Seeking scholastic research

[Harley]

Hello everyone,

If one were seeking the "gold standard" in terms of a single book defending the "King James Only" position, what book would that be?

If one were seeking the "gold standard" in terms of a single book refuting the "King James Only" position, what book would that be?

Ideally I would like a book that is based upon scholarship and not opinion or even worse, plagiarism of an earlier source.

I myself, having started out with a Nelson King James Bible, used a modern version for a while, and now I have a Cambridge (PCE) KJV from Allan. The argument is settled in my own mind, I will continue to use the KJV, regardless of evidence presented by either side. Still, I would like to read both arguments and rather than collect multiple books I seek one from each position that each position considers their best. I would also like to avoid posting this question is too many forums.

Any help/recommendations would be appreciated.

I do hope I have put this in the proper place, if not please move it to where it should belong.

Peace.
Harley

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by Harley

If one were seeking the "gold standard" in terms of a single book defending the "King James Only" position, what book would that be?

If one were seeking the "gold standard" in terms of a single book refuting the "King James Only" position, what book would that be?

Ideally I would like a book that is based upon scholarship and not opinion or even worse, plagiarism of an earlier source.

Good questions, Harley. My preliminary view is that no one book does the King James Bible position full justice, or even offers an ultra-solid and strong and properly contextual presentation. However, there are a number of books that are respected that I have never seen. So I am going to have to think about this a bit. William Grady's Final Authority was one of the first two books I read on the topic, and it still has a lot of pizazz, however I doubt it really mustard-cuts your question.

And there is only a "rust standard" or at best a "tin standard" when it comes to books opposing the King James Bible position, so that one is even harder.

I'll try for a bit more on this in a couple of days.

Shalom,
Steven

[Tandi]

Hi Everyone,

Not sure if this question belongs here, but since we are talking about KJV defense books........

I am reading Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, by Benjamin G. Wilkinson, Ph.D.

A question has come up concerning what the author means on page 20 about Constantine choosing the Hexapla Bible of Origen and ordering 50 Greek Bibles from it and that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus may be connected to these 50.

Question: Wasn't the Hexapla, and the 5th column (LXX) just the Old Testament Scriptures? Did Eusebius edit the fifth column and add the New Testament Scriptures? Is Wilkinson saying that the Hexapla Bible included the New Testament? Is he saying that the edited version of the fifth column included it?

[Tandi]

Hi again,

Steven directed me to an online resource where Wilkinson defends against his critics. Here is an excerpt that pertains to my question:

My Reviewers seek to indict me for considering that the Eusebian New Testament part of the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS was the text of Origen, as they seem to admit was the case with the Old Testament. (Sec. I, pp. 27, 28) Then they must indict Dr. Price, Dr. Robertson, Dr. Gregory, Burgon and Mille and Dr. Scrivener, Dr. Tischendorf even; for they all assume that the N.T. part of the Eusebian Bibles were of the Eusebio-Origen type as well as the Old Testament portion.

I wrote in my book (pages 20, 21) that "both these MSS were written in Greek, each contained the whole Bible." Statements from Dr. Robertson and others prove:

(1) That the Old Testament part of the Constantine Bibles was the Hexapla of Origen, and

(2) That it was bound with a Greek New Testament in the same Bible. I have right here raised a strong probability of a relationship between the Hexapla of the Old Testament and the New Testament of the Constantine Bibles. Now I did bring such good authorities to show that the Old Testament portion of the Constantine Bibles was the Hexapla, that my Reviewers admitted proof on that point. They say, (Section I, p. 28):

"The conclusion is, therefore unavoidable that the fifty copies of the Hexapla made for Constantine were of the fifth column Septuagint, which is confined to the Old Testament."

Very well; when they say that the fifty copies made for Constantine possessed for the old Testament the Hexapla, they admit that the Old Testament of the fifty copies was of a Eusebio-Origen type, since the text is Origen and the manuscript upon which the text is written is of Eusebius; and this you note is all I claimed in my book. For in my book I said (page 21):

"Whether or not the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were actually two of the fifty Bibles furnished by Eusebius for Constantine, at least they belonged to the same family as the Hexapla, the Eusebio-Origin type."

More here:

http://kjv.benabraham.com/html/section_-_v.html

[Psander]

Hello Tandi,

I read through the reply by Wilkinson. I think that he needs to simply admit his error and its grandiosity. His response requires speculative interpretation of his sources, and he should have admitted this upfront. I, however, consider the contempt with which he holds patristics and papists to be his desert as well, so I choose to assume that he made a serious mistake, and he should admit it.

kol tuv,
Peter

[Gerard Bouw]

Hi Tandi,

This approach is a sinking morass of ignorance that will ensnare all who enter into it. Wilkinson (ca. 1930) is too early in the debate. I recognize that most of what Wilkinson wrotes, and what you summarize, is from Eusebius' history of the church. So, I'm not sure what Psander means by "speculative interpretation."

What we really need to live up to the assumption of a pure Bible is to note that, as Wilkinson said, there are two "Bibles." Now I have not read but swatches of Wilkinson, so I cannot say whether what I am about to write is in agreement with him or not, but the two lines, Antiochian, and Alexandrian are God's and Satan's respectively. If that wording is too strong, substitute real and counterfeit instead. The former satisfies and assuages the truth-seeking soul, the latter aggravates and dessicates the truth-seeking soul. Those who are liars from birth (Psalm 58:3) see the former as froward (Psalm 18:26) and "prefer" (their word, not mine), the latter. The difference is that Antiochian text advocates believe that the Bible is a revelation, preserved (kept) by God inerrently and kept (defended) by its believers (Psalm 12:7; John 14:23). The Alexandrian text's advocates, however, believe that God did not keep his Bible (Psalm 12:7, "people"; John 14:23 "obey" in their version) and that God calls them to restore the Bible. Clearly, the Antiochians believe they can have the words of God in their hands whereas the Alexandrians believe "only the original autographs were inspired," a heresy invented by Warfield ca. 1850 and reflected in many a church's statement of faith these days.

Why do I say that Wilkinson is too early? Because iron sharpeneth iron and the debate has now had a century worth of honing. Grady's book is excellent. So is Floyd Jones' "Which Version is the Bible?" But the best of all the ones I've read is "Thou Shalt Keep Them: A Biblical theology of the perfect preservation of Scripture," Kent Brandenburg, Ed., Pillar and Ground Publishing: available at http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2008/04/you.html and from http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...ekingjamesbibl. This book is so powerful that it has even been suppressed by the Fundamentalists, even more, if it were possible, than the works of Dr. Peter Ruckman.

[Tandi]

Well it looks like I have lots of reading to do. I am especially interested in the Brandenburg book. His blog has lots of info on the preservation of Scripture. I especially enjoyed his article entitled, The Paradigm for Preservation of Scripture.

http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/...scripture.html

Here is another question that comes to mind.......

Haven't there been times of silence and hiddenness of God's Word? Couldn't the Scriptures be lost........and found......at various times? Why is it necessary to believe that the Scriptures were never lost and that there is an unbroken line of pure manuscript evidence?

I will continue reading at the Brandenburg blog but would welcome the responses of forum members on this topic.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by Tandi

Haven't there been times of silence and hiddenness of God's Word? Couldn't the Scriptures be lost........and found......at various times? Why is it necessary to believe that the Scriptures were never lost and that there is an unbroken line of pure manuscript evidence?

Not so much lost and found as scattered and gathered. Matthew Verschuur (bibleprotector) shared this a while back, and it connected a lot of dots.

The Reformation Bible represented the gathering of the truths and words of God from the Greek and Latin lines. While the fountainhead Greek was generally superior, both were far from perfect. And it simply took wisdom and anointing by the Reformation experts to understand this and develop the Reformation Bible, which in the Greek exemplar we call the Received Text (NT).

By overemphasizing the two lines and also by getting involved in some diversionary ideas (including a recent theory of Gail Riplinger's about the vernacular versions) the simplicity and clarity and power of God working through the Reformation Bible has often been missed. In one sense the King James Bible is simply derivative, yet it is also perfective.

Thus the King James Bible simply represents the purity of the Reformation Bible .. the uplifting labours of Desiderius Erasmus & Robert Étienne (Stephanus) & Theodore Beza .. brought to perfection. A simiilar uplifting occured in both the Greek TR and the English Holy Bible. In English the improvements were dramatic, first came Tyndale with the superb Bible of the early 1500s, then the even more excellent Coverdale and Geneva Bibles .. and then the perfect King James Bible (with a few other editions in between).

Shalom,
Steven Avery