A Reply to Dr. Daniel Wallace’s
Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible is the Best
Translation Available Today
Twenty Points of Criticism Answered
Dr. Jack A. Moorman
October 5, 2005
Dr. Wallace is professor of New Testament Studies at
Dallas Theological Seminary, and has written frequently concerning the
textual debate. Some ten or so articles listed on his website oppose the
AV/TR position.
The views Dr. Wallace expresses in Why I Do Not
Think the King James Bible is the Best Translation Available Today are
incorrect for the following reasons:
1. The points raised against the AV/TR are
the usual ones. They have been raised and answered repeatedly and fully.
Substantial rebuttal is available in print and on the web. Dr. Wallace
should have, in fairness, made some acknowledgement of this. For a
thorough review of many of these and other points, see the three recent
books by Dr. D. A. Waite: Fundamentalist Deception
on Bible Preservation, Fundamentalist Mis-information on Bible
Versions, Fundamentalist Distortions on Bible Versions. It
should be noted that Dr. Wallace is not a fundamentalist.
2. After disparaging the AV (and TR),
Wallace does not tell us which is the best available translation!
He does not identify a preferred replacement. This is not untypical
today. In the recent From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man book,
no clear direction is given as to what we should put in the place of the
AV. This is a tacit acknowledgement that nothing in any permanent sense
has taken the place of the AV. They find themselves in a limbo!
3. An attempt is made to put the first
editor of the printed Received Text in an unjustly negative light. "The
man who edited the text was a Roman Catholic priest and humanist named
Erasmus." Material is available today that gives a much fairer perspective
to Erasmus and his work. Edward Hills, The Kings James Version Defended,
is still one of the best sources. (See also the sources in The Bible
Version Question/Answer Database by David Cloud). Erasmus (1466-1536)
was of course Catholic as was nearly everyone else at that time. But, at
his monastery, he was far more of a continual student with a voracious
appetite for knowledge than a priest in the normal sense. It is in this
respect rather than in the modern atheistic sense that he was a humanist.
Many of his writings were scathing against the Catholic Church. He died
among his Protestant friends and was buried in a Protestant cemetery. He
had embraced much of the teaching of the Reformation, but had not come out
openly in its support by formally leaving the Catholic Church.
Erasmus was acclaimed the greatest intellect of Europe,
and became the man of the hour to initiate the transfer of the
Traditional Text from manuscript to printed form. His Greek editions
provided the base for the great Reformation Bibles, and lit the fire for
the Reformation itself. Wallace and others would like us to concentrate
instead on his deficiencies, and have us jump from Erasmus and his 1516
edition directly to the AV of 1611. By this they seek to attach any
deficiency in the man and his work to the AV itself. Wallace will of
course not acknowledge that the AV was the product of nearly a century
of prayerful textual and linguistic refinement.
4. Wallace would also have us make much of
the publisher Froben’s haste in printing Erasmus’ first edition (1516)
before the Spanish Cardinal Ximenes’ Complutensian Polyglot Bible went to
press. He makes no mention that in the following year the Reformation was
to break out in Wittenberg, in which this first printing of the Greek NT
was to become a (in fact, the) major impetus. This is a powerful
demonstration of God’s providence in the timing of the publication. (See
Hills, and also S.P. Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text, p.
20).
5. Erasmus "only used half a dozen, very
late manuscripts for the whole New Testament". Wallace ignores that
Erasmus was conversant with many manuscripts in his searches across
Europe. Those which he had before him at Basel for his 1516 edition can be
demonstrated to have been good representatives (See Hills, p.198). David
Cloud in his The Bible Version Question/Answer Database has
gathered a number of important citations on this question, including the
following:
For the first edition Erasmus had before him ten
manuscripts, four of which he found in England, and five at Basle…The
last codex was lent him by John Reuchlin…(and) ‘appeared so old to
Erasmus that it might have come from the apostolic age’. (Preserved
Smith, Erasmus: A Study of His Life, Ideals, and Place in History,
1923).
‘If I told what sweat it cost me, no one would
believe me’. He had collated many Greek manuscripts of the N.T. and was
surrounded by all the commentaries and translations. (D’Aubigne,
History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, vol. 5, p.
157).
6. Erasmus’ manuscript of Revelation is said
to have been lacking in the last six verses (22:16-21), and was supplied
by referring to the Latin Vulgate. Herman Hoskier in his massive, and I
must add, difficult to use, Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse,
has shown that Erasmus may have had Greek manuscript 2049 (Hoskiers’s 141)
covering these verses (I 474-77; II 454, 635). But whatever the case, Dr.
Wallace should have told the rest of the story; that is, if indeed Erasmus
used the Vulgate, in his later editions it was corrected by direct
reference to the Greek.
One notable exception is claimed to be 22:19 where the
AV/TR reads: …shall take away his part out of the book of life.
This has fairly substantial support in other sources, but is found in only
three Greek manuscripts (296 2049 2067mg.). The variant reading, though
supported by the Greek, can hardly be said to make sense: …shall take
away his part out of the tree of life. In When the KJV Departs from
the "Majority" Text, and using Hoskier, I have listed support from the
manuscripts, versions, and fathers for eight passages in Revelation
22:15-21.
7. Dr. Wallace repeats the familiar
arguments against I John 5:7, and the circumstances of Erasmus "placing it
in the text if someone could show him a Greek manuscript containing the
passage, to which a manuscript was hastily prepared for that purpose". A
letter from the Erasmian scholar H. J. de Jonge to Michael Maynard in 1995
puts the matter in a different light. Quoting Erasmus in his dispute with
Edward Lee, de Jonge says:
Erasmus first records that Lee had reproached him
with neglect of the MSS. of I John. Erasmus (according to Lee) had
consulted only one MS. Erasmus replies that he had certainly not used
only one MS., but many copies, first in England, then in Brabant, and
finally in Basle. He cannot accept, therefore, Lee’s reproach of
negligence and impiety.
‘Is it negligence and impiety, if I did not consult
manuscripts which were not within my reach? I have at least assembled
whatever I could assemble. Let Lee produce a Greek MS. which contains
what my edition does not contain and let him show that that manuscript
was within my reach. Only then can he reproach me with negligence in
sacred matters.
From this passage you can see that Erasmus does not
challenge Lee to produce a manuscript etc. What Erasmus argues is that
Lee may only reproach Erasmus with negligence of MSS. if he demonstrates
that Erasmus could have consulted any MS. in which the Comma
Johanneum figured. Erasmus does not at all ask for a MS. containing
the Comma Johanneum. He denies Lee the right to call him
negligent and impious if the latter does not prove that Erasmus
neglected a manuscript to which he had access.
(Michael Maynard, A History of the Debate over I
John 5:7,8, p. 383).
Jeffrey Khoo points out:
Yale professor Roland Bainton…. agrees with de Jonge,
furnishing proof from Erasmus’ own writing that Erasmus’ inclusion of I
John 5:7f was not due to a so-called ‘promise’ but the fact that he
believed ‘the verse was in the Vulgate and must therefore have been in the
Greek text used by Jerome’. (Kept Pure in all Ages, p.88; cited
from D.W. Cloud, The Bible Version Question/Answer Database,
p.343). See also And These Three are One by Jesse Boyd, Wake
Forest, 1999.
Michael Maynard’s monumental work on the disputed
passage will, I think, demonstrate to many that this has not been a debate
over "thin air". His book chronicles the fact that defence of the faith
and defence of this passage frequently went hand in hand. Beginning from
the days of Cyprian of Carthage (died 258), there is indeed substantial
evidence for the passage. Cyprian said:
The Lord saith, "I and the Father are one;" and again
it is written concerning the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, "And three are
one". (de Catholicae ecclesiae unitate, c.6).
Critics have argued that Cyprian was merely giving a
Trinitarian interpretation to verse 8. The spirit, and the water, and
the blood: and these three agree in one.
The answer to this is obvious; the figures of verse 8
cannot naturally be interpreted as the Persons of the Holy Trinity. (See
Hills).
Though missing in most Greek manuscripts, it
nevertheless leaves in them its footprint with the mismatched
genders that result when the disputed words are removed. The loose ends do
not match up grammatically! Native Greek speakers find this "glaring".
Here in London, the printed Apostolos (the lectionary text used in
Greek Orthodox services) contains the passage.
8. Wallace says of the AV translators:
"These scholars, who admitted that their work was provisional and not
final (as can be seen by their preface and by their more than 8000
marginal notes indicating alternate renderings), would wholeheartedly
welcome the great finds in MSS that have occurred in the past one hundred
and fifty years."
In neither The Dedication to the King, nor
The Translators to the Reader do I find an inference where the AV
translators "admitted that their work was provisional". To the King
they declare: "out of the Original Sacred Tongues…there should be one more
exact translation of the Holy Scriptures into the English Tongue". And,
to the Reader they write: "Truly, good Christian Reader, we never
thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation,
nor yet to make of a bad one a good one…but to make a good one better, or
out of many good ones one principle good one, not justly to be accepted
against." (pp. xv,xvi). Wallace calls their work provisional; the
AV translators say it is one principle good one.
9. Regarding marginal readings, these
provided a kind of miniature commentary. In the comparatively few places
where we find them, those translators who trusted in Him that hath the
key of David (Translators to the Reader, p. xvi), showed by
inclusion in the text what their decision had been, while at the same time
giving insight into what the Original was capable of expressing. In some
cases they show a strictly literal rendering which to translate directly
into English would have been awkward.
In only 104 instances (Scrivener) is a variant reading
from different manuscripts given. Here they show their awareness, but not
to the point of distracting the reader, and certainly not to the point of
Wallace’s claim that the AV translators would have "welcomed the great
finds in MSS that have occurred in the last 150 years". Erasmus knowledge
of variant readings in Codex B is well documented. In an attempt to
persuade Erasmus of the superiority of B, 365 variant readings were sent
to him in early November 1533 from Rome by the Spaniard Sepulveda
(Maynard, pp. 87,88). Erasmus rejected these for his 1535 edition.
They were rejected by succeeding editors of the Received Text, and by the
great Reformation Bibles both in English and other languages. The men of
the AV knew where the dangers lurked in the manuscript record. For
example, Codex D, and the Clementine Vulgate (a much more corrupt 1592
replacement for the Sixtine edition), were at their disposal. They had the
spiritual discernment to reject the corrupt variants that these and other
sources presented.
10. Wallace speaks of a "100,000 changes"
being made to the AV over the centuries. Nearly all of the changes were
updated punctuation and spelling, along with correction of some printing
errors. Dr. D. A. Waite’s thorough research into this question has shown
that very little difference can be detected when reading a 1611 edition
and the AV of today. Among the 791,328 words in the AV only 421 showed a
change in sound. Of these there were only 136 changes of substance,
such as an added "of" or "and". (See Defending the King James
Bible, pp. 3-5, and B.F.T. 1294). When writers speak of many thousands of
changes, and especially Wallace with his 100,000 (!), we wonder if they
mean to be taken seriously. It is completely false.
11. In attempting to explain why the TR is
fuller than the Aleph-B text, ("The KJV is filled with readings that have
been created by overly zealous scribes"), Wallace repeats one of the
Westcott and Hort canons when he says: "textual evidence shows me that
scribes had a strong tendency to add rather than subtract". It is in fact
the opposite! Where there is deliberate alteration, it is far easier to
remove words than to add them. Given that there are nearly 2900 additional
words in the TR (including the bracketed portions), let him explain how
such could have taken place without a mention in textual history of the
wholesale editing venture necessary to bring this about.
In view of the huge majority of manuscripts containing
this fuller text, with countless scribes involved, spanning many
centuries, covering a wide geographic area, Dr. Wallace must also explain
how it could have been done so consistently. How could this vast
majority of manuscripts show the same so-called "additions"? How is
it that he fails to see or admit that it is far easier to take away
from the few than to add to the many? Wallace is at variance
with other critical editors on this point:
But these figures suggest strongly that the general
tendency during the early period of textual transmission was to
omit…Other things being equal one should prefer the longer reading.
(James R. Royse, "Scribal Tendencies in the Transmission of the Text",
The Text of the N.T. in Contemporary Research, Ehrman and Holmes
eds., 1995, p. 246).
The few manuscripts after being tampered with
were generally ignored by copyists. Nothing approaching an extended direct
copy or exemplar of either Aleph or B has been found! The search has been
"fruitless", (See T.C. Skeat, "The Codex Sinaiticus, The Codex Vaticanus
and Constantine," Journal of Theological Studies, 50, pp. 619,20.).
In fact Skeat goes on to say that Aleph remained "a pile of loose leaves"
for some considerable time, (perhaps as much as two centuries!), before
being bound up (p. 609). Dr. Wallace must be pressed to explain how such a
thing could have befallen these few which he says are the "best
manuscripts".
12. Wallace claims that "very few of the
distinctive King James readings are demonstrably ancient". In our book
Early Manuscripts, Church Fathers, and the Authorized Version, there
is a thorough manuscript-by-manuscript evaluation of this question. The
entire range of Greek manuscripts, early versions, and fathers before 400
AD are asked to vote on 356 distinctive and doctrinal AV passages.
Overall they vote strongly in favor of the AV. Regarding the Egyptian
papyri, all but six are fragments, and many of the doctrinal passages are
indeed missing. However, Harry Sturz in his The Byzantine Text-Type and
New Testament Textual Criticism has shown that there is considerable
support for the other distinctive AV readings in the papyri. The "Five Old
Uncials", Aleph, A, B, C, D, have long been claimed as the sole domain of
the Critical Text. There is in fact among them considerable support for
the distinctive AV doctrinal passages. In Early Manuscripts, Church
Fathers, and the Authorized Version, an investigation of five
categories of Greek manuscripts, eighteen categories of early versions,
Tatian’s Diatessaron, and the fathers before 400 AD, show a decisive
preponderance of evidence for the AV/TR.
13. Again, Wallace says: "There are over
400,000 textual variants among the N.T. manuscripts. But the differences
between the Textus Receptus and the texts based on the best Greek
witnesses number about 5000." He should have explained how he arrived at
400,000. Had he gone to the trouble, he would have tacitly revealed a very
uncomfortable fact for his position. A hugely disproportionate amount of
the variation is to be found among the relatively few manuscripts
supporting the Aleph-B text. The critical editors, Barbara Aland and Klaus
Wachtel admit this:
The papyri and majuscules are for the most part
individual witnesses: despite sharing general tendencies on the forms of
their texts, they differ so widely from one another that it is
impossible to establish any direct genealogical ties among them. ("The
Greek Minuscule Manuscripts of the N.T.", The Text of the N.T. in
Contemporary Research, p.46).
If these few cannot agree among themselves, then how
can Wallace call them the "best Greek witnesses"? As so little of an
Aleph-B kind of manuscript is available, clearly early scribes did not
think them best. Nor did the scribes of the 8th/9th
Centuries think them best when they transferred the text from uncial to
minuscule script. Further, the manuscripts that were widely copied are
known to be strongly cohesive, with narrow variation margins. Their
variation is usually just enough to let us know that they are independent
productions with long transmissional lines.
14. Though admitting 5000 differences
between the AV and modern version text, Wallace seeks to downplay the
extent of difference. He says, "the two are remarkably similar" and "agree
98% of the time" and "that the vast majority of variations are so trivial
as to not even be translatable, (the most common is the moveable nu…)".
He is wrong on the number of differences. In our book
8000 Differences, a total of 8,032 variation units are
listed. Not one of these is a moveable nu. A variation unit may
involve the spelling of a word, substitution of different words, changing
the order of the same words, frequently the removal of words, and at times
the addition of words. A variation unit may comprise anything from one
word to many verses.
He is wrong to say that the two texts agree "98% of the
time". If there are a total of 140,521 words in the Received Text, with
8000+ variation units of difference between it and the revised text, and
with many of these variation units containing multiple words, clauses,
sentences, and even verses, then simple arithmetic will show that a
substantial part of the New Testament has been affected.
In order to check further the list of variation units
in my book 8000 Differences, a friend prepared a computer-generated
printout in which the two texts were combined. In this, the
unaffected portions of text are shown along with the variations. Here,
side-by-side the TR reading (Scrivener) is underlined, and the
Nestle-Aland is crossed out. Vertical markings beside the text show
further where a line of Scripture is affected. This gives a remarkable
visual demonstration of the extent to which the lines of New Testament
text are affected.
He is wrong in saying, "that the vast majority of
variations are so trivial as to not even be translatable". Where, for
example, it is "only" the spelling of a word, it will still affect the
sound of the word and frequently the inflection and structure of the Greek
sentence. When we believe that "all Scripture is given by
inspiration of God" (II Tim. 3:16), and that "every word of God is
pure" (Prov. 30:5), questions will not be raised as to which differences
are "trivial", and which are not. If this is how God breathed out His
Word, then this is how it must stand!
The variation will often affect the English
translation. Where the variation is not translatable, a search of the list
will show that the underlying text is frequently weakened or lessened in
some way. This I suppose would be like having green grass even though the
root structure beneath has been weakened.
15. Wallace tells us "most textual critics
for the past 250 years would say that no doctrine is affected by these
changes". Yes, that is what they and he say, and it is false. Many
of God’s faithful servants have over the years compiled long lists of
these alterations and omissions. They have set out clearly the extent to
which the great doctrines have been weakened and undermined. It can only
be due to peer pressure, scholarly pride and wilful blindness that this
statement is made. My own list of 356 passages gives a clear
demonstration. He cannot merely brush this aside by saying: "Those who
vilify the modern translations and the Greek texts behind them have
evidently never really investigated the data. Their appeals are based
largely on emotion, not evidence." Yes, we are filled with emotion when we
see our Bible treated in this way, and we have also investigated the data.
16. The AV English is said to be "difficult
to understand". Indeed, it is different. It is not like your
morning newspaper, but its English is not difficult, as a
section-by-section comparison with other translations will show. For a
computer generated analysis of this question see The Reading Ease of
the King James Bible by D. A. Waite Jr. Here using four readability
formulas, (Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch Grade Level, Flesch-Kincaid,
Gunning Fog Index), Mr. Waite’s research shows the AV to be rated as
"fairly easy". Though nearly 400 years old, on the question of
readability alone (i.e. to understand what was written), the AV
achieved approximately the same scores as five recent versions. He also
shows that AV words are frequently shorter in syllables and letters.
In other respects, there is no comparison. A
section-by-section comparison will show that while the AV is a formal
equivalence translation (word for word from the original) rather than the
so-called dynamic equivalence, its English has depths, fountains,
and is living and rhythmic. In contrast, modern version English have been
said to be "Formica flat", tepid, wooden. Recent authors, often secular,
have stressed this point. The AV can be read aloud, memorized, and quoted
with authority and reverence. It has rhythm. It flows. Whereas, in public
reading, the cadence and timing of the NIV, NASV and NKJV is flawed, with
halts and breaks.
Meditation, memorization and earnest study are all
greatly diminished with the modern Bibles. They are not held dear
as the AV was. Perhaps the following quotation from Psalm 23:1 of the
Contemporary English Version gives a classic example of the reason
why.
You, Lord are my shepherd, I will never be in need.
You let me rest in fields of green grass.
The AV displays the full flowering of the English
language, and in fact shaped that language. It is not archaic or
Elizabethan, as comparison with that era will show. It was never
contemporary, but always a step apart from the common. In this sense it is
somewhat more refined than Tyndale’s Version. It has maintained a timeless
reverence and grandeur that draws the heart upward to God.
17. Wallace points to "Suffer little
children", and "Study to show thyself approved", as two examples of
AV words "which no longer bear the same meaning". I think he considerably
overstates the case. Yes, we could replace these with permit and
give diligence, but the impact would be lessened. We could change
noised about to reported, but the former gives a better picture
of what was actually taking place in Luke 1:65 and Mark 2:1. We could
attempt to replace the eth verb endings in the AV with a present
tense or perhaps a past, but would find that the eth (historical
present) is not adequately translated by either. (See, The New King
James Bible, G. W. and D. E. Anderson, Trinitarian Bible Society, pp.
12,13). We could replace the thees and thous with "you", but
would then remove the means of distinguishing between singular pronouns
(thee, thou), and plural pronouns (you). With their removal we would also
be removing a more reverent form of address to God.
Given the age of the AV it is remarkable that so little
is archaic. Again, much more has been made of this than the case
warrants. Among the words generally termed archaic, I would estimate from
a list I have seen that not many over 35 or 40 would perhaps need a
dictionary. Often, the context indicates the meaning. A study of these
so-called archaic words will show that they frequently have a greater
depth of meaning than their modern replacements.
18. Wallace tells us that "as the Greek has
strain out a gnat"; the AV’s strain at a gnat (Matt. 23:24)
is "one very definite error in translation". Wycliffe (1395) had
clensinge a gnatte, but the four Reformation Bibles before the AV (Tyndale,
Coverdale, Geneva, Bishops) read strayne out a gnat. As subsequent
refinements to the AV text allowed this reading to remain, it is highly
unlikely, as some have suggested, that this was a printer’s error.
The AV translators made a decision to go against their
predecessors, and this likely for the following reasons:
(1) The word strain (diulizontes) is found only
here in the N.T. It is a present participle (rather than an aorist) and
means to strain or filter. The present participle indicates that an
ongoing rather than completed action is taking place. It points to the
effort involved, rather than that they actually succeeded and got the gnat
out. In 1729, Daniel Mace made a translation of the N.T., and rendered the
words, strain for a gnat, which conveys the same meaning as the AV.
(2) Only one gnat is involved. At first discovery of
this tiny, lone, solitary creature all else stopped. Rather than remove it
with a spoon, the entire contents must be filtered, suitable cloths were
brought, and with much show and ritual the filtering process began. Thus
they strain at a gnat. That is, at the first sight of only one gnat
the filtering ceremony begins.
(3) When "out" is used in the N.T., we expect to see an
underlying Greek preposition, usually ek or apo. There is
none here.
Commentators as Poole, Henry, and Gill (non revised) do
not take issue with the AV reading. See also
www.geocities.com/brandplucked/strain.html
There is no proven gnat here for Dr. Wallace to strain
at.
19. The second translation error alleged is
Hebrews 4:8: For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not
afterward have spoken of another day. Wallace says: "This sounds as
though Jesus could not provide the eternal rest that we all long for!
However the Greek word for Jesus is the same as the word for Joshua. And
in the context of Heb. 4, Joshua is obviously meant. There is no textual
problem here; it is rather simply a mistake on the part of the
translators, perpetuated for the last 400 years in all editions of the
KJV."
Indeed the passage is not textual or for that matter
translational; this is exactly what the Greek says. It has though been an
interpretational issue. Translators are to translate, rather than
interpret. The men of the AV translated the Hebrew O.T. names as they
appeared in Greek. See for example, the genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke
3. Notice that they gave the same translation in Acts 7:45: Which also
our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the
possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our
fathers. By reading "Jesus" in Heb. 4:8, the AV followed most of the
English Bibles which came before: Wycliffe, the Great, Tavener’s,
Matthew’s, Bishop’s and the Geneva; whereas Tyndale and Coverdale read
"Joshua". Wallace wrongly gives the impression that this began with the
AV.
Joshua was a pre-eminent Old Testament type of Christ.
There is agreement in their names. There is agreement in their
work, both led and lead into rest. By translating (actually
transliterating) rather than interpreting the Greek, this parallel between
type and antitype is clearly shown in the New Testament. And to repeat, by
this we are put on notice that both have the same name.
It is also to be pondered (Josh.5:13-15), that on the
eve before Joshua led Israel across Jordan, he was on his face before
Jesus! Thus it was Jesus Himself who provided their way across
Jordan and into the Promise Land. But, the rest He then gave was not the
final rest. Type and Antitype are very close here.
The four examples Wallace gives of so-called archaic
English and incorrect translation have simply not made their point.
20. Dr. Wallace concludes: "I trust this
brief survey of reasons I have for thinking that the King James Bible is
not the best available translation will not be discarded quickly". In fact
both for his own good and those who follow him, his "reasons" should be
"discarded quickly". It is a downward course. After announcing that he no
longer accepts passages as John 3:13, John 7:53- 8:11, I Timothy 3:16, he
says, "I find it difficult to accept intellectually the very passages
which I have always embraced emotionally". And, matters will and do slide
further. The following is from a 9/12/94 article in Christianity Today
where Wallace praises Karl Barth and bemoans bibliolatry.
One of the chief legacies Karl Barth left behind was
his strong Christocentric focus. It is a shame that too many of us have
reacted so strongly to Barth, for in our zeal to show the deficiencies
of his doctrine of Scripture, we have become bibliolaters. (O Timothy,
Oct. 94).
In The Synoptic Problem, which is available on
his website, he supports the redaction approach to the Gospels. This
theory teaches that the Gospels were given, not by direct inspiration, but
rather by copying from each other, and from a common secondary source.
(See O Timothy, vol. 15-7, 98).
It is quite impossible to hold that the three
synoptic gospels were completely independent from each other. In the
least, they had to have shared a common oral tradition (p.1).
We shall see later that before the Gospels were
written there did exist a period in which the gospel materials were
passed on orally, and it is clear that this oral tradition influenced
not only the first of our synoptic Gospels but the subsequent ones as
well (p. 4).
The majority of NT scholars hold to Markan
priority….This is the view adopted in this paper as well (p.6).
One argument concerning Mark’s harder readings…is the
probability that neither Luke nor Matthew had pristine copies of Mark at
their disposal…An intermediate scribe is probably responsible-either
intentionally or unintentionally-for more than a few of the changes
which ended up in Luke and Matthew (note 49).
When verbal preservation is abandoned, a denial or
weakening of verbal inspiration will generally follow. In fact upon
examination one cannot really hold to the one without the other.
We can do no better in closing than to contrast the
kind of scholarship which characterizes support for today’s versions with
that of the men who translated the AV.
Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in
the light; that breaketh the shell, that we may eat the kernel; that
putteth aside the curtain, that we may look into the most holy place;
that removeth the cover of the well, that we may come by the water; even
as Jacob rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well, by which
means the flocks of Laban were watered (Translators to the Reader,
p. vii).
And in what sort did these assemble? In the trust of
their own knowledge, or of their sharpness of wit, or deepness of
judgment, as it were in an arm of flesh? At no hand. They trusted in him
that hath the key of David, opening, and no man shutting; they prayed to
the Lord, the Father of our Lord, to the effect that St Ausgustine did;
O let thy Scriptures be my pure delight; let me not be deceived in them,
neither let me deceive by them. In this confidence, and with this
devotion, did they assemble together (p. xvi).
J. A. Moorman 5 October 2005
|
