00:00
00:00
00:01
Transcript
1/0
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.
Has God Preserved His Word?
Series Trinitarian Bible Society
| Sermon ID | 4170612493 |
| Duration | 1:20:54 |
| Date | |
| Category | Special Meeting |
| Bible Text | 2 Timothy 4 |
| Language | English |
Documents
Add a Comment
Comments
© Copyright
2026 SermonAudio.