We read the word of God in 2 Timothy and chapter 4. I charge thee therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom, preach the word, be instant in season, out of season, reprove, rebuke, with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers having itching ears, and they shall turn away their ears from the truth and shall be turned unto fables. But watch thou in all things, endure affliction, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry, for I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me at that day, and not to me only, but unto all them also that love is appearing. Do thy diligence to come shortly unto me, for Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica, Christians to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia. Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee, for he is profitable to me for the ministry. Antiochus have I sent to Ephesus, the cloak that I left at Troas with Trappas, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments. Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil. The Lord reward him according to his works. Of whom be thou aware also, for he hath greatly withstood our words. At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me. I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge. Notwithstanding, the Lord stood with me and strengthened me that by me the preaching might be fully known and that all the Gentiles might hear, and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion. And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. Salute Prisca and Aquila and the household of Onesiphorus. Erastus abode at Corinth, but Trophimus have I left at Miletum sick. Do thy diligence to come before winter. Ubulus greeteth thee, and Pudens, and Linus, and Claudia, and all the brethren. The Lord Jesus Christ be with thy spirit. Grace be with you. Amen. And may the Lord bless to us this reading of his own infallible word. And I'll hand straight over to Mr. Watts, who will speak to us on Bible versions. Has God preserved his word or the identity of the New Testament text? May I first of all thank you for the welcome extended to me and for the invitation indeed which is given to me to address you on this subject this evening. I do so the more gladly because I concur with the view already expressed that this is one of the most vital issues of the day in which we live and may God give us grace to gain an understanding of what is at stake and give us a love for the pure word of God. The New Testament scriptures were probably first written on papyrus material, a material formed from dry strips of papyrus plant, beaten, pressed, glued together and then polished into a smooth writing surface. The apostle John in his second epistle speaks of the use of this papyrus, or paper, and you'll find in the second epistle, verse 12, John says, having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink. but I trust to come unto you and speak face to face, that our joy may be full." Paper, paper. It is possible that parchment was used. This was made from the skins of young animals which were thoroughly scraped and rubbed smooth. And in the last epistle Paul wrote, the second epistle to Timothy, and the chapter which has been read to us earlier this evening, the Apostle Paul actually refers to the books and to the parchments. We can be fairly sure that the original documents were written either on papyrus or upon parchment and were written in the form of scrolls, or what we call codices. A scroll consisted of a number of sheets, on average 11 inches by 6 inches, pasted together, which formed one long roll. And I mean a long roll. Luke's Gospel would have been some 31 to 32 feet long. Codices were really an early form of book, with sheets folded in the middle and carefully stitched together. In a codex, or with codices, the plural form, the Gospels and the Acts would have been written on some 220 pages. There is some dispute still about the actual dates of the several books of the New Testament. The earliest was probably written in the 40s and the latest in the 90s. The originals, thus written, are called the autographs were immediately recognised as scripture. Now we know that from the fact that Paul, when he writes to the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 14, he actually reminds his readers that what he is writing is the word of God and no less. If any man, he says, in verse 37 of the 14th chapter of 1 Corinthians, if any man think himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. And that gave to the New Testament book a certain mark of authenticity. and it really made them holy scripture, the fact that they were the very words, the very precepts of the Lord. As a consequence, we know that these holy writings, inspired by the Spirit of God and rendered infallible and inerrant, were received as such by the churches and they were read in their assemblies and in their meetings. In Colossians 4.16 we read that Paul says this to the Colossian believers, when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans. It is clear from the New Testament itself that these New Testament writings were generally and universally regarded as God's Word written. We have in 1 Timothy 5, verse 18, these words, The Scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn, and the labourer is worthy of his hire. Now, the significance of that is that one of the references there is to the Old Testament and one of the references is to the New Testament, to the Gospels, the words of our Lord. And yet both are introduced with that statement, the Scripture says. which shows that from these earliest times not only the Old Testament but the New Testament writings were accepted as God's holy word. And I'm sure many of you will be familiar with Peter's reference in his second epistle and in his third chapter when he speaks or writes of the writings of the Apostle Paul And in 2 Peter 3, 16, he says that Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, hath written unto you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to be understood, which there are unlearned and unstable rest, as they do also the other scriptures unto their own destruction. Peter therefore puts his confirming mark upon the productions of the Apostle Paul, and he refers to them as scripture, because he refers to other scriptures, which means that he believes that what the Apostle Paul wrote under inspiration was indeed a part of the holy writing. Now, what happened to these original documents? we would perhaps love to know. It appears that they perished early on in Christian history. It is possible that Tertullian refers to them around 200 AD in a work entitled On Prescription Against Heretics. Let me read to you something of what he wrote. Come now, you that would indulge a better curiosity, run over the apostolic churches in which their own original writings are read. Achaia is very near you, in which you find Corinth. Since you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi, and thereto you have the Thessalonians. Since you are able to cross to Asia, you get Ephesus. Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome. You will have observed that Tertullian makes reference there to the Apostle's own original writings, and it has led some to suppose that he is referring there to nothing less than the autographs to the original papyrus scriptures, or the parchment scriptures, which bore the very writing of the apostles themselves. Well, if it is indeed a reference to the originals, it shows that they survived to the end of the second century. But there is no trace of them after that, and we must therefore conclude that they disintegrated through constant use. Papyrus, of course, was a delicate material. It was easily destroyed by damp, and when dry it was likely to become brittle and to break up. Most papyrus manuscripts therefore perished, and perished quite quickly, except those which were preserved in exceptional circumstances, as in the sands of Egypt or in volcanic ash. So they either perished by natural process of deterioration and by reason of constant use or they were destroyed in times of early persecution. There were a number of persecutions in the early church and some of those persecutions were actually directed towards the holy writings. And certainly we have examples from around the year 200 of attempts not only to stamp out Christianity but to destroy the Christian scriptures. And I refer to the persecutions under Decius, 249-51, Diocletian, 303-305. Now there are indications in the New Testament that the inspired authors themselves may have produced copies. We know that they used secretaries to write some of their original documents. In Romans chapter 16 Paul makes mention of one Tateus, at least he writes himself at the end of Romans 16, verse 22, I, Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord. And in the light of Paul's reference in 2 Timothy 4 to books and to parchments, which he evidently required, we may well conclude that he employed such secretaries in his journeyings from one place to another to produce duplicate copies of his inspired writings. We know that some of those who assisted the Apostle were what the New Testament calls evangelists. They were apostolic helpers and apostolic delegates. Now these evangelists had the miraculous gifts of the Spirit. Paul refers to Timothy as one such and refers to the gift that was given him through the laying on of hands. So the copying would have either been done under the supervision of an apostle, as in the case of Tertius in Romans 16, or it would have been done by an evangelist or apostolic helper who had himself an extraordinary gift, a miraculous gift, which enabled him to copy according to the original. Did John, we wonder, make seven copies of Revelation, one for each church in Asia Minor? If he did not, one book of Revelation would have taken six to twelve months to circulate. It is likely, therefore, that copies were sent to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Philadelphia, and so on. It is clear from the epistles themselves that if not the apostles and those who were appointed by them or those who were very specially equipped for this task. If those wrote copies for the churches, it is clear from the epistles that those churches themselves were concerned to add to their collection. The scripture in Colossians 4 already quoted refers to Colossae hearing the epistle in their church assembly and then also sharing that with the church at Laodicea, and the epistle which was at Laodicea was to be added to the collection of holy writings at Colossae, Colossians 4.16. Well, however it was done, it seems quite certain that before Paul finished his ministry, accurate copies of his writings were in circulation. From 2 Peter 3, already quoted, we gather that Peter had read all Paul's epistles, finding in them some things hard to be understood, as others had done. And so apparently had his readers those who were scattered in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia. This should not really surprise us. as the Lord Jesus had promised in Matthew 23 and verse 34 that he would meet this very need. Let me refer you to his words. He says, Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, by which he means men under direct inspiration, who shall be able to speak and to write the infallible word of God, and wise men who would be able to pass on their message verbally, and scribes, learned men, capable of transcribing Holy Scripture. And therefore our Lord recognised the need which would exist, He had prepared for that need, and He clearly appointed such in His sovereignty fully to meet that need. They were scribes of the kingdom of heaven. Now we may believe, taking all of these things into account, and I mean by all of these things, that the apostles themselves may have made copies, that those who were charged in the work of secretaryship under the supervision of an apostle, they may have made copies. Apostolic representatives and apostolic associates appear to have made copies of the Holy Scripture. These were generally distributed in the times of the early church and churches began to collect the books together that they might be regularly read on the Lord's Day. and our Lord Jesus Christ ensured that this would be wisely and properly and correctly done by saying he anticipated the need and had appointed scribes to that very end. A high degree of accuracy was therefore attained and we can be sure of that on the following grounds. The New Testament writings were invested with the same degree of sanctity as the Old Testament scriptures. We know from 2 Peter 3, and Peter's reference there to Paul's writings and to the other scriptures, that the same reverence for the Old Testament would have belonged to the scriptures of the New Testament. Now the Jews had a profound regard for the Word of God. It was a capital offence amongst the Jews to alter or to change the written Word of God. They reverenced it with a unique kind of reverence. And when the Old Testament Scriptures were supplemented by the New Testament Scriptures, and the early church began amongst Jewish people, that same respect would have been given to the New Testament writings and those employed in copying would therefore have been under tremendous sense of obligation, tremendous sense of responsibility to ensure that they copied accurately and their copies were correct and that they rightly brought forth the copies of the word of God. Secondly, we may believe that they were accurate copies because our Lord severely censured, during his earthly ministry, those who altered the text of God's word. They may have done it verbally, but still they came under his word of censure. We find, for example, in the Sermon on the Mount, our Lord referring to the twistings and the distortings of the Pharisees. Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour and hate thine enemy. And he rebuked that kind of addition to the Word of God. No man had the right to interfere with the Word of God and no man in his right mind should dare to alter God's word written. The same is true in our Lord's treatment of the question of marriage and divorce in Matthew chapter 19. So this generated in the hearts of Christian believers a genuine fear of adversely affecting the text or in any way of misrepresenting it, our Lord had clearly condemned such activity. Thirdly, the inspired writings called forth profound reverence and respect themselves. I have referred you to Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 14, let him know that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. What man in his right mind, what man with a converted soul, would have dared to tamper with the commandments of the Lord. And yet this hallmark of divinity was upon the Gospels, was upon the record of the Acts, was upon the Epistles, and was upon the Book of Revelation. It was all the Word of the Lord. And this caused them to treat these manuscripts with extreme care. And if they were to be copied, then they were to be copied with great care and with deserved respect. Then, fourthly, there were solemn warnings given, and solemn warnings given about this very matter of tampering with the Word of God. You may recall that the Apostle refers to this, and he speaks of the fact that he himself and the other apostles had renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness or handling the word of God deceitfully. He himself and his fellow apostles did have that great respect for scripture, so that in their ministries they sought faithfully to declare it. Paul in 2 Corinthians 2.17 says this, we are not as many which corrupt the word of God. Such warnings would have put the fear of God into the hearts of the readers of these epistles. There was to be no handling the word of God deceitfully and there was to be no corrupting of the word of God. Moreover, Churches were told to be on their guard for spurious productions. In the second epistle to the Thessalonians, chapter 2, verse 2, Paul says, Be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter, as from us, that the day of Christ is at hand. They were warned. They were warned that evil persons, for perverted reasons, might seek to bring to the Christian communities writings which were not genuine and which were not authentic, and they were warned to be on their guard against these very things. Well, how could the Church discern? And how could the Church discriminate? Well, the originals of Paul's epistles were signs so as to provide a genuine standard. In 2 Thessalonians, chapter 3, verse 17, Paul writes, the salutation of Paul, with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle, so I write. So the church was greatly helped in this matter of discerning between the true and the false, between the pure and the corrupt, for the true bore the signature of the writer, the inspired writer himself. The last thing I will mention, which helped to ensure tremendous accuracy in the copying of scripture, is the solemn word given at the end of the Bible itself in Revelation 22, verses 18 and 19. I testify to every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book. If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. And if any man take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Now, the sum of what I have been saying thus far is this. The New Testament writings appeared under the inspiration of God and they were infallible truth and they were inerrant in both doctrine and in fact. Because of the needs of the church at large, the gospel forming communities in places near and places far, the scriptures needed to be distributed. Copies were made by the apostles. by secretaries under the supervision of apostles, by apostolic helpers and apostolic associates who were blessed with gifts to ensure the copying, all fulfilling this function of scribe to which I have referred in the Gospels and to which our Lord Jesus referred. All such copying, for the reasons I have just given, were undertaken in the fear of God, These early Christians handled the Word of God with great respect. They recognised that this was the out-breathing of God Almighty, that they handled the very Word of the living God. These were the written utterances of Him, whose name was Jehovah. They trembled, therefore, at their task, but they were constrained to do what was required for the well-being of the Church, and it was with such a spirit and under such constraint that these copies were made. So most conscientious attempts were made to secure accuracy in copying. And we know that even from non-biblical material witness the signature attached to the account of Polycarp's martyrdom, AD 150, and the way Irenaeus lays down rules for the correct copying of his own work in 185. If this was true of ordinary writings, uninspired writings, that such steps were taken to ensure that there were no mistakes, that no errors crept into the text, if these men, with their human productions, went to great lengths to ensure that their words were properly preserved, how much more care would they have taken over the Word of God and over the Holy Scriptures? Friends, it cannot be overstated. And I say this because those who deny the preservation of the text of the New Testament are often very quick to say that the early copyists were careless and that for that reason we have got to study, to try, to discover where they went wrong and we are left in a kind of vague state of not knowing what the word of God is anymore. I am submitting to you tonight that that is a misreading of the whole case. I believe these early Christian writers and copyists were men of tremendous integrity and men who took all due precaution to ensure that the scriptures were handed on faithfully to the next generation. Notwithstanding, variant readings did begin to appear. Now those variant readings can be divided into two main kinds. First, unintentional variants. No matter how careful copyists were, with uninspired men some mistakes were made. For example, the dropping of a letter or the inversion of words by accident. Jesus Christ might become Christ Jesus. Something which is called metaphesis. The confusion of phrases with the same ending. sometimes resulting in the omission of a whole verse. An example is to be found in Matthew 12 and verse 47. In verse 46 we have, While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then verse 47 reads, Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. Now you'll notice that verse 46 is very similar as to its wording to verse 47, reference to the mother, the brethren, standing without, desiring to speak with thee. Now in some of the copies we find verse 47 omitted and it's because a scribe might begin to pen the 47th verse and conclude, well, I've just written this. And therefore, with an unintentional error, he goes on to the next verse. And there are copies with that particular verse omitted. Then there is the unintentional repetition of words, so that we have the same word appearing twice. Dittography, that is called. Or the inclusion of a wrong prefix to a word. But you see, all these slips are minor and are easily discernible. But the second group of variants concerns intentional variants. Sadly, there were attempts to change the text in the interests of theology or doctrine. Irenaeus, Clement, of Alexandria, Tertullian, Eusebius and other Church Fathers accused some heretics of actually corrupting Scripture. And we know that some actually did. Basilides, Valentinus, Heraclius, 2nd century Gnostics were all accused of corrupting the New Testament texts. a notorious heretic and the founder of the Marcionites, admitted and foisted upon communities a truncated version of Luke's Gospel, rejecting among other parts the first four chapters. And he received And he passed on to these communities only some of Paul's epistles, omitting the epistles to Timothy and Titus and the epistle to the Hebrews. The New Testament was thus interpolated, or it was expurgated, to suit the particular views and the particular opinions of a heretic. Tertullian refers to this character, Marcian, as the Pontic mouse who has gnawed away at the Gospels. And we have one early church father in the second century saying this, Now great in truth has become the diversities of copies, be it from the negligence of certain scribes, or from the evil daring of some who correct what is written, or from those who, in correcting, add or take away what they think fit. Orthodox leaders in the Church were, of course, alive to this menace, and they were quick to expose these corruptors, as Marcion was exposed and to condemn their faulty copies of the scriptures, with the result that mutilated texts were generally rejected and authentic texts began to gain ascendancy. Now we know that they were able to examine the manuscripts and we know that they were able to ascertain by one mean or another what was genuine and what was spurious. Irelius, in his great work against Heresies, refers to the most approved and ancient copies. What criteria was used to establish a pure text? If there was discrepancy, in several copies, or discrepancies, should I say, in various copies, how could the most approved and ancient copies be recognised? Well, by passing through this kind of process, they would have asked the identity of the copyist. Was he an ordinary Christian man? If so, his copy might contain one or two mistakes, for he would not be trained and he would not be equipped. If, on the other hand, he was known to be an apostolic assistant or a professional scribe, a very high degree of accuracy could be expected. So these early Christian leaders inquired us of the identity of the copyist. Secondly, they would have inquired as to the nature of the manuscript from which the copy was made. In earliest times this may have been the inspired original itself, but later it would certainly have been itself a copy. Now many copies were what we call private copies, that is, such as were intended for personal or devotional use. But some were official copies. from which Christian ministers read on the Lord's Day and preached in the public worship services. The latter had been undertaken with particular care and would prove far more reliable than the former. Copies made from those copies would share the same degree of reliability. A third question they might ask is how many copyings had taken place? A copy of the original, or one of the earliest copies of the original, would be far more likely to provide a sound text than a copy with a long and complicated line of descent. Hence the oldest copy was not always reckoned the best, for it may have been copied from another of the same period, whereas a later copy may have been copied from a much earlier one, close to the original. So they would have enquired into the number of copyings. Then they would have asked questions as to the place where the copy was found. In those early Christian centuries, churches became the custodians of the pure word of God, as was the case formerly with the local synagogues. And if the copied document had been preserved in a church, one could be reasonably certain that it was recognised as a true and proper transcript, and any copy taken from that copy would be received as an authentic copy of the Word of God. Then a Christian leader of those times would have examined the quality of the copy itself. The copy which he himself was to be copied. Some copies were manifestly faulty, they were badly written, they were full of obvious mistakes, and mistakes of the most palpable character. Whoever produced them was either ignorant, or he was careless, or he was both. These would neither be regarded nor used as trustworthy witnesses of the authentic New Testament text. But if they came across a copy which had been carefully written, then that copy would inspire confidence, and as a result, that copy could be painstakingly transcribed. Then they would inquire as to the agreement with other existing copies. It would be a mistake to assume that a scribe had only one text before him. In the first two centuries we know that there was a rapid multiplication of copies, so it was possible by comparing copies to detect odd readings, and in the same way to ascertain what the inspired writer actually wrote. The early Christians were in a far better position to do this than we are. After all, they had access to manuscripts which have long since perished. Lastly, questions would have been asked as to the proximity of the copy to a well-known Christian centre. A copy made at a distance from a Christian centre, that is, away from where apostles had been performing and exercising their ministry, and away from where their immediate successes had laboured and had worked. would be likely to have suffered serious changes or alterations, but a copy made in an area of early church activity where apostles had been present would probably represent the pure textual tradition and would give us the authentic New Testament text. So these Orthodox teachers of the first and second centuries were able to discover, as Irenaeus says, the most approved and ancient copies. What we discovered is this, that by the latter part of the 4th century, the time of Chrysostom, one text had become prominent, and shortly after that, that text became predominant, and it remained predominant up to the time of Erasmus when he published that predominant text in the year 1516. What gave rise to its dominance and what led to its predominance in the church? I believe that what gave rise to it and what led to it was this, that the early Christian teachers who had the advantage every way because they were on the scene and they were early on in history. They checked through the manuscripts, suspect manuscripts were rejected and they were not copied. But those deemed authentic and reliable were accepted and they were copied. So the number of the copies of the good texts and the pure text gained ascendancy, whereas the few copies of the poor text, perhaps even the mutilated text, were very few indeed, were not used, and were generally set aside. So the rise of one text in the fourth century, which gained the ascendancy and reigned over for hundreds of years leads us to suppose that that text was the text of the New Testament, that text was also the text which God providentially preserved, and that text was the text which was accepted by the Church of God in subsequent generations. Now let's do a little more detailed work as to the manuscripts themselves. It's very difficult to give the total number of Greek manuscripts an up-to-date number, because they are discovering fragments and parts of Gospels and epistles all the time. But the Greek manuscripts available to us number around 5,500 today. W. G. Kummel, in his introduction to the New Testament, groups them as follows. and we need to add on a few to these numbers but they will suffice because they are very near to the actual number. 85 papyri, just over 80 of these are mere fragments, just little parts of a page And every one of them is from a codex, that is, not from a scroll, but from a book. They date from the 2nd century on to the 8th century. The oldest of them is numbered P52, the John Rylands fragment, which contains verses from John chapter 18, and it is dated as early as 135 AD. So we have around 85 papyri. Secondly, we have 268 uncials. Now these are copies in capital letters, with no spacing between the words and no punctuation. The oldest of the uncials and the most famous are two 4th century. manuscripts, Codex Sinaiticus containing 300 leaves of vellum covering the whole of the New Testament, and Codex Vaticanus containing 759 vellum leaves with the whole of the New Testament except for 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus and a portion of Hebrews from the end of chapter 9. and the Book of Revelation. Then, in addition to these 85 papyri and 268 unseals, we have 2,792 cursives, sometimes called minuscules, a word which means rather small. Now, these writings, these manuscripts, are in what we call lowercase Greek writing. not in capitals but in lower case and they date from the 9th century when this script was created. Among the very early ones is minuscule 33 containing every New Testament book except the book of Revelation. And then finally we have 2,193 lectionaries. Now the lectionaries contained the scriptures divided into sections for reading in public worship. And some of them are unseals, in capitals, some are minuscules in small case letters. The earliest is the 8th century. But the importance lies in the fact that what is constantly read in public must be given considerable weight. and we know that they date from earliest times and they can be traced back even to the 2nd century. We have other things to go by. We have various versions like the Peshitta Syriac in the 2nd century and the Sahidic, the Coptic and Egyptian in the 4th century. the old Latin, and we also have a number of quotations from the Fathers. Now, a textual critic will have to look at all this evidence, he will have to look at all of these manuscripts. When he does so, he will discover that there are variants, there are differences between these manuscripts, but that they can be grouped according to their characteristic peculiarities. they can be grouped into what may be called the traditional text, which is the text of the overwhelming majority of manuscripts. We go through, we sift through these thousands of manuscripts and we find that between 80-90% of them agree, largely agree. It was Bergen that called this the traditional text because he believed it was the text of the previous ages of the church. And that's a very important text indeed. It's sometimes called the Antiochian church. because it was early associated with the church at Antioch. Now, what can we say of this traditional text, which is 80-90% of the manuscripts which are now available to us? Well, the first thing we notice is the place itself. with which it is associated. It was associated with the church at Antioch. The Cappadocian fathers, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, Theodoret, they all used this text and all of them had contact with Antioch. Now Antioch in Syria was about 300 miles north of Jerusalem. We find from the book of Acts that in the early days of church history, persecution drove a number of believers to that place, Acts 11. And so important was the work there that Barnabas and Paul were sent to teach in that city, again in Acts 11, so that it was blessed with a strong apostolic presence, as we find not only there, but also in Galatians 2 and verse 11. Antioch became the second capital of Christianity and from that centre Paul went out on each of his three missionary journeys. Now it would have been relatively easy for this church to obtain accurate copies. Paul and other inspired men being present in Antioch could have checked those copies and as later history reveals This city employed the literal interpretation of the scripture, and they were concerned to preserve the scripture in its entirety, in its purity. Now, not only is this majority text, as we say, associated with that place where apostles were present, where apostles laboured, where apostles taught, but we find this, secondly, The support for this text comes from the early papyri, those very early fragments to which I referred earlier. Even though many of them are Egyptian, preserved on account of the climate there, it is sometimes said that there is no witness for the majority text or the traditional text before the 4th century, but that is manifestly false. In the Chester Beta papyri, P45 as it's called, dated 240, there are readings which support this traditional text. In P66, a papyrus codex of John's Gospel, dated even earlier, round about 200, there are also distinctive traditional text readings. Professor Sturtz, formerly professor of Greek at Biola University, California, lists 150 readings supported by the papyri and they are very early and they are going back to the second century and they support the traditional text. The papyri supply valid evidence, writes Professor Sturtz, that distinctively Byzantine readings were not created in the 4th century, but were already in existence before the end of the 2nd. And that because of this, Byzantine readings, that's traditional text readings, merit serious consideration. So the place where this text came from, Antioch, is significant. The fact that it is found among the earliest fragments that we have is significant. Thirdly, the fact that it is estimated that between 80 to 90% of extant Greek manuscripts represent this traditional text is significant. The witness of the copyists, friends, is not to be despised. The copyists obviously believed that this was the original. and that this was the genuine text, and that's why they made so many copies of it. I'd fail to see how another explanation can be given of this. Fourthly, we find that early versions add further weight to the support for this text, that is, translations in other languages. It is the text found in the Syriac Peshitta, which originated in the 2nd century from Antioch, It's the text found in the Gothic versions from the 4th century AD. All this adds weight. All this adds weight. This was the text which was recognised. This was the text which was approved. This was the text that was referenced. Traditional text readings, fifthly, were attested by many early church fathers. Clement, in his writings, has traditional text readings and Tertullian. Edward Miller, who carefully examined Dean Bergen's list of 86,489 quotations from the early Church Fathers, declared that taking the Greek and Latin Fathers who died before 400 AD, their quotations support the traditional text 2,630 times. That's before 400. Sixthly, this is the text. This traditional text is the text which is fuller than all the other texts. It's more theological and it's sounder than all the other texts. And lastly, it's the text of the Christian church for the greatest part of its history. And it was only abandoned in the last century. Loyalty to that text, the traditional text, has been a feature of Christian life for centuries. And its translation and its use in the church has been accompanied by many glorious revivals. You say, well, what's the alternative? Well, if we sift through the evidence, we shall find that while we're talking here about 80-90% of the manuscripts, the remaining number of manuscripts are divided up, some of them disagreeing, some of them altogether unique. But there is a little group of manuscripts which represent what critics call the Alexandrian text. As I did with the traditional text, let me just comment for a moment upon this Alexandrian text, because here lies the hub of the whole problem. This is the text, and it's represented by only a few manuscripts, associated with Alexandria in Egypt, because it was found there. And it was found in the remains of men like Clement, Oregon, Dionysius and Peter of Alexandria. Now, although Alexandria was one of the world's great cities, it never was able to boast of an apostolic presence and it never had in its vicinity any copy of the original New Testament writings. That's on the negative side. On the positive side, we do know that Alexandria was the centre of heresy in the early church. Whence came Gnosticism, for example, one of the heresies which threatened the doctrine of the early church. Clement and Basilides taught there, as did Oregon, who taught that Christ was of a different substance from the Father and decidedly inferior. The second point about the Alexandrian text is that the two main witnesses for the Alexandrian text are two manuscripts already referred to, the 4th century Codex Vaticanus and the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus. Those are the two champions of this text. and they are the most important documents supporting this text. But in the Gospels alone, these two manuscripts differ from each other more than 3,000 times. And therefore what degree of reliability can be credited to them? Add to that the fact that support for this Alexandrian text is so feeble. Among the 88 or so papyri Only nine lend any support to this Alexandrian type of text. Of the 268 Anciels, only nine tend to support the Alexandrian text. Of the 2,792 Persives, only 22 out of 2,792 support the Alexandrian text. The fourth thing to notice about it is this, that this text, represented by such a paucity of manuscripts, disagrees with the text of all the others, the text of the majority, about 6,000 times, affecting, it is said, some 20% of the New Testament. Nearly 500 additions, nearly 2,000 omissions, nearly 3,000 changes. The text is much shorter than the traditional text. This is acknowledged by textual critics, even those hostile to the traditional text. Believing that there was reference for the inspired text, omission seems to be more likely fault than addition. Perhaps I should add that the period when its two leading manuscripts, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, were produced was the time when the Church was semi-Arian, that is, beginning to dispute and even to deny the full deity of our Lord Jesus Christ. And there is no doubt that these copies tend to favour an Arian slant in the texts which assert the clear divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ are either omitted or they are changed. This text, this Alexandrian text was rejected by the early church and hence there are so few manuscripts available to us and only two leading manuscripts of that particular class. Now I ask you at this point Is it conceivable that God left his church without the true text for over 1600 years? For the text which was entrusted to the church was the majority text, the text which was favoured with multiple copies, the text which was regarded as the traditional text of the church. That was what the text had for 1600 years. This minority, Alexandrian type text Very few copies indeed were made, they were clearly defective copies, they were riddled with errors and they were set aside by the Church. Now friends, and I draw to a conclusion because I'm aware that time is running away with us, the first printed edition of the New Testament was that made by Erasmus in 1516. Erasmus used the text common to the majority of the manuscripts. It is true to answer our critics, Erasmus did not have access to 5,000 plus copies, but he did have access to copies which were representative of this majority text. Then in 1546, Robert Stephen published another edition, but one largely based on the Greek text of Erasmus. It was this text which was revised by Theodore Beezer, Calvin's successor in Geneva, and published in five editions from 1565 to 1598. Bonaventure and Abraham Elsevier brought out another edition in 1624. It was based upon the texts brought out earlier by Stephen and by Beezer. In the second edition of the Elsevier brothers' text in 1633, We have this in the introduction. Thou hast the text, now received by all, in which we give nothing altered or corrupted. That is the origin of the term received text. That text became the text of the Reformation. That text was the basis for the translations associated with Tyndale in 1525, with Coverdale in 1535, from the Geneva Bible in 1557, to name but a few. That was the text which held sovereign sway over Christendom, the text which was received by Christians and by churches as the true and genuine text of the New Testament Word of God. It was so received until 1881, when Brooke Fuss Westcott and Fenton J. Hort Scholars at Cambridge University produced a new and a radical edition of the New Testament. Westcott and Hort totally rejected the claims of the traditional text, what has now become known as the Textus Receptus. And their arguments were as follows. One, the traditional text, they said, is a late text. It's the result of a revision. probably by the Bishop of Antioch, Lucian, in the middle of the fourth century. Two, its characteristic readings are not found in any church father prior to the time of Chrysostom, 347-407. Three, its fuller text suggests conflate readings, that is, the combination of texts. Now, as for one, the fact that the traditional text is a late text, the result of a revision in Antioch. We have seen that the traditional text is supported by early papyri, many of which were not known to Westcott, neither to Hort. And such versions as the Syriac Peshitta, which belongs to the second century, support this text. That it is late, we totally deny. Secondly, Its characteristic readings, they said, are not found in any church father prior to the time of Chrysostom. But traditional text readings are found in Justin Martyr, in Irenaeus, in Tertullian, and in many others. It will not do to suggest that the texts of the fathers have been changed by Byzantine scribes, as has been suggested. It proves nothing so much as lack of better argument. The fact is that the early Church Fathers themselves, the earliest of them, bear witness to this traditional text. And as to 3, that there are conflict readings, the evidence is just not there. No convincing verse has been quoted where it is clear that texts have been somehow combined. The traditional text, the received text, to those who've studied this matter and spent a lifetime studying it, appears to be lucid, it appears to be flowing, as opposed to the terseness and the awkwardness of the Alexandrian type of text. So Westcott and Hort laid all their weight upon Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Codex Vaticanus, associated with the Vatican, listed in a catalogue of books as early as 1475. It is incomplete It lacks 2,877 words. It differs from the majority text and the received text no less than 2,370 times. Dr. F.H. Scrivener, who studied this text well, says, it is liable to err and has committed errors of the most palpable character. The other codex was Codex Sinaiticus, discovered by Tischendorf in the convent of St Catherine on Mount Sinai in 1844. It consists of 300 or so leaves. It differs from the majority text, the received text, no less than 3,392 times. Again I quote Dr. Scrivener, who was a scholar of considerable weight and importance, He says of this codex, it is roughly written, being full of gross transcriptural blunders of the pen and of the eye and of the mind. And yet we are told by Messrs. Westcott and Hort that we are to abandon all these witnesses within the manuscripts, we are to abandon the text which the Church has approved from the beginning of time and the text which God in his providence has preserved for us and for posterity in the favour of what? In the favour of two evidently mutilated, spoiled and defective texts and one or two of their supporters who are brought in to confirm their argument. Now, the Lord Jesus Christ, let me say this as I draw to a close, the Lord Jesus Christ promised that his words would be preserved. He said, heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away. I, for one, my friends, believe that that promise has been kept. It has been kept so that in every age the New Testament Scriptures have been in the possession of the Church. If you take the position of Westcott and Hort, you have to confess that for hundreds of years the church was without the true word of God and that only when Westcott and Hort came together in the early 1800s and produced their text in 1881 was the church given the true word of God. Is that according to the doctrine of preservation? Well, how does this affect us today? The authorised version, which many of us love, and which I believe to be still the best translation in the English language of the Word of God, is based upon the traditional text. But nearly every modern version is based to some degree, and sometimes to a very considerable degree, upon the corrupt Alexandrine-type text. It is now beginning to be realised with many people that one great error of judgement may have been made. John Wenham wrote not so long ago, this is not an academic matter, for it affects the wording of hundreds of millions of scriptures which we are distributing across the globe. It is shocking to think that we may have been giving the world a bad text. You say to me, as I finish, and you've been so patient, you say to me, as I finish, well why then do you prefer the authorised version? In a word, my friends, I prefer the authorised version because this translation is based upon what I believe to be the authentic text which God has seen fit to preserve. It's the text of my fathers and it's the text which believers have used from the earliest centuries of this era. Secondly, this translation was produced by Bible-believing men of impeccable scholarship. And when we look to the translators of the authorised version, they're not liberals, they're not modernists, they're God-fearing men who reference the text and they tremble before the Word of God. This translation is the most accurate, word-for-word translation. The translators have the benefit of earlier versions. In fact, 61% of its phrases are found in earlier versions. But they went back to the original Hebrew, they went back to the original Greek to ensure accuracy. And it has been acknowledged by some of the greatest scholars that there is an incredible accuracy in the authorised version. That accuracy may mean that some renderings are difficult and some verses hard to understand. But I put it to you what you want. Do you want a contemporary version which somehow dilutes the original, or do you want an accurate version which brings out the full force of the original, with which you may have to mentally struggle a little, but which in the end will afford you the pure word of God? And my answer is, that is what I want. I don't want to know what some translator thinks the word means, because I'm a bit of an idiot and I don't understand it. I want the word of my God delivered to me, and held in my hands. And that is what we've got. in the authorised version. So it's based upon the right text. It's translated by Bible-believing, God-fearing men. It's a translation which is a word-for-word translation of the original. And fourthly, I would say this, this translation has a majestic style and a dignity and a rhythm which is most impressive. When we read this translation, we feel that we are reading that which is grand as to its matter and as to its content. It is a translation worthy of the subject matter within the covers of this book. It impresses us because it is sublime and because it accords with the dignity of that which is written. I believe and I hold and I would defend the authorised version because this translation has been signally owned of God. From the time of the Reformation onwards, it was the received text which brought about that great work of God. In the time of the Great Awakening, in the 1740s, it was the received text and its translation which brought about that tremendous quickening and that tremendous revival. And in every movement of God's sense, it has been this word translated, this authorised version, so despised today, which has been the instrument in the hand of the Spirit for effecting the progress and prosperity of Zion. And not lightly, my friends, Can we cast this book from us and resort to a modern version from an emaciated text which has no credibility, which God has never owned to the blessing of multitudes of souls, and which has never been responsible through God for a mighty work of grace? I confess to you that I am deeply disturbed that this generation has turned its back upon a version which I believe to be true and I believe to bring to us the word of God. They have sold their heritage for a mess of pottage. Friends, we need to pray and we need to work for the restoration of the received text, the true text, the preserved text, and I would love to see the recovery of the authorised version in our day. in our pulpits, in our homes. May God grant us that day and may God give us eyes to see the truth and open our hearts to believe the truth and to hold fast this word in our hands and in our hearts. There's every reason to do that because I believe that in doing it we are in our hands holding nothing more nor less than the pure word of the living God. It's a humble thing for us to know that God in his mercy has granted us such a treasure. Friends, let us love that treasure and let us defend it for his name's sake. Amen.