Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: two lines - two streams - two trees

  1. Default two lines - two streams - two trees

    This will be the spot for a single thread on this question of a popular AV presentation. There is a myth-buster element involved.
    Last edited by Steven Avery; 05-31-2017 at 02:47 PM.

  2. Default

    First, some earlier writings.

    KJV Bible Forums
    Streams of Bibles, the Reformation Bible & KJB Defense

    http://kjvbibleforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=4680

    ================================================== ==========

    STREAMS OF BIBLES and the ALEXANDRIAN CULT

    Alexandrian Cult - I agree that the blind allegiance of many today to the modern version probability-possibililty critical text (based on two corrupt manuscripts) is irrational .. not understandable logically, and "Alexandrian cult" is one reasonable explanation. Many people simply do not want there to be a final authority, so they are attracted to theories that allow them to reject the one pure Bible and tangible inspiration and preservation. A smorgasbord approach is preferred.

    (After all, even James White says he prefers the KJB text of 1 Timothy 3:16 .. those who have the Alexandrian cult mentality do not really believe their text is the pure word of God, it is simply a possible starting point for thoughts and redactions and rejections and changes and the person's own decisions. And they never want to state clearly their actual "probability" that a verse they are reading is the word of God rather than the tampering of man. They will simply tell you what they are "comfortable with" .. a recent response I received .. and they are comfortable with not knowing God's word from man's tampering. No verse is sure. )

    However the modern versions today, full of errors and corruptions and omissions, do not represent any "stream of Bibles" at all. No known Greek or Latin or Syriac Bible churches and communities from 400 AD to 1881 were ever reading such corrupt versions as are put out today from the "Critical Text", nothing even remotely close.

    Over the period from 400 AD to today, many were reading the Latin Vulgate, yet the Latin Vulgate is not remotely as corrupt as the Critical Text today, e.g. it has the resurrection account of the Lord Jesus in the Gospel of Mark, the Pericope Adultera, the heavenly witnesses, Acts 8:37, John 1:18 correct and more. While also having many corruptions as in 1 Timothy 3:16, Matthew 5:22 , and also a number of poor translations from Greek to Latin.

    The difficulty of talking about streams of Bibles is something like this, working with a purity quotient.

    PURITY OF MAJOR BIBLES

    KJB - 100%
    TR - Reformation Bible - 99% (some editions have corruptions like Luke 2:22)
    Greek Byzantine MSS - 85 %
    Peshitta 75%
    Old Latin 55% (variable by manuscript)
    Vulgate 50%
    Critical Text - 5% (W-H, or NA-27)
    Vaticanus - Sinaiticus - 1% (Bezae is similar).

    Numbers are my estimates, based on research and studies.

    The Reformation Bible was developed in a providential manner, see REFORMATION BIBLE DYNAMIC below, which is why it is exceedingly pure.

    Returning to STREAMS OF BIBLES -- > the Critical Text and Vaticanus-Sinaiticus simply have no significant historical attestation. They represent a certain amount of limited usage in the 4th century (since there is a connection to the Constantine 50 Bibles). By the fifth century the Greek world was working with the pure Byzantine Text and the Latin world was working with the fair Vulgate and Old Latin lines, the alexandrian corruption manuscripts were of little note. A few Greek extant manuscripts over the next 1000 years show a mild affinity to the alexandrian mss (perhaps up to 10 more manuscripts, less than 1%, are said to have some affinity, yet these often agree with our Byzantine text and will not have many of the alexandrian corruptions in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus). We know of no church which utilized these texts, east or west, after whoever used the Constantine-Eusebius-published Bible in the 300s and its small lineage.

    STREAMS OF BIBLES and the MODERN VERSION TEXTUAL ALEXANDRIAN HODGE-PODGE

    The problem with talking of "streams of Bibles" is that it tends to underplay the significance of the abject corruption in the modern versions, which corruption, hundreds of blunders, errors, omissions .. simply has no significant historical ecclesiastical or textual support. No stream of Bibles is reflected. No churches in Antioch or Rome or Greece or Spain or Constaninople or England or Carthage was reading a Bible that was corrupt in the manner of the modern GNT or the even worse underlying manuscripts, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

    Remember the English translations fudge a lot of issues (keeping the reader guessing) by including text in special print or location or footnote that their own GNT actually claims is not original scripture, in their normal "we are not really sure" fashion. And this is after the Critical Text GNT ignores hundreds of obvious blunders in its own underlying proof-texts, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. See e.g. the Tischendorf offhand reference to "many obvious blunders" or the Dean John Burgon analysis, or the verses given by Scrivener and Hoskier.

    Thus a fabricated text (first secretly foisted in 1871 by Westcott and Hort upon the revision committee with no public or peer review and analysis and discussion) was created that has about 200 verses (Professor Maurice Robinson, precise number unsure) with no exemplar in any language whatsoever. This is because within one verse a dubious word can be taken from Vaticanus here and a phrase from Sinaitcus there, creating a unique textual hybrid hopeful monster. Which then becomes a modern version "Bible".

    Also the Stream of Bible argument tends to be unfair to the Vulgate, which is downgraded to an equivalence to the ultra-corrupt modern versions as an "Alexandrian cult" text. Also it tends to lift up the Old Latin too much, as if this was clearly a distinct and major improvement over the Vulgate texts.

    REFORMATION BIBLE DYNAMIC

    And by making the Vulgate the textual enemy, the KJB defender has to work awkwardly around the fascinating and powerful Reformation Bible dynamic, which actually incorporated together the preservation from the Greek fountainhead and the Vulgate and Old Latin, with excellent reference to and support from early church writers and internal evidences. Thus the lacks in the Greek text that were correct in the Latin (often simply omissions, the most trivial scribal error, like the heavenly witnesses and minority textual representation for Acts 8:37) were easily seen to be pure scripture by the solid combination of textual considerations. This was done by the Bible textual giants of Erasmus unto Stephanus unto Beza .. with a providential process of correction and purification unto 1611.

    CONSIDERATIONS FOR KJB DEFENDERS

    Not understanding these issues fully has led to two competing defective KJB positions. On one side, the Dean John Burgon society folks, and some others, try to fudge the actual development process of the Textus Receptus and mix it up with the Greek Byzantine Text (a major component in development, but a different text), a major conceptual error. This can be seen clearly in a recent Kirk DiVietro interview.

    As a side-error the DBS claims that they are essentially "TR Only" (no inspiration for you, AV) that they support by trying to work around the clear words of the AV in 2 Timothy 3:16 that scripture is present-tense ie. today. This is a terrible inconsistency, since they claim to affirm the English KJB words on one hand, and then try to "correct" them by Greek twirling, simply to try to separate the AV from inspired scripture. A real scholastic travesty, almost humorous in its transparent inconsistency.

    Also the DBS struggles with the simple fact they have no one TR text, that the TR was a process of textual correction and purification. Trying to affirm the Scrivener 1881 text, derivative from the KJB, is clearly logically futile. And in fact the King James Bible actually represents the apex of purity and perfection of the Received Text development and dynamic.

    The other defective position is given by Gail Riplinger who seeks to emphasize the northern European "vernacular versions" (e.g. Gothic, Gaellic, Celtic, Old Saxon) as a supposed significant element of development of the King James Bible, which is a sidestep around the providential Reformation Bible. This emphasis simply lacks historical and textual support. Those European vernaculars were usually Old Latin and Vulgate derivative, the Gothic is Greek-derivative, their texts were of minimal textual import from 1500 to 1611 to today, except to help corroborate specific readings (e.g. Gothic Codex Argentus supports the Mark ending yet not the Pericope Adultera).

    Aware King James Bible defenders, I would suggest, should avoid both ditches. In a certain sense the DBS ditch is more conceptually serious, since it involves the very definitions of scripture and inspiration and which text is the pure and perfect word of God. Yet the Riplinger diversion to a non-relevant issue away from the Reformation Bible can only hinder our defense of the pure Bible. We should simply want our exposition to be on a sound basis.

    Here is Edward Hills on the providential element of the Reformation Bible.

    "the formation of the Textus Receptus was guided by the special providence of God. There were three ways in which the editors of the Textus Receptus Erasmus. Stephanus. Beza. and the Elzevirs, were providentially guided. In the first place, they were guided by the manuscripts which God in His providence had made available to them. In the second place, they were guided by the providential circumstances in which they found themselves. Then in the third place, and most of all. they were guided by the common faith. Long before the Protestant Reformation, the God-guided usage of the Church had produced throughout Western Christendom a common faith concerning the New Testament text, namely, a general belief that the currently received New Testament text, primarily the Greek text and secondarily the Latin text, was the True New Testament Text which had been preserved by God's special providence. It was this common faith that guided Erasmus and the other early editors of the Textus Receptus." - Edward Hills
    This is a good starting point for a more balanced understanding, as long was we continue that providential element unto the Authorized Version !

    (follow-up post at the url on top.)
    Facebook - King James Bible Debate - Nov 9, 2014
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/21209666692/permalink/10152500600026693/?comment_id=10152500991901693&offset=0&total_comme nts=27

    The key error in these charts is simple, it is the false dichotomy created in the Latin lines. In point of fact, the Old Latin and the Vulgate with the ECW that used those latin Bibles, all contributed to the excellence of the Reformation Bible.

    The error here is from the heritage of Benjamin Wilkinson mangling Frederick Nolan, in order to paint the Vulgate as the bad Bible against the Waldensian good Bible. In point of fact, the people of the hills likely loved the sound and rhythm of their Bibles and resisted ... at some times, yet not fully ... the Vulgate. If so, and it is not easily demonstrable, this was more cultural and linguistic, the community of faith expressed, than textual.

    All charts and expositions that put the Old Latin and the Vulgate on opposite sides of the Bible divide are not aligned with the textual truth. Jerome updated the existing Old Latin mss, rather faithfully. And it is hard to tell what Greek ms he used, since the updates were small and we don't have the 400 AD Vulgate extant. And the problem overall is not a small problem, because it then becomes necessary to fog up the excellent use of the Greek fountainhead and Latin traditional Bibles by the learned men who gave us the Reformation Bible.

    See Edward Freer Hills as an AV defender who acknowledged this contributions. This fogging is done by many. Gail Riplinger, as one example, attempts to squeeze in vernacular versions -- as the replacement for the true history that would acknowledge the Latin contribution to our Bibles. However the basic problem came decades before Gail Riplinger.

    The rcc even supported the fine scholarship of the Complutensian and of Erasmus, against the Latin Bible cultrual primacy as late as the early 1500s. It was only the counter-reformation of Trent around 1546, against the pure Received Text, where they went wildly astray. Then in the 1900s they supported the ultra-corrupt Westcott-Hort recension, going even more astray. Perhaps they angled for that as a plan B, as in the two meetings with Tischendorf, in one of which the pope virtually kissed his ring.

    ===============

    Textually, the Old Latin and the Vulgate are about equal, in fact the Old Latin has some wildness in readings where the Vulgate is more attune to the pure Bible.

    Hope this helps, I know many AV defenders have found the simplified two lines charts to be colorful, largely accurate, and effective.

    ** And there are two major Greek lines, that can be described as Antiochan and Alexandrian. **
    However, a chart like the one above shoots for a lot more, and can wound you in the foot.
    CARM 2014 (purged)
    The two streams charts are oversimplified, and have some major problems.

    The biggest single problem can be seen by looking at the Latin mss, the Old Latin, which on the left is "Latin Bibles" and the Vulgate, which is put as Jerome 382. (Actual year is 383 for the Gospels, later for the rest.)

    These two lines often intermixed in the manuscript lines. They both often support the pure Bible readings, having contributed to the Received Text. And often support the corruptions in the Vaticanus Alexandrian text (both are fine on the two 12-verse major omissions.) Thus, they are somewhere in the middle, however that is not what the chart is looking for. And the great majority of the time the Old Latin Bibles and the Vulgate agree (which is not surprising, since the Vulgate was an update of the Old Latin.)

    If you have specific questions about any blocks in the chart, or how the ideas behind the chart developed, or the claims of MartialApologist above, or what is a better conceptual way to look at the development of the pure Reformation Bible, I would be happy to address any such specifics. #27 In this case, even Steven Avery admits that the two-streams argument does not hold up and is not sound.
    There is nothing to "admit". It is a happy acknowledgement, and I never used two streams theory. As the proper understanding shows that the Reformation Bible drew from the fountainhead Greek and historic Latin lines. The two streams theory fudges that history.

    By cleaning up the problems in the two streams theory (whether it is maintained in a modified form or not) it becomes much easier to understand the superb textual work of Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza, that brought forth pure English Bibles like the Tyndale and Geneva, and then the most excellent, the AV.
    Facebook - Textus Receptus Defense - June, 2015
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/386979574719540/permalink/824753970942096/?comment_id=826499494100877&offset=0&total_comment s=4&comment_tracking={tn%3AR0}


    While the colors are nice, and the theory is interesting, the facts simply do not match up. Trying to put the Old Latin and the Vulgate on opposite sides of a divide simply does not match the evidences. The Vulgate made a solid contribution to the Reformation Bible. The Vaticanus text is far more corrupt than the Vulgate or Old Latin. The so-called Old Syriac is ultra-corrupt, the Peshitta is the better Syriac text. The Ethiopic is Alexandrian. The Bohemian is essentially from the Vulgate.

    The basic problem, the textual paradigm is wrong, it was passed down from Benjamin Wilkinson, it is flawed, it has elements of truth and large elements of error when so presented, and overall, is better discarded. The alternatives is really understanding the dynamic of the development of the Reformation Bible and its purity, excellence and majesty, (As well as the Westcott-Hort Vaticanus primacy critical text corruption.) It is true that the rcc has embraced that textus corruptus now as its plan B, after the Reformation Bible defeated the Vulgate in the 1500s-->1700 Battle of the Bible.
    Active discussion here:

    King James Bible Debate May, 2017
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/2120...2%3A%22R%22%7D

  3. Default

    Some historical references.
    The starting point of two lines theory.

    Authorized Bible Vindicated (1930)
    Benjamin G. Wilkinson
    http://www.sdadefend.com/Living-Word...edBibleTOC.htm

    “Fundamentally, there are only two streams of Bibles."
    Next, how he mangled Frederick Nolan.
    Others who followed this lead, directly or through Fuller.

    Dr. Nolan, who had already acquired fame for his Greek and Latin scholarship, and researches into Egyptian chronology, and was a lecturer of note, spent twenty-eight years to trace back the Received Text to its apostolic origin. He was powerfully impressed to examine the history of the Waldensian Bible. He felt certain that researches in this direction would demonstrate that the Italic New Testament, or the New Testament of those primitive Christians of northern Italy whose lineal descendants the Waldenses were, would turn out to be the Received Text. He says:

    "The author perceived, without any labor of inquiry, that it derived its name from that diocese, which has been termed the Italick, as contradistinguished from the Roman. This is a supposition, which receives a sufficient confirmation from the fact, that the principal copies of that version have been preserved in that diocese, the metropolitan church of which was situated in Milan. The circumstance is at present mentioned, as the author thence formed a hope, that some remains of the primitive Italick version might be found in the early translations made by the Waldenses, who were the lineal descendants of the Italick Church; and who have asserted their independence against the usurpation of the Church of Rome, and have ever enjoyed the free use of the Scriptures. In the search to which these considerations have led the author, his fondest expectations have been fully realized. It has furnished him with abundant proof on that point to which his inquiry was chiefly directed; as it has supplied him with the unequivocal testimony of a truly apostolical branch of the primitive church, that the celebrated text of the heavenly witnesses was adopted in the version which prevailed in the Latin Church, previously to the introduction of the modern Vulgate."f52

  4. Default more on the Benjamin Wilkinson errors

    PureBible - Facebook - Jan 20, 2018
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/1576167942475089/?comment_id=1576274072464476&comment_tracking=%7B% 22tn%22%3A%22R%22%7D

    THE KEY ISSUE (CORRECTION) DU JOUR

    Gene Kim repeats the common AV defender error that the Old Latin was the good Bible and the Latin Vulgate was the bad Bible. This error has tainted King James Bible defense, since it came forth from Benjamin Wilkinson in 1930, in Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, who wrote of:

    "Fundamentally, there are only two streams of Bibles."
    And thus Wilkinson placed the Gallic, the Celtic and the Waldensian Bibles (as examples of the Old Latin line) as being Received Text Bibles. This was done with a fallacy of the false dichotomy:

    since the Old Latin Bibles had some distinctions from the Vulgate and
    since there were only two lines (note the circular reasoning) thus
    the Old Latin Bibles had to be Received Text Bibles.

    Note that this was NOT determined by any checking of verses and variants. which would have shown huge differences from ALL our extant Old Latin Bibles and the Received Text.

    Plus, the Received Text was to a large extent a Greek and Latin preservation / reconstruction text, and the learned men of the 1500s, Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza especially, were pleased to use the Vulgate as a major part of that effort.

    Correcting the Latin from the Greek, yet also correcting the Greek from the Latin.


    Even while we appreciate and uplift the memory of those faithful Christian men and woman who read, loved, memorized and sang from their Old Latin Bibles, even while we appreciate the sincerity, tenor and "charm" (Wilkinson) of their Bibles, we have to be truthful and accurate to the textual realities.

    This idea that these Bibles were themselves "Received Text" (from the second century to 1500, after Erasmus they would be influenced by the Reformation Bible corrections) is simply wrong. Textually, they were far closer to the Vulgate. The Old Latin and the Vulgate remained as sister texts for over 1,000 years, with many mss being hybrids.

    In fact, the Vulgate's history was that of an updating of the Old Latin, generally keeping its text, eliminating some oddball phrases that had crept in. There really is no historical indication that the nascent roman catholic establishment (the Gospel part of the text was presented to Damasus, the bishop of Rome) had influence upon Jerome's textual decisions. And we can not easily determine the Greek texts that were used by Jerome, but it definitely was not simply a "Vaticanus-P75" Alexandrian text.

    Trying to taint the Vulgate as the bad Bible is similar to those who try to taint the Received Text because it was (before the Council of Trent and the Counter-Reformation emphasis, and when being developed by Erasmus and the scholarly Spanish crew of the Complutensian Polyglot) to a certain extent an RCC-approved enterprise. Later disowned, with Trent and the Index of Forbidden Books being the breaking point.

    There is simply too much anachronism involved in both attacks, upon Jerome and upon Erasmus.

    ** A false exposition or attack does not gain credence and truth by good intention and purpose.**


    Incidentally, Jerome was the key figure in the early church who uplifted the Hebrew Bible. against great opposition, an excellent position that was the forerunner of the superb Old Testament Hebrew Bible "Received Text" decisions.

    =============

    One more point on Wilkinson.

    Wilkinson tried to buttress his position by an appeal to the learned works of Frederick Nolan (1784-1864). You can see a quote given here, where Wilkinson tries to sound like Nolan equates the Waldensian text with the Received Text, which might give a leg for the two lines theory.

    =====================
    Wilkinson
    "the Italic New Testament, or the New Testament of those primitive Christians of northern Italy whose lineal descendants the Waldenses were, would turn out to be the Received Text. He (Nolan) says:

    "The author perceived, without any labor of inquiry, that it derived its name from that diocese, which has been termed the Italick, as contradistinguished from the Roman.... abundant proof on that point to which his inquiry was chiefly directed; as it has supplied him with the unequivocal testimony of a truly apostolical branch of the primitive church, that the celebrated text of the heavenly witnesses was adopted in the version which prevailed in the Latin Church, previously to the introduction of the modern Vulgate."
    https://books.google.com/books?id=CDuVBQAAQBAJ&pg=PT211
    ======================

    However, Nolan is not saying they were using the Received Text, simply that the heavenly witnesses was in the Old Latin, and there were some important points of confluence.

    This is true, and important, and Jerome affirmed the same excellence of the heavenly witnesses in his Vulgate Prologue, and Nolan himself properly says:

    "I assert the disputed prologue to be his genuine composition."
    https://books.google.com/books?id=i_EDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA276
    So the Old Latin and the Vulgate agreed.

    =====================

    Wilkinson's textual theories were to some extent a reflection of the SDA embrace of the Waldensians against the papacy, which is anti-Christ in their historicist eschatology. You can see this Wilkinson emphasis, which draws much of its perspective from the writings of Ellen G. White, in his 1944 book, Truth Triumphant.

    TRUTH TRIUMPHANT
    The Church in the Wilderness
    by Benjamin George Wilkinson, Ph. D.
    http://www.sundaylaw.net/books/other...rson/tttoc.htm

    Yet, even if we have strong sympathies with that analysis, it does not change the Bible textual "facts on the ground".


    There really is no indication that the Old Latin is a "Received Text" Bible, and there is barely any indication that it is superior, textually, than the Vulgate.

    If Old Latin Bibles had a great superiority over the Vulgate, it was in the charm and lyricism and heart with which the Bibles were embraced by the groups that were persecuted by the rcc. They actually believed their Bibles. The Bible was not a secretive springboard for an oppressive ecclesiastical clique, those precious Bibles were the word of God in the hands of Christian believers.

    ======================

    Steven Avery

  5. Default

    Here I raised the question on a Baptist forum in 2010.

    KJV Bible Forums - Sept, 2010
    Streams of Bibles, the Reformation Bible & KJB Defense
    http://kjvbibleforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=4680


    And I started making a point of showing this more directly, in response to charts and various presentations, at least by November, 2014. (These next two Facebook posts, a little below, are also mentioned above.)

    =====

    The contra writer, Rick Norris, has extracted a number of the quotes from AV defenders (without offering any sensible overall Bible position.) Often his quotes are out-of-context, in this case, I have not seen any real problems with the quotes themselves, and they do represent the lineage of how the over-simplified two-streams theory was passed down. Rick likely drew from the Doug Kutilek earlier writings that discussed the Waldensian Bible theories.

    The Truth About the Waldensian Bible and the Old Latin Version (1991)
    Doug Kutilek
    http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_waldensian.htm

    I'll plan on placing at least a url to one of the Norris quote-snippet fests here as well.


    Like any good stopped clock, these gentlemen will be right twice a day, and much of what they wrote on this topic is sensible, they are pointing out weaknesses in a traditional AV position.

    =====


    Facebook
    King James Bible Debate - Nov, 2014
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/21209666692/permalink/10152500600026693/?comment_id=10152500991901693&offset=0&total_comments=27

    "The key error in these charts is simple, it is the false dichotomy created in the Latin lines."
    We still have this one from 2015.

    Textus Receptus Defence - June 6, 2015
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/3869...king={tn%3AR0}

    While the colors are nice, and the theory is interesting, the facts simply do not match up. Trying to put the Old Latin and the Vulgate on opposite sides of a divide simply does not match the evidences. The Vulgate made a solid contribution to the Reformation Bible. The Vaticanus text is far more corrupt than the Vulgate or Old Latin. The so-called Old Syriac is ultra-corrupt, the Peshitta is the better Syriac text. The Ethiopic is Alexandrian. The Bohemian is essentially from the Vulgate.

    .
    The basic problem, the textual paradigm is wrong, it was passed down from Benjamin Wilkinson, it is flawed, it has elements of truth and large elements of error when so presented, and overall, is better discarded. The alternatives is really understanding the dynamic of the development of the Reformation Bible and its purity, excellence and majesty, (As well as the Westcott-Hort Vaticanus primacy critical text corruption.) It is true that the rcc has embraced that textus corruptus now as its plan B, after the Reformation Bible defeated the Vulgate in the 1500s-->1700 Battle of the Bible.
    From the 1930s and Benjamin Wilkinson the Two Streams theory went to his writing in the Otis Fuller book, Which Bible?, c. 1970.

    God Wrote Only One Bible, (1955) Jasper James Ray

    Peter Ruckman in the 1960s:
    The Bible Babel:A Critical and Practical Survey of the Motives, Sources, and Methods of 20th Century Translations and Translators

    And I will try to add more detail and precision about this period of c. 1950 - 1970, however this is online and is helpful.

    God Wrote Only ONE Bible
    by David Otis Fuller, D.D. (1903 to 1988)
    Grand Rapids, Michigan
    TRACT # B-206 ORDER FROM:
    TABERNACLE BAPTIST CHURCH
    E. L. Bynum, Pastor
    http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/god_wrote_only_one_bible-fuller.htm

    The following are a few of the salient facts as recorded by Mr. Ray in his remarkable book.
    "A correlated historical summary of textual criticism reveals that only two streams of Bibles have come to us. These are the products of two separate systems. First, the true Christian Faith puts the Inspired Word of God above everything else. The other system puts something above the Bible, or places human traditions in a chair of equal authority with it. At the Council of Trent, called by the Catholic Church in 1546, A.D., 53 prelates made a decree declaring that the Apocryphal books, together with unwritten tradition, are of God, and are to be received and venerated as the Word of God."


    "Somewhere around the year 175 A.D. Tatian wrote a harmony of the four Gospels which was called the Diatessaron. This was so notoriously corrupt that a bishop of Syria was compelled to throw out of his churches two hundred copies because church members were taking it for the true Gospel." (This was one of the many forerunners of our modern day counterfeit RSV.)

    "An indication that Arianism (the denial of Christ's Deity) is with us today is to be found in the footnote of the ASV (American Standard Version) at John 9:38. In verse 35 the Lord Jesus asks the man born blind if he believes on the Son of God. In verse 38 he replies, "Lord, I believe, and he worshipped Him". In this footnote the translators plainly reveal the fact that they do not believe in the Deity of Christ but refer to Him as a mere creature of Adam's race. Turn to this in your American Standard Version and see for yourself. Referring to the word "worship" the note reads; 'The Greek word denotes an act of reverence, whether paid to a creature (AS HERE) or to the creator.' Consider this when you hear Bible teachers say; 'This is the best version!'" (And the ASV was published some 50 years before the RSV!)

    "A version is that which is translated, or rendered from one language to another. The Textus Receptus is NOT a version. It is composed of basic manuscript copies from which the King James Version was made. The Greek text of Westcott and Hort changed the reading of the Textus Receptus in 5,337 places. The Revision of 1881, the American Standard Version of 1901, and the Revised Standard Version Bibles, are in no true sense a revision of the King James of 1611. If they were, they would follow the same Greek text, the Textus Receptus, and thus would contain the same verses.

    "Textus Receptus is the Latin for the Received Text. This is the Greek manuscript used as a basis for the translation of the King James Bible in 1611. However, this collection of canonical manuscripts, written in the Greek language, did not receive the name 'Textus Receptus' until the days of the Elziver brothers in 1633. In the preface of their Greek New Testament they printed the following words translated into English, 'Therefore thou hast the text (textum) now received (receptum) by all, in which we give nothing altered or corrupt'."

    "A number of textual authorities state that the Bible of the Syrian Church, the Peshitta, was translated from the Greek Vulgate into Syrian about 150 A.D. . . . This Peshitta version is admired by Syriac scholars as a careful, faithful, simple, direct, literal version, clear and forceful in style. These characteristics have given it the title 'The Queen of the Versions'."

    Antioch was the capital of Syria where the early believers were first called Christians (Acts 11:26). In a few years the Syrian believers could be numbered by the thousands. Their Bible, the Peshitta, even today generally follows the Received Text (Textus Receptus). This is another proof that the foundation for the King James Bible is older and more reliable than the Codex Vaticanus which was elevated to the chair of authority by Westcott and Hort.

    Dr. Nolan, who acquired fame for his Greek and Latin scholarship, spent 28 years in tracing the Received Text (Textus Receptus) back to its apostolic origin. His searching led him to investigate the Bible texts of the Waldenses who were the lineal descendants of the Italic Church. This being done, Dr. Nolan says, "It has supplied me with the unequivocal testimony of a truly apostolic branch of the primitive church." This means that the Textus Receptus, the basis for the King James Version, has been proven to be in harmony with translations which go back to the second century. It is important to note here that the Sinaitic and Vatican MSS were not brought into existence for many years following the Textus Receptus, when Eusebius copied them for Constantine.
    Notice how the Frederick Nolan quote loses the context of the heavenly witnesses and now is given a new spin by putting it in the context of a Benjamin Wilkinson style analysis.

    Thus, the Standish brothers wrote in a smilar SDA-mode, although they tried to keep it simple, possibly aware that they were on shaky ground in the oversimplified analysis.

    Modern Bible Translations Unmasked (1993)
    http://www.sundaylaw.net/books/other...ns/mbtutoc.htm
    Chapter 1
    A Brief History of Bible Manuscripts and Translations
    Russell R. Standish and Colin D. Standish
    http://www.sundaylaw.net/books/other...ans/mbtu01.htm

    From these two copyist perspectives, two quite different streams of Greek manuscripts emerged. The Eastern stream, which became centered on Syria and Constantinople, remained true to the original writings of the apostles, while the Western stream, centered on Alexandria and Rome, was markedly flawed by both deliberate and careless alterations.
    Now the list of AV defenders, mostly Baptist, a couple SDA, some others, who have followed with this two streams argument, passed down from Wilkinson, is quite long. It includes Sam Gipp, Mickey Carter, Jack Moorman, James Sightler, David L. Brown, David Sorenson, Vance Ferrell, Alan O'Reilly and others.

    ============

    Incidentally, above Fuller is quoting J. J. Ray. Ray, however, simply plagiarized material from Benjamin Wilkinson, as shown in a 1991 article by Gary Hudson.

    THE REAL EYE OPENER: J. J. Ray's Plagiarism Of Benjamin G. Wilkinson
    [Originally printed in Baptist Biblical Heritage, Spring, 1991]
    http://biblechartsbyjerry.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-real-eye-opener-j-j-rays-plagiarism.html

    Ray’s book attempts to trace what he terms “two streams of Bibles” back through a highly subjective (and often inaccurate) history of New Testament manuscripts, one line being “corrupt” and the other “the Bible God wrote.” The one “God wrote” is, according to Ray, the “Textus Receptus” Greek of the KJV... On page 71, Ray has a chart of the “corrupt” line of Bibles which includes Jerome’s Latin Vulgate of 382 A. D. and the Douay version of 1582. Then on page 109, Ray includes the Wycliff translation of 1382 in his “pure stream” that allegedly descends from the “Original Textus Receptus.” Ray has not done his homework. A smattering of knowledge on the history of the English Bible would reveal to anyone that Wycliff’s Bible was translated directly from the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate, as was the Douay. Such carelessness on basic information is inexcusable.
    The contras can easily show the falsity of the "two streams" oversimplified construct by looking at the Latin lines.

    ============


    Steven

  6. Default Wilkinson attempts to answer objections

    Here is a longer section from Wilkinson, given in a response and analysis piece, that is itself uneven, but again, is helpful on this topic. Barbara Aho (if she is the writer) seems to be pro-TR but contra the AV perfection position. Offhand, I am not sure if this article worked with Doug Kutilek material.

    The quotes are generally available online directly in Wilkinson's book (later edition, different page numbers.)

    Our Authorized Bible Vindicated

    Benjamin Wilkinson
    https://books.google.com/books?id=CDuVBQAAQBAJ&pg=PT15

    Watch Unto Prayer
    Section III - The Real History of "King James Onlyism"
    Chapter XII - Origin of "King James Onlyism"
    http://watch-unto-prayer.org/shock-awe-12.pdf

    THE WALDENSES

    A good portion of Wilkinson’s book is devoted to portraying the medieval Waldenses as the “true Christians” who preserved the Textus Receptus during the Dark Ages.

    “Anyone who is interested enough to read the vast volume of literature on this subject, will agree that down through the centuries there were only two streams of manuscripts.

    The first stream which carried the Received Text in Hebrew and Greek, began with the apostolic churches, and reappearing at intervals down the Christian Era among enlightened believers, was protected by the wisdom and scholarship of the pure church in her different phases; by such as the church at Pella in Palestine where Christians fled, when in 70 A. D. the Romans destroyed Jerusalem; by the Syrian Church of Antioch which produced eminent scholarship; by the Italic Church in northern Italy; and also at the same time by the Gallic Church in southern France and by the Celtic Church in Great Britain; by the pre-Waldensian, the Waldensian. and the churches of the Reformation.” (Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, p. 12)

    Our Authorized Bible Vindicated
    https://books.google.com/books?id=CDuVBQAAQBAJ&pg=PT29

    “For nine hundred years, we are told, the first Latin translations held their own after the Vulgate appeared. The Vulgate was bom about 380 A.D. Nine hundred years later brings us to about 1280 A.D. This accords well with the fact that at the famous Council of Toulouse, 1229 A.D., the Pope gave orders for the most terrible crusade to be waged against the simple Christians of southern France and northern Italy who would not bow to his power. Cruel, relentless, devastating, this war was waged, destroying the Bibles, books, and every vestige of documents to tell the story of the Waldenses and Albigenses.

    “Since then, some authorities speak of the Waldenses as having as their Bible, the Vulgate. We regret to dispute these claims. But when we consider that the Waldenses were, so to speak, in their mountain fastnesses, on an island in the midst of a sea of nations using the Vulgate, without doubt they knew and possessed the Vulgate; but the Italic, the earlier Latin, was their own Bible, the one for which they lived and suffered and died.” (Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, p. 28)

    Our Authorized Bible Vindicated

    https://books.google.com/books?id=CDuVBQAAQBAJ&pg=PT24

    “It is evident that the so-called Christian Emperor gave to the Papacy his endorsement of the Eusebio-Origen Bible. It was from this type of manuscript that Jerome translated the Latin Vulgate which became the authorized Catholic Bible for all time.

    The Latin Vulgate, the Sinaiticus, the Vaticanus, the Hexapla, Jerome, Eusebius, and Origen, are terms for ideas that are inseparable in the minds of those who know. The type of Bible selected by Constantine has held the dominating influence at all times in the history of the Catholic Church. This Bible was different from the Bible of the Waldenses. and, as a result of this difference, the Waldenses were the object of hatred and cruel persecution, as we shall now show. In studying this history, we shall see how it was possible for the pure manuscripts, not only to live, but actually to gain the ascendance in the face of powerful opposition.” (Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, p. 22)
    The article then goes into its refutation and positions. There are weaknesses in what is expressed, but the basic position that Benjamin Wilkinson had misrepresented the Waldensian Bible issues, and thus the "two streams" concepts, is correct.

    However, some AV defenders have dug themselves into this presentation deeply. In a sense, it is almost like our version of the "deeply entrenched scholarship" that has blinded the Sinaiticus issue from the Critical Text Westcott-Hort recension folks. So, I believe I am impelled by the Holy Spirit to take this issue public. And to even quote from people whose overall positions are wrong, if they are mostly right on this question. Some AV defenders have properly avoided using this argument, and this can be complimented, but there still is a hesitation to say:

    "oops, that chart, that argument, is not really right"

    =====================

    Wilkinson tried to address this:

    Our Authorized Bible: Answers to Objections
    Benjamin George Wilkinson
    https://books.google.com/books?id=SxgnDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT229

    (Note: I hope to go through this interesting section as well.)
    https://books.google.com/books?id=SxgnDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT128

    This may go back to 1930, (and republished in 1989 by Leaves of Autumn press) right after publication, if it is the same as:

    A reply to the "Review" of my book, "Our Authorized Bible vindicated"
    http://www.worldcat.org/title/reply-...=di&ht=edition

    I. The Parallel Streams of Bibles.
    My Reviewers claim, (Section I, p. 9) that the “two parallel streams of Bible” (Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, p. 43) is arbitrarily created and does not rest upon historical authority. In my book, however, I proved conclusively that both the Textus Receptus and the Vaticanus MSS were already in existence in the days of Constantine; rivals to one another and constituting opposing Bibles. I also proved, historically, in the same chapter, that the Waldensian Bible was from the Textus Receptus. Now the Spirit of Prophecy says that the Waldensian Bible was of apostolic origin, uncorrupted, entire, and teaching apostolic Christianity. The Reformation adopted the Textus Receptus; the Jesuit counter-Reformation adopted the Vaticanus. Both these facts I proved soundly and completely in my book. If, therefore, the Textus Receptus and Vaticanus were rivals in the days of Constantine, the Textus Receptus being of apostolic origin, and the Vaticanus being a corruption of the Textus Receptus, then the Old Latin Bible of the Waldenses from the Textus Receptus was and we proved it so, historically, the rival of the Vulgate taken from manuscripts of the Vaticanus type.

    The Spirit of Prophecy endorses this line of reasoning. I gave in my book (p. 42) that quotation from Sister White which shows that the Waldenses possessed a Bible which came from apostolic days, was entire, was unadulterated and was ever sought by the fury of the papists to be corrupted. The Spirit of Prophecy, however, tells us that angels restrained their malignant hatred and their efforts to bury the Waldensian Bible under a mass of error and superstition.

    The Spirit of Prophecy further tells us that the Bible of Wycliffe was from the Latin (Vulgate) and contained many errors, but the Vulgate was a Catholic Bible. On the other hand, the Spirit of Prophecy tells us that the Greek Text of Erasmus corrected these errors, but the Greek text of Erasmus was the Textus Receptus. Therefore, the Waldenses had a pure Bible from the beginning, based on the Textus Receptus or in harmony with it. The reasoning then goes thus: (a) The Waldenses endorsed what was the apostolic Bible; (b) The Reformers endorsed what was the Waldensian Bible; (c) Sister White endorsed the Bible of the Reformation and the Waldensian Bible; (d) the Waldenses could not have guarded the Vulgate because it contained many errors.

    Note the following testimonies from authorities showing how these two parallel streams rivaled one another at different epochs in history:

    1. (a) In the first place Dr. Hort states definitely (“introduction” pp. 137, 138) Jerome’s antagonism to Antioch’s theology as he (Hort) declares Antioch to be the home of the Textus Receptus in 350 A.D.; and then (“Introduction,” p. 276) Dr. Hort places in opposition to this (Antioch’s) Textus Receptus the text formed from Vaticanus and Sinaiticus types of MSS as being true apostolic text. Here is rivalry and opposition of the two Bibles in Constantine’s time.

    (b) Dr. Schaff (“Companion,” etc. p. 113) says the Codex A or Alexandrinus occupies “an intermediate position between the oldest uncial (Vaticanus type) and the later cursive (Textus Receptus) text.” Here again are the two streams at the earliest dates of their rivalry, Constantine’s time.

    (c) Dr. Kenyon proves—as I previously showed—that the Latin reproduction of the Vaticanus type was simply the Itala or the Latin Textus Receptus type with the variant Textus Receptus readings removed.

    (d) Dr. Nolan (“Integrity,” pp. 432, 434) declared that Origen’s fabricated Greek Bible (Vaticanus type) tended to weaken the authority of the Authorized Greek Bible (Textus Receptus) in the Old as well as in the New Testament.

    (e) And finally Dr. Swete shows that in the days of Constantine the Textus Receptus and the Eusebio-Origin Bible were rivals and opposing versions. He also mentions a third version, the Hosychian, or African Bible. This ceased to be a line of its own, came to an end, and is not represented in modern versions.

    2. We proved from Dr. Jacobus that the Old Latin opposed the Vulgate for 1,000 years.

    3. We proved from the preface of the Jesuit Bible that the Waldensian Bible was the opponent of the Vulgate, the Jesuits called it the “false” heretical translation” of the Waldenses, and Sister White says that the Waldenses kept the truth uncorrupted for 1,000 years.

    4. We proved that the final split between the Catholics and Protestants came at the Council of Trent (1545-1563). My Reviewers made no attempt to notice or to answer the first four resolutions of that Council which I gave in my book, decreeing the Vulgate the authoritative Bible of the Papacy. Moreover, to have a Greek Manuscript in which to base authoritatively the Vulgate, the learned fathers of the Counsel of Trent, after searching through all the libraries of Italy, shrewdly understood the Vaticanus to be the manuscript.

    5. Dr. Fulke, when writing to the Queen of England in the preface of his book, just about the very time that the Council of Trent Fathers chose the Vaticanus, said:

    “In which, that I speak nothing of their insincere purpose in leaving the pure fountain of the original verity, to follow the crooked stream of their barbarous vulgar Latin translation, which (beside all other manifest corruptions) is found defective in more than an hundred places, as your majesty, according to the excellent knowledge in both the tongues wherewith God has blessed you, is very well able to judge.” p. 5 (Emphasis mine).
    6. Later in my book I presented the struggle between the Jesuit Bible of 1582 in English, and the Tyndale and Geneva Versions.

    7. I presented very clearly the great struggles that were on around the Revision table for ten years between Dr. Hort and Dr. Scrivener, the one standing for the Textus Receptus and the other for the Vaticanus. Of These scenes, Bishop Ellicott, president of the committee says. “It was often a kind of critical duel between Dr. Hort and Dr. Scrivener, in which everything that could be urged on either side was placed before the Company.” “Addresses,” p. 61.

    8. And finally, Hastings says:
    “The ordinary English student of the Bible is able readily to appreciate the points at issue in the controversy between the Alpha (Textus Receptus) and Beta (WH) texts, because they are substantially represented to him by the differences (so far as they are differences in text, and not merely in rendering) between the AV and the RV.” “Dictionary of the Bible,” p. 927 (Emphasis mine).

    On the quotation of the eclipse of the sun at the death of Christ, Dr. Frederick Fields says that the manuscripts began to divide on this point at the time of Origcn (Field’s Notes, p. 79).

    I would also recall here that Erasmus divided all Greek manuscripts into two classes; one which agreed with the Textus Receptus and the other which agreed with the Vaticanus. My Reviewers revived the old grouping made by Griesbach, into three classes, but exploded by Archbishop Lawrence. I gave these conclusions in my book. Everything which the Reviewers brought in counter argument, confirmed, but did not shake these conclusions.

    I think now that I have given evidence abundant enough for this short document, and amply backed by authorities to show the two parallel streams of Bibles
    .
    Even putting aside the appeals to Ellen G. White (what they call the "Spirit of Prophecy") this muddle-mess contains a boat-load of fallacies. Basically, Wilkinson has ignored all the fundamental problems of his two streams theory, and given a grab-bag of quotes and arguments that are interesting, but worthless to the actual point.

    (SIDENOTE: It would be interesting to see exactly what was said in the review.)

    Oh, notice how neither Wilkinson publication gives what would be the proof of the pudding. A list of the dozens of major variants where (supposedly, theoretically) the Old Latin manuscripts agree with the Received Text, while the Vulgate has the Alexandrian-Vaticanus-Westcott/Hort recension reading. Wilkinson gives not dozens, not 10, not 5, not 1. The Wilkinson Old Latin good line, Vulgate bad line, theory is simply worthless. It is, however, a fine example of building a theory on hopeful reading and twisting, conjecture and sand. And, in the Wilkinson iteration, a misplaced faith in “The Spirit of Prophecy.”

    Steven Avery

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •