In my earlier 3-part series on the huge changes going on in Bible translations, I ignored a subject which God won’t let me go without writing about. My two sources for this paper are from Parable, each a 3-hour You Tube audiophile. They are called “Decoding the Great Bible Hoax of 1881” and a second one, “Tares Among the Wheat.” Below is a summarization of that history of how the modern translations are from sources hostile to God’s Word.
There are two sources for most translations of Bibles
today. One source is called the “Received Text” (or Textus Receptus) for
good reason—prior to the 1950s, all Bibles were from that source. Erasmus was
the original author; in the early 1500s, he combined some 5500 old reliable partial
texts that were then available, and came up with the New Testament in Greek. It
has been the source for most of the translations (until the 1950s) ever since.
Luther used Erasmus’ second edition and translated it into German. Up til that
point, the Bible was hardly ever in the languages of the people. That was
partly due to the expense of being hand-written, and partly due to the
Catholics keeping them in Latin and hiding them, and burning them and burning everybody
who tried to make translations that the public could read. It was a laborious
effort by Erasmus, but the results were highly praised for hundreds of years.
Please note that he rejected the Vulgate (the Latin Bible done by the Catholic
Church). He considered it corrupt, as some of the verses were translated in a
biased way to be in accord with Catholic tradition.
The second source for most Bibles today is a
combination of the “Codex Sinaiticus” and the “Codex Vaticanus.” Compared
to the 5500 texts that the Received Text had to work with, these two only have
some 40 texts that loosely back them up. How those two came about is the
fascinating story I would like to tell. Keep in mind, ALL MODERN versions
use Sinaiticus and Vaticanus as their main source, so this is a relevant
and important study. The ONLY way that a translation uses a Received
Text source nowadays, is the King James Bible. Even that Bible has been partially
corrupted in its 2013 version. If you can, the best advice I an give, is buy a
copyright 1979 (published 1983) New King James—the version before it got
corrupted in 2013. It eliminates the “thees” and “thous,” and is solid on all
Bible doctrine, and doesn’t have any missing pages or phrases. But not all
Bible bookstores even have them, and the day will come that you will only be
able to buy used ones online or luckily, at some market.
Well, as you can already tell, I dislike the modern
sources—I promise, you’ll see why in this paper. This all came about when Bible
scholars from England decided we needed a Bible that doesn’t have the obsolete
words of the original 1611 King James. They also knew that many archaeological
studies have improved the definitions of Greek and Aramaic words of Jesus’ day,
as well. So English Anglicans formed a committee in 1870 to get the revision
ball rolling. They instructed the committee that not too many changes were
really needed to the Received Text. BUT….in time, the committee radically departed
from that goal.
Here are the facts of those two new Greek editions that
we are now stuck with. The Vaticanus was first discovered in the Vatican
Library in Rome in 1475. Not an old text at all, by Bible standards. But the Catholics claimed they originally had
it in the 4th century, but buried it. Of that, they have no proof. I
think it actually was produced in 1475. Anyone in their right mind could see
the Catholics hated the Bible because it disagreed with many of their
doctrines; and you simply couldn’t trust their version, whether in Latin or
Greek. They did offer the Latin version to Erasmus, who tossed it. Which is
what we should do today.
The Sinaiticus
has a much more interesting history. The official word was, it was partially
discovered in 1844 by Constantin von Tischendorf, an average Protestant seeker who
happened to be wandering (in his quest to find the perfect Bible) in St.
Catherine’s monastery, an out-of-the way Catholic location, in the Sinai
peninsula near Egypt. He allegedly just stumbled on it in a trash bin that was
used for kindling fires. He grabbed 43 leaves, all he could hide without being
discovered by monastery personnel. He reached the public, and called it the
world’s oldest Bible, and he got backing for that from the experts. He was
determined to revisit St. Catherine’s to obtain the many other pages in the
monastery which he had also seen. Which he did in 1859. To his alleged
surprise, it was the entire New Testament, and two other books. He published
it.
But he ran into a problem named Constantine Simonides,
who claimed he wrote it himself, in 1840. So it only appeared old (palaeography
is an uncertain profession). For proof as to his professional ability, Simonides
also had unique copies of ancient books that he had created. His knowledge of
calligraphy was particularly good. He was an expert among experts in the
palaeography profession, especially the Bible, as it turned out. When evidences
were examined, he pulled out from his portfolio exact copies of two books: The
Epistle of Barnabas, which he originally published in 1843, and the Shepherd of
Hermas, presented in 1856. There is no way that Simonides was not connected
to the Sinaiticus, because those two exact books were found with the
Sinaiticus that Tischendorf found. The “Hermas” book, especially, because
there was no other “Hermas” in Greek known to the world before this.
His living was made by ancient treatises that he sold, or he gifted copies that
he created. Especially from the Bible.
Actions by Tischendorf were suspicious: He actually
discovered the New Testament conveniently whole (copies of similar 1500-year-old
MSS had been, for centuries, found in small fragments). And why were the
precious pages he left behind from 1844 to 1859 not used for kindling in the
intervening 15 years, if his original taking was in secret? Seems likely, too,
that 15 years was a long time before he moseyed over and re-visited to obtain
the rest of the diamond find of the centuries; shouldn’t he have returned more
quickly, worried about them being used as kindling too?
Simonides protested ownership vigorously, not only to
Tischendorf, but to the London press. He got backing for awhile as they began
asking questions as well; but Tischendorf avoided him and held his ground.
Later the press did change sides, and even accused Simonides of forgery on
numerous of his works. The Catholics might have swung some influence to do
that. Why do I think they were involved? Because history proves that the Catholics
red-carpeted Tischendorf in 1843, just before he began his “quest.” The
Pope met with him, an extremely rare thing for just an average guy, a
Protestant to boot; plus, a cardinal who was normally unapproachable, who knew
50 languages, indulged him as well. Think of it! A Catholic pope, who despised
the Bible so much that his people were burning Bibles in Champlain, New York in
the same year, 1843; and the tortured skeletons of those who tried to bring the
Bible to the public were housed in Rome in a building right next to where
Tischendorf was visiting. Tischendorf had not done anything at his time of
meeting the Pope; he was a nobody. Why did he get such treatment? Did the Pope have
a plan to make sure that he WOULD find something that he could use and become
famous? Perhaps the Sinaiticus would be pre-planted, all put together by the
Catholic church’s expert forgers?
Fact was, they wanted the King James out of the way. A
defective text as a substitute was perfect for them; they had always denounced
“sola Scriptura” of the Protestants, since they believed that the “infallible”
Pope was better than the Bible, which was subject to man’s errors. I think they told the
monastery what was going on, to protect the Sinaiticus; and also told
Tischendorf that the rest of his find would still be there, so he didn’t have
to rush the return. Maybe Simonides originally left his copy there unattended,
and a dedicated Catholic who followed him, grabbed it and waited for
Tischendorf. We will never know.
Disgusted for the turn of events, Simonides left London
in 1864. He was not English, after all; but a patriot Greek fighting against
the Ottoman Empire. I never heard of a Bible palaeographologist who was blowing
up bridges in his spare time, but such was Simonides.
So, having the fabulous Sinaiticus in 1859, and combining
the Vaticanus (to the Catholics’ pleasure), the next stage was selling this
combination to the upcoming revisionist committees, who would in turn sell the
publicists, who would sell the public, on a revised Bible--translated from
their new defective Greek codexes. That’s where Hort and Wescott came in. They
were charismatic enough, and Protestant enough, to head up the English revision
committee. Now, you might wonder, what
was in the mind of Hort and Westcott to messing up the Received Text and the King
James Bible? After all, except for Old English (or whatever language
transcribed), everyone was happy with it for 260 years already. And how was the
committee, who was told to make small changes, convinced to approve a radical
move and introduce an entirely new Greek text?
Imagine what we might conclude if we knew the thoughts
of Hort and Westcott. And, blessedly, we can. Because, in those days, the phone
was not in common use (it was huge from 1900-1920). So communications were done
by letters; people received a letter with the inner-mind of the sender in print,
and everyone saved them. And it so happens that the children of Hort and
Wescott published their parents’ letters when they died. Thus we have a window
into their minds. So here are some facts: Hort expressed his hatred for the
Textus Receptus even at the tender age of 23, calling it “villainous” and
“vile.” Hort, in a separate letter to Wescott, wanted to keep their beliefs a
secret from the rest of the revision committee. He admitted that his views were
heretical, as he used that very word. Other letters revealed that they
did not believe that God inspired the Bible writers. They did not believe that Jesus
died for the world’s sin. They did not believe that Jesus was God. They had an
agenda from day 1 of the revision committee: they wanted a totally new Greek
text that had 2,900 fewer words from the King James, and they wanted their
version to imply that Jesus was not God, that He lied, that He had questionable
birth, and that He was a normal man with sin in his early life. In short, they
were sent there by Satan. They had two Greek publications with those defects that
they would foist on the committee. One of them was passed on from Tischendorf,
who was influenced by Catholics. The other one was Catholic all the way. After
publication of Bibles from their new Greek texts, Hort and Westcott planned on
publishing a series of essays to reveal their unorthodox views. Sort of an “in
your face” to the public.
I should first tell you that not everyone took their
pressure lying down. After the new Greek text was published in 1881,
Wescott and Hort received some angry criticism over their revision. The most
noteworthy came from Dean John Burgon, an English Bible scholar who studied this
new Greek disaster; and he was worried enough to produce a book, “The Revision
Revised.” It was scathing in its denunciation. Even a member of the revision
committee, Scrivener, published a denouncement and denial that he had anything
to do with the result. But these were a small minority, and could be ignored.
You may ask about the Catholic Vaticanus, why was it thrown
in? They owed the Catholics a favor, since the Catholics probably produced the
original plan to come up with a new Bible. But there is this: Not only the
Catholics, but many “enlightened” Protestants as well, wanted the whole Christian
world on one Bible. Catholics were tired
of being on the outside, having to create “Catholic Bibles.” What better way to
do that than to do what they accomplished? They asserted that the Sinaiticus
text was not Catholic, since it was produced around 350 AD before the
church went Catholic. And the Vaticanus was Catholic, of course, but it
was older than the Received Text. They claimed it dates to 350 AD, as well. So
that combination was an ecumenical combination for everyone. But before you are
sold on this, please read my previous blogs on this subject; I have listed some
of “their” Scripture that are in dereliction of true Christian doctrine.
If it seems the experts were way too eager to accept a
new defective Bible, it might be explained like this:: The religious chaos of
the day probably helped churchmen begin to desire ecumenism. They wanted to
maintain peace among those that focus on Jesus, that were Christian. Here’s
what I mean about chaos of the day: “The Origin of Species,” by Darwin, was
published in 1859. This did huge damage to people’s belief in God’s creation
story in Genesis. (Hort agreed with Darwin, even though it refutes Genesis
1-3). In the same century came the Jehovah’s Witnesses; and the Latter Day
Saints, in 1852, announced publicly that they were in favor of polygamy. In
that day, too, Bible scholars attending in Oxford or Cambridge learned how to
be liberal: they learned that scholars used a “rationalist” approach to Scripture.
Under that approach, they could not accept that the Bible was “inspired” by the
Holy Spirit. Under rationalism, the idea of textual criticism began with
doubting the infallibility of Scripture.
They say, “Yea, hath God said?”—as Satan would do. This involves total elimination
of the supernatural. No virgin birth; no sinless Jesus; no resurrection; no
ascension. This whole thing started in Germany in the 18th century,
and was called “higher criticism.” Iain Paisly was an English prophet in the 1800s
who didn’t mince words about how England was copying Germany, in taking belief
systems down the pit, and the anti-Christ dangers of it--but nobody listened.
Here’s more: In the mid-1800s, the Church of England was
swayed by an invasion of Jesuits, who were teachers. But they were such loyal Catholics,
that they were able to work in this Protestant surrounding and still tried to convert
priests of the Anglican Church back under the authority of Rome again. They
were partially successful, since around 150 Anglican priests converted to Roman
Catholicism. The Jesuits were still applying the “counter reformation” which
was staunchly opposed to the doctrine of “sola scriptura,” the Protestant
belief that Scripture was the only source for doctrines (as Scripture says).
They still believed in tradition and the infallible Pope.
So the “scholars” who were schooled in Oxford and such
were now going liberal, and had just the right temperament to accept these weak
new Greek sources in publishers’ revision committees.
I should add that both Hort and Wescott, similar to
Tischendorf, liked the Catholic Church,
and were strongly influenced by its guiding light at the time, John Newman. He
was a Catholic textual critic. “Him I
all but worship,” said Hort. Hort also admitted that “the pure Romish view
seems to be nearer, and more likely to lead to the truth rather than the
Evangelical.” Hort spoke well of the worship of Mary, too. He also believed
that a priest is necessary to mediate between a people and God. But the Bible
speaks of the “priesthood of the believers.” Also seek I Timothy 2:5,6. These Catholic
mediators are blasphemous, and Hort and Westcott knew it. How they were signed
on to help a Protestant revision committee of God’s Holy Word, is beyond me. But
nobody paid any attention.
So, assuming that the rest of the committee
could not smell a rat, how did Hort and Westcott sell their new Greek discovery
to the committee? Keep in mind, their heretical views were kept quiet at the
time—while they were still alive. First, they maintained that the Received Text
had been corrupted in Antioch between 250-350 AD. This was a lie. There would
be angry public writings (like there were when they introduced their new Greek
text). But the Antioch church had no such record. But the committee didn’t know
that, and didn’t seek assistance to determine its truth. Secondly, Hort and
Westcott maintained “the oldest is the best,” and theirs were dated 350 AD, so
they said. They assumed that the Sinaiticus, coming from Alexandria, near
Egypt, with drier climate, would give them older, preserved documents. BUT
there were many early heresies in the Alexandria area, notably Gnosticism (see
my “Final” blog listing #17). Also, papyrus that wasn’t “worn out” could have simply
been because it was corrupt, and no one read it, so it was still in good shape
when found.
Nevertheless, the committee bought it,
and favored the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus for Revision in 1881. So then it went
to all of developed Europe, and to the U.S, namely Dallas Theological, to
Princeton, to the Southern Baptists, etc ad nauseum. Nobody cared about the
background of the Codexes or the background of Hort or Westcott. Publishers put
together their own revision teams, and new Bibles burst forth based on the two
Codexes. The first one I see developed was the Revised Standard Version,
1952. They played it safe. They removed the verses below from the main text,
but at least put them into footnotes at the bottom of the page. Here they are:
Matthew 27:49: And another
took a spear and pierced his side, and out came water and blood
Luke 22:19b-20: "...which is
given for you, Do this in remembrance of me." And likewise the cup after
supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant
in my blood."
Luke 24:3: (they did not find the body) of the
Lord Jesus
Luke 24:6: he is not here, he is risen
Luke 24:12: But Peter rose and ran to
the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw the linen cloths by themselves; and
he went home wondering at what had happened.
Luke 24:36: and said to them,
"Peace be to you!
Luke 24:40: And when he said this, he
showed them his hands and his feet
Luke 24:51: and was carried up to
heaven
Luke 24: 52: worshiped
him, and
As you can see, a lot of touchy, important doctrines
were being threatened for removal.
This debate over trying to find the truth behind Simonides,
Tirchendorf, and the Sinaiticus raged on until the early 1900s. (It is still
going on. You Tube has a flock of audiophiles on this subject.) It will never
be resolved, partly because not enough people are interested in the truth. The
scholars in all the developed world (it was passed around to England, the
U.S.A, France, Germany, Italy, etc) all wanted the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. I
suspect, then, that most of their “Christianity” would until Judgment Day be in
apostrophes. Why do I say that? It was easy to see, after the deaths of
Hort and Wescott, with their letters published, where their true colors
lied—they were apostates. The publishers, I believed, knew that. They should
have scrapped their “new” Bibles and demanded a recall, with apologies. They
should have gone back to publishing the King James, as far as serious Bibles
go. Of course, re-filling an older book doesn’t make as much profit as claiming
“We have a new one!” There have been over 20 “new” ones in the past 70 years.
They make money. The secular publisher that took over Zondervan also owns
Harper’s, which produces the Satanic Bible. So they take the profit, as all
secular publishers do, and leave the repentance til’ Judgment Day.
Of course, the Catholics are happy enough with our
modern editions that they don’t need to produce their own “Catholic Bibles.” We
are all on a one-world Bible since 1979. The Bible has prophesied a
one-world religion for the last days. This one-world Bible could be a part of
that.
It doesn’t help that not 5 people out of 100
church-goers notices anything different about Scripture verses that have been
radically changed, or the doctrines that have been attacked (for more detail,
see my earlier Translation blogs where I number about 20, just for starters). Truth
is, we don’t know our Bibles. Of those
that do, our Bible teachers, often get distracted by playing games, like “which
is the best word?”. With all the modern versions, they spend too much time
“cherry-picking” which Bible version has the word or definition of an item that
best fits their agenda. They would be smarter to use the King James word, look
it up in a Greek-English dictionary, and get the cold, hard meaning (Greek is
good for that). Don’t have an agenda unless Scripture has an agenda first.
God has promised that His words would last forever. In
Matthew 24:35 Jesus promised:
Heaven and
earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.
And in I Peter 1:24-25 Peter wrote:
All
flesh is as grass, And all the glory of man as the flower of
the grass.
The grass withers,
And its flower falls away, But the word of the Lord endures forever.”
Let
us believe God that He will find a way to keep our thirst for His pure word quenched—among
those that are looking for it. We need His Word as we need water. We need to
read it daily; not like water from broken cisterns, but water distilled and
pure. God will defeat the plans of Man. As Scripture says, He laughs at them
and holds them in derision.
No comments:
Post a Comment