In Genesis 3 it is clear that sin entered the world through Adam and Eve. There was nothing poisonous in the forbidden fruit, for all God made was “very good” (Gen 2:17, Gen 1:31). The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was so-called because, if Adam and Eve chose to disobey God and eat from it, they were choosing to be their own judge in good and evil.
Satan introduced Post-Modernism here. Eve was invited to interpret God subjectively. The serpent said Eve would be as God, knowing good and evil. Adam and Eve would be wise in their own sight and decide for themselves between right and wrong. They would be their own god (Gen 11:4, Is 14:13, Dan 3:5, 4:30). This was how Jesus was tempted (Matt 4:3). He could make His own way, rather than obey the Father. Jesus chose obedience, not self-will.
As a result of Adam’s sin, self became the centre of man’s nature. This brought separation from God, physical death, sickness and the entire curse we see upon the earth today. Wars are the fault of man, not of God. God pronounced the curse, not Satan and God uses the curse as a catalyst to bring His people to Christ (Rom 8:20).
This means that fossils are not leftovers of animals that existed before the Fall of man. God did not use the process of death and murder to create life by a long cycle of evolution and self-centred survival of the fittest. That would have been inconsistent with His nature. God is good and His creation was very good.
Theistic evolution (the idea that God used evolution to create) is inconsistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ. If death did not come through the sin of Adam, there is no need for Christ to come to save us from sin by dying on the cross. Christ died for sin and thus to put death to death. He has the keys of hell and of death and is the resurrection from the dead. It is evident that Adam’s sin resulted in physical and not just spiritual death:
1. Paul spoke of physical death coming from Adam, when speaking of the resurrection of the body in 1st Corinthians 15.
2. Adam’ sin resulted in the curse, which includes death and sickness. The snake “eating” dust, the thorns, thistles, sweat, labour pains increased and the reduced age of man in the years ahead, are all aspects of physical death which followed as the Fall and curse impacted upon all creation (Gen 3:14-19).
3. God slew an animal to clothe Adam and Eve after they sinned. The physical death of the animal was a result of Adam’s sin and foreshadowed Christ’s physical death for our sin. Adam could see in the death of the animals the consequence of his sin. “The soul that sins must die.” (Ezek 18:20).
4. Christ died physically for our sin. “He bore our sin in His body on the tree.” (1 Pet 2:24).
5. Physical death is an enemy of God, so He did not use it to create the world slowly through evolution (1 Cor 15:26).
Some say that autumn leaves died before the Fall, because there were seasons (Gen 1:14). There was the sun, moon and stars, but the seasons mentioned here were only to measure day, night and years. Other seasons, as we know them today (including cold, heat, summer and winter), were not mentioned until after the Flood (Gen 8:22). We do not know what happened in those earlier days, or the biological and horticultural changes that followed and cannot make assumptions.
So God in His power created man and though He did not author sin or tempt Adam, He allowed the temptation, to give man free will. Adam had free will and in no way was his decision to sin controlled by God. It was Adam’s free choice.
God chose to allow Adam to sin so that He could redeem His chosen people to be His church. In this way, salvation would be by God’s free grace. This was God’s plan before creation, since Christ was “crucified from before the foundation of the earth” (Rev 13:8).
Some ask, why does God allow wars and suffering? Because they are the result of man’s sin and this condition has not changed. Why then does not God change this? He has, through sending Jesus Christ and raising Him from the dead, but man does not accept this.
This tendency of shifting blame to God is exactly what Adam did after he fell, “The woman You gave me, gave me to eat…” (Gen 3:12). The Bible so accurately describes human nature.
Saturday, 28 August 2010
Friday, 27 August 2010
Creation
There is one God who is sovereign. He has total power in the entire universe. None can come against Him. He is not in battle against anything. No creature in heaven, or on earth, or under the earth can exist one moment beyond divine permission. God is the creator. He made all things, all creatures, all powers and all governments.
No creature can do the slightest thing in opposition to the will of God. The worlds were made through Christ, by whom He upholds all things by the word of His power (Heb 1:2-3). God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them in six days and rested on the seventh day. This is where we get the period of a seven day week.
God said “let there be light” and there was light, before He made the sun. This indicates the futility of sun worship, or worship of any creature. While Genesis does not provide scientific details, it does provide statements of historical fact. The text in 2 Pet 3:8, “To the Lord a day is a thousand years,” has no application to Genesis. Peter is speaking about God’s long suffering, His patience in withholding punishment and does not make any reference to creation.
Genesis 1 is the chronological account of creation while Genesis 2 is a thematic account of the same event, not chronological or contradictory. This is Hebrew form, where a matter is introduced in one section and expanded in the next section. Most verses in the Proverbs follow this form, as do other historical accounts in the Old Testament.
Adam and Eve lived in harmony with the animals and none ate meat. Lions were not created to eat meat, as many animals today have large teeth, but are not meat eaters. Meat was given to man to eat after the Flood of Noah and therefore vegetarianism cannot be justified on biblical grounds.
This may have had something to do with changed conditions reducing the nourishment or range of plant life. Human life span was significantly reduced after the Flood, with a presumed increase in the variety of diseases. It seems apparent that it did not rain before the Flood and that instead a mist went up from the earth that watered plant life (Gen 2:5-6). This would result in a greater greenhouse affect, with no polar ice and very limited U.V. radiation from the sun with a denser atmosphere.
There are so many other possible differences regarding pre-Flood conditions, including a lack of oceans and mountain ranges and a possible dividing of continents after the Flood. We do not make conclusions about these things here, for each point in itself would require a lot of research into biblical language and other matters. God knew the Fall would occur and may have made provision for that in His original creation.
No creature can do the slightest thing in opposition to the will of God. The worlds were made through Christ, by whom He upholds all things by the word of His power (Heb 1:2-3). God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them in six days and rested on the seventh day. This is where we get the period of a seven day week.
God said “let there be light” and there was light, before He made the sun. This indicates the futility of sun worship, or worship of any creature. While Genesis does not provide scientific details, it does provide statements of historical fact. The text in 2 Pet 3:8, “To the Lord a day is a thousand years,” has no application to Genesis. Peter is speaking about God’s long suffering, His patience in withholding punishment and does not make any reference to creation.
Genesis 1 is the chronological account of creation while Genesis 2 is a thematic account of the same event, not chronological or contradictory. This is Hebrew form, where a matter is introduced in one section and expanded in the next section. Most verses in the Proverbs follow this form, as do other historical accounts in the Old Testament.
Adam and Eve lived in harmony with the animals and none ate meat. Lions were not created to eat meat, as many animals today have large teeth, but are not meat eaters. Meat was given to man to eat after the Flood of Noah and therefore vegetarianism cannot be justified on biblical grounds.
This may have had something to do with changed conditions reducing the nourishment or range of plant life. Human life span was significantly reduced after the Flood, with a presumed increase in the variety of diseases. It seems apparent that it did not rain before the Flood and that instead a mist went up from the earth that watered plant life (Gen 2:5-6). This would result in a greater greenhouse affect, with no polar ice and very limited U.V. radiation from the sun with a denser atmosphere.
There are so many other possible differences regarding pre-Flood conditions, including a lack of oceans and mountain ranges and a possible dividing of continents after the Flood. We do not make conclusions about these things here, for each point in itself would require a lot of research into biblical language and other matters. God knew the Fall would occur and may have made provision for that in His original creation.
Thursday, 26 August 2010
Theological Centre
Theology is to do with framework. If we are building a house we have materials and we have a framework around which we erect the materials. Theology is the same. People may have similar materials (similar doctrines), but arrange them differently and end up with completely different theologies, meanings and practices.
In theology our starting point is vital. What is at the centre of our framework? What do we build our doctrines around? What gives meaning and definition to our doctrines? What is our central focus that gives meaning to all the doctrines that we interpret?
People can have similar doctrines. We can believe in the divinity of Christ, His virgin birth, atoning death and resurrection. But the significance of these doctrines can be very different. Likewise, our theology will be very different. Doctrine is not the only important thing, but our central focus or how we organise that doctrine, is of vital importance.
The Bible puts God at the centre, not man. There are three main central points one can have in theology. These are:
1. God.
2. Man.
3. The devil.
With a God centre we will see God as the Saviour and Keeper of His people. With a man centre we will see ourselves as the chooser and keeper of our faith. With a devil centre we will see not our own sin, but the plans of others responsible for our fall. We will see original sin as an attack of Satan and salvation in terms of spiritual warfare.
We cannot say that all of these centres are true and that we appreciate one or the other according to where we were brought up. Each centre brings an entirely different meaning to scripture. We cannot have three different views and say they are all true. Only one is true according to scripture. We need to adopt the same central focus that the scripture adopts.
There are several organising factors in good theology. The first is the sovereignty of God. Grace is also a main centre. Paul in his epistles states that grace is the organising principle around which a sovereign God fulfils His plan of salvation, “…it is of faith, so that it might by grace…” (Rom 4:16). All of this is fulfilled through the gospel of Jesus Christ.
The total depravity of man is a main organising principle of theology. It is only in correctly understanding the nature of man in the Fall that the true nature of salvation can be seen. The distinction between the Old and New Covenants is essential in focusing correctly on both the Old and New Testament scriptures and relating them to our lives today.
To be Christian means we put Christ at the centre of theology. He is the fulfilment of the law and the prophets. In Him is the fullness of the Godhead (Col 2:9). We are complete only in Him (Col 2:10). All theology focuses around these biblical statements in Colossians. That is what “Christ-ian” means. We are disciples of Christ. He is first in all things.
In theology our starting point is vital. What is at the centre of our framework? What do we build our doctrines around? What gives meaning and definition to our doctrines? What is our central focus that gives meaning to all the doctrines that we interpret?
People can have similar doctrines. We can believe in the divinity of Christ, His virgin birth, atoning death and resurrection. But the significance of these doctrines can be very different. Likewise, our theology will be very different. Doctrine is not the only important thing, but our central focus or how we organise that doctrine, is of vital importance.
The Bible puts God at the centre, not man. There are three main central points one can have in theology. These are:
1. God.
2. Man.
3. The devil.
With a God centre we will see God as the Saviour and Keeper of His people. With a man centre we will see ourselves as the chooser and keeper of our faith. With a devil centre we will see not our own sin, but the plans of others responsible for our fall. We will see original sin as an attack of Satan and salvation in terms of spiritual warfare.
We cannot say that all of these centres are true and that we appreciate one or the other according to where we were brought up. Each centre brings an entirely different meaning to scripture. We cannot have three different views and say they are all true. Only one is true according to scripture. We need to adopt the same central focus that the scripture adopts.
There are several organising factors in good theology. The first is the sovereignty of God. Grace is also a main centre. Paul in his epistles states that grace is the organising principle around which a sovereign God fulfils His plan of salvation, “…it is of faith, so that it might by grace…” (Rom 4:16). All of this is fulfilled through the gospel of Jesus Christ.
The total depravity of man is a main organising principle of theology. It is only in correctly understanding the nature of man in the Fall that the true nature of salvation can be seen. The distinction between the Old and New Covenants is essential in focusing correctly on both the Old and New Testament scriptures and relating them to our lives today.
To be Christian means we put Christ at the centre of theology. He is the fulfilment of the law and the prophets. In Him is the fullness of the Godhead (Col 2:9). We are complete only in Him (Col 2:10). All theology focuses around these biblical statements in Colossians. That is what “Christ-ian” means. We are disciples of Christ. He is first in all things.
Wednesday, 25 August 2010
Theological Groups
There are five main groups in Western theology:
1. Roman Catholic: Catholicism recognises the authority of scripture, but also adds to it the apocrypha and Roman Catholic tradition as equal with scripture. They claim that we must use the Catholic catechism to interpret the Bible. It also holds to allegory and authority through personal works-holiness.
2. Reformed Theology: This claims that only scripture is authoritative in theology. It further claims that the Bible interprets itself in its own context. It claims that the authority for Christian life is faith, empowered by God’s Spirit.
3. Liberal Theology: This claims that rationalism is the only authority, not accepting anything by faith or on the authority of scripture. It only accepts what is natural and seems logical.
4. Fundamentalism: Authority is in the scripture, but this is a Cessationist, non-Pentecostal authority. It also holds to allegory and Dispensationalism to reinterpret scripture in the light of science.
5. Neo-Orthodoxy: This claims that experience, culture and religious community are the authorities for theology. It claims theology is progressive and the scripture is not authoritative.
Pentecostalism has its main heritage in Reformed Theology, but with Pietism, Wesleyanism, Fundamentalism, Restorationism and more recently Neo-Orthodoxy integrated. Neo-Pentecostalism today is in some places shifting away from sola scriptua to Neo-Orthodoxy with its human experience centre, embracing more animist and anthropological sources of interpretation.
1. Roman Catholic: Catholicism recognises the authority of scripture, but also adds to it the apocrypha and Roman Catholic tradition as equal with scripture. They claim that we must use the Catholic catechism to interpret the Bible. It also holds to allegory and authority through personal works-holiness.
2. Reformed Theology: This claims that only scripture is authoritative in theology. It further claims that the Bible interprets itself in its own context. It claims that the authority for Christian life is faith, empowered by God’s Spirit.
3. Liberal Theology: This claims that rationalism is the only authority, not accepting anything by faith or on the authority of scripture. It only accepts what is natural and seems logical.
4. Fundamentalism: Authority is in the scripture, but this is a Cessationist, non-Pentecostal authority. It also holds to allegory and Dispensationalism to reinterpret scripture in the light of science.
5. Neo-Orthodoxy: This claims that experience, culture and religious community are the authorities for theology. It claims theology is progressive and the scripture is not authoritative.
Pentecostalism has its main heritage in Reformed Theology, but with Pietism, Wesleyanism, Fundamentalism, Restorationism and more recently Neo-Orthodoxy integrated. Neo-Pentecostalism today is in some places shifting away from sola scriptua to Neo-Orthodoxy with its human experience centre, embracing more animist and anthropological sources of interpretation.
Tuesday, 24 August 2010
Date of Authorship
Evolutionary theories are used by some to support the idea that the New Testament was orally passed down and not written until much later. Some suggest that the written form of the New Testament did not exist until 325AD. At the Council of Nicaea the Canon was confirmed, but this was because it had already been accepted by the church for hundreds of years. It seems apparent from the internal evidence within the New Testament that it was all written in its final form before 70AD, for the following reasons:
1. None of the books in the New Testament mention the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD, though Matthew, Luke, Mark, Thessalonians and Revelation all prophecy of it. The Gospels, Acts, Hebrews and Revelation 11 also assume the temple was still standing at the time they were written.
2. Paul often quoted from the Gospels, as though he had them available at the time in a written and widely known form (1 Cor 7:10, 11:24, 1 Thes 4:15).
3. Paul called the Gospels scripture (1 Cor 15:1-3).
4. Paul instructed that his epistles be copied and read in other churches (Col 4:16).
5. Peter in his epistles called the New Testament scripture, referring to the Gospels and Paul’s writings (compare 2 Pet 1:19-21, 3:1-2, 15-16).
6. In Acts, the disciples “continued in the Apostle’s doctrine” showing the earliness and spread of the record of the words of Jesus. With such a wide and early circulation of texts it would have been impossible to corrupt any one text without detection.
1. None of the books in the New Testament mention the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD, though Matthew, Luke, Mark, Thessalonians and Revelation all prophecy of it. The Gospels, Acts, Hebrews and Revelation 11 also assume the temple was still standing at the time they were written.
2. Paul often quoted from the Gospels, as though he had them available at the time in a written and widely known form (1 Cor 7:10, 11:24, 1 Thes 4:15).
3. Paul called the Gospels scripture (1 Cor 15:1-3).
4. Paul instructed that his epistles be copied and read in other churches (Col 4:16).
5. Peter in his epistles called the New Testament scripture, referring to the Gospels and Paul’s writings (compare 2 Pet 1:19-21, 3:1-2, 15-16).
6. In Acts, the disciples “continued in the Apostle’s doctrine” showing the earliness and spread of the record of the words of Jesus. With such a wide and early circulation of texts it would have been impossible to corrupt any one text without detection.
Monday, 23 August 2010
Fenton Hort against The Majority Text
Fenton Hort
This was fine until the 19th Century when Fenton Hort introduced the Alexandrian Texts into translation work. Hort was an Englishman and had sympathies for the Arian position denying Christ’s divinity. He was asked to review the KJV due to his expertise in language. However, instead of reviewing it he embarked on a project to adopt the Alexandrian Text.
The Bishops of England told Hort not to use the Alexandrian Texts to this extent, but he ignored them. He claimed that because the two Alexandrian texts were older than the 5,500 manuscripts which support the Textus Receptus they must be more original or better. Evolutionists and liberal scholars in British universities supported this idea.
Many modern English translations then began to use the Alexandrian Texts. Some English translations use them in part while using the Byzantine Texts in part also. To the degree they rely on the Alexandrian Texts, several verses are left out. Some of these modern English translations will leave out many verses and even sections of scripture, which are included in the KJV.
The Majority Text
In recent years scholarly opinion is moving back in favour of the Byzantine Texts and away from the Alexandrian Texts. A new Majority Text has been made from the older Byzantine texts, which is almost the same as the Textus Receptus editions. The Majority Text also does not include the two Alexandrian Texts. There are three strong reasons to discount the Alexandrian Texts and accept the Byzantine Texts as the correct Bible:
1. There is agreement with all scholars that the church has accepted the Byzantine Texts at least since the early 4th Century. Until Hort, this was 1,500 years of undisputed acceptance.
2. The writings of the church fathers, as far back as the early 2nd Century, include the disputed verses the Alexandrian Texts have deleted. Ignatius (35-116AD), Justin Martyr (100-165AD), Irenaeus (130-202AD), Hippolytus (170-236AD), Tertullian (160-221AD), Cyprian (200-258AD) and Dionysius (3rd Cent.), for example, all quote verses that are found in the Byzantine Texts but not in the Alexandrian texts.
3. Translations into other languages known to be before the 4th Century are shown to correspond with the Byzantine Texts. These include strong support from Armenian, Ethiopian, Gothic, Old Latin, Anglo-Saxon and Syriac translations. The Papyrus Bodmer II (also called P66) dating from between 125-200AD verifies many of the disputed passages in the Byzantine Text.
There are counter claims that deny the above points. It is a complicated field of research, but it would appear that the church has not been so stupid all these years as to reject the Alexandrian and other heretical copies without good reason. We also believe that God would not leave the church for 1,500 years with the wrong text.
Matters that Impact Translation
1. The translation work of Wycliffe and Tyndale (later compiled into the KJV) was made with great care, dedication and knowledge.
2. These were also men who loved Jesus and gave their lives for the gospel. Despite claims, today translators do not have more knowledge and may not always have the same level of dedication.
3. The theology that the translator holds impacts upon their translation work. In our view the theological knowledge of the Puritans who compiled the KJV was superior to that held by some in our current day.
4. A strong market or profit motive can affect the work of modern publications. For example, the NKJV had to meet a copyright law demanding a certain number of words be changed.
This is not said to support a KJV only debate. The KJV does have faults. It is good to read many translations to help with perspective. This discussion claims that the manuscripts we use and the theology we maintain impact upon the translation work we do. It is good to compare many translations, while being aware of the textual issues. It is good to avoid watered down translations as texts in church.
Due to a lack of knowledge of old English, we can misunderstand the KJV. We do believe that for the reasons outlined here it is one of the best English translations and educating others in English is better than dumbing down translations. For example, the old English uses different words for the plural and singular of you, reflecting usage in Greek texts, which we miss in modern works.
Translation works are not inspired (without error), although God’s providence has guided the work. We support continued efforts to research original Greek texts and matters that relate to a proper understanding of them in our own languages. Hebrew and Greek are not difficult to be acquainted with and there are many sources that can help us study the original languages and it helps to be aware that these also are affected by the theological persuasions of the authors.
For more information on this topic see: G. W. and D. E. Anderson, in A Textual Key to the New Testament, A list of Omissions and Changes (Trinitarian Bible Society, 2002); and in What Today’s Christian Needs to Know About the NIV (TBS, 1998); both of which raise several important issues that people may not always be unaware of. The issue in Bible reading is not to take the easiest way, but to become educated.
This was fine until the 19th Century when Fenton Hort introduced the Alexandrian Texts into translation work. Hort was an Englishman and had sympathies for the Arian position denying Christ’s divinity. He was asked to review the KJV due to his expertise in language. However, instead of reviewing it he embarked on a project to adopt the Alexandrian Text.
The Bishops of England told Hort not to use the Alexandrian Texts to this extent, but he ignored them. He claimed that because the two Alexandrian texts were older than the 5,500 manuscripts which support the Textus Receptus they must be more original or better. Evolutionists and liberal scholars in British universities supported this idea.
Many modern English translations then began to use the Alexandrian Texts. Some English translations use them in part while using the Byzantine Texts in part also. To the degree they rely on the Alexandrian Texts, several verses are left out. Some of these modern English translations will leave out many verses and even sections of scripture, which are included in the KJV.
The Majority Text
In recent years scholarly opinion is moving back in favour of the Byzantine Texts and away from the Alexandrian Texts. A new Majority Text has been made from the older Byzantine texts, which is almost the same as the Textus Receptus editions. The Majority Text also does not include the two Alexandrian Texts. There are three strong reasons to discount the Alexandrian Texts and accept the Byzantine Texts as the correct Bible:
1. There is agreement with all scholars that the church has accepted the Byzantine Texts at least since the early 4th Century. Until Hort, this was 1,500 years of undisputed acceptance.
2. The writings of the church fathers, as far back as the early 2nd Century, include the disputed verses the Alexandrian Texts have deleted. Ignatius (35-116AD), Justin Martyr (100-165AD), Irenaeus (130-202AD), Hippolytus (170-236AD), Tertullian (160-221AD), Cyprian (200-258AD) and Dionysius (3rd Cent.), for example, all quote verses that are found in the Byzantine Texts but not in the Alexandrian texts.
3. Translations into other languages known to be before the 4th Century are shown to correspond with the Byzantine Texts. These include strong support from Armenian, Ethiopian, Gothic, Old Latin, Anglo-Saxon and Syriac translations. The Papyrus Bodmer II (also called P66) dating from between 125-200AD verifies many of the disputed passages in the Byzantine Text.
There are counter claims that deny the above points. It is a complicated field of research, but it would appear that the church has not been so stupid all these years as to reject the Alexandrian and other heretical copies without good reason. We also believe that God would not leave the church for 1,500 years with the wrong text.
Matters that Impact Translation
1. The translation work of Wycliffe and Tyndale (later compiled into the KJV) was made with great care, dedication and knowledge.
2. These were also men who loved Jesus and gave their lives for the gospel. Despite claims, today translators do not have more knowledge and may not always have the same level of dedication.
3. The theology that the translator holds impacts upon their translation work. In our view the theological knowledge of the Puritans who compiled the KJV was superior to that held by some in our current day.
4. A strong market or profit motive can affect the work of modern publications. For example, the NKJV had to meet a copyright law demanding a certain number of words be changed.
This is not said to support a KJV only debate. The KJV does have faults. It is good to read many translations to help with perspective. This discussion claims that the manuscripts we use and the theology we maintain impact upon the translation work we do. It is good to compare many translations, while being aware of the textual issues. It is good to avoid watered down translations as texts in church.
Due to a lack of knowledge of old English, we can misunderstand the KJV. We do believe that for the reasons outlined here it is one of the best English translations and educating others in English is better than dumbing down translations. For example, the old English uses different words for the plural and singular of you, reflecting usage in Greek texts, which we miss in modern works.
Translation works are not inspired (without error), although God’s providence has guided the work. We support continued efforts to research original Greek texts and matters that relate to a proper understanding of them in our own languages. Hebrew and Greek are not difficult to be acquainted with and there are many sources that can help us study the original languages and it helps to be aware that these also are affected by the theological persuasions of the authors.
For more information on this topic see: G. W. and D. E. Anderson, in A Textual Key to the New Testament, A list of Omissions and Changes (Trinitarian Bible Society, 2002); and in What Today’s Christian Needs to Know About the NIV (TBS, 1998); both of which raise several important issues that people may not always be unaware of. The issue in Bible reading is not to take the easiest way, but to become educated.
Sunday, 22 August 2010
The New Testament
The number of manuscripts we have for the New Testament is even greater. The ancient Greek copies we have today number into the thousands, some dating back to the 4th Century. We have copies of the early Latin Vulgate (not the inferior Jerome Vulgate) and Syriac translations, both dating to the 2nd Century. These help us to confirm the authenticity of the New Testament we have today.
We have two main sets of early manuscripts. One group is called the Byzantine Text, sometimes referred to as Textus Receptus (the Received Text), or the similar Majority Text. There are over 5,500 old Greek manuscript text portions in this group, which come from a variety of regions.
Then we have the Alexandrian Texts, which number only two copies. One of these was found in a monastery (in a rubbish bin) in the Sinai Desert. Origen, who had Gnostic and pre-Arian ideas (counting Christ as a lower god) and his disciples Pamphilus and Eusebius, altered the traditional text. The other Alexandrian class text is in the Vatican library. This copy has alterations marked by old scribes on every page. These two texts have many variations between them.
It is believed that the two Alexandrian copies are older than any of the Byzantine copies, dating back to the 4th Century AD. They may be the oldest most complete texts, but there are many older text portions. There are some major differences between the Alexandrian Texts and the Byzantine Texts. In the Alexandrian Texts the last 12 verses in Mark are missing, the story of the woman caught in adultery is missing and several verses referring to the divinity of Christ are missing, along with many other verses.
Early Fathers & Erasmus
Until modern times these two Alexandrian Texts were not considered authentic. Early church fathers claimed corrupted copies were made by Gnostics, Arians and other heretical groups. Arians denied the divinity of Christ. These groups had influence in the Egyptian region where it is believed the Alexandrian texts originated. The Jehovah’s Witnesses, who deny Jesus is God, today applaud these texts.
Erasmus was a scholar of ancient Greek, who was a contemporary of Luther during the Reformation in the 16th Century. Erasmus used the Byzantine texts to compile a Greek version called the Textus Receptus, meaning the text received from the ancient church. This version has been updated several times by reference to other Byzantine texts.
The Reformers used the Textus Receptus to translate the scriptures into their various languages. Luther used it for the German Bible and Tyndale for an English Bible, on which later the KJV was based. Erasmus was aware of the Alexandrian Texts, for he had access to the Roman Catholic library. However, Erasmus refused to use the Alexandrian text in his work. He said it was inferior and was not the correct text.
We have two main sets of early manuscripts. One group is called the Byzantine Text, sometimes referred to as Textus Receptus (the Received Text), or the similar Majority Text. There are over 5,500 old Greek manuscript text portions in this group, which come from a variety of regions.
Then we have the Alexandrian Texts, which number only two copies. One of these was found in a monastery (in a rubbish bin) in the Sinai Desert. Origen, who had Gnostic and pre-Arian ideas (counting Christ as a lower god) and his disciples Pamphilus and Eusebius, altered the traditional text. The other Alexandrian class text is in the Vatican library. This copy has alterations marked by old scribes on every page. These two texts have many variations between them.
It is believed that the two Alexandrian copies are older than any of the Byzantine copies, dating back to the 4th Century AD. They may be the oldest most complete texts, but there are many older text portions. There are some major differences between the Alexandrian Texts and the Byzantine Texts. In the Alexandrian Texts the last 12 verses in Mark are missing, the story of the woman caught in adultery is missing and several verses referring to the divinity of Christ are missing, along with many other verses.
Early Fathers & Erasmus
Until modern times these two Alexandrian Texts were not considered authentic. Early church fathers claimed corrupted copies were made by Gnostics, Arians and other heretical groups. Arians denied the divinity of Christ. These groups had influence in the Egyptian region where it is believed the Alexandrian texts originated. The Jehovah’s Witnesses, who deny Jesus is God, today applaud these texts.
Erasmus was a scholar of ancient Greek, who was a contemporary of Luther during the Reformation in the 16th Century. Erasmus used the Byzantine texts to compile a Greek version called the Textus Receptus, meaning the text received from the ancient church. This version has been updated several times by reference to other Byzantine texts.
The Reformers used the Textus Receptus to translate the scriptures into their various languages. Luther used it for the German Bible and Tyndale for an English Bible, on which later the KJV was based. Erasmus was aware of the Alexandrian Texts, for he had access to the Roman Catholic library. However, Erasmus refused to use the Alexandrian text in his work. He said it was inferior and was not the correct text.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)