Proverbs 22 verse 28, remove not the ancient landmark which thy fathers have set. While that has application to a literal landmark that was set, a boundary post if you like, between one man's property and another, it has other applications. And it most certainly has an application to the subject that we're dealing with in the Bible class which is text and translation. and the truth. Now when I talk about texts I am referring particularly to manuscripts and I know that this is a somewhat technical aspect of our subject, could be complicated and very involved and I would say frankly boring. But it's essential that we deal with this particular subject because it is in the realm of texts, manuscripts that the real fight is based. This is really where it's at when it comes to translations of the scripture. There's an old saying that if you poison the fountainhead, you will poison the stream. If you want to produce impure water for people coming out of their faucets or whatever, then what you have to do is to put poison or to put a substance that's not good for them at the fountainhead, in the reservoir, wherever that place is that the water comes from. And when it comes to modern translations, and any translation of the scripture for that matter, we have to look at the fountainhead. We have to look at the basis. We have to look at the original. And I believe that the doctrinal deficiencies of many modern versions, most modern versions, can be traced to their source. And their source is really impure manuscripts. Now one of the reasons it has been given why we need to have modern translations and we need to move on from old translations like the authorised version is that the translation should be based on the best manuscripts. Now quite often in some modern versions you will read in footnotes or in a side note that the best texts or the best translations or the oldest manuscripts say this or say that or they will have this word or they do not have this word. They include this phrase or they do not include this phrase. I've already given you the example of Mark's Gospel chapter 16 and the last 12 verses or so which in some of the modern translations they tell us that these words are not found in the oldest and best texts or manuscripts. Some of these marginal readings which are endorsed by the words, the best copies, are always put in there without any statement of proof and without naming the manuscript in question. Which leaves the reader, that is you and I, to rely entirely on the authority of some faceless and nameless editor for the assumption that the translation or the wording concerned is the best. We have to just take their word for it. The best manuscripts do not contain these words. This is what it often says. And we have to beware of discarding familiar readings and older readings that we know about for other readings of perhaps doubtful value. Now the basis for the authorised version, we have to speak about that. The text of Stephens, spelled the same way as my name except with an S on the end, AD 1550, was derived largely from manuscripts that date from the 9th to the 11th century. These were copies of still older manuscripts and the chain extends back to apostolic times. Now as I say this is quite a technical issue, there is a lot of material that is available on this subject and I don't want to go through all of this today but I believe that the best And the best family of texts is what is known as the Textus Receptus or the Received Text. Sometimes referred to as the Byzantine Text or the Majority Text. When you hear these kind of terms used, the Majority Text, the Received Text, the Byzantine Text, these are all referring to the same thing. and the majority text associated with a man called Erasmus is the best known and the most widely used of all Greek texts. And it's practically the same as the Stephens text but for some variations. Now in most of the modern translations, and you could include in that the NIV, the RSV and so forth, the basis of those is really a text that was produced way back in the 1880s. In 1881 there was a translation brought out called the revised version. The revised version was supposed to be, according to those who set up the committee to bring it about, a revision of the authorised version. It was supposed to be something that just would deal with a word or two here and there and try to, as it were, clean up the translation. But that's a falsehood. Anyone who tells you that the revised version was just a revision of the authorised version is not telling you the truth. Because in actual fact, the revised version was a new version altogether. Many years ago, in 1931 in fact, a piece was written by a man called William Host. It was called originally, Why I Abide by the Authorised Version. And he actually had this, or others had this reproduced and they used the scripture that I just read to you as the title. It's called Remove Not the Ancient Landmark. The case against the revised version of 1881 by William Host BA of London. In that piece, William Host points out that the publication of the revised version in 1881 actually caused a storm of protest among many of the Lord's people. And there were people who wrote against it. For example, a man called Sir Robert Anderson, an author of many scholarly works, and he said, and I quote, in the revised version of the New Testament, textual criticism has done its worst. It is inconceivable that it will ever again be allowed to run riot as in the work of the Revisers of 1881. Some of you may have heard of John Bergen, Dean Bergen of Oxford. He was the author of many good works, one which is called The Revision Revised. It's well worth reading. Bergen is often referred to as the Magnificent Bergen, and he was. He was a champion of orthodoxy and after his own personal inspection of the reviser's manuscripts, he wrote what was really a scathing expose of the revised version. I want to give you just one comment of his concerning that particular version. We venture to assure him, that is, the reader, without a particle of hesitation that Aleph Sinaiticus, which is a manuscript, B. Vaticanus, which is another manuscript, and D. Bizet, another manuscript, are three of the most scandalously corrupt copies extant. They exhibit the most shamefully mutilated texts which are to be met with, and have become, by whatever process for their history is wholly unknown, the depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders and intentional perversions of the truth which are discoverable in any known copies of the Word of God." That's a really scathing comment on the revised version, but it is very well founded. And I have a copy of the revision revised. I have looked at it quite a bit and there's an awful lot of material in there. Again, some of it very technical, but some of it very, very simple. And Bergen's work, Bergen's expose of the revised version has never been completely or properly answered. His arguments have not really been dealt with. A man called Dr Wordsworth said of the authorised version and how it was replaced, or they sought to replace it with the RV, he said this, to pass from the authorised version to the revised version is as it were to alight from a well built carriage to get into one with bad springs or none at all in which you are jolted in ruts with aching bones. And I would certainly say that that is the case when you ditch the authorised version and start using one of these modern translations is exactly the same experience. Now unfortunately, the revised version of 1881, while professing to be a revision, in other words the committee was set up just to try to improve the authorised version somewhat, it actually turned out to be a completely new translation which was based upon a new private and untested Greek text. by two of the revisers, the infamous Doctors Westcott and Hort. This is why the text underlying the revised version has been known as the Westcott and Hort text, because they were the producers of it. It's interesting that the power behind the revision was an agitation of ecclesiastics, perhaps earnest men, but for the most part men who were in full sympathy with the romanising movement. something that we would now refer to as the ecumenical movement. Some might say that I'm overstating the case when I say that a lot of the modern translations are produced to facilitate ecumenism. It's very interesting to study the views of people like Doctors Westcott and Hort. There's no question that these men were not the kinds of men who I would want to be in charge of such a project. There was no secrecy when the authorised version was produced. Competent scholars outside of those who were part of the conference of 54 scholars, it later became 47, they were kept well informed and their opinions were invited. But when it came to the revised version, the revisers actually sat with closed doors for 10 years. It was done in secret. I think that should put up red flags right away. when you think about men who are dealing with something as important as a production of a better translation of the Word of God, and all that they do is done in secrecy. It's interesting, and again I'm quoting quite a bit from William Host's work, that proof sheets of a new Greek text were distributed by Drs Westcott and Hort, it was actually their own work, to each member of the committee. And as the revision proceeded, more of these sheets were handed around, and all of them on the pledge of secrecy. So the men weren't even to tell what was on those sheets. Now this new Greek text, we are told, embodied 5,337 changes from the received text, or the text underlying the authorised version. And they were introduced thus strangely, but at once became its rival standard of reference. and it exercised what William Host called a determinate influence on the work of revision. It was actually adopted by a man called Dr Schaff, the head of the American Revision Committee, a man of profoundly unsound views, both romanising and Germanising. Whenever the Revision Committee met back there in the 19th century, the Chairman said that it was often a kind of critical duel between Dr Scrivener, who was believed by many to be the greatest textual critic in that committee. And he was a conservative. It was a kind of a critical duel between him, Scrivener, and Dr Hort, who was the dominant will of the committee. And he was determined to carry out the thorough scheme that he and Westcott had in view. And then the committee, most of whom had no claim or made no claim to be experts on textual criticism, were called upon to vote on the spot and so the reading was then settled, what they were going to put into the translation. So basically there was this back and forth between Scrivener and Hort and then all the rest of the men who were not really experts on textual criticism just had to make a decision there and then. As I say it's a big subject but we have to understand that when Westcott and Hort were producing this new version They stake their all on a few manuscripts, mostly on two that are called unseals. You might understand that the unseals and the cursives are just two different ways of describing how it was written. And these two unseals, these two manuscripts, we've already mentioned them. Aleph, which is Codex Sinaiticus, like Mount Sinai, with the other part attached to it. Sinaiticus sometimes it's called and B which is Codex Vaticanus and the last name being to them of pre-eminent authority. As we look at this particular subject it should be pointed out that one of these manuscripts was discovered in a trash can of a monastery on the 4th of February 1859. that would immediately cause me to be suspicious. But in any case, while nobody would doubt the antiquity of this Codex B, Vaticanus, or Aleph Sinaiticus, nobody doubts that they're old. They don't compare favourably with the received text, the Textus Receptus. They were described, along with Codex D, Biza, by Dean Burgin as, and I quote that quotation again, 3 of the most scandalously corrupt copies extant. 3 of the most scandalously corrupt copies in existence. And yet men and women, these are the texts, these are the manuscripts that underlie most of the modern translations. Including, I might add, the New World Translation produced by what we know as the Jehovah's Witnesses in a particular inter-linear translation of the Greek Scriptures that I have a copy of. It actually has a little legend in there of three Bible texts. It has the Greek text above, the New Testament in the original Greek by B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, 1881, then the English text underneath, an inter-linear word for word translation into English in 1969, and then the English text alongside. The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, Matthew through Revelation 1984 Revision. And in the foreword of this particular translation that's used by the Watchtower Society, in the foreword pages 8 and 9, you have these words. Listen to this. Greek text. The Greek text that we have used as the basis for the New World Translation is the widely accepted Westcott and Hort text 1881 by reason of its acknowledged excellence. But we have also taken into consideration other texts, including those prepared by D. Eberhard Nestle, the Spanish Jesuit scholar Jose Maria Bover, and another Jesuit scholar A. Merck. The UBS text of 1975 and the Nestle Aland text of 1979 were consulted to update the critical apparatus of this edition. Someone commenting on this said that Jehovah's Witnesses knew they could not use the received text and hold to their heresies so they used the reviser's text instead. I feel like saying I rest my case, but there is a lot more to it Let me say this, as far as manuscripts are concerned, among the surviving Greek texts, and that's what we're referring to here, there is a 93% support for that upon which the Authorised Version is based. The Authorised Version is the version that God has undoubtedly blessed, and I don't need to give you all the reasons why I say that this morning. It is a time-honoured version It is a version that God has undoubtedly used in a mighty way for hundreds of years. The version has been produced from a more trustworthy background. The majority text, or the received text, the Textus Receptus, has by some been traced back even to the 2nd century AD. And it certainly corresponds to that which was adopted by the Reformers in their day. Now some will say, well, this Codex Aleph and Codex B Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, they survive because they are the Word of God. That's why there are so many more copies of them. But I would retort that they survive because of their non-usage. You know that if you have books or pamphlets that have never been used, they are usually in pretty good condition, unless you leave them in some old damp place where they get damaged. But just as a general rule, if you have a book that hardly is used and you take it out of a cover or someplace where it's been protected, you would say, wow, look at that, that's in great condition, isn't it? Well, it's in great condition because nobody's used it. It's just been sitting there. It's been on the shelf someplace. Now, in many cases, old manuscripts from which copies were taken were destroyed immediately after use. That's a historical fact. And there is a distinct possibility that these particular codices, these particular manuscripts exist today. That is the ones underlying the revised version, the ones underlying the revised English version and so forth and so on. They exist today because they were simply set aside by the ancient church being held by them to be unreliable. That's why they didn't use them. The very old manuscripts were known as unseals because they were written in capital letters and the later manuscripts were often called cursives because of their style of writing. Now, among the surviving Greek texts, there is overwhelming support for that on which the authorised version, sometimes called the King James Version, is based. And it might not be putting it too high to put it in around 95%. And as I say, this is the version that God has unquestionably blessed, it has been used in many wonderful times of revival. Now we shouldn't be surprised by the fact that God has preserved his word. John Owen, the Puritan, said this in speaking of the divine original of the scripture, quote, The providence of God hath manifested itself as no less concerned in the preservation of the writings than of the doctrine contained in them, the writing itself being the product of his own eternal counsel, for the preservation of the doctrine, after a sufficient discovery of the insufficiency of all other means for that end and purpose. And hence the malice of Satan hath raged no less against the book than against the truth contained in it." And I just want to take that last sentence the malice of Satan hath raged no less against the book than against the truth contained in it. This is why I said some time ago in one of these studies, we shouldn't be surprised if the devil became involved in the work of translation. Isn't that a no-brainer in a sense? If you want to take God's word out of the hearts and minds of the people, how do you do that? You do that by introducing some other kind of a version of God's Word supposedly. Now it may well contain much of what is in God's Word, but then there may be a lot of God's Word left out. There may be some other words that are added to it that are not God's Word. I don't want a Bible like that. I don't want to be using a Bible that I would have to say, well I wonder is this portion here really in the scripture or is it not? Does this really belong to the canon of God's Word or does it not? I don't want to be reading the Bible with that in my mind and thinking, well now this may be God's Word to me and maybe it's not. That's modernism. That's the kind of thing that was produced by German rationalism. Causing doubt in the minds of people as to what God's Word actually really does say. I'm here to tell you that God has preserved His Word as He has promised to do. Do I have the original Greek and Hebrew documents that were written down? No, I don't. But do I have God's Word today? I can say yes, largely and broadly speaking, yes, I do have God's Word today. God has preserved His Word. Even in the English language, God has preserved His Word. And while I would never take the position, which I believe to be a heresy, that God inspired those men in 1611, who were set up to produce the authorised version, that's a foolish position. Yet I would say that just because men have translated the scriptures from the old languages into English, the inspiration of the scripture has not been washed out by that process. This is the word of God, and God has preserved his word as he has promised to do. And that word, as far as the English speaking world is concerned, is substantially reproduced in the authorised version. Is this a perfect translation? No it is not. But is it the best translation that has ever been produced? I am here to tell you that I believe that it is. We have here a word that is doctrinally sound. There is no doctrine concerning the deity of Christ or the atonement of Christ or any other doctrine that has been tampered with in this version. You can't say that of most of the modern translations. Again, I could give you many examples of perversions that have been introduced to the text, but it would take us far too long to do that. There is a lot of documentation available concerning that. Let me say also that the Scriptures are absolute in their authority. The professing Church, scholars included, intellectuals included, must not at any time be placed above the Word of God. Now, I believe in the church. I believe the church is a divine institution, but I would never ever take the position which is that the church is up here and the Word of God is down here, as far as authority is concerned. No, the authority is the Scripture. My authority in preaching the Word is not my own authority. You have no right to believe anything. No one in my congregation has a right to believe anything that I say just because I say it. but they have the responsibility to believe it and to receive it. If it's what God says, that's the position that we must take. We must bow to the authority of Holy Scripture. And a lot of times in history, the church has taken a place whereby the Word of God has become subordinate to its authority. And that is completely wrong. And the Bible warns us against such a thing. We see, for example, in 2 Timothy 3 verse 16, as we bring this to a close, it's a very good scripture for us to think about. We see that it says there, all scripture is given by inspiration of God. And there's a word that lies behind that word inspiration. That's the word from which we get pneumonia in the English language. It's to do with the breathing. Basically what it's saying is all scripture is God breathed. God has breathed out the words. And it's profitable for doctrine, that means teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. We're taught in the scripture itself that the scripture is its own authority. We read where Paul said to the Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians 3, 14 and 15, And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man and have no company with him that he may be ashamed Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother." Notice the authority of the epistle, the authority of the scripture. That's the position that we must always take. And I believe that when you do the study, when you look at the evidence, you'll find that the text that underlies the authorised version, the majority text, the received text, so called because it has been largely received by the church in history. That it is a much purer foundation than the text that was artificially produced by Westcott and Hort. Now I'm not finished with Messrs. Westcott and Hort. We'll be dealing some more with what they produced and how they produced it and what their own particular views were. And we'll be dealing with some of the arguments that are made against the majority text or the received text.