubilant. He believed that his efforts had at lastrestored the inspired Word of God to mankindafter having been lost for 1,500 years.



11/27

3,000 times. That averages to a disagreement onalmost every verse of the Gospels! It is, in fact,

easier to find two consecutive verses in whichthese two manuscripts differ the one from theother, than two consecutive verses in which theyentirely agree. 19

Undoubtedly these manuscripts sufferfrom scribal carelessness. Vaticanus exhibits

numerous places where the scribe has writtenthe same word or phrase twice in succession, 20

a clear indication that the writing was notchecked. The scribe of Sinaiticus occasionallyskipped lines in copying and made so manyobvious errors that during the time Sinaiticus

was used, ten different readers notedcorrections. 21 However, instead of questioningthe reliability of these manuscripts, scholarshave accepted many of their peculiar readings.Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are the basis for mostof the two hundred omissions from the

modern New Testament versions mentionedearlier in this booklet.

For several years the Alexandrian Text wasblindly considered to be a pure or neutralrepresentation of the original text of the Biblewriters. But recent scholarship has confirmedthat what has been restored should not beconsidered the original text, but simply the text



12/27

way he wished. Further, he questioned theauthenticity of certain portions of Scripture

that did not conform to his own idiosyncraticbeliefs. His teachings not only promoted acritical attitude toward the Scriptures, but theyhelped breed numerous heresies in Alexandria,including the doctrine of Arianism. 24

The Arian controversy centered around the

nature of Christ. The Arians taught that Christwas a created being, while the conservatives ofthe day taught that Christ was eternal, whollyuncreated, and equal with the Father. For oversixty years the controversy raged. Just when itlooked as if one side had won, the other side

would rise to dominance.Constantine, the great mixer of paganism

and Christianity, was emperor when thecontroversy began in A.D. 320. More interestedin politics than pure religion, Constantinefavored whichever side seemed to his

advantage. At first, Constantine exiled theArian leaders, but three years later (A.D. 328),he not only welcomed their return but madeone of them his personal advisor. 25

It was during this upsurge of Arianismthat Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are believed tohave been produced. 26 Several scholars believethat they may be identified with two of fifty



13/27

Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. But it seems likelythat they were affected by the philosophicalschools of Alexandria. Whether throughEusebius, other misguided critics, or one of thecountless heretics that Alexandria bred, 30 it isapparent that the Alexandrians attempt tocorrect the Scriptures failed. Within 200 yearsthis text-type fell into discredit and disuse.31

It is interesting to realize that several of theomissions and peculiar readings of Vaticanusand Sinaiticus were once found only in RomanCatholic Bibles. Dr. Benjamin G. Wilkinson,history professor and late president ofWashington Missionary College, has proposed

that Jerome, a great admirer of both Origen andEusebius, transmitted many Eusebio-Origenerrors into the Latin Vulgate. 32 The LatinVulgate has been the recognized Bible ofCatholics for centuries. The English Rheims-Douay version is translated from it. History is

replete with episodes of violence wrought by theCatholic Church against all who did not receivethe Latin Vulgate. To deny their Scriptures wasto deny the Churchs self-appointed authority.When the modern versions began to appearwith several readings previously propagatedonly in Catholic Bibles, Thomas S. Preston of St.Anns Church of New York was recorded in Dr.



14/27

a contrast to the limited locality and time-rangeof the Alexandrian Text.

Although none of the Greek manuscriptsof the Byzantine text-type date before A.D. 400,most scholars agree that in order for this text-type to be so widespread and predominantamong the Greek manuscripts, it had to have amuch earlier existence. 36 Indeed, distinctive

Byzantine readings are found in all of the oldestversions, 37 in the papyri, 38 and in theScriptural quotations of the early churchfathers. 39 In numerous places the Byzantinetext-type can be shown to be as early or earlierthan any text-type. 40 It was the authoritative

Scriptures of the Syrian church, the Waldensianchurch of northern Italy, and the GreekOrthodox Church. Wilkinsons study alsosuggests the Byzantine text-type was theScriptures of such early churches as the Celticchurch in Scotland and Ireland, and the Gallic

church in southern France. 41During the Dark Ages, apostasy seemed

almost to swallow up Christendom, but Godstill had a people with whom His Word wouldlive and abide forever. As the true church fledinto the wilderness (Revelation 12:6, 14), itresisted error and clung to the Scriptures.Prominent among these faithful believers were



15/27

When Erasmus prepared his Greek NewTestament, there were hundreds of manuscriptsfor him to examine, and his wide travelscertainly permitted him to do so. But aftermuch study, he chose to use but afew representative manuscripts. Thesemanuscripts, like the vast bulk of all NewTestament Greek manuscripts, were of the

Byzantine text-typethe same text-type thathad been preserved and used by the church inthe wilderness. This was no coincidence.Through the publication of Erasmus GreekNew Testament, Gods providence waspreparing the way for the many subsequent

translations that would guide His true Churchas two-thirds of Europe broke away from theCatholic Church in the Great ProtestantReformation.

As the torch of truth was passed on to theReformation, we find version after version

translated from the Received Text. Luther, thatgreat giant of the Reformation, used aWaldensian Bible and Erasmus Greek text (theReceived Text) in producing his Germantranslation of the New Testament. Similarlybased were Olivetans French translation,Diodatis Italian translation, and TyndalesEnglish translation. 45



16/27

Scriptures for millions of English-speakingpeople in the New World. In addition, it hasbeen the Bible of every English-speakingcountry on the face the globe. It has been theguide of conduct to men and women in everyclass of life and of every rank in learning andeducation. So deeply has its language enteredinto our common tongue, that one probably

could not take up a newspaper or read a singlebook in which some phrase was not borrowed,consciously or unconsciously, from the KJV.The wide and positive influence of theAuthorized Version cannot be exaggerated. 47

The New Testament Scriptures of the early

church, the wilderness church, the Reformationchurch, and the Scriptures of our foundingfathers were all in essence the Received Text.The blood of martyrs has been shed over it,nations have been founded upon it, and divineprovidence has protected it. The Received Text

is the Greek text that has played an active rolein the church through-out the ages, and as suchit best fits our third characteristic of theinspired Word of God.


e Fa fu W ness


17/27

Word of God. Disregarding the providentialcare of the biblical text, men began to analyze itas they would any ancient piece of literature.Foremost among such men were Brooke FossWestcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort.

Westcott and Hort were both Cambridgeprofessors well known in the field of textualcriticism. These men shared several points of

interest, including a fascination with the theoryof evolution. But the one conviction that mostclosely united the two men was a prejudicedanimosity for the Received Text. Dr. Hort wasonly twenty-three years old and had not yeteven studied textual criticism when he

described the Received Text as villainous andvile. 48 In spite of the unorthodoxy of thesemen, their scholarship has exerted a moldinginfluence upon the distinctive readings of themodern versions.

In 1890 a major revision of the KJV was

being considered. By this time, spelling andgrammar had changed and many of the OldEnglish words used in the KJV were consideredobscure in meaning. Some critics believed thatincreased scholarship and the recent availabilityof Vaticanus and Sinaiticus necessitated a

revision. Although there was much fear anddistrust of revision in the public mind, it was




18/27

they overwhelmed the other members of thecommittee. Their methods gave preferentialstatus to Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, 53 and havesince shaped the thinking of all who approachtextual criticism. 54

One of the most misleading of their rulesdeclares that the oldest manuscripts contain thepreferred reading. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are

about 100 years older than any of the existingGreek manuscripts supporting the ReceivedText. However, age does not guarantee purity. Infact, some of the earliest manuscripts were verycorrupt. History records that during the centuryfollowing the completion of the New Testament,

manuscripts suffered the greatest abuse. 55 It wasduring this time that a number of heretics areknown to have made corrupted copies of theScriptures. Even while Paul was alive, someonewas passing around false manuscripts (see 2Thessalonians 2:2). The age of Vaticanus and

Sinaiticus is no criterion for considering theirreadings to be pure. In fact, it can be the basis ofquestioning their reliability. These manuscriptscould have only survived because they were littleused. The dry climate of Egypt and thesturdiness of vellum are not sufficient to explain

their survival. Reliable manuscripts of theScriptures ultimately disintegrated from




19/27

couldnt recognize the correct manuscripts touse as authority. Strangely enough, today,nearly 1,900 years from the originals, scholarsfeel better able to judge than they could. SirFrederick Kenyon, a pioneer in the field ofpapyrology and for many years director of theBritish Museum, summed it up when he wrote,Is not the whole theory artificial and illusory,

the vain imagining of an ingenious mind, likeso many of the products of modern criticism,which spins endless webs out of its owninterior, to be swept away tomorrow by theruthless broom of common sense? 57

When the theory of the Syrian Recension

crumbled, Westcott and Horts scholarly treatisewas left without a foundation. Yet scholars stillrefused to recognize the providential hand ofGod in the spreading of the Received Text. Withno suitable explanation of why the Byzantinetext-type is found abundantly in Greek

manuscripts from all over the world, 58 mostscholars still cling to the framework of textualcriticism set up by Westcott and Hort. Thus, themost popular editions of the Greek text todayNestle-Aland and UBSvary little from theWestcott-Hort text.

However, uncertainty prevails as more andmore scholars recognize the weaknesses of the




20/27

As we have seen, for over 300 years the KJVhas built the faith of its readers, it is a formaltranslation profitable for studying doctrine,and both its Old and New Testaments are basedon text-types that have been providentiallypreserved through the ages by the priesthood ofbelievers. Truly, it best fits our biblicaldescription of the Word of God.

This does not mean, however, that the KJVis a perfect translation. One weakness is itsreadability. 62 Although this difficulty has oftenbeen exaggerated by detractors of the KJV, it istrue that its English has not been updated since1769. Thus it contains archaisms. This is not a

problem for those who have grown up readingthe KJV, but its language may discourageothers. For those who struggle with the Englishof the KJV, the New King James Version 63 is tobe recommended.

Compared to the deficiencies of the Greek

text 64 followed by most modern versions, theweaknesses of the KJV 65 are very minor. TheNew Testament of most modern versions isbased on an Egyptian text rejected byChristendom 1,500 years ago. 66 While we canacknowledge the good points of modern

versions and appreciate their usefulness forreference and commentary, 67 there is no more




21/27

Notes

1. Bible Illiteracy Plagues Youth, Group, (November/

December, 1984), P. 27 as quoted in Ted Letis, AnOpen Letter to the International Bible Society and

the Zondervan Corporation, (April 29, 1985).

2. The New Testament Student and Bible Translation

(Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed

Publishing Company, 1978), p. 155 as quoted inLetis, An Open Letter.

3. The Revision of the New Testament, Dublin

Review, VI (July-October, 1881), p. 144.

4. Don F. Neufeld, Supernatural or Human Beings?

Review and Herald(February 10, 1977), p. 14.

5. Gerhard F. Hasel, Understanding the Living Word of

God(Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press Pub.

Assoc., 1980), p. 104.

6. JB and NIV are also considered formal translationsbut are admittedly freer, less literal. (See Hasel, pp.

104-105.)

7. Wilber N. Pickering, The Identity of the New

Testament Text(Nashville: Thomas Nelson Pub.,

1980), p. 16.




22/27

17. Frederick Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient

Manuscripts(New York: Harper & Brothers, 1958),

p. 202.

18. Herman C. Hoskier, Codex B and Its Allies(2 vols.;

London: Bernard Quaritch, 1914), II, p. vi.

19. John Burgon, The Revision Revised(London: John

Murray, 1883), p. 12.

20. F.H.A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the

Criticism of the New Testament, 4th ed. (2 vols.;

London: George Bell and Sons), II, p. 120. Also

Kenyon, Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the

New Testament(2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Wm. B.

Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1951), p. 308, states that

Vaticanus is disfigured by many blunders in

transcription.

21. F.C. Cook, The Revised Version of the First Three

Gospels(London: John Murray, 1881), p. 172. Also

Burgon, p. 13.

22. George Salmon, Some Thoughts on the Textual

Criticism of the New Testament(London: John

Murray, 1897), pp. 52, 155. Also Ernest C. Colwell,

Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the

New Testament, Vol. IX (Grand Rapids: Wm. B.

Eerdmans, 1969), p. 54 says The Beta text-type(Horts Neutral) is a made text, probably




23/27

drawn a veil of silence across it. This seems to be

why so little is known of the history of the early

Egyptian Christianity. Hills also suggests that

Gnostic and docetist influences explain many of thepeculiar readings of the Alexandrian Text. (See pp.

136-138, 143.)

31. Hoskier, p. 9.

32. Benjamin G. Wilkinson, Our Authorized BibleVindicated(Washington, D.C., 1930), pp. 19-22.

33. Dr. Warfields Collection of Opinions and Reviews, Vol.

II, p. 21 as quoted in Wilkinson, p. 229.

34. Pickering, p. 116.



37. Hills, pp. 172-175, 186-188. (Predominating in the

Syriac Peshitta and Gothic.)

38. Colwell, pp. 48-49. Also Gunther Zuntz, The

Byzantine Text in New Testament Criticism, The

Journal of Theological Studies, XLII (1942), p. 55.

39. John Burgon, The Traditional Text of the HolyGospels Vindicated and Established, completed by




24/27

Testament, and dragged on with the villainous

Textus Receptus. ... Think of that vile Textus

Receptus leaning on late Mss.; it is a blessing there

are such early ones. ... (December 29 and 30,1851) Colwell, p. 158 quotes Horts letter

published in Arthur Fenton Hort, Life and Letters of

Fenton John Anthony Hort, I (London and New

York, 1896), p. 211.

49. H.F.D. Sparks, On Translations of the Bible(London:the Athlone press, 1973), p.7.

50. Edmund Beckett, Should the Revised New Testament

be Authorised?(London: John Murray, 1881), p. 37.

51. Metzger, p. 135.

52. Luther Weigle, The English New Testament(New

York & Nashville: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1949),

p. 96. Also Burgon, The Revision Revised, p. 24.

53. Kenyon, Our Bible, p. 204.

54. Colwell, p. 106.

55. Metzger, p. 201.

56. Pickering, p. 129, Kirsopp Lake, R. P. Blake and Silva

New, The Caesarean Text of the Gospel of Mark,Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 21(1928), pp. 347-

44


25/27



26/27

New Testament(The International Council of

Religious Education, 1967), p. 105 as quoted in

Letis, The Majority Text.

69. Skilton, p. 107 as quoted in Letis, The Majority Text

says The Authorized Version had a remarkable

sense of appropriateness, felicity, and effectiveness

of expression. It had the instinct and feeling of

genius for music and rhythm. It could discover the

inevitable word or phrase for a given context. Itsstyle admirably reflected the dignity, majesty, and

sublimity of the original.


27/27

P. O. Box 1058 Roseville, CA 95678-8058

The Faithful Witness - By Sharon Thomas Crews

Documents

Transcript of The Faithful Witness - By Sharon Thomas Crews