27 NT History

Greek Bible

.

THE GREEK NEW TESTIMENT

 

Erasmus printed a fine representation of the majority of NT texts the church was using in 1522.  He is accused of a number of things by those who prefer to use rejected texts with heretical readings made by heretics.  One accusation is that he only had a few Greek texts to choose from.  Yet, Erasmus said he consulted many manuscripts, Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. III, p 60.  NT critics of the text revived down through the ages to the churches ignore the fact that somehow over 99% of today’s 5200 Greek texts agree with Erasmus’ New Testament and the KJV at the same time.  And that his text at the same time does not agree with heretical texts used in the NIV etc.  Yet James White feels that Erasmus only somehow got lucky.  See White James, The King James Only Controversy pp 58, 59.  And Erasmus wrote much and the truth of his faith, which is easy to find.

 

Next we have Robert Stephanus who in 1550 made a preferred NT apparently without consulting Erasmus, and from copies that were identical.  His text is near the same as Erasmus.

 

Next we have Beza and his 1598 text.  Gail Riplinger on page 683 of her book, Hazardous Materials misses the mark (hamartia) to shows that Beza is a heretic-Calvinist and says Beza “calls New Testament Greek barbaric”, to try to prove that Beza did not like the language of the NT and that he cannot be trusted.

 

However, the Greek used in the NT was called barbaric at the time, and there were many debates about this.  See the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Index X, page 63. Here we have this history of Beza and the understanding of Greek at the time, as NT Greek was in this time understood to be a lesser basic kind of newspaper Greek, if you will. Greek was now a new language for many Jews and here the NT reflects a basic kind of Greek. Beza is merely stating the fact that the Greek is understood as barbaric in his day, Riplinger is exaggerating.  Perhaps in the NT Greek God is finding ways to make shortcuts, as any people do when they speak broken English.

 

The Greeks that Paul spoke to believed in free will and predestination, and as far back as 300 BC and Plato they were even thinking about monotheism.  God set the stage for the Gospel in advance.  So now Paul in Romans 8 and 9 tells of predestination and says that it is God that shows mercy, and that He likewise hardens whom He will, Romans 9:18.  There is no getting around God. God is God, not chance, not man, not time, not luck.  Gail’s overriding principle is that it is the will of man alone to have faith and save himself (in spite of John 1:13 “Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”).  But yet there cannot be any true faith unless one believes enough to act, and then there are works of necessity also, (Titus 1:16 “They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.”).  Then how does our faith eliminate God’s choice to have mercy on some who do not deserve it?  Are we God that we earn ourselves mercy by a faith that must have works?  If there are no works then there is no true faith, yet the Bible says in Romans 4:2 “For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not before God.”.  There is one Savior not two, man does not save himself and at the same time God is the one who has mercy, and undeservingly so.  This is what mercy is, God’s choice not man.  Man is dead in sin, the Bible says he does not seek for God (1 Corinthians 2:14 “But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”).Yet as many as believe the Gospel of Christ’s work on the cross for them, by the workings of the Holy Spirit in them, these were ordained to eternal life, Acts 13:48.  Beza can be trusted, Riplinger speaks for herself.

 

Then we have the Elzevirs who in 1633 printed the text Beza. “The Elzevir text is practically a reprint of the text ofBeza 1565 with about fifty minor differences in all. The Elzevirs were notable printers, and their editions of the Greek New Testament were accurate and elegant. Throughout Europe the Elzevir editions came to occupy a place of honor, and their text was employed as the standard one for commentary and collation. The Elzevir editions are collated against Estienne 1550 in the appendix of Tregelles 1854, and in Newberry 1877, Scrivener 1861, and Hoskier 1890.” http://www.bible-researcher.com/bib-e.html

 

And then we have Scrivener who starting in 1881 backward translating the KJV into Greek and did some other things [http://biblia.com/books/elzevir].  Scrivener was a heretic who supported Westcott and Hort and their preferred new heretical readings and arguments concerning their disrespect of what the NT stands for.   They supported readings which were up to that time rejected by the Churches and up to that time and rejected by the KJV committee.  When Scrivener did made his backwards Greek text he used different texts, and in some places, over 51 places, he used Latin readings over the preferred Greek that the KJV used to say close to the same thing.  He said he followed Beza, yet he left off Amen, for example, in the end of Ephesians.  Something Beza did not do.  He went off on his own, even when he had good Greek support, giving place to the Hort and Westcott revisionists arguing instability for the Greek that the KJV used.  He admitted that he disliked the KJV readings, and it comes out in his text.  Scrivener cannot be trusted; He is most likely in Hell, he was never conforming to the image of Jesus Christ, he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

 

Importantly he admitted concerning Erasmus, Beza and Stephanus and Elzevirs:” [T]here is no material difference between any of them” Scrivener, vol. 2 pp193.  The 287 microscopic differences (spelling, word order etc.) between the text of Stephanus and the printed Greek text of the Elzevirs are often “errors of the press”), Scrivener.

 

Gail Riplinger makes a mountain out of a nutshell, and in her book Hazardous Materials she tries to try to show differences in the Beza, Stephanus, and Erasmus texts.  She does this to support her belief that today we are only left with an inspired KJV.  Missing the mark she says that Greek differences will lead her Bible students astray, because now they cannot trust wholly in an inspired KJV, every word, rather than in the inspired words of God originally in Greek for almost 2000 years.

 

But there are errors in the KJV.  In Matthew “put away” cannot be translated to mean “divorce”.  If so, then Jesus failed to keep the law that He said He would not change, and the Pharisees failed to stone Jesus for changing the law missing a golden opportunity, and Jesus was potentially married.

 

Then Gail Riplinger contradicts herself to say elsewhere to say there are virtually no differences at all on page 956 In Awe Of Thy Word: “None of these microscopic differences between the KJV and today’s printed one-man additions of the Textus Receptus’ are of major consequence! ” I am sure if there was something drastic she would have found it, but all we have is, for the most part, are some misspellings of the same words and other various slight differences as outlined by her below.

 

Gail writes on page 952 In Awe of Thy Word “Berry’s edition of Stephanus … Scrivener’s … comparing … to the … KJV:

 

Mark 2:15 Jesus is missing one time out of two.

2 Peter 1:1 The word order is confused.

Beelzebub is spelled wrong 7 times.

Acts 19:20 Has “word of the Lord” rather than “word of God” KJV.

 

Around page 666 of Hazardous Materials she writes “When manuscripts are divided, the KJV always pays particular attention to the context …” etc. and then [concerning Berry and Scrivener]:

 

Acts 13:15 has “With the Sanhedrim”, the KJV has “council”.

Acts 26:6 says “the fathers” rather than KJV “our fathers”.

1 Cor. 16:23 KJV “our Lord” not the Lord.

Gal 4:16 KJV Where, not what.

Eph 6:24 KJV Amen vs. Scrivener only.

Phil 2:21 KJV Jesus Christ is reversed.

Col 1:24 KJV Who, vs. Now.

1 Thess 2:12 Scrivener notes part of the text as a variant

1 Thess 2:13 Scrivener puts “as” in the text as from the Latin, although the KJV did not use Latin.

1 Tim 1:17 KJV Eternal is changed to age.

1 Tim 3:15  [Scrivener Only] Scriveners text has a Latin reading.

1 Tim. 4:15 KJV does not have among.

2 Tim 1:18 [BARRY ONLY] Ministered is misspelled.

James 3:14 KJV heart is proper English over hearts.

1 Peter 2:13 KJV omits therefore.

1 John 3:20 KJV omits the second use of “for”.

1 John 5:8 KJV these three, instead of ”the three”.

2 John 3: KJV have “be” instead of “shall be”.

Rev. 13:10 KJV has “into”.

Rev. 16:11 KJV rightly omits EK (because of).

Rev. 17:9 KJV has “And,”

Rev. 18:23 KJV “shall shine” is changed to “may shine”.

 

John William Bergon wrote on Page 269 of The Revision Revised to sum up the facts perfectly with some logical thinking says:  “Call this Text Erasmian or Complustensian,—the Text of Stephens, or of Beza, or of the Elzevirs, call it the “received,” or the Traditional Greek Text, or whatever other name you please; — the fact remains, that a Text has come down to us which is attested by a general consensus of ancient Copies, ancient Fathers, ancient Versions.  This, at all events, is a point on which, (happily,) there exists entire conformity of opinion between Dr. Hort and ourselves.  Our Readers cannot have yet forgotten his virtual admission that,—Beyond all question the Textus Receptus is the dominant Graeco –Syrian text of A.D. 350 to A.D. 400.“

 

John William Bergon continues: “Obtained from variety of sources, the Text proves to be essentially the same in all. That it requires Revision in respect of many of its lesser details, is undeniable: but it is at least as certain that it is an excellent Text as it stands, and that the use of it will never lead critical students of Scripture seriously astray, which is what no one will venture to predicate concerning any single Critical Edition of the NT …”