Monday, December 30, 2013

What Do the Multiple Version Men Leave Us With?






















Friday, December 27, 2013


Irenaeus, who probably wrote his Against Heresies between A. D. 180-185,[i] while discussing the reading “666” concerning the mark of the beast and the presence of a variant reading of “616,”[ii] stated:
A footnote in the Ante-Nicene Fathers text to the “in all the most approved and ancient copies” clause in this quotation reads, en pasi toiß spoudaioiß kai arcaioiß antigrafoiß. This passage is interesting, as showing how very soon the autographs of the New Testament must have perished, and various readings crept into the mss. of the canonical books.”[v]  Does this clause indicate indeed that the autographs were already gone?  A number of factors suggest otherwise.  First, the conclusion is entirely an argument from silence. That the autographa are not specifically mentioned does not necessitate their nonexistence.  Second, Irenaeus wonders that anyone receives the corrupt reading 616—after all, the correct number is in “all the most approved and ancient copies.”  As the autograph of the Revelation, by definition, was only in one place, but a great number of copies had been made from it (a definite implication from Irenaeus’ declaration, and one in favor of a correct textual transmission), his statement apparently relates to the ease of access to one of these “approved” and “ancient” copies, which would have corrected misunderstanding concerning the apocalyptic number for those who were proclaiming 616. An indirect indication of the loss of the less easily accessible original was not in view.  Third, what surely made these copies “approved” was the certainty of their identity with the autograph, which would certainly have been much easier to establish if it was still extant, rather than lost.  The word antigrafoß was used for a “certified copy of an official document”[vi]; these copies could have been made directly from the original penned by John the apostle, or at least had a verifiable and short genealogy to the autograph.  It is noteworthy that “all” of these approved copies, not “most” or “almost all,” read 666; this also suggests their common recent derivation from the original.  Fourth, Irenaeus had absolute certainty concerning the correct text;  666 was “the true number . . . the sure number,” and partisans for the alternative were worthy of “no light punishment” who will “necessarily fall” as “false prophets” for adding or taking away from Scripture (Revelation 22:18-19).  Even those who unknowingly advocate the wrong number require “pardon.”[vii]  His certainty concerning the correct text is consistent with yet extant autographs.  Fifth, “those men who saw John face to face” were still a controlling factor limiting textual alteration;  they apparently were able to verify the correct text and were interested in doing so.  Irenaeus’ statement concerning the existence and distribution of authoritative “approved and ancient copies,” which he knew with certainty reflected the Johannine autograph, does not demonstrate the early loss of the original and the rapidity of universal textual deterioration—it rather testifies to the opposite.
            Caius, who apparently flourished in Rome at the beginning of the third century,[viii] in a work against the heresy of Artemon, stated:
The sacred Scriptures [the followers of Artemon] have boldly falsified, and the canons of the ancient faith they have rejected, and Christ they have ignored, not inquiring what the sacred Scriptures say, but laboriously seeking to discover what form of syllogism might be contrived to establish their impiety. And should any one lay before them a word of divine Scripture, they examine whether it will make a connected or disjoined form of syllogism; and leaving the Holy Scriptures of God, they study geometry, as men who are of the earth, and speak of the earth, and are ignorant of Him who cometh from above. Euclid, indeed, is laboriously measured by some of them. And Aristotle and Theophrastus are admired; and Galen, forsooth, is perhaps even worshipped by some of them. But as to those men who abuse the arts of the unbelievers to establish their own heretical doctrine, and by the craft of the impious adulterate the simple faith of the divine Scriptures, what need is there to say that these are not near the faith? For this reason is it they have boldly laid their hands upon the divine Scriptures, alleging that they have corrected them. And that I do not state this against them falsely, any one who pleases may ascertain. For if any one should choose to collect and compare all their copies together, he would find many discrepancies among them. The copies of Asclepiades, at any rate, will be found at variance with those of Theodotus. And many such copies are to be had, because their disciples were very zealous in inserting the corrections, as they call them, i.e., the corruptions made by each of them. And again, the copies of Hermophilus do not agree with these; and as for those of Apollonius, they are not consistent even with themselves. For one may compare those which were formerly prepared by them with those which have been afterwards corrupted with a special object, and many discrepancies will be found. And as to the great audacity implied in this offence, it is not likely that even they themselves can be ignorant of that. For either they do not believe that the divine Scriptures were dictated by the Holy Spirit, and are thus infidels; or they think themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and what are they then but demoniacs? Nor can they deny that the crime is theirs, when the copies have been written with their own hand; nor did they receive such copies of the Scriptures from those by whom they were first instructed in the faith, and they cannot produce copies from which these were transcribed. And some of them did not even think it worthwhile to corrupt them; but simply denying the law and the prophets for the sake of their lawless and impious doctrine . . . they sunk down to the lowest abyss of perdition.[ix]
Caius assails his opponents for their corruption of Scripture, evidencing that such alteration of the words “dictated by the Holy Spirit” was considered a damnable crime.  One of the ways he proves that his opponents, rather than his own party, were the corruptors of the text, is his statement that the heretics were not able to indicate the source of their own copies.[x]  The allegation that the Artimonians “cannot produce copies from which [their own] were transcribed” would be empty if the orthodox were not themselves able to demonstrate that their copies matched the autographs.  This suggests that the originals were still extant in Caius’ day.

Note: this entire study is available as an essay here.

[i]           “Irenaeus,” pg. 520-521, A Dictionary of Christian Biography.

[ii]           “666” is certainly the correct reading, as even CT advocates aver;  it is “strongly supported by P47 a A P 046 051 all extant minuscules itgig vg syrph, h copsa, bo arm al” (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Bruce M. Metzger (New York, NY: American Bible Society, 1994; 2nd ed.), note on Revelation 13:18).  Nevertheless, the Revised Standard Version notes on Revelation 13:18 that “other ancient authorities read six hundred and sixteen,” while the New Revised Standard Version, New Living Translation, English Standard Version, and New American Standard Version, among others, reference this undoubted corruption as well.  The Antichrist will doubtless appreciate these modern Bible versions for confusing the issue of the number of his name.

[iii]          This bracketed sentence is followed by footnote #258 in AN, which reads, “That is, X into EI, according to Harvey, who considers the whole of this clause as an evident interpolation. It does not occur in the Greek here preserved by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., 5:8).”  While it is true that this sentence is not in the section quoted by Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History 5:8 he quotes Irenaeus as follows:  “Now since this is the number in all the good and ancient copies, and since those who have seen John face to face testify, and reason teaches us that the number of the name of the beast appears according to the numeration of the Greeks by the letters in it . . .”  And going on later he says concerning the same point, “We therefore will not take the risk of making any positive statement concerning the name of the Antichrist [and he continues the quote]” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, trans. Kirsopp Lake).  Eusebius leaves out much more than this one clause—he skips from the first part of book 5 chapter XXX:1 to near the end of XXX:3 (AN:XXX:7331-7333), with the evident intention of not quoting the entire passage.  That a particular clause within the section skipped does not occur, because the entire section is missing, is a weak argument for an interpolation.

[iv]          AN:XXX:7331-2.

[v]           Footnote #252, AN:Footnotes:7610.

[vi]          Antigrafeia/oß, Greek-English Lexicon, H. G. Liddell & R. Scott, (9th ed. w/rev. supplement.  New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1996).  The word is also used in a more general sense.  Among the apostolic “fathers,” the word appears in MPoly 22:2; 23:5; Pap 29:1. (cited from the Accordance module Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, ed. Michael W. Holmes (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999); Module version 1.1.)  Note also 1 Esdr 2:19; 6:7; 8:8; Esth 13:1; 3:14; 4:8; 16:1, 19; 8:13; 1 Mac 8:22; 11:31, 37; 12:5, 7, 19, 23; 14:20, 23, 27, 49; 15:24; and Bar 6:0 in the LXX.  The word does not appear in the NT.

[vii]         If Irenaeus were alive today, would he not consider the textual controversy a separating issue?

[viii]         “Caius,” pg. 141-2, A Dictionary of Christian Biography.

[ix]          The work is now lost; fragments have been preserved in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History 5:28.  The text that follows comes from Fragments of Caius: Against the Heresy of Artemon, AN:III:48591.

[x]           Requiring others to provide the sources of their copies was a test of accuracy employed by others as well.  For example, Jerome, while arguing with Rufinus over falsifications in the latter’s translation of Origen’s Peri ÔArcwn, stated, “At all events, to cut short a long discussion, I can point out whence I received the Peri ÔArcwn, namely, from those who copied it from your manuscript. We want in like manner to know whence your copy of it came; for if you are unable to name any one else as the source from which it was derived, you will yourself be convicted of falsifying it” (Jerome’s Apology for Himself Against the Books of Rufinus, book 2, NPN-2:23:20687).

Thursday, December 26, 2013

What the Worship War or Music Issue Really Is About

I've been talking about the music/worship issue here for quite a few posts, and will continue next week, Lord-willing.  We can go back and forth about how someone judges what is wrong and right, or whether someone can even judge what is wrong and right, but ultimately that's not what this is all about.  In almost every case, it's impossible for the two sides to come together, because it isn't about what the two sides even argue about.

The music/worship issue is not about one side believing there is a standard for God, that lines should be drawn, and that the other side, after much study and prayer and concern, doesn't see there being a standard or lines to be drawn.  One side does believe there is an objective standard, does believe that lines should be drawn.  The other side has mainly three other reasons for where it's at.  First, for many, they just want to listen to and play whatever music they want.  They really like their own music, and they don't want to give it up.  They conform their version of Christianity to what they like.  That's now acceptable, so why not?  So, one, people don't want to give up their own music.  Related to this, they don't even want to be judged for their music.  They don't want to feel guilty about their music. Usually there will be anger here if they're even judged.  They want complete acceptance and complete toleration with no judgment at all.

The second reason is all about numbers.  Churches use all the forms of pop music as a church growth method.  It has worked a lot.  Related to this directly is money and success and "God's blessing."   The church uses the music among other similar means of amusement, they get bigger, the offerings are bigger, more money for the leaders, they are recognized for success, and there is the assumption that this is God working somehow.   The music is huge, even as Rick Warren has said in his Purpose Driven Church book.  It's key to the whole deal.  If they don't start with the music or give it up, the numbers go way, way down.  They shrink exponentially.  It doesn't even work.  These people wouldn't even be able to continue without the music.  It's that important.  It's more than the music, but the music is pivotal -- a necessity.  Obviously the numbers relate to what people like, so one and two go together.  These churches allow whatever dress, music, entertainment -- generally, what anyone wants in the world.  They encourage it -- it's a big part of their religion.

The third reason is the bigger picture -- coalitions, sales, parachurch, etc.  If you judge someone is wrong, you're out of the club.  This is called unity, but it really is just getting along.  The huge coalitions are held together by toleration and acceptance.  This expands the audience for music and books.  The colleges and seminaries can keep their numbers up.  The less restrictions, the more inclusion.  More and more can get along and you can keep up the big national and worldwide coalitions.

Those are the three things that this music issue is really about.  It's not about what the Bible says.  It isn't about what will honor God.  It isn't.  It never has been.  The side I'm talking about in the worship war didn't start with a study of the Bible or a concern over some kind of apostasy on music, because of the overtly restrictive standards.  It started with what people like, which related then to getting bigger, first locally and then nationally.  The discussions about whether it will honor God or what the Bible says begin on the side of those with music standards.

If you have a church without music standards and you have a church with music standards, the one without is almost always going to be bigger.   If it doesn't matter, why shouldn't everyone go to the church with no music standards?   Why not have God and the music that you want or like?  The churches with music standards should just send all their people to the ones with none.  On the other hand, if they are going to be distinct from those churches with no standards, they are going to tell you that those churches are wrong.  They are going to take a stand and tell you they are wrong.  What else would the churches with no standards expect?

I believe there is a lot at stake here, because the music/worship issue is much bigger than what the churches with no standards will say.  People's view of God is shaped by the music.  The church becomes like the world and there becomes little to differentiate.  It's only getting worse.

Monday, December 23, 2013

Not Ducking the Homosexual Issue

To get a certain disclaimer out of the way, I've never seen a Duck Dynasty, so I'm not a fanboy.  I'm not even interested in watching.  I do have a beard, so perhaps there is a latent follicle prejudice.

However, I do watch clips from news shows on Real Clear Politics.  I've done that for several years.  I often watch the panel discussions on the Sunday shows, which are available on RCP on Sunday afternoon.  Sometimes I watch them Sunday night.

The issue is what society tolerates and what it doesn't.  It's true it isn't a first amendment issue per se.  Here's what he said that caused the brouhaha.  It was GQ magazine, an article on Phil Robertson.  He was asked, "What, in your mind, is sinful?"  What has been targeted, mainly, is the following:


And a little earlier, he said,


Douglas Wilson writes about this:

The memorable words of T.S. Eliot in the Four Quartets come to mind — “Humankind cannot bear very much reality.” This goes particularly for toney producers of reality shows, who are unaccustomed to having one of the swamp people emerge from the fens to inform them, denizens of a sophisticated and urbane cosmopolis as they are, that the human body was given just one sex organ and the poochute is not it. They got a little too much actual reality from one of their reality stars and so they went all Eliot on him.

Several reactions occurred, that made news.  A & E, the producer of Duck Dynasty, kicked Phil off for these things being reported in GQ.  Certain stores decided to stop selling Duck Dynasty things, like Cracker Barrel, which has now decided it would be better to keep selling them.  Would you say it is no great mystery that more Duck Dynasty fans go to Cracker Barrel than do homosexuals?  Do you wonder what made them remove the items in the first place?

OK, now to the issue.  It's not first amendment, because Phil can keep saying those things.   The issue has two parts:  (1)  Tolerance, and (2)  What We Should Be Free to Say.

There is a lot of bad behavior and language that doesn't stop people from being fired.  We're expected to tolerate that.  We're supposed to put up with public displays of intimate contacts between the same sex.  However, when we say what we think about that, we can be fired?  The issue here is what is tolerable.  Certain behavior should not be tolerated by the public?  It once was outlawed.  Homosexual behavior was once part of the intolerable behavior.  Now criticizing that behavior is intolerable behavior.  This was a good comment from Michael Brown on the Piers Morgan show:

It's not bigoted to say that God designed a man to be with a woman. It's not bigoted to say that sexual acts outside of male-female marriage are prohibited in Scripture. We can debate that. It's not bigoted to say it. To me, what's bigoted is that he gets fired. Look, you have reality TV shows celebrating polygamy, celebrating polyamory, celebrating teen sex, gay kids losing their virginity as teenagers on Glee, that's fine. That's not a problem. That's to be celebrated. When he says, you know, I'm a Bible thumper, I hold to Biblical values, I believe a man was made by God to be with a woman, and I hold to these things, how is that bigoted? How is that basis for being fired from his show?

What I have kept hearing in interviews and panel discussions is that if Phil had just supported traditional marriage and opposed same-sex marriage, he would have been fine, but that he was disgusting and offensive.   He elaborated some on his opposition.  What is disgusting and offensive is homosexual behavior.  Phil was much more delicate than Hollywood is about these matters.  He didn't use foul language.  Vagina and anus are fairly scientific words.  I would agree that these were at one time inappropriate, but the people "offended" use much worse.  His words are not profanity.  He could have been profane, if he was profane, but he was not profane.  He used the least offensive words to describe those body parts.  It really is just a matter of not tolerating biblical beliefs in the public square.

I read Andrew Sullivan's post about it, and he defended the continued employment of Phil, but said that Phil reduced everything to sex.  No.  Phil got the rebellion right where it was.  The rebellion is against design and he represented the basics of it perfectly.  Andrew Sullivan didn't know what he was talking about, because he doesn't know what he's talking about.  The rebellion, not retaining God in the mind, turns the mind reprobate.

Professing Christians are upset, because they (however many this is anymore) already don't like putting up with homosexuals.  They expect tolerance.  The tolerance of homosexuality is already a problem.  They feel guilty about tolerating it.  If they are going to tolerate it, they want tolerance.  That's how I read it.

There is also a big segment of the country that foresees losing the freedom to point out sin.  Phil Robertson can still point out sin, but if he can be fired for this, then sometime soon, he won't be able to say it at all.  I believe people see that coming.  This issue isn't over.  If A & E loses the Robertson show, because they won't let Phil continue, I think this will blow into something even bigger.  My guess is that A & E will relent at some point and try to save face in some way.  The best case scenario in the culture war would be for the show to end, and for people to wake up a little to where we're at.

Friday, December 20, 2013

The Encyclopaedia Britannica on Christmas



