Get a site




Authrized or Revision?


Author of The World and Its God, The Number of Man, Life in the Word, Evolution at the Bar, etc.

SCRIPTURE TRUTH DEPOT 120 Tremont St. Boston 9, Mass.

Republished by Bierton Particular Baptists 11 Hayling Close

Fareham Hampshire PO143AE



The importance of the question discussed in this volume. The Bible as a Factor of Civilization. The Bible in the English Tongue.

This Raises Some Serious Questions.

The Bible as a Factor of Civilization

The Bible in English

Chapter I

The several English Versions. The occasion for the R. V. The widely recognized need for a Re vision. The demand was not for a new Version, but for a revision of the A. V. The state of the original Text. The many Greek Texts of the N. T. Only one Hebrew Text of the 0. T.

The Several Versions

The Occasion For The R. V.

The Present Situation

The Original Text

The Revision Committee Not Instructed

to Fashion?- a New Geeek Text

As Regards the Work op Translation

The Hebrew Text of the Old Testament

Chapter II

The Various Greek Texts

The Various Editions of the Greek Text. That of Stephens of 1850. The Elzevir or Texttis Be ceptus, Griesbach’s Text. Lachmann led in a new direction, followed by Tischendorf and Tregelles. Tisehendorf and the Mt. Sinai Ms. The principle of “Ancient Evidence Only.” Alford’s Text.

Stephens (A. D. 1550)

Elzevir or “Textus Receptus” (1624)

Geiesbaoh’s Edition (1805)

Lachmann (1842-1850)

TISCHENDORF (1865-1872)



Chapter III

The Ancient Codices. The Vatican Codex And the Sinaitic

Chapter IV

Characteristics of the Two Oldest


Characteristics of the two oldest Mss. The many series of corrections to which the Codex Sinaiticus has been subjected. What they prove. e work of an incompetent Scribe. The number and nature of the differences between these

two ancient Copies and the Received Text. The conclusions to be drawn.

The Many Corrections of the Sinaitic Ms.

The Work of an Incompetent Scribe

The Number and Kinds of Differences


Chapter V

The Principle of, “Ancient Evidence Only” Examined

The principle of “Ancient Evidence Only” examined. Divine Safeguards to the Sacred Text. The Evidential Value of latex Mss. Errors of Omission. An illustrative test of the comparative values of the earlier and the later Mss. The strength of the case for the Recieved Text.

Divine Safeguards to the Text

The Value of Comparatively Late Mss.

A Test of the Principle op “Ancient Evidence”

The Strength of the Case in Favor of

The Received Text

Chapter VI

The Procedure of the Revision Committee

The Instituctions Given Them and How They Were Carried Out — No Authority Given to Fashion a New Greek Text — How Their Sanction Was Seemingly Given to the Westcott and Hort Text.

Chapter VII

Specific Examples of Textual Corruption.

The last 12 Verses of Mark. The Angelic Message. The Lord ‘s Agony, and His Prayer on the Cross. “The Mystery of Godliness.” Other important passages affected.

The Last Twelve Verses of Mark

The Angelic Message (Luke 2 : 14)

The Lord’s Agony in the Garden and His

Prayer for His Murderers

To Save That Which Was Lost

Petek Walking on the Sea

The Mysteey of Godliness

From that reply we extract the following : 25

The Omission of Mark 6 : 11

‘’Bless Them That Curse You’’ (Matt. 5:44)

“Father Foegive Them”

“And Am Known op Mine” 26

Chapter VIII

Changes in Translation

Changes in- Translation. The leaning towards greater literality not an improvement. Thousands of uncalled-for changes — “mostly for the worse. Concerning 2 Timothy 3:16. The Version of 1911. Its value as a witness.

Dr. Alexander Carson

Examples of Changes in Translation

Paul Before King Ageippa

Concerning 2 Timothy 3 : 16

The Testimony of the Version of 1911

Chapter IX

The Use Made of the Margin in the R. V. The strange uses made of the Margin in the R. V. The Name “Jesus.” *’ Thine is the Kingdom.” “The Son of God.” “Which is in Heaven.” “The Number of a Man.” The Island of Melita.

Examples op Vagabies in Maeginal Notes

“Thine is the Kingdom”

“The Son of God”

“Where Their Worm Dieth Not’’

‘’Which is in Heaven”

“The Number of a Man”

The Island of Melita

Chapter X

The Theory of Westcott and Hort Upon Which “The New Greek Text” Was Constructed

The Theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort. Many Assumptions, but no proof. The Received Text traced back to the 2d Century by means of Ver sions and Quotations. No proof at all of any earlier Text. Bishop Ellicott in Defence of the R.

V. A comparison as to style between the A. V. and

R. V. The Voice of the People.

Bishop Ellicott’s Defence of the R. V.

The Conclusion of the Matter

Bishop Ellicott in Defence

A Comparison As To Style


Observation And Consideration

By the Publisher


A Body Of Doctrinal Divinity Book I of VII

Bierton Strict And Particular Baptists

Includeing The Bierton Crisis

By David Clarke

The Cause of God And Truth, Part 1

The Cause of God And Truth, Part II

Dr John Gills Sermons

Christ Alone Exalted

William Gadsby

John Warberton

Memorials Of The Mercies OF A Covenant God

God’s Operations Of Grace but Not Offers

Of His Grace

The Certain Efficacy of The Death Of

Christ, Asserted

Difficulties Associated With Articles Of Religion Among Particular Baptists

Particular Baptists

The West And The Quran

Mary, Mary Quite Contrary

“Great peace have they which love thy law: nothing shall offend them.” (Psalm 119:165)

Trojan Warriors

The Parousia 2nd Edition

The Bondage Of The Will

On The Enslaved Will

Authored by Martin Luther DD

Who Is This Babylon

Josephus: The Wars Of The Jews

The Book Of Books


Publishers Testimony.

The publishers personal testimony is that after his conversion from crime, in 1970, to follow Christ he turned his back on his criminal past and sinful way of life and attended an Assemblies of God Pentecostal Church, at Richford’s Hill, in Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire.(See the book, Bierton Strict and Particular Baptists, including the Bierton Crisis, listed under our Further Publications at the end of this book) It was there, in 1971, they had a representative from the Trinitarian Bible Society speak. Mr Cyril Bryan confirmed his belief how important it was to use a good translation of the Bible. It was pointed out to me that the modern versions often left out or changed the texts of scripture, which clearly taught the deity of Christ. From that time I began to be cautious of new versions and was happy to stick with the Authorized Version. This was helpful because all the books that I had begun to read quoted from the Authorized Version and not modern translations. This book enables the reader to understand where the subtle changes that have crept into language and teaching in the Christian world have come from since the introduction of modern versions of the bible.

The importance of the question discussed in this volume. The Bible as a Factor of Civilization. The Bible in the English Tongue.

THE purpose of this book is to set forth information concerning the Authorized and Revised Versions of the New Testament, information which should be shared by all Bible readers, but is in the possession of only a few in our day. Our present inquiry is in regard to the many differences, some of them quite serious, between the “Authorized” or King James Version, first published in 1611,’ and the ‘’Revised” Version of 1881. The total number of the departures of the latter from the former is over thirty-six thousand.

This Raises Some Serious Questions.

Why was such an enormous number of changes made? On what authority? What is their general character and effect? Briefly, do they give us a better Version, that is, one that brings us nearer to the original autographs of the inspired Writings ? And is the Authorized Version so very defective as implied by such an enormous number of corrections ?

Not only is this a matter of the highest con sequence, but it is one as touching which the ordinary Bible reader would wish to have a well grounded opinion of his own. As a basis for such an opinion lie must have knowledge of the pertinent facts; for the experts, the textual critics, editors, and Greek scholars, differ and dispute among themselves; and their discussions and dissertations abound in matters so technical and abstruse that ordinary persons cannot follow them. Therefore the conflicting opinions of the experts serve only to becloud the subject for the common people.

The pertinent facts themselves are not difficult to understand ; but they are inaccessible to most Bible readers. Therefore we are writing these pages with the object mainly of setting forth such facts concerning the two rival Versions, the sources whence they were respectively derived, and the circumstances attending the coming into existence of the Revised Version, as have served as a basis for the writer’s own judgment. Those facts are not only supremely important, but are also absorbingly interesting. So it is not to a dry or a tedious discussion that we invite the reader of this book, but to one of lively interest.

As to which is the better of the two Versions of the English Bible there is of course a difference of opinion. Those who favor the modern Version will point to the

fact that, during the three hundred years that have elapsed since the A. V. was translated, much material has been discovered whereby additional light is thrown upon the Text. They also refer to the advancement in all departments of learning ; and to the fact tliat the R.

V. was the result of the labors of eminent scholars, who spent ten years upon its production. All this is true ; and other general facts of like import could be mentioned, all of which served to prepare the minds of English speaking people everywhere to give a most favorable reception to the new Version. How comes it then that the King James Version has not only maintained its place of supremacy, but of late years has forged further and further ahead of its rival? This surely is a matter worthy of our thoughtful consideration.

But before we begin to inquire into it, we wish briefly to direct the reader’s attention to facts of great importance touching the Holy Scriptures in general, and the English Bible in particular.

The Bible as a Factor of Civilization

Everything pertaining to the Bible, and particularly every change proposed in the Bible as we have had it in the English tongue, is a matter of high consequence to all men — whether they realize it or not. For it is beyond all question that the Bible has been the chief factor in the formation of our Western Civilization, and also the chief factor in conserving it. Its unique influence upon the lives of individuals, and the standards of justice and morality which it has held up before the people, are what have served to withstand the mighty disruptive forces of lawlessness and anarchy by which the very existence of society has been always menaced — and more so just now than ever before.

The influence of the Bible has contributed, and still contributes, far beyond all other forces combined, to the maintenance of government, and of all the principles of law, customs, usages, standards of ethics, education, and family life, that make for the welfare of nations, communities, and individuals.

This we can assert without fear of contradiction. For even so great an enemy of Christianity as Mr. H. G. Wells acknowledges that civilization owes both its origin and its preservation to the Bible. He has recently declared in print that “the civilization we possess could not have come into existence, and could not have been sustained, without it.” Again he admits that “It is the Book that has held together the fabric of Western civilization;” that it has ‘’unified and kept together great masses of people

; “that it has been ‘“the hand book of life to countless

millions of men and women, it has explained the world to the mass of our people, and has given them moral standards and a form into which their consciences could work.” Here is testimony which is all the more valuable because it comes from one of the most prominent of the enemies of that faith which rests for its support upon the Bible; and we wonder how any man, who is capable of grasping the facts thus admitted by Mr. Wells, can fail to see that a Book which has, through centuries of time, accomplished results so great in magnitude and so excellent in character, must needs be of super-human origin. The facts, which Mr. Wells and other infidels are constrained to admit, concerning the influence of the Bible, and concerning the extent, duration, and above all the character of that influence among the peoples of the world, cannot he predicated, even in a small measure, of any other book. So here we have, in the outstanding facts which even the enemies of Christ are constrained to acknowledge, proof enough of the Divine authorship of the Holy Scriptures.

The Bible in English

But what we wish specially to emphasize for our present purpose is that, when reference is made to the Bible and its influence, what is meant in most cases is the English Version thereof. For the undeniable fact is that the English Version of the Scriptures is the “Bible” to most of those who read or consult the Holy Scriptures

; and the English Version has been, moreover, the basis for the translation of the Scriptures into many other languages and dialects. From these facts, which are matters of common knowledge, it follows that whatever affects the English Version of the Bible is of highest consequence to all the people of the world, even if we limit ourselves to the consideration merely of their temporal concerns. Therefore it behooves all of us who have at heart the purposes for which God has given us His holy Word, to acquaint ourselves, so far as we can, with the merits of the several English Versions, in order that we may have an intelligently formed and well grounded opinion upon the question which of these Versions, as a whole, is best calculated to accomplish the purposes of God, and to secure the welfare of human beings, both for time and for eternity. For the thought of writing this book, and for some of the materials composing it, I am indebted to a pamphlet on ‘’The Revised Version,” by L.

E. B., published by Elliot Stock, London.

Chapter I

The several English Versions. The occasion

for the R. V. The widely recognized need for a Re vision. The demand was not for a new Version, but for a revision of the A. V. The state of the original Text. The many Greek Texts of the N. T. Only one Hebrew Text of the 0. T.

The Several Versions

THE common Version of the Holy Bible in the English tongue is more than three hundred years old; for it first appeared in 1611. It is sometimes called the ‘’King James Version,” but more commonly the ‘ ‘Authorized Version.” It is usually designated by the letters A. V. In the year 1881 a new Version of the Bible in English appeared; and a second and final edition thereof was issued in 1885. This Version was the result of the labors of a Revision Committee, composed of English and American scholars, well acquainted with the original languages. The labors of the Revision Committee extended over a period of ten years. This Version is usually designated by the letters B. V. Twenty years later (1901) another Version, embodying the readings preferred by the American members of the Revision Committee, was published in the United States. It is known as the “American Standard Version,” and is designated by the letters A. S. V.

There are many differences between these two new Versions, both of which resulted from the labors of the Revision Committee.1 For example, in the American Version the Name LORD is changed throughout the Old Testament to JEHOVAH, which is the recognized English equivalent of the Hebrew original. This change we regard as a great improvement. But we shall not discuss herein the differences between the two modern Versions. It should also be stated at the outset that our observations will be confined to the New Testament. The reason is that the differences of major importance which appear in the Revised Versions of the New Testament, and their importance is in some cases very great indeed, are not differences of translation, but are differences in the Greek text used as the basis of the translation, the text adopted by the Revisers of the 19th Century being different in many particulars from that which, three centuries previous, served as the basis of the A. V. In the case, however, of the Old Testament, the same Hebrew text served as the basis of both Versions. Therefore the changes made by the Revisers in the Old Testament are


  1. * See “Preface to the Edition of 1885,” and “Preface to the American Edition” ; also the Appendix to the former, in which the readings preferred by the American members of the Committee were given.

    changes of translation only; and it is quite easy for any one, with the help of a Hebrew Concordance, to form an opinion between the several translations of a passage. When, however, the original text has been changed, he has no means of judging whether or not the change was warranted.

    The Occasion For The R. V.

    The Bible is the one Book in the world which is constantly under scrutiny; and the scrutiny to which it is subject is of the most searching kind, and from the keenest and best equipped minds in the world — and this, by the way, is another strong, though indirect, proof that the Bible is not a human book. This continuous and microscopical examination of the Bible, and of all the circumstances and conditions connected with the origin of its various parts, has been carried on both by its friends, who value all the information they can gather concerning it, and also by its enemies, who are unremitting in their search for facts which might be used to discredit its statements or impugn its accuracy. This unceasing scrutiny extends not only to every word of the original text, but to the more minute questions of prefix, termination, spelling, tense of verbs, and even to the very smallest matters, such as the placing of an accent. It would seem as if every generation of men was impelled, as by some strong but inscrutable influence, thus to recognize the importance

    of every “jot and tittle” of this Book of books.

    As the result of this constant and painstaking study of the Scriptures during centuries follow ing the appearance of the A. V., it became increasingly evident that, notwithstanding the excellencies of that great and admirable work, there were particulars wherein, for one cause or another, it admitted of (and indeed called for) correction. For those who translated it, though godly and scholarly, and though assisted, as we doubt not they were in large measure, by the Holy Spirit, were but human, and therefore compassed with infirmity. Moreover, in the course of the years following the completion of their labors, discoveries were made which affected the original text of the New Testament, and other discoveries which threw fresh light upon the meaning of obscure words and difficult passages. It was found also that corrections in translation were demanded here and there, particularly in regard to the tenses of verbs.

    meanwhile occurred in the meanings of not a few English words and expressions. For all these reasons it appeared desirable that our excellent and justly admired Authorized Version should have such a revision as that for which the Revision Committee was appointed in the year 1871. For it should be understood that what was contemplated by those who were responsible for the appointment of that Committee was simply a revision of the Version of 1611; and had the Committee confined themselves to the task actually entrusted to them, and kept within the limits of the instructions given to them, the results of their long labors would no doubt have been a gain and a blessing to all the English-speaking nations, and through them to all mankind. But instead of a Revised Version of the long accepted English Bible, the Committee brought forth (so far at least as the New Testament was concerned) a New Version. This fact was not disclosed by them. The Preface to the Edition of A. D. 1885” gives no indication of it; but through the vigilance of certain godly and scholarly men (Dean Burgon in particular) the important fact was discerned and brought to light that the Committee had produced, not a “Revised” Version (though that was the name given to it) but a New Version, which was a translation of a “New Greek Text.” The importance of this fact will be made evident as we proceed. It will also be a matter of much interest to show the sources from which this “New Greek Text” was derived, and the means whereby its adoption by the Committee (as to which there was considerable mystery at the time) was brought about.

    The Present Situation

    It is now more than forty years — the Scriptural period of full probation— since the R. V. appeared; and as we contemplate the existing situation (in the year 1924) the most conspicuous fact that presents itself to our view is that the New Version (in either or both its forms) has not superseded the A. V., and that there is not the faintest indication that it will ever do so. Indeed it appears that the R. V. is declining, rather than gaining, in favor, and that with Bible users of all classes, from the most scholarly to the most unlearned.2 This is a fact of much significance, and due consideration should be given to it in any attempt one might make to arrive at a just estimate of the relative values of the rival Versions. What is the explanation of this fact? It is not that the Old Version did not and does not admit of correction

    And beside all that, we have to take into con

    sideration the fact (for which the translators of the

    A. V. were in no wise responsible) that changes had

  2. See the Reports of Bible Societies on p. 117 of this volume.

    tions and improvements. Nor is it that the Revisers did not make them; for it cannot be denied that the R. V. contains many improved readings. Yet for all that, as the experience of a whole generation has now conclusively demon strated, the A. V. retains, and in all probability will contintie to retain, its long undisputed place as the standard English Bible. This failure of the new Versions, or either of them, to displace the old, is attributed by some to the supposed conservatism of people in general, and to their assumed reluctance to accept changes of any sort. But we should say the truth in this regard is rather that people in our time are unduly ready, and even eager, to welcome every kind of a change. Radical innovations are the order of the day. On every hand we see the ‘“old “ being discarded for the ”new” and the “up-to-date;” and in no department of human affairs is this eagerness for change more manifest than in the field of literature (if that word may be properly applied to what people read now-a-days).

    Moreover, the generation of those who had known only the A. V., and who therefore might have been disposed to cling to it for that reason alone, is now passed away; and the fact which confronts us is that whereas those living at that time (1881-1885) seemed quite ready and willing to welcome the E. V., fully expecting it to be a real improvement upon the older Version, the almost unanimous judgment of the next succeeding generation is that the older Version is to be preferred.

    But, looking beyond and above the sphere of mere human judgment, and recognizing the superintendence of the Spirit of God in all that has to do with the Word of God, we feel warranted in concluding from the facts stated above that there are Divine reasons for the retention of the A. V. in the favor of the people of God. We will try, therefore, to point out some of those reasons.

    The Original Text

    Very few of those who read the Scriptures have any idea how much depends upon the all- important matter of settling the Greek Text of the New Testament, or how many and how great the difficulties involved therein. Of those who give any thought at all to the matter the larger number seem to suppose that there exists some where an acknowledged original Text of the New Testament, and that the work of preparing an English Version is merely a matter of the correct translation of that Greek Text. But the case is far otherwise; for the first part of the work is to settle the Greek Text from which the

    translation is to be made ; and this is a matter of immense difficulty, for the reason that the original materials from which the Text must be constructed embrace upwards of a thousand manuscripts. Some of these contain the whole, or nearly the whole, of the New Testament ; and the rest contain a part, some more, some less, thereof. Of these manuscripts a few are supposedly as early as the fourth or fifth century, and others as late as the fourteenth. Then there are also certain ancient Versions, or Translations, as the Latin, Syriac and Coptic, whose testimony as to disputed passages must be considered, particularly for the reason that some of them are older than the earliest Greek manuscripts known to exist at the present time. The most noted of these is the Peschito, or Syriac Version, which dates from very early in the Christian era, probably from the second century.

    The original materials for the making of a Greek Text embrace also numerous quotations of Scripture found in the copious writings of the “church fathers,” which have survived to our day. This is an important source of information; for those quotations are so numerous, and they cover so much ground in the aggregate, that the greater part of the Text of the entire New Testament could be constituted from them alone.

    But no two of these thousands of manuscripts are exactly alike ; and every discrepancy raises a distinct question requiring separate investigation and a separate decision. While, however, the precise reading of thousands of passages is affected by these differences, it must not be supposed that there is any uncertainty whatever as to the teaching and testimony of the New Testament in its entirety. For the consoling facts in that regard are:

    1. that the vast majority of the variant readings are so slight (a mere question of a single letter, or an accent, or a prefix, or a case ending) as not to raise any question at all concerning the true sense of the passage ; and

    2. that the sum of all the variant readings taken together does not give ground for the slightest doubt as to any of the fundamental points of faith and doctrine. In other words, the very worst Text that could be constructed from the abundant materials available would not disturb any of the great truths of the Christian faith.

    It will be seen, therefore, that the making of a Greek Text, as the first step in producing an English Version, involves the immense labor of examining, for every disputed word and passage, the numerous manuscripts, ancient Versions, and quotations now known to exist, and also the making of a decision in

    each case where there is a conflict between the various witnesses. This is a highly complicated task; and for the proper performance of it other qualities besides Greek and English scholarship are required. For example, one must settle at the outset what degree of credibility is to be imputed to the respective manuscripts; and this is where, in our opinion, the compilers of the Greek Text used as the basis for the E. V. went far astray, with the result that the Text adopted by them was much inferior to that used in the translation of the A. V. Our reasons for this opinion, which will be given later on, are such as to be easily understood. In this connection it is important to observe that no amount of care in the work of translation will tend to cure defects in the original Text; but that, on the contrary, the more faithful the translation the more effectually will the errors of the Text be carried into the resulting Version.

    The Revision Committee Not Instructed to Fashion?- a New Geeek Text

    Moreover, it is to be noted in this connection that the instructions under which the Revisers acted did not contemplate the making of a New Greek Text ; nor did they have the qualifications needed for such a complicated task. The reader will be astonished, we venture to predict, when he comes tolearn(aswepropose to show later on) the mode of procedure whereby, in this case, that ‘’New Greek Text” was fashioned. But at this point we merely direct attention to the fact that the Committee was instructed to under take “A Revision of the Authorised Version,” with a view to ‘’the removal of plain and clear errors,” and that the first rule was “To intro duce as few alterations as possible into the text of the Authorized.” This prompts us to ask, if 36,000 alterations were the fewest possible for the Revisers to introduce, what would they have done had a perfectly free hand been given them?

    As Regards the Work op Translation

    Furthermore, we believe it can be clearly shown that the work of translation in the case of the R. V. is as a whole much inferior to that of the A. V. (notwithstanding the many im proved readings given in the R. V.) insomuch that, as one competent authority has said, the later version is characterized by “bad English everywhere.’’

    The Hebrew Text of the Old Testament

    As already stated, the diJ0S.culties attending the Greek text of the New Testament do not exist in connection with the Old Testament, the original of which is in the Hebrew tongue. For there is but a single

    Standard Hebrew text, the ‘’Massoretic Text,” which is recognized by both Jewish and Christian authorities as the true Text of the Hebrew Scriptures.

    Chapter II

    The Various Greek Texts

    The Various Editions of the Greek Text. That of Stephens of 1850. The Elzevir or Texttis Be

    ceptus, Griesbach’s Text. Lachmann led in a new direction, followed by Tischendorf and Tregelles. Tisehendorf and the Mt. Sinai Ms. The principle of “Ancient Evidence Only.” Alford’s Text.

    WE HAVE spoken briefly of the difficulties that must be met by those who undertake to compile, from the scat tered and diverse original ‘’sources,” a Greek Text of the New Testament. That great task has, nevertheless, been undertaken by able scholars at different times, and, as the outcome of their labors, there are in existence at the present time several complete texts. We will now give a brief account of the most important of them.

    Stephens (A. D. 1550)

    The Text of Stephens is that which served as the basis of the A. V. In its production the compiler was guided in large measure, though not exclusively, by the comparatively recent manuscripts (ninth, tenth, and eleventh cen turies) which had been in use in various churches of Europe, Asia and Africa.

    It might be supposed that Stephens was at a disadvantage with respect to later compilers in that he did not have the benefit of the manuscripts, particularly the Vatican and Sinaitic, which were available to later editors, as Tischendorf, Tregelles and Westcott and Hort. But the fact is, and this we hope to make quite plain, that the comparative excellence of the Text of Stephens (and the Elzevir or Textus Receptus — see next sub- heading below) is due in no small degree to the fact that in its composition the Vatican and Sinaitic Mss. were not consulted. The comparatively late Mss., from which the Stephens and Elzevir texts were mainly com piled, were, of course, copies of older ones, which were in time used up, and which them selves were copies of others still more ancient. In all this copying and re-copying, there would inevitably have crept in the various errors to which copyists are liable. Moreover, in some cases there were alterations purposely made, from one motive or another. When an error crept into a copy, or was purposely introduced, it would naturally be perpetuated in copies made from that one ; and thus variations from

    the original would tend to multiplication. There was, however, a check upon this tendency. For such was the reverence paid to the sacred Text, and such the desire that copies used in the churches should be pure, that every opportunity would be embraced for comparing one Text with another; and where differences were ob served there would be naturally an investiga tion for the purpose of establishing the true reading. Thus, by examination and comparison of a moderate number

    — say ten or twenty— comparatively late manuscripts from widely sep arated points, it would be possible to establish, almost to a certainty, the original reading of any disputed passage, or, if it were a passage whose authenticity as a whole was questioned, to decide whether it were genuine Scripture or not.

    Elzevir or “Textus Receptus” (1624)

    This edition, with which the name and fame of the great Erasmus are associated, has been for centuries, and still is, the best known and most widely used of all the Greek Texts. While this justly famous edition is later by some years than the publication of the A. V., the differences between it and its immediate predecessor,- the Stephens edition, are so few and unimportant that the two may be regarded for all practical purposes as one and the same. Thus all the scholarship back of the Textus Receptus is an endorsement of the Text which served as the basis for the translation of our A. V.

    It is apparent from what has been said already that if the Revisers of the 19th century had used the same Greek Text, either as it stood, or with such corrections as might seem justified by discoveries made subsequently to 1624, they would have given us a Version having a comparatively small number of changed readings. In fact it is within bounds to say that, if the Revisers had given us simply a corrected translation of the Textus Receptus, instead of a translation of an entirely “New Greek Text,” we should not have more than a small fraction, say less than ten percent, of the changes found in the E. V. And what is more, not one of those changes which are regarded as serious, and against which such a storm of protest has been raised (and that from men of the highest scholarship and deepest piety) would have been made. In that case it is likely also that the changes would have commended themselves to the majority of discriminating Bible users.

    Therefore we should take careful note of the principles that were adopted, and of the mate rials that were used in the compilation of later Greek Texts of the New Testament. Of the most important of these we shall

    proceed now to speak briefly.

    Geiesbaoh’s Edition (1805)

    This Text appeared about 150 years after the Elzevir edition. In the meantime an enormous amount of new materials had been gathered and was available for whatever help it might afford in the effort to arrive at the true original reading. But the added mass of evidence made the task of examination the more laborious; and moreover, it raised again and again the difficult question of the relative credibility of conflicting witnesses. Griesbach, in the compilation of his text, proceeded upon a plan and principles of his own, which need not be here described. In cases of doubt and difficulty he seemed to follow the Textus Receptus. Hence his departures were not serious; and in any case his Text is not re garded today as having any special authority.

    Lachmann (1842-1850)

    This editor appears to have been the first to act upon the theory or principle that the more ancient the manuscript the more worthy of credence. The extent to which this idea has been allowed to control in the settling of disputed readings, without regard to other weighty considerations whereby the credibility of the contradictory witnesses should properly have been determined, is very extraordinary. This matter calls for special attention, not only because of the important part it played in settling the Text of the R. V., but because it seems to be quite generally taken for granted that the older the manuscript the more worthy to be believed where there is a conflict of testimony. We propose, therefore, to examine this rule of evidence with some care later on ; and in that connection we will endeavor to show why we believe that the principles which controlled in the compilation of the Textus Receptus are far more conformable to the sound rules of evidence, and hence more likely to lead to right conclusions, than that adopted by Lachmann and his successors.

    Lachmann seems to have conceived a preju dicial dislike for the Received Text, and (as a good authority expresses it) to have “set to work to form a text independent of that, right or wrong. He started with the theory of ancient evidence only, thus sweeping away many copies and much evidence, because they dated below his fixed period.” In fact he did not seek to arrive at the original inspired Writings, but merely ‘’to recover the Text as it was in the fourth century.” This principle, first adopted by Lachmann, and followed with well- nigh calamitous results by his successors, including Drs. Westcott and Hort (who were responsible for the

    Text which underlies the R. V.) is based upon the tacit assumption that there existed in the fourth century a Greek Text which was generally accepted, and which was also virtually pure. But it is now recognized that the very worst corruptions of the original Writings are those which occurred prior thereto.

    And not only so, but, at the time of the appearance of the R. V. Drs. Westcott and Hort put forth an elaborate explanation of the prin ciples adopted by them in the making of their ‘’New Greek Text” (which up to that time had been privately circulated among the Revision ists, and under injunctions of strictest secrecy) and in it they admitted that the Textus Receptus is substantially identical with the Text used in the Churches of Syria and elsewhere in and prior to the fourth century. To this important feature of the case we will refer more in detail later on; for it proves that the authors of the Text adopted by the Revisers, while appealing to the principle of “ancient evidence” as the reason for their departures from the Received Text, have made admissions which show that they in fact acted directly contrary to that prin ciple.

    Now, as to the assumption that because a given Text or Ms. dated from the fourth ceiltury it would be purer than one of later date, we quote the following statement of one who was generally regarded as the ablest textual critic of those days. Dr. Frederick H. A. Scrivener, who, in his “Introduction to the Text of the N. T.” (3d ed. p.

    511) says : “It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subjected originated within a hundred years after it was composed; that IrenaBus and the African Fathers, and the whole Western church, with a portion of the Syrian, had far inferior manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephens, thirteen centuries later, when moulding the Textus Re ceptus.” But Lachmann proceeded in disregard of this fact, and no doubt because ignorant of it. He thus set a bad example; and unfortunately his example has been followed by editors who came after him, men of great learning unquestion ably, and having accurate knowledge of early Greek, but apparently knowing little of the his tory of the various Greek manuscripts, and nothing at all of the laws of evidence, and how to deal with problems involving the investiga tion of a mass of conflicting testimony.

    TISCHENDORF (1865-1872)

    This scholar, whose great abilities and unre mitting labors are widely recognized, has had a dominating

    influence in the formation of the modern Text. Tischendorf proceeded upon a plan which we give in his own words: “The text is to be sought only from ancient evidence, and especially from Greek Mss., but without neglecting the testimonies of Versions and Fathers.” From this we see that Tischendorf thoroughly committed himself to the principle of giving the “ancient evidence’* the deciding voice in all disputed readings. That he should have adopted this principle was specially un fortunate because of the circumstance that Tischendorf himself was the discoverer of the famous Codex Sinaiticus (of which we shall have occasion to speak more particularly later on) which manuscript is reputed the most ancient but one of all the now existing Greek manu scripts of the N. T., and which therefore, upon the principle referred to, is entitled to the high est degree of credibility. But whether or not the Sinaitic Ms. is the most ancient of all now known to exist, it is, beyond any doubt what ever, the most defective, corrupt, and untrust worthy. Our reasons for this assertion (rea sons which are ample to establish it) will be given later on. We wish at this point merely to note the fact (leaving the proof thereof for a subsequent chapter) that the most serious of the many departures of the E. V. from the A.

    V. are due to the unhappy conjunction of an un sound principle of evidence and the fortuitous discovery, by a scholar who had accepted that principle, of a very ancient Greek Ms. of the N. T., a Ms. which, despite its unquestioned antiquity, turns out to be about the worst and most scandalously corrupt” of all the Greek Texts now known to exist.


    This editor was contemporary with Tischen dorf. As stated in his own words his purpose was “to give the text on the authority of the oldest Mss. and Versions, and with the aid of the earlier citations, so as to present, so far as possible, the text commonly received in the fourth century.”

    This, it will be observed, is substantially the plan proposed by Lachmann ; and these are the precedents which seem to have mainly influenced Westcott and Hort in the compilation of their Text, which is virtually the Text from which the E. V. was made.

    Dr. Scrivener says (Introduction p. 342) : ‘* Lachmann ‘s text seldom rests on more than four Greek Codices, very often on three, not infrequently on two, sometimes on only one.” His fallacy, which was adopted by Tregelles, necessarily proved fatal to the text prepared by the latter, who in fact acted upon the astound ing

    assumption that “eighty-nine ninetieths” of our existing manuscripts and other authorities might safely be rejected, in order that we might be free to follow a few early documents of bad repute.

    This tendency in a wrong direction found a still further development in Tischendorf, and came to full fruition in Westcott and Hort, who were allowed to fashion according to their own ideas the Greek Text of the R. V.


    The work of this editor (who is rated high as a Greek scholar, though we know not how competent he was to decide questions of fact where there was conflict of testimony) was subsequent to that of the two preceding editors. Concerning their work he says that “If Tischendorf has run into a fault on the side of speculative hypotheses concerning the origins of readings found in those Mss., it must be confessed that Tregelles has sometimes erred on the (certainly far safer) side of scrupulous adherence to the more literal evidence of the ancient Mss.” Al ford’s text was Constructed — ^to state it in his own words — “by following in all ordinary cases the united or preponderating testimony, of the most ancient authorities.” Later evidence was taken into consideration by him only when “the most ancient authorities did not agree or preponderate. “

    It seems not to have occurred to this learned man, any more than to the others, that mere antiquity was not a safe test of reliability where witnesses were in conflict, and that a late copy of a correct original should be preferred to a corrupt Ms. of earlier date.

    Chapter III

    The Ancient Codices. The Vatican Codex and the


    THIS brings us to the consideration of those “ancient manuscripts” or “ codices,”3 as they are usually called, to which the modern editors have attributed so high a degree of credibility, and by which their decisions in the construction of a Greek Text for the R.V. have been so


  3. Codex is a name given to any ancient manuscript book. There are about 114 known “codices” of the Bible, that is manuscripts on parchment in uncial characters (all capital letters run together) dating from the 4th to the 10th century; and about twelve hundred manuscripts known as cursives (i. e., written in a running hand) between the 9th and 16th centuries, containing the Gospels, besides about five hundred manuscripts containing the rest of the N. T.

    largely influenced; and especially to the consideration of the two most venerable of all the existing witnesses to the sacred text, namely, the Codex Vaticanus, so called because its repository is the papal palace (the Vatican) at Rome, and the Codex Sinaiticus, so called be cause it was discovered by Tischendorf in a monastery on Mt. Sinai in Arabia. These Mss. are supposed, from the character of the writing, and from other internal evidences, to date from the fourth century. The next oldest are sup posed to date from the fifth century. Hence, upon the generally accepted theory to which we have referred above, the testimony of the two codices just named is to be accepted as decisive in the case of disputed readings. Therefore, the Revisers of 1881 committed themselves to the leading of these two ‘’ancient witnesses.” Did they lead towards or away from the true text of the inspired Writings! That is the deeply important matter into which we propose now to inquire. In addition to the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus, there are three other very ancient Mss. These are :

    1. Codex Alexandrinus. This Ms. has been kept for a long time in the British Museum in London. It contains all the Gospels (except small parts of Matthew and John) and all the rest of the N. T. except 2 Cor. 4:13-12:6 (fifth century).

    2. Codex Ephraemi, kept in Paris, containing only portions of the Gospels, the Acts, Epistles and Revelation (fifth century).

    3. Codex Bezae, kept at Cambridge, England, containing nearly all the Gospels and nothing else of the N. T. except portions of Acts (sixth century). It has a very bad reputation, as fully exposed by Dean Burgon. No editor appears to attach importance to it. The Discovery of the Mt. Sinai Ms.

    This famous Codex (with facsimiles of the handwriting, and with an account of its discovery) is published in full in Dr. Scrivener’s work entitled “A Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus” (1864).

    Constantine Tischendorf, a noted German scholar, who was indefatigable in the quest of old manuscripts, was visiting, in the year 1844, a monastery on Mt. Sinai, and in the course of that visit he chanced to find one day, among the waste, some leaves of vellum which, upon inspection, were found to contain parts of the Septuagint Version of the 0. T. in a script which indicated that the Ms. was of great antiquity.

    In describing his famous discovery Tischendorf says :

    “I perceived in the middle of the great hall a large and wide basket, full of old parchments; and the librarian

    informed me that two heaps of papers like this, mouldered by reason of age, had been already committed to the flames. What was my surprise to find among this heap of documents a considerable number of sheets of a copy of the Old Testament in Greek, which seemed to me to be one of the most ancient I had ever seen.”

    The monks allowed him to take forty-five of the sheets. But nothing more transpired until fifteen years later, when he again visited the monastery, this time under the direct patronage of the Czar of Eussia. And then he was shown a bulky roll of parchment leaves, which included, among other manuscripts of lesser importance, the Codex now known as the Sinaitic.

    Naturally enough Dr. Tischendorf was highly elated by his discovery. Indeed his enthusiasm was unbounded. He says, “I knew that I held in my hands the most precious Biblical treasure in existence;” and he considered this discovery to be “greater than that of the Koh-i-nor of the Queen of England.”

    As usual in such cases this important “find” made a great stir, especially amongst those who devote themselves to the study of antiquity. We are all aware of the marked tendency of human nature to exaggerate the importance of every “find.” Examples of this sort greet us from time to time. The discovery of the tomb of an Egyptian king is regarded as a matter of such supreme interest to all the world, that even trivial details connected with it are communi cated by cable to the ends of the earth, and are given prominence in the daily newspapers. Thus an ancient article recently exhumed from the rubbish of a long buried city will oftentimes start a wave of excitement throughout the world; whereas an article of identical sort, known to have been in existence for some time, would be treated with complete indifference. “We need not wonder, therefore, that the great scholar was carried away by his chance discov ery, and that he succeeded in impressing upon others also his own idea of the surpassing im portance of his “find.”

    Dean Burgon, speaking of Tischendorf and his discovery, aptly remarks :

    ‘“Happy in having discovered (in 1859) an uncial Codex, second in antiquity only to the oldest before known (the Vatican Codex), and strongly resembling that famous fourth century Codex, he suffered his judgment to be overpowered by the circumstance. He at once remodelled his 7th edition (i. e., the 7th edition of his Greek Text of the New Testament) in 3,505 places, to the scandal of the Science of Com parative Criticism, as well as to his own grave dis credit for discernment and consistency.”

    Evidently then, Tischendorf was carried off his feet by the subjective influence of his dis covery; for he at once surrendered his judg ment to this particular Ms., easily persuading himself that, because of its apparent antiquity, and without regard to any other considerations, it must needs be right in every instance where it differed from later manuscripts. Thus, having fully committed himself to that view, he naturally adhered to it thereafter. Unfortunately, however, the weight of his great influence affected the whole school of Comparative Textual Criticism. For Dean Burgon goes on to say :

    “But in fact the infatuation which prevails to this hour (1883) in this department of sacred science can only be spoken of as incredible.”

    And lie proceeds to show, by proofs which fill many pages ‘’that the one distinctive tenet of* the three most famous critics since 1831 (Lach-I mann, Tregelles and Tischendorf) has been a! superstitious reverence for what is found in the same little handful of early (but not the earliest, nor yet of necessity the purest) documents.”

    In this connection it should be always borne in mind that those text-makers who profess to adopt as their controlling principle the accep tance on disputed points of the testimony of ‘’the most ancient manuscripts,” have not acted consistently with that principle. For the fact is that, in the compilation of their Greek Texts they have not really followed the most ancient manuscripts, but have been controlled hy two manuscripts only. Those two are followed even against the counter evidence of all other avail able manuscripts, amounting to over a thousand, some of which are practically of equal age, and against the evidence also of Versions and of quotations from the writings of “fathers” much older than the two Codices referred to. But to this feature of our subject we expect to return.

    Chapter IV

    Characteristics of the Two Oldest Manuscripts

    Characteristics of the two oldest Mss. The many series of corrections to which the Codex Sinai tieus has been subjected. What they prove. e work of an incompetent Scribe. The number and nature of the differences between these two ancient Copies and the Received Text. The conclusions to be drawn.

    THE principle which the modern editors have adopted, namely, that of following the oldest manuscripts in settling all questions of doubtful or

    disputed readings, throws us back upon the two Codices (Vaticanus and Sinaitic) which, though not dated, are regarded by all competent antiquarians as belonging to the fourth century ; and its practical effect is to make those two solitary survivors of the first four Christian centuries the final authorities, where they agree (which is not always the case), upon all questions of the true Text of Scripture. Therefore it behooves us to inquire with the utmost care into the character of these two ancient witnesses, and to acquaint ourselves with all available facts whereby their trust worthiness may be tested. And this inquiry is necessary, regardless of what may be our opin ion concerning the principle of “ancient evidence only,” which we propose to examine later on. For what now confronts us is the fact that those two fourth century Codices have had the deciding voice in the settling of the Greek Text of the R. V. and are responsible for practically all the departures from the Received Text to which serious objection has been made. Thus, Canon Cook in his authoritative work on “The Revised Version of the First Three Gospels” says:

    “The two oldest Mss. are responsible for nearly all the readings which we have brought under consid eration — readings which, when we look at them individually, and still more when we regard them collectively, inflict most grievous damage upon our Lord ‘s words and works.

    “And again :

    “By far the greatest number of innovations, in cluding those which give the severest shocks to our minds, are adopted on the testimony of two manu scripts, or even of one manuscript, against the dis tinct testimony of all other manuscripts, uncial and cursive. .

    . . The Vatican Codex, sometimes alone, but generally in accord with the Sinaitic, is responsible for nine-tenths of the most striking innovations in the R.V.”

    Dean Burgon, whom we shall have occasion to quote largely because of his mastery of the en tire subject, after having spent five and a half years “laboriously collating the five old uncials throughout the Gospels,” declared at the com pletion of his prodigious task that “So manifest are the disfigurements jointly and exclusively exhibited by the two codices (Vatican and Sinaitic) that, instead of accepting them as two independent witnesses to the inspired original, we are constrained to regard them as little more than a single reproduction of one and the same scandalously corrupt and comparatively late copy.”

    The Many Corrections of the Sinaitic Ms.

    Turning ourattentionfirsttothe Codex Sinaiticus, we would lay stress upon a matter which, in our judgment,

    has a decisive bearing upon the all-important question of the trust worthiness of that ancient manuscript. And we are the more urgent to impress this particular matter upon the consideration of our readers because

  4. It is easy to understand why this particular Ms. is cherished at the “Vatican; for its corruptioBs are what make it valuable to the leaders of the papal system. We can conceive therefore the satisfac tion of those leaders that their highly prized Ms. has been allowed to play the leading part in the revision of the English Bible, than which there is nothing on earth they have more reason to fear. On the other hand, may not this be one of the causes why G^d, in His over ruling providence has frustrated the attempt to displace the A. V. by & new version, based upon such a sandy foundation ?

    1. That the most important and deplorable of the departures of the New Greek Text from the Received Text have been made with the support of less than one percent of all the available witnesses; or in other words, the readings dis carded by the Revisers have the support of over 99 percent of the surviving Greek Texts (besides Versions and “ Fathers”).

    2. That the two Mss. which had the control ling influence in most of these departures are so corrupt upon their face as to justify the con clusion that they owe their survival solely to their bad reputation.

    With these facts before us, and in view also of the leading part the English speaking peo ples were to play in shaping the destinies of mankind during the eventful centuries follow ing the appearance of the Version of 1611, we are justified in believing that it was through a providential ordering that the preparation of that Version was not in anywise affected by higher critical theories in general, or specifically by the two ancient Codices we have been dis cussing. For when we consider what the A. V. was to be to the world, the incomparable in fluence it was to exert in shaping the course of events, and in accomplishing those eternal pur poses of God for which Christ died and rose again and the Holy Spirit came down from heaven — “when we consider that this Version was to be, more than all others combined, “the Sword of the Spirit,” and that all this was fully known to God beforehand, we are fully war ranted in the belief that it was not through chance, but by providential control of the cir cumstances, that the translators had access to just those Mss. which were available at that time, and to none others. This belief in no way conflicts with the fact that man’s part in the preparation of the A.

    1. is marked, and plainly enough, by man’s infirmities.

      Chapter V

      The Principle of, “Ancient Evidence Only”


      The principle of “Ancient Evidence Only” examined. Divine Safeguards to the Sacred Text. The Evidential Value of latex Mss. Errors of Omission. An illustrative test of the compara tive values of the earlier and the later Mss. The strength of the case for the Recieved Text.

      WE COME now to the exammation of the principle adopted by the various edi tors of the Greek Text of the Bible, a principle that was imposed upon the Revision Committee, though that imposition was accom plished

      in such a way (as hereinafter pointed out) that many of them apparently were not aware of it until after they disbanded.

      We fully admit that the principle of follow ing the most ancient manuscripts is, on its face, reasonable and safe ; for it is indisputable that (other things being equal) the copies nearest to the original autographs are most likely to be freest from errors. If therefore it were a question whether or not we should follow, in the fashioning of a Greek Text, the earliest as against later manuscripts, there would be no “ question” at all; for all would agree. But, as the case actually stands, it is impossible for us to follow the earliest manuscripts, for the simple reason that they no longer exist. Not a single copy of the many thousands that were made, circulated, and read in the first three centuries is known to exist to- day. We do have Versions and patristic quotations that date back to the second century, and these, according to the principle we are discussing, are entitled to great weight. Is it not strange therefore, that those who justify their course by appealing to, and by professing to follow blindly, that principle, should cast it aside and accept the readings of fourth century Codices, where these are in conflict with second century Versions and quotations


      Seeing then that the earliest manuscripts are no longer in existence, we cannot follow them, and hence it is clear that the problem which con fronts us is one that cannot be solved by application of the simple rule we are discussing. Briefly, the situation is this : We have on the one hand, the Greek Text of 1611 which served as the basis for the A. V. — a Text that represents and agrees with a thousand manuscripts going back as far as the fifth century, and with Versions and quotations going back to the second. As to this there is no dispute at all; for Drs. Westcott and Hort admit the existence of this Text, and even assume that it was discussed and approved by convocations of the Eastern churches as early as the third century. On the other hand, we have the Codices Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Beza, supposedly dating, as to the first two, from the fourth century, and as to the last from the sixth, which manuscripts present thousands of divergences (omissions, additions, substitutions, transpositions, and modifications) from the Received Text. Upon such a state of things the question presented for decision is this: Shall we stand by the Received Text (accepting corrections thereof wherever they can be established by preponderating proof and putting those ancient Codices on the level of other witnesses, to be tested as to their credibility like all others) 1 Or shall we

      abandon the Textus Receptus in favor of that of Westcott and Hort, or of some other of the half dozen that profess to be shaped by the principle of following the ancient manuscripts ? This is the question we propose to discuss in the present chapter.

      It should be observed, before we proceed with this question, that the agreeing testimony (where they do agree) of the Vatican and Sinaitic Mss. cannot be properlyregardedashavingtheforceoftwoindependent witnesses ; for there are sufficient evidences, both internal and external, to warrant the conclusion that these two Codices are very closely related, that they are, in fact, copies of the same original, itself a very corrupt transcript of the New Testament. For while it is admitted on all hands that the Text used as the basis of the Authorized Version correctly represents a Text known to have been widely (if not everywhere) in use as early as the second century (for the PescMto and Old Latin Versions, corroborated by patristic quotations afford ample proof of that), on the other hand it is not known that the two Codices we are discussing represent any thing but copies of a bad original, made worse in the copying.

      Divine Safeguaeds to the Text

      It is appropriate at this point to direct atten tion to the Divinely ordaiaed means which have thus far protected the Sacred Text from serious corruption. He who gave to men the Holy Scriptures to serve throughout the age as the sure foundation of that * ‘faith of the Son of God” which alone avails for personal salvation, and to be also the sufficient rule of life and con duct for * * the household of faith, ‘ ‘ has not failed to devise effectual means for the preservation of His written “Word. The means in question are, according to God’s usual way of continuing the line of a living thing, incidental to and in herent in the thing itself, and not something extraneous thereto. For it is a part of the nor mal life of every individual to provide for the continuance and multiplication of individuals of its own kind. Thus, as the grain supplies not only bread to the eater, but also seed to the sower, so in like manner God has provided that His living Word should both feed every genera tion of saints, and should also increase and multiply itself. As it is written, “And the Word of God increased” (Ac. 6;7) ; and again, “Bnt the Word of God grew and multiplied” (Ac. 12:24) ; and once more, ‘*So mightily grew the Word of God and prevailed” (Ac. 19:20). The means which mainly have served to ac complish the purpose referred to, are these : 1. The necessity that there

      should be a great and steadily increasing multiplication of copies ; for this provides automatically the most effec tual security imaginable against corruption of the Text. 2. The necessity that the Scriptures should be translated into divers languages. This trans lation of the Written Word into various tongues is but a carrying out of that which the miracle of Pentecost indicated as a distinctive charac teristic of this age, namely, that everyone should hear the saving truth of God in the tongue wherein he was horn. Thus, the agree ment of two or more of the earliest Versions would go a long way towards the establishment of the true reading of any disputed passage. It is appropriate at this point to direct atten tion to the very great value of a Version as a witness to the purity of the original Text from which it was translated. Those who undertake a work of such importance as the translation of the New Testament into a foreign language would, of course, make sure, as the very first step, that they had the best obtainable Greek Text. Therefore a Version (as the Syriac or Old Latin) of the second century is a clear wit ness as to the Text recognized at that early day as the true Text. This point has an important bearing upon the question we are now examining. For, remem bering that “we have no actual * Copies* (i. e., original Greek Texts) so old as the Syriac and Latin * Versions’ (i. e., translations) b^ prob ably more than 200 years” (The Traditional Text, Burgon and Miller), and that “The oldest Versions are far more ancient than the oldest (Greek) manuscripts” (Canon Cook), and re membering too that those venerable Versions prove the existence in their day of a standard Text agreeing essentially with our Textus Re ceptus, and it will be recognized that “the most ancient evidence” is all in favor of the latter. 3. The activity of the earliest assailants of the church necessitated, on the part of the de fenders of the faith, and that from the very be ginning, that they should quote extensively from every part of the New Testament. In this way also a vast amount of evidence of the highest credibility, as to the true reading of disputed passages, has been accumulated, and has come down to us in the writings of the so-called “Church Fathers.” But of what avail would all these checks and safeguards have been if men had been allowed to follow a principle so obviously unsound as that the most ancient manuscripts are to have the deciding voice in every dispute? However, God can be trusted to see to it that all attempts to sweep away His protecting means should fail — as in this case.

      The Value op Comparatively Late Mss.

      It is quite true that most of the extant copies of the Greek New Testament date from the 10th to the 14th century. Thus they are separated from the inspired original Writings by a thou sand years or more. Yet, that they faithfully represent those originals, and that the concur rence of a large majority of them would cor rectly decide every disputed reading, no reason able person should ever doubt. The extant texts of secular writers of antiquity (as Hero dotus, Thucydides, and Sophocles) are but few in comparison with the thousand manuscripts of the Scriptures, and are separated from their originals by 500 additional years. Moreover, they lack the extraordinary safeguards, men tioned above, whereby the integrity of the Scriptures has been protected. Yet no one doubts that we have correct texts of those an cient writers. So the fact is that the security which the Text of the Scriptures has enjoyed is, as has been well said, “altogether unique and extraordinary.

      * Errors of Omission In considering the principle of following the most ancient manuscripts it is important to note how it works in the case of that commonest of all errors — errors of omission; and in dis cussing this point we would take as an example the question of the last twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark (referred to specifically later on). Those verses are absolutely necessary to the completeness of the Gospel; yet because they are not in “the two most ancient Mss.” the Revisionists have marked them as probably spurious.

      Here then we may propose a question upon which the merits of the B. V. may be decided, at least to a very large extent : Should the purely negative testimony of those two Codices (i. e., the fact that certain words and passages are not found in them) be allowed to overthrow the affirmative testimony of hundreds of other Greek Manuscripts, Versions, and quotations from the “ church fathers ? “This is a question which anyone of ordinary intelligence can be trusted to decide correctly when the following points (to which Dr. Hort and the majority of the Revision Committee must have been strangely blinded) are taken into account:

      1. The commonest of all mistakes in copying manuscripts, or in repeating a matter, are mistakes of omission, or lapses of memory, or the results of inattention. Hence it is an accepted principle of evidence that the testimony of one competent witness, who says he saw or heard a certain thing, carries more weight than that of a dozen who, though on the spot, can only say that they did not see or hear it, or that they do not remember it. Therefore, other things being equal, the affirmative evidence of the other three ancient Codices

        and Versions, and that of the “fathers” who quote those verses as unques tioned Scripture, is an hundred fold more worthy of credence than the negative testimony of the two which were allowed to control in set tling the text of the R. V.

      2. As we have already stated, a superstitious deference was paid to the Sinai and Vatican Mss. because of their (supposed) greater anti quity, the assumption being that the older the Ms. the more likely is it to be correct. But that assumption is wholly unwarrantable. In the concrete case before us, we have, in support of the Text of the A. V., the concurrent testimony of many manuscripts, from many different parts of the world; and though these were copies of older copies no longer in existence, yet, upon the soundest principles of the law of evi dence, their concurrent testimony serves to establish conclusively the various disputed pas sages, where the two ancient Codices present variances.

        The question of the authenticity of the last twelve verses of the Gospel by Mark is of sucli importance that we propose to cite the testi mony in regard thereto more fully in a subse quent chapter. We are referring to it here only as an impressive illustration of a general principle. That principle (the causes of errors of omission) is of exceptional importance in this case because, as we have seen, the original scribe of the Sinaitic Codex was peculiarly given to errors of that sort.

        A Test of the Principle op “Ancient Evidence”

        Letustakeanillustrationofwhatwfearehereseeking to establish, namely, that the concur rent testimony of the manuscripts which sup port the Received Text conclusively establish its authenticity in parts where it differs from the *’New Greek Text” of Westcott and Hort. For this purpose let us suppose that a hundred copies of a certain original document in a cen tral business office were made by different copy ists and sent to as many different branch-offices in various parts of the world; and suppose that, since the document contained directions for the carrying on of the business for many genera tions, it had to be copied again and again as the individual Mss. were worn out through usage. Suppose further that, after centuries of time, one of the earliest copies should turn up which, upon examination, was found to lack a word or sentence found in later copies in actual service, and that it were deemed important to settle the question of the authenticity of that word or sen tence. Suppose further that, for the purpose in view, a dozen of the manuscripts then in actual use in various and far distant parts of the world, each one being a late

        copy of previously used and worn-out copies, were examined, and that the disputed word or sentence were found in each of those late copies, is it not clear that the authenticity thereof would he established beyond all reasonable dispute? Such must be the conclusion, because the absence thereof in the ancient copy could be easily accounted for, whereas its presence in a number of later copies, each of which came from a distinct source, could not be accounted for except on the assumption of its genuineness.

        But let us suppose that, in addition to the various copies in use in various places, there existed certain translations (versions in foreign languages) which translations were earlier than the very earliest of the existing manuscripts in the original tongue; and also that many quota tions of the disputed passage were found in the writings of persons who had lived in or near the days when the document itself was written ; and suppose that the disputed word or sentence were found in every translation and every quo tation, would not its genuineness be established beyond the faintest shadow of a doubt?

        This supposititious case will give a good idea of the strength of the evidence in favor of the Text of the A.

        V. For in the settling of that Text due weight was given to the concurrent testi mony of the numerous Mss. in actual use in dif ferent churches, widely separated from one an other; and also to the corroborating testimony of the most ancient Versions and of the patristic writings

        ; whereas, in the settling of the text of the E. V. the evidence of highest grade was uni formly rejected in favor of that of the lowest grade.

        The Strength of the Case in Favor of The Received Text

      3. But the case in favor of the Greek Text of the A. V. is far stronger than this. For when the two Mss. which controlled the Westcott and Hort text are scrutinized, they are found to con tain such internal proofs of their unreliability as to impeach their own testimony, and render them utterly unworthy of belief. They present the case of witnesses who have been caught in so many misstatements as to discredit their entire testimony.

        To begin with, their history renders them justly open to suspicion. For why should a special Ms. be carefully treasured in the Vati can, if not for the reason that it contained er rors and textual corruptions favorable to the doctrines and practices of Bome ? And why was the other Ms., discovered in the last century by Tischendorf, allowed to lie in disuse for hundreds of years from the

        fourth century (as supposed) until the nineteenth? A reasonable in ference would be that the Ms. was cast aside and ultimately consigned to the waste paper basket, because it was known to be permeated with er rors of various sorts. And this inference is raised to the level of practical certainty by the fact that, time and again, the work of correct ing the entire manuscript was undertaken by successive owners.

        But not to dwell longer upon mere circum stances, the two Mss., when carefully examined, are found to bear upon their face clear evi dences that they were derived from a common, and a very corrupt, source. The late Dr. Edward Vining of Cambridge, Mass., has gone thoroughly into this, and has produced evi dence tending to show that they were copies (and most carelessly made) of an original brought bv Origen out of Egvpt. where, as is well known, the Scriptures were corrupted al most from the beginning in the interest of the same ascetic practices as now characterize the church of Rome.

        Dr. Scrivener (generally regarded as the ablest of the textual critics) says that “the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subjected originated within a himdred years after it was composed,” and that ‘’Irenaeus and the African fathers used far inferior manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephens, thirteen cen turies later, when moulding the Textus Recep us.”

        In view of such facts as these, it is easy to see what havoc would result to the sacred text if (as actually happened in the production of the R. V.) its composition were controlled by two man uscripts of Egyptian origin, to the actual repu diation of the consensus of hundreds of later manuscripts of good repute, of the most ancient and trustworthy of the Versions, and of the independent witness of the earliest Christian writers.

      4. Bearing in mind that, as Dr. Kenyon of the British Museum says, “the manuscripts of the New Testament are counted by hundreds and even thousands,” it is a cause for astonish ment that credence should have been given in any instance to the Vatican or Sinai Ms. (or both together in cases where they agree) against the agreeing testimony of the multitude of opposing witnesses. But such was the rule consistently followed in compiling the Text for the B. V. Canon Cook in his book on the “ Revised Version of the First Three Gospels,” says :

    “Byfarthegreatestnumberofinnovations, including those which give the severest shocks to our minds, are adopted on the testimony of two manuscripts, or even of one manuscript, against the dis tinct testimony of all

    other manuscripts, uncial and cursive.5 . . . The Vatican Codex, sometimes alone, but generally in accord with the Sinaitic, is respon sible for nine-tenths of the most striking innovations in the R-V.”

    We have deemed it worth while to examine with some care the principle whereby modern editors of the Greek Text of the New Testament profess to have been guided, and this for the reasons, first, that the question here discussed, and the facts whereby it must be determined, lie beyond the reach of most of those for whose benefit we are writing; and second, that if we are right in our view that the principle we are discussing is utterly unsound, is contrary to the rules of evidence, and is certain to lead astray those who submit to its guidance, we have taken the foundation completely from under the Revised Version of 1881 and of every other Version that rests upon the same corrupt Greek Text, or one constructed upon the same principles.

    We bring our remarks under this heading to a close by quoting the following from Scrivener’s ‘’Plain Introduction to the Text of the N. T.” (1883): Dr. Hort’s system is entirely destitute of histor ical foundation.” And again :

    “We are compelled to repeat as emphatically as ever our strong conviction that the hypothesis to which he (Dr. Hort) has devoted so many laborious years is destitute not only of historical foundation but of all probability resulting from the internal goodness of the text which its adoption would force upon us.

    “He quotes Dr. Hort as saying, “We cannot doubt that S. Luke 23:34 comes from an ex traneous source,” and he replies, “Nor can we, on our part, doubt that the system which en tails such consequences is hopelessly self-con demned.’

    We conclude therefore, from what has been under consideration up to this point in our in quiry, that the

    E. V. should be rejected, not only because of the many unsupported departures from the A. V. it contains, but because the Greek Text whereon it is based was constructed upon a principle so unsound that the resulting Text could not be other than ‘’hopelessly” corrupt.

    Chaptee VI


  5. For some centuries after Christ all Greek mamiscripts were written entirely in capital letters. Such mss. (the most ancient) are called “uncial.” In later times the custom of using capitals at the begin ning only of a sentence, or for proper names, came into existence. That style of writing is called “cursive.”

    The Procedure of the Revision Committee

    The Insteuctions Given Them and How They Were Careied Out — No Authority Given to Fashion a New Greek Text — How Their Sanction Was Seemingly Given to the Westcott and Hort Text.

    SOME of our readers will perhaps be asking how it was possible that the learned men who composed the Revision Committee could have allowed the great mass of testimony which sustains the authenticity of the Eeceived Text to be set aside upon the sole authority of two Codices so dubious as the two we have been discussing. The explanation is that the Revisionists did not consider these matters at all. They were not supposed to undertake the refashioning of the Greek Text — for that lay entirely outside their instructions — and they had therefore no occasion to go into the many intri cate matters involved in the weighing of the evidence for and against the Eeceived Text.

    Neither was it their province to decide upon the soundness of the principle of following ancient Mss. only; and the account of their pro ceedings (published by Dr. Newth, one of the Revisers) makes it quite plain that they did not have before them, or give any consideration to, the weighty matters of fact, affecting the char acter of those two ‘’ancient witnesses,” which we are now putting before our readers. It is therefore to be noted (and it is an important point) that, in regard to the underlying Greek Text of the R. V. and the principles that con trolled its formation, no appeal can properly be made to the scholarship of the Committee, how soever great it might be. In view of all the facts it seems clear that, not until after the Com mittee had disbanded, and their work had come under the scrutiny of able scholars and faithful men, were they themselves aware that they had seemingly given their official sanction to the substitution of the ‘’New Greek Text” of West cott and Hort for the Textus Beceptus. The Westcott and Hort Text had not yet been pub lished, and hence had never been subjected to scrutiny and criticism; nor had the principles upon which it was constructed been investi gated. Only after it was too late were the facts realized, even by the Revisers themselves.

    The mischief has thus been traced back to those two scholars, and to a Text that had not yet seen the light of day and been subjected to the scrutiny of other scholars. And we now know that not until after the R. V. of the New Testament had been published was it known that the Westcott and Hort Text had been quietly imposed

    upon the Revisers, and that it was conformed to the two old Codices, Sinaiti cus and Vaticanus.

    Dean Burgon was one of the first to call atten tion to the fact that the most radical departures , in the R.

    V. were not new translations of the i Received Text, but were departures that arose i from changes in the Greek Text itself. No announcement of this important fact had been made by the Committee ; and indeed there was seemingly a disposition to throw a veil over this part of the proceedings in Committee. “But,” says Dean Burgon, “I traced the mischief home to its true authors — Drs. Westcott and Hort — a copy of whose unpublished text, the most vicious in existence, had been confidentially and under ; pledges of the strictest secrecy, placed in the hands of every member of the revising body.” Dean Burgon thereupon proceeded to publish some of these facts in a series of articles which appeared in the Quarterly Review in 1883 ; and subsequent events have amply proved the correctness of, his anticipations at that time, namely that the effect of careful investigations ‘ would eventually convince all competent judges that the principles on which the ‘’New Greek Text” was constructed were “radically un sound;” and that “the Revision of 1881 must j come to be universally regarded as — ^what it most certainly is

  6. Not, be it observed, a revision of the Greek Text

Cook (“R. V. of the First Three Gospels Considered”)

says concerning the above explanation by Dr. Newth, “Such a proceeding appeared to me so strange that I fully expected the account would be corrected, or that some explanation would be given which might remove the very unpleasant impression. ‘ ‘ But not so. On the contrary, the Chairman himself (Bishop Ellicott) is authority for the fact that Dr. Newth’s account of the method whereby the Greek Text was “settled” is quite correct.

Sir Edmund Beckett has, we think, put the matter very well when he said that Dr. Newth’s account of the way the Committee on Revision “settled” the Greek Text “is quite enough to ‘ settle ^ the Revised Version in a very different sense.” For in the production of the “New Greek Text” the Revisers have departed from the Textus Receptus nearly 6,000 times. The question of every proposed change should have been made a matter of careful investigation, and should have been reached according to the weight of the evidence, for and against. But from the published account of the proceedings, vouched for by the chairman (Bishop EUicott) as correct, we understand that in no case was there any examination of the question, or weigh ing of the evidence by the Committee.

Upon this state of things Bishop Wordsworth remarks :

‘’The question arises whether the Church of Eng land, which sanctioned a revision of her Authorized Version UTider the express condition (which she most wisely imposed) that no changes should he made in it except such as were absolutely necessary, could con sistently accept a Version in which 36,000 changes have been made, not a fiftieth of which can be shown to be needed, or even desirable.”

Chapter VII

Specific Examples of Textual Corruption

Specific Examples of Textual Corruption. The last 12 Verses of Mark. The Angelic Message. The Lord ‘s Agony, and His Prayer on the Cross. “The Mystery of Godliness.” Other important passages affected.

ENOUGH has been said, we think, to im peach successfully the credibility of the two ‘’ancient witnesses’^ whose testi mony was so largely relied upon in constructing a Greek Text for the R. V. We will therefore proceed now to refer to some conspicuous in stances wherein passages or clauses have been either corrupted or brought under unjust sus picion through

their evidence, which is largely of a negative character. And this will throw further light upon the character of those wit nesses ; for an effectual way of discrediting their testimony is to produce actual instances of the mischief that has been done by accepting it.

The Last Twelve Verses of Mark

In his “unanswered and unanswerable” work on this famous passage (published some years before the R. V. appeared, so that the Revisers were duly informed in regard thereto) Dean Burgon wrote as follows :

“The consentient witness of the manuscripts is even extraordinary. With the exception of the two uncial manuscripts whicli have just been named (Vatican and Sinaitic) there is not one Codex in existence, uncial or cursive (and we are acquainted with at least eighteen other uncials and about six hundred cursives of this Gospel), which leaves out the last twelve verses of S. Mark. The omission of these twelve verses, I repeat, in itself destroys our confidence in Codex B (Vaticanus) and Codex Sinaiti cus. Nothing whatever which has

hitherto come before us lends the slightest countenance to the modern dream that S. Mark’s Gospel, as it left the hands of its inspired author, ended abruptly at verse 8, .

. , The notion is an invention, a pure imagiaation of the critics, ever since the days of Griesbach.”

The fact that the Revisers have discredited a passage so important as the ending of Mark’s Gospel is enough in itself to arouse suspicion as to their entire work, and to create a feeling of uncertainty as to their fitness for the great task entrusted to them. For the evidence in favor of the authenticity of that passage is simply overwhelming.

The Angelic Message (Luke 2 : 14)

As another typical instance of the sort of changes that the Revisionists have attempted to introduce through the unsound methods they pursued, we take the words of the angelic mes sage, ‘’And on earth peace, good will towards men” (Lu. 2:14). For this the Revisionists, upon the authority of the little handful of corrupt Mss. to which they superstitiously bowed, have substituted the uncouth and preposterous phrase, ‘’peace among men in whom he is well pleased.”

Now we should suppose that every one ac quainted with the language of Scripture, and possessed of spiritual discernment to even a moderate extent, would unhesitatingly say that such a phrase could never have been part of the true Word of God. But, going back to the evi dence, it is found that, with the exception of four Codices of bad repute (two of which have been corrected as to this very passage in loco) every existing

copy of the Gospels (amounting to many hundreds) has the reading of the Received Text; and this reading has the sup port of five ancient Versions, and of quotations from more than a score of “fathers.” It is a case where, upon the evidence, there is no room for the smallest doubt. And this is a fair ex ample of how the case stands with nearly all the changes of the Greek Text.

The Lord’s Agony in the Garden and His Prayer for His Murderers

As further examples of the havoc which the system adopted by the Revisers has wrought, we would refer to Luke 22:43, 44, and Luke 23:34. These passages, with many others (some of them very important) the Revisers have enclosed in brackets in order to indicate the ‘’moral certainty” they entertained that the words in question are spurious. The first of the above mentioned passages describes the Lord’s agony and bloody sweat in the garden, and the other is the vitally important prayer of Christ on the cross, “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do. “We have a spe cial comment on this last passage below. Now the state of the evidence, as in the last preceding instance, is such as to establish be yond all doubt that both these passages are genuine Scripture.

To Save That Which Was Lost

As another example out of many we take the precious words of the Lord Jesus, “The Son of man is come to save that which was lost, ‘ ‘ which are expunged by the Revisionists from Matthew 18:11, although they are attested by every known uncial except three (the usual three of bad character), by every known cursive except three, by numerous Versions, by the lection aries of many churches, and by a large number of “fathers.” In a word, the evidence over whelmingly establishes the genuineness of the passage.

Petek Walking on the Sea

In Matthew 14 : 30 the A. V. says that when Peter ‘ ‘ saw the wind boisterous he was afraid. ‘ ‘ The E. V. strikes out the word “boisterous,” which, however, is a word of capital importance here. The only warrant for this meddlesome change, which spoils the sense of the passage, is that Tischendorf (alone of all the editors) re jects the word. And the Revisers have made matters worse by putting in the margin the utterly misleading statement “many ancient authorities add strong.” The reader would certainly understand from this that the major ity of the authorities, especially the “ ancient” ones, omitted the word. But the truth of the matter is

that the Mss. which omit the word are but two; and of them Sir E. Beckett says, “and those two manuscripts appear also to be rather distinguished for blunders than for excellence.” Here we have a most unjustifiable alteration, coupled with an utterly misleading statement of the facts behind it.

The Mysteey of Godliness

Anotherexampleofviciousandwhollyunwarranted tampering with an important pas sage, is furnished by the alteration in 1 Timothy 3:16, whereby the words, ‘’God was manifest in the flesh,” are changed to ‘’he who was mani fested in the flesh.” How this change strikes at the foundation truth of the Deity of our Lord is apparent at a glance. As to the evidence in this case. Dean Burgon says that the reading adopted by the Revisers “is not to be found in more than two copies of S. Paul’s Epistles, is not certainly supported by a single Version, and is not clearly advocated by a single Father.” In a word the evidence is overwhelmingly against it. Dean Bnrgon, in his truly crushing reply to Bishop Ellicott, the chairman of the Revision Committee, has triumphantly vindi cated the authenticity of the Eeceived Text in its reading of this vitally important passage.

From that reply we extract the following :

“Behold then the provision which the Author of Scripture has made for the effectual conservation in its integrity of this portion of His Written Word! Upwards of 1800 years have run their course since the Holy Ghost, by His servant Paul, rehearsed ‘the Mys tery of Godliness, ‘ declaring this to be the great foun dation fact, namely, that ‘God was manifest in the flesh. ‘ And lo ! out of 254 copies of St. Paul ‘s Epistles, no less than 252 are discovered to have preserved that expression. The copies whereof we speak were procured in every part of Christendom, being derived in every instance from copies older than themselves; which again were transcripts of copies older still. They have since found their way, without design or contrivance, into the libraries of every country in Europe, where they have been jealously guarded.”

Such an agreement between hundreds of wit nesses, remote from one another, establishes the true reading beyond the faintest shadow of a doubt, particularly in view of the fact that the mistake of substituting “who” for *’God” is easily accounted for by the resemblance in original uncial Mss. between the conventional symbol for *’God” and the relative pronoun *’who.” We submit, as a proper and just con clusion from these facts, that men who, upon such a state of the evidence before them,

would cast out of the Scripture at this vital point, the word “God,” and replace it by *’he who,” have thereby demonstrated their unfitness for the work of revising the Greek Text of the N. T.

The Omission of Mark 6 : 11

The Revisionists have discarded as spurious the words of Christ: ‘’Verily I say unto you it shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomor rah in the day of judgment than for that city” (Mk.6:ll).

Referring to this mutilation. Dean Burgon, in a letter addressed to the chairman of the Re vision Committee, commented as follows:

“How serious the consequences have been they only know who have been at pains to examine your work with close attention. Not only have you on countless occasions thrust out words, clauses, and entire sentences of genuine Scripture, but you have been careful that no trace should survive of the fatal injury you have inflicted. I wonder you were not afraid. Can I be wrong in deeming such a proceed ing to be in a high degree sinful ? Has not the Spirit pronounced a tremendous doom (Rev. 22:19) against those who do such things? Were you not afraid for instance to leave out (from Mk. 6 :11) those solemn words of our Saviour, ‘Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city’? Have you studied S. Mark’s Gospel to so little purpose as not to know that the six uncials on which you rely are the depositories of an abominably corrupt recension of the second Gospel?”

‘’Bless Them That Curse You’’ (Matt. 5:44)

In the same letter, referring to the omission of Matthew 5 : 44, Dean Burgon said :

‘’But you have committed a yet more deplorable blunder when — without leaving behind you either note or comment of any sort — you obliterated from

S. Matthew 5 :44 the solemn words which I proceed to underline : — ^ Bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despite fully use you and persecute you.’ You relied almost exclusively on those two false witnesses, of which you are so superstitiously fond. (Vatican and Sinai Mss.) regardless of the testimony of almost all the other copies besides, of almost all the versions, and of a host of primitive fathers, half of whom lived and died before our two oldest manuscripts came into being.”

“Father Foegive Them”

We have already quoted Dr. Hort^s remark

concerning the infinitely precious words, “Fa ther forgive them for they know not what they do,” words so divinely gracious that they are self -authenticating, but of which Dr. Hort said he could not doubt that they “came from an extraneous source.” Here is Dean Burgon’s comment :

“These twelve precious words Drs. Westcott and Hort enclose within double brackets in token of the ‘moral certainty’ they entertain that the words are spurious; and yet these words are found in every known uncial and in every known cursive copy, except four ; besides being found in every ancient ver sion; and what amount (we ask the question with sincere simplicity), what amount of evidence is calculated to inspire undoubted confidence in any existing reading, if not such a concurrence of author ities as this?” As to the patristic evidence to this passage — “we find our Saviour’s prayer attested by upwards of forty ancient fathers (of the second to the eighth centuries) . . . How could our revisionists dare to insinuate doubts into wavering hearts and unlearned heads where (as here) they were hound to know there exists no manner of doubt at all?”

“And Am Known op Mine”

John 10 : 14 reads thus in the A. V., “I am the Good Shepherd, and know My Sheep, and am known of Mine.” For the last clause the R. V. substitutes “and Mine own know Me. ‘ ‘ In view of the next succeeding words, *’As the Father knoweth me even so know I the Father,” this change de stroys the exquisite diversity of expression of the original, which implies that whereas the knowledge which subsists between the Father and the Son is mutually identical, the knowledge the creature has of the Creator is of a very dif ferent sort; and it puts the creature’s Imowl edge of the Creator on the same level as the Father’s knowledge of the Son, and the Son’s knowledge of the Father. Speaking of this regrettable

change Dean Burgon says :

‘The refinement in question has been faithfully retained all down the ages by every copy in ex istence, except the Vatican and the Sinaitic, and two others of equally bad character. Does anyone in his sober senses suppose that, if S. John had written ‘Mine own know Me,’ 996 manuscripts out of a thousand at the end of 1800 years would be found to exhibit ‘ I am known of Mine ‘ ?

Dr. Malan sums up in the following words his examination of the first chapter of Matthew as it appears in the R. V. — ‘’The Revisers have made 60 changes in

that chapter. Of these one is good, and one is admissible. All the rest (58) appear ill-judged or unnecessary.”

Canon Cook’s verdict on the Revisers’ Text of the first three Gospels is as follows :

“It is not too much to say that in nine passages out of ten — nay, to go further — in every passage of vital importance as regards the integrity of Holy Scripture, the veracity of the sacred writers, and the records of our Lord’s Sayings, nearly all an cient versions, and with very few exceptions, all ancient fathers, support the readings rejected by the Revisers.”

Sir Edmund Beckett (in his work already quoted) has this to say about the ‘’critical maxims” the Revisers are supposed to have followed in reaching their results: “It would take a great many critical maxims to convince me that the apostles wrote what can only be fairly translated into nonsense ; which they some times did, if the Revisers’ new readings are all right ; and moreover their adoption of them makes one sus picious about many other readings which cannot be brought

under that test.”

Many other examples might be given of changes in the Greek Text made in deference to the two ancient Codices (Vaticamis and Sinai ticus) and against the overwhelmingly prepon derating testimony of Greek Mss. Versions and Fathers, changes which inflict manifest injury upon the Holy Scriptures ; but the foregoing are amply sufficient to warrant the conclusion that the ‘’New Greek Text” underlying the E. V. (which is virtually that of Westcott and Hort) is vastly inferior to that of the A. V., and spe cifically that the witnesses whose testimony con trolled in the construction of the former are utterly untrustworthy.

Chapter VIII Changes in Translation

Changes in- Translation. The leaning towards greater literality not an improvement. Thou sands of uncalled-for changes — “mostly for the worse. Concerning 2 Timothy 3:16. The Version of 1911. Its value as a witness.

HAVING considered those departures of the E. V. from the A. V. that are due to the use of a different Greek Text, we come now to changes of another sort, namely, changes of words and sentences where there was no change in the corresponding part of the Greek Text.

In speaking of this class of changes we do not fail to recognize, what is admitted by all competent authorities, that the A. V. could be corrected in a number of pas sages where the meaning is now obscured be cause of changes which three centuries have brought about in the meaning of English words, or where diligent study or recent discoveries have brought to light better readings. Such instances, however, are comparatively few, whereas the R. V. gives us about 36,000 de partures, small and great, from the A. V. What shall we say of such a host of changes? Sir Edmund Beckett writes about it as follows : “The two principal complaints of the work of the Revisers made by nearly every review, and by some of their own members (who protested in vain) are of the enormous number of alterations which con vict themselves of being unnecessary; and the still more serious one that they have hardly changed a sentence without spoiling its English, sometimes by the smallest touch or transposition of a word, and still more by the

larger alterations.

“The condemnation of a great deal of the Re visers’ work, in real fidelity of translation, as well as in style, by such a scholar as the Bishop of Lincoln has been from his youth, is a blow from which they will not easily recover Another dignitary and scholar of eminence

has publicly declared that he dissented from one-third (which is 12,000) of the alterations the more ambitious majority persisted in; and it is generally understood that another Dean re signed for the same reason in despair.” In a great many instances changes were made in the tenses of verbs, upon the theory advocated by Drs. Westcott and Hort, that the proper rendering of the Greek aorist demanded such changes. But this has since that time been seriously called into question. Indeed a writer in the London Times for January 17, 1920, re marks that “Some years ago Bishop “Westcott’s son told the readers of The Times that the view taken by the Revisers of the proper meaning of the Greek aorist, which led to so many alterations, was now known to be mistaken.

“One need not be a Greek scholar in order to form an opinion of his own regarding the many changes of words and phrases which the Revisers have made in cases where there was no thought of changing the meaning. Such changes appear upon a mere comparison of the two Versions ; and if one has become at all used to the unapproachable style of the A. V. his ear must needs suffer continual offence and annoyance as he listens to the rendering of familiar pas sages in the R. V. Speaking to this point Dean Burgon (in his Revision Revised)

says :

“The English, as well as the Greek, of the newly Revised Version, is hopelessly at fault. It is to me simply unintelligible how a company of scholars can have spent ten years in elaborating such a very unsatisfactory production. Their uncouth phrase ology and their jerky sentences, their pedantic ob scurity and unidiomatic English, contrast painfully with the happy turns of expression, the music of the cadences, the felicities of the rhythm of our Authorized Version. It is, however, the

sys tematic depravation of the underlying Greek which does so grievously offend me. For this is nothing else but a poisoning of the River of Life at its Sacred Source. Our Revisers stand convicted of having deliberately rejected the words of Inspira tion in every page, and of having substituted for them fabricated readings which the church has long since refused to acknowledge, or else has rejected, with abhorrence, readings which survive at this time only in a little handful of documents of the most depraved type.”

Dr. Alexander Carson

(Inspiration of the Scriptures, p. 198) has well said: “There is no greater mistake than to suppose that

a translation is good according as it is literal. It may be asserted that, without exception, a literal translation of any book cannot be a faithful one. For if the word is not usedinits literal senseintheoriginalitisamistranslation of it to translate it literally. This is a canon of Biblical Interpretation of universal application, and of the greatest moment — a canon not only often violated, but to violate which is, in the estimation of some translators, the highest praise. A translation of this kind, instead of conveying the original with additional light, is simply unintelligible.” Such being the case (and we think the truth of Dr. Carson’s statement is self-evident) it will be clearly seen that the making of a real translation is not merely a matter of giving the literal meaning of the words of the original; and further that, in order to be a good trans lator, one needs other qualifications besides a knowledge of the original tongue. So, as be tween the two rival Versions, much depends upon- the question whether the translators of 1881 were as well qualified for their work as those of 1611, As a help in the decision of this question we give, in this chapter, a few com parisons where changes have been made. We believe, however, that merely upon viewing broadly the two Versions most readers will recognize the great superiority of the Old Ver sion. That work has commended itself to the acknowledged masters of the English tongue, as well

as to the millions of ordinary readers, for more than three centuries, and it has occupied in the world a place unapproaclied by any other book in any language. And although we know it is only a translation, and although we know also that (as Joseph Parker said) “a translation may have its faults, and copyists may make blunders, yet we still call it the Holy Bible,” and it is to us, as it has been to ten gen erations past, in truth and reality, the Living Word of the Living God. Such being the state of the case our wisdom is to hold on to the Old Version, and to every part of it, except in spe cific cases (and they are but few) where it can be shown by clear proof that a change is needed.

Examples of Changes in Translation

In taking notice of a few of the thousands of new readings introduced by the Revisers, it should be remembered that, according to the instructions under which they acted, they were not to make “any new translationofthe Bible, noranyalterationofthelanguage, except where, in the judgment of the most competent scholars, such change is necessary/’ and fur ther they were instructed that “in such neces sary changes, the style of the language em ployed in the existing Version be closely fol lowed.” Can any “competent” scholar tell us that even a sizable fraction of the host of changes now embodied in the R. V. were “neces sary”? And will anyone pretend that, in the changes which have been introduced, the style ? of the existing Version has been “closely fol lowed’’?

We have already pointed out that, in the first chapter of Matthew alone, the Revisers have made sixty changes, ofwhich, accordingtoacompetentauthority(Dr. Malan) fifty-eight were ‘’either ill judged or unnecessary.” Going on to Matthew 4 : 12, we find that the words ‘’John was cast into prison” are changed to ‘ ‘ was delivered up. ‘ ‘ It may be claimed that the latter is a more literal rendering; but it is not an improved translation ; for the best trans lation is that which best gives the sense of the original, and “delivered up” has no definite meaning for the English reader. In Luke 8 : 45, 46 the E. V. has introduced no less than nineteen changes into 34 words; and in 2 Peter 1 : 5-7 thirty changes have been made in a passage containing only swords. These are extreme examples of the extraordinary pro pensity of the Revisers for making uncalled for changes. Concerning the former of these two passages Dean Burgon writes : “I challenge any competent scholar in Great Britain to say whether every one of these changes be not absolutely useless, or else decidedly a change for the worse; six of them being

downright errors.” His comment on the other passage is : “To ourselves it appears that every one of these changes is a change for the worse, and that one of the most exquisite passages in the N. T. has been hopelessly spoiled — rendered in fact well-nigh un intelligible — by the pedantic ofl&ciousness of the Revisers.”

Paul Before King Ageippa

In Acts 26 : 24 the words of Pestus to Paul, “much learning hath made thee mad,” are changed in the R.

V. to “thy much learning doth turn thee to madness.” Concerning this novel and uncouth expression Sir E. Beckett says :

“We have heard of men being naturally inclined to madness, or being driven to madness by despair, and of being turned mad; and of wisdom being turned to madness ; but never before have we heard of a man being turned to madness. It is idle to say the Greek required it; for the literal sense would be nonsense ; and they have not given even the literal sense. What they have given us is a transla tion neither literal, nor sensible, nor idiomatic, nor harmonious, nor anything but an absurd and cacophonous piece of pedantry for nothing.”

Concerning 2 Timothy 3 : 16

Of all the changes introduced into the Text of the

R. v., that which has raised the greatest storm of protest is the alteration of the words, ‘’All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable,” so as to make the passage read, “Every Scripture given by inspiration of God is profitable.” This apparently slight change gives a very different turn to the sense of the verse; for it suggests that there are Scriptures “ which are not given by inspiration of God. Inasmuch as it has been often pointed out by competent scholars that there is no warrant whatever for this alteration, we do not dwell upon it.

The Testimony of the Veesion of 1911

As to the merits (or demerits) of the myriads of changes of translation brought in by the Revisers of 1881, we would call attention (as well worthy of consideration) to the judgment of the Committee of

34 Hebrew and Greek scholars who prepared the Tercentenary Edition of the Bible. The duty committed to them was to make —

“A careful scrutiny of the Text, with the view of correcting, in the light of the best modern research, such passages as are recognized by all scholars as in any measure misleading or need lessly obscure.” And this as we understand it, is substantially what the Revisers of

1881 were instructed and expected to do.

The result of this scrutiny of the entire Text of the English Bible by the Committee of 1911 was that they repudiated over 98 percent of the changes introduced by the Revisers of 1881. That is to say, they accepted less than two out of every hundred of the changes brought in by the Revisers.

From the Preface to the 1911 Tercentenary Edition of the Bible (issued by the Oxford Press) we quote the following:

“The continued confidence of the Church Univer sal throughout English-speaking lands in the Au thorized Version is seasoned and mature. Despite a limited number of passages in which the Revisers of 1611 seem to have missed the true meaning, and of a number of other passages which have, through changed usage, become obscure, the A. V. is still the English Bible.”

So it is, and so it is likely to be to the end.

This Tercentenary Commemoration Edition of 1911 may properly be regarded as the care fully deliberated verdict of a representative company of scholars, chosen with special reference to their knowledge of Biblical Hebrew and Greek and of all matters pertaining to the Text of the Holy Scriptures, a verdict reached after a comparative trial of the two Versions (A. V. and E. V.) side by side, for a period of thirty years. Their verdict was, in our opinion, fully warranted by the facts; and the passage of years since it was rendered has but served further to establish it.

Chaptee IX

The Use Made of the Margin in the R. V. The strange uses made of the Margin in the R. V. The Name “Jesus.” *’ Thine is the Kingdom.” “The Son of God.” “Which is in Heaven.” “The Number of a Man.” The Island of Melita.

IN THE preparation of the Authorized Version the useful expedient was adopted of putting in the margin of the page an alter native reading, in the few and comparatively unimportant passages which seemed to admit thereof. Also in the margin was given the translation of proper names appearing in the Text, and occasional items of information calculated to be a help to a better understanding of the Scripture.

Such was the precedent the Revisers had before them for their guidance. Furthermore, a rule adopted by the Committee required that wherever a change was made in the Greek Text that change should he noted

in the margi/n. Nevertheless, in the preparation of the New Version the Committee departed wholly from the

A. V. and also completely ignored the rule referred to. Dean Burgon is authority for the statement that “use has been made of the margin to insinuate suspicion and distrust in countless particulars as to the authenticity of the text which has been suffered to remain unaltered” (Preface to ‘’Revision Revised”). Again, in the same volume (“Revision Re vised”) he says:

“The Revisionists have not corrected the ‘Known Textual Errors.’ On the other hand, besides silently adopting most of those wretched fabrications which are just now in favor with the German school, they have encumbered their margin with those other readings which, after due examination, they had themselves deliberately rejected What else must be the result of

all this, but general uncertainty, con fusion, and distress ! A hazy mistrust of all Scripture has been insinuated into the hearts and minds of multitudes who, for this cause, have been forced to become doubters; yes, doubters in the truth of Revelation itself.

“How was it to have been believed that the Revisionists would show themselves industrious in sow ing broadcast over four continents doubts as to the truth of Scripture, doubts which it will never be in their power to remove or recall?

“And here we must renew our protest against the wrong which has been done to English readers by the Revisionists’ disregard of the IV th rule laid down for their guidance, viz., that whenever they adopted a new textual reading such reading was to be ‘indicated in the margin.”

And he addresses the Revisionists this question regarding their failure in duty to the English reader :

“How comes it to pass that you have never furnished him the information you stood pledged to furnish, but have, instead, volunteered on every page in formation, worthless in itself, which can only serve to unsettle the faith of unlettered millions, and to suggest unreasonable as well as miserable doubts to the minds of all ? “

Examples op Vagabies in Maeginal Notes

The Name “Jesus”

Matthew 1: 18 in the A. V. reads: “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise.” The R. V. marginal note says, “Some ancient authorities read ‘of the Christ’ “ — that is to say, they omit the Name Jesus. But Dean Burgon says:

“Now what are the facts? Not one single known manuscript omits the word Jesus; while its presence

is vouched for by the fathers Tatian, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Cyril, in addition to every known Greek copy of the Gospels, and not a few of the versions.”

“Thine is the Kingdom”

In Matthew 6 : 13 the Revisers have rejected the important clause: ‘’For Thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory forever. Amen”; and in the margin they have put this: “Many authorities, some ancient but with variations, add, ‘For Thine is’ “—etc. Concerning this radical alteration of the Text, and concerning the marginal note thereon, Dean Burgon has this to say:

“All the manuscripts in the world” — over 500, remember — ‘’but nine contain these words. Is it in any way credible that, in a matter like this, they should all have become corrupted? No hypothesis is needed to account for this, another instance of omission in copies which exhibit a mutilated text on every page.

“The Son of God”

In the Gospel of Mark the first marginal note relates to the supremely important words of verse 1, ‘’the Son of God.” The note says: “Some ancient authorities omit ‘the Son of God.’ “ But the fact is (according to Dean B.) that ‘’the words are found in every known copy hut three, in all the Versions, and in many fathers. The evidence in favor of the clause is therefore overwhelming.” What can have been the object of the Revisers in raising suspicion regarding a verse of supreme importance, as to the authenticity of which the proofs leave no room for any douht whatever?

“Where Their Worm Dieth Not’’

Concerning Mark 9 : 44-48 and other passages. Dean Burgon, in his “Revision Revised,” says: * ‘ Not only has a fringe of most unreasonable textual mistrust been tacked on to the margin of every in spired page (as from Luke 10:41-11;11) ; not only has many a grand doctrinal statement been evacuated of its authority (as by the shameful mis-statement found in the margin against John 3 :13, affecting the important words which is in heaven, and the vile Socinian gloss which disfigures the margin of Romans 9:5 — {Christ, Who is over all, God blessed forever) ; but we entirely miss many a solemn utterance of the Spirit, as when we are assured that verses 44 and 46 of Mark 9 are omitted by ‘the best ancient authorities/ whereas, on the contrary, the manuscripts re ferred to are the worst”

‘’Which is in Heaven”

And concerning the note on John 3 : 13, re ferred to

in the foregoing quotation — “Many ancient authorities omit “which is in heaven”. Dean Burgon asks with indignation :

“Why are we not rather assured that the precious clause in question is found in every manuscript in the world, except five of bad character ? — is recognized by all the Latin and all the Syrian Versions; is either quoted or insisted on by a host of Fathers ; in short is quite above suspicion? Why are we not told that? Those ten Versions, those 38 Fathers, that host of copies in proportion of 995 to 5 — why, concerning all these, is there not so much as a hint let fall that such a mass of counter evidence exists ? “

Surely such a suppression of the facts and misrepresentation of the truth in regard to a supremely important passage touching the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, is deserving of the strongest reprobation.

“The Number of a Man”

In Rev, 13:18, opposite the words “and his number is six hundred and sixty and six,” the Revisers have put a note which says, “Some ancient authorities read six hundred and sixteen.” As to this Dean Burgon asks:

“Why are we not informed that only one corrupt uncial, only one cursive, only one Father, and not one ancient Version, advocates this reading? which on the contrary, Irenaeus (170 A. D.) knew but rejected, remarking that “666” which is ‘found in all the best and oldest copies, and is attested by men who saw John face to face,’ is unquestionably the true reading.”

The Island of Melita

Finally, from Dean Burgon ‘s list of useless marginal glosses introduced by the Revisers, we take the following as fairly typical :

Acts 28:1. “For what conceivable reason is the world now informed that, instead of Melita, ‘some ancient authorities read Militene’? Is every pitiful blunder of the Codex Vaticanus to live on in the margin of every Englishman’s copy of the New Testament forever?” And after showing that all other Mss. and all Latin Versions and all “Fathers” who quote the passage, also the coins, and the ancient geographers, all read Melita, he says that this reading “has also been acquiesced in by every critical editor of the N. T. (excepting always Drs. Westcott and Hort) from the invention of printing until now. But, be cause those two misguided men, without apology, explanation, note or comment of any kind, have adopted Militene into their Text, is the Church of England to be dragged through the mire also, and made ridiculous in the eyes of Christendom?”

Chapter X

The Theory of Westcott and Hort Upon Which “The New Greek Text” Was Constructed

The Theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort. Many Assumptions, but no proof. The Received Text traced back to the 2d Century by means of Versions and Quotations. No proof at all of any earlier Text. Bishop EUicott in Defence of the R.

V. A comparison as to style between the A. V. and

R. V. The Voice of the People.

Bishop Ellicott’s Defence of the R. V. — The Conclusion of the Matter

WE FEEL that this little volume, so un compromisingly condemnatory as it is of the Version of 1881, and particnlarly of the Greek Text whereon that Version is based, should not go forth without at least a brief description of the theory upon which Drs. Westcott and Hort constructed their “New Text.” That theory is set forth by themselves in their long and elaborate “Introduction to the New Testament,” which was published simul taneously with the R. V. in 1881 ; and we need hardly say that, to themselves at least, and doubtless to others besides, there appeared to be good and sufficient reasons for the conclu sions reached by them. But to us it seems that their conclusions are based wholly upon infer ences and conjectures, and not only so, but they are directly contrary to all the known and per tinent facts.

Our suspicions are aroused to begin with, by the circumstance that Drs. Westcott and Hort have arrived at their conclusions by the exer cise of that mysterious faculty of “ critical intu ition,” wherewith the ‘’higher critics” of mod ern times claim to be endowed, but of the nature and workings of which they can give no explan ation whatever. We refer to the faculty whereby certain scholars of the German School of higher criticism claim ability to discern that various books of the Bible

At the time Bishop Ellicott’s defence of 1882 was prepared, Westcott and Hort had just pub lished their ‘’New Greek Text,” and the sup porting “theory;” and so Bishop Ellicott sought to avail himself thereof, and did so by the plea that those who objected to the R. V. ought to meet that theory. He did not have to wait long; for Dean Burgon’s smashing attack, strongly supported by the ablest textual critic of the day (Dr. Scrivener) and others, appeared about the same time. To all this Bishop Elli cott made no response (so far as we are aware) until in 1901 he published the book named above.

Turning to that volume we find that again he ignores entirely the main issue. Moreover, we find that now, instead of endorsing Dr. Hort, upon whom he leaned so hard in 1882, and by whom the whole Revision Committee was led astray, he virtually throws him overboard. For he cites a work of Dr. Salmon, of Trinity Col lege, Dublin (1897), in which (to quote the Bishop’s own words) “the ^difficulties and anomalies and apparent perversities in the text of Westcott and Hort are compared with the decisions of the Revisers ;” and he finds himself unahle, as he admits, to “resist the conviction that Dr. Salmon, in his interesting Criticism of the Text of the New Testament, has successfully indicated three or more particulars which must cause

some arrest in our final judgment on the Text of Westcott and Hort.”

The three particulars which Bishop Ellicott points out, which are exceedingly important, are these (we quote the Bishop’s own words) :

“In the first place it cannot be denied that, in the introductory volume, Dr. Hort has shown too distinct a tendency to elevate probable hypotheses into the realm of established facts,” — “which is just another way of saying that Dr. Hort depended npon guess work, as Dean Burgon had pointed out in 1883. “In the second place, in the really important mat ter of the nomenclature of the ancient types of Text ... it does not seem possible to accept the titles of the four fold division of these families of manuscripts which has been adopted by Westcott and Hort. The objections to this arrangement and to this

nomen clature are, as Dr. Salmon very clearly shows, both reasonable and serious.” So saying Bishop EUicott throws overboard what (as we have shown above) is vital to Dr. Hort’s theory.

“The third drawback to the unqualified acceptance of the Text of Westcott and Hort is their continuous and studied disregard of Western authorities. To this

grave drawback Dr. Salmon has devoted a chapter to which th^e’ attention of the student may very profitably be directed. I am persuaded that, if there should be any fresh discovery of textual authorities, it is by no means unlikely that they may be of a ‘Western’ character, and if so, that many decisions in the Text of Westcott and Hort will have to be modified by some editor of the future. At any rate, taking the critical evidence as we now find it, we can not but feel that Dr. Salmon has made out his case.”

These admissions are creditable to the hon esty and candor of the one who made them ; but as regards their bearing upon the subject of our present inquiry, it seems clear that, considering how greatly to the interest of the Bishop and his cause it was to uphold the critical theories of Dr. Hort, and to maintain his authority as an editor, those admissions afford very strong reason indeed for the belief that Dean Burgon’s drastic criticism of the Westcott and Hort Text, and of their “ theory” as well, was fully war ranted.

Bishop Ellicott advances the feeble plea, in extenuation of the undue influence which Dr. Hort exerted over the Revision Committee, that in only 64 passages did they accept the readings of Westcott and Hort where they had not “also the support of Lachmann, or Tischendorf, or Tregelles.” This shows, upon the confession of the chairman of the Revision Committee,

just what support can be claimed for the “New Greek Text.” Hereby we are informed that it rests sometimes on Westcott and Hort alone, but that it usually has the support of at least one of the three modern editors, each of whom has staked his all upon the viciously unsound principle of following exclusively the two de praved 4th Century Codices. Now, since we have Bishop Ellicott ‘s own admission that these modern editors, each and all, are unreliable, it is not too much to say that the attempt to defend the R. V. has utterly collapsed, and that the objections of Dean Burgon and others remain indeed ‘’unanswered and unanswerable.”

A Comparison As To Style

In comparing the two Versions in respect to their literary merits, the Bishop of Lincoln, in a conference address, said :

“To pass from one to the other is, as it were, to alight from a well-built and well-hung carriage, which glides easily over a macadamized road, and to get into one which has bad springs or none at all, and in which you are jolted in ruts with aching bones, and over the stones of a newly mended and rarely traversed road.”

And Dean Burgon has this to say :

“The A. V. should have been jealously retained wherever it was possible; but on the contrary every familiar cadence has been dislocated; the congenial flow of almost every verse of Scripture has been almost hopelessly marred. So many of those little connecting words, which give life and continuity to a narrative, have been vexatiously displaced, so that a perpetual sense of annoyance is created. The count less minute alterations, which have been needlessly introduced into every familiar page, prove at last as tormenting as a swarm of flies to a weary traveller on a summer’s day. To speak plainly, the book has been made unreadable.”

And Bishop Wordsworth expresses himself thus:

“I fear we must say in candor that in the Revised Version we meet in every page with small changes which are vexatious, teasing, and irritating, even the more so because they are small; which seem almost to be made for the sake of change.”

And this is the view not of Bible scholars only. A writer in a recent number of a popular household magazine expresses, in the words that follow, what is undoubtedly the view of a great host of Bible readers. Speaking of one of the Modern Speech Versions she said :

“The one thing concerning it to which I object is that the sonorous sweep and beauty of the Bible are

eliminated in an effort to be more literal in transla tion. So ingrained in my mentality is the King James Version that any word of change in it hits me like a blow.”


What shall we then say to these things ? Shall we accept the E. V. (either the English or American) as a substitute for the A. V.? That ques tion,, we take it, has been settled by the almost unanimous rejection of the modern Versions. But can we profitably avail ourselves of the R. V. for any purpose? The conclusion to which the facts constrain the writer of these pages is that — conceding that there are im provements (and perhaps many) in the R. V., — nevertheless — the Greek Text upon which it is based is so corrupt, that it is not safe to accept any reading which differs from that of the A.

V. until the reader has ascertained that the change in question is supported by preponderating testimony.

Furthermore, in the important matter of the work of Translation we believe it to be the consensus of the best opinion that, in this fea ture also, the Authorized Version is vastly su perior to that of 1881.

And finally, as regards style and composition, the advantage is so greatly with the Old Version that it would be little short of a calamity were it to be supplanted by the R. V.

The Vox Populi

We say that the question whether or not the E.

V. should supplant the A. V. has been set tled by the people themselves who, for whatever reason or reasons, and whether influenced or not by the Spirit of God, have, and with increasing emphasis, rejected the New Version. Thus, while the report of the British Bible Society for the year 1911 showed that about four per cent (one out of 25) of the Bibles and Testa ments issued by that Society in that year were of the R. V., the full report issued in 1920, shows that less thorn two percent (one out of 50) were of the R. V. The number of users of the R. V. therefore is not only small proportionately, but is dwindling. And of the few that are now called for a considerable proportion would be for reference and study only, and not for use.


A Body Of Doctrinal Divinity Book 1


A System of Practical Truths

Authored by Dr John Gill DD, Created by David Clarke CertEd

List Price: $8.99

8.5” x 11” (21.59 x 27.94 cm)

Black & White on White paper 176 pages

ISBN-13: 978-1543085945

ISBN-10: 1543085946

BISAC: Religion / Christian Theology / Systematic THIS IS BOOK 1 Treating The Subjects:

Of God, His Works, Names, Nature, Perfections And Persons. And Contains:


1 Of The Being Of God 2 Of The Holy Scriptures 3 Of The Names Of God 4 Of The Nature Of God

  1. Of The Attributes Of God In General, And Of His Immutability In Particular.

  2. Of The Infinity Of God, 7 Of The Life Of God.

8 Of The Omnipotence Of God. 9 Of The Omniscience Of God. 10 Of The Wisdom Of God.

11 Of The Will Of God And The Sovereignty Of It 12 Of The Love Of God

13 Of The Grace Of God. 14 Of The Mercy Of God.

15 Of The Long suffering Of God. 16 Of The Goodness Of God.

17 Of The Anger And Wrath Of God. 18 Of The Hatred Of God.

  1. Of The Joy Of God.

  2. Of The Holiness Of God.

  3. Of The Justice Or Righteousness Of God. 22 Of The Veracity Of God.

  1. Of The Faithfulness Of God

  2. Of The Sufficiency And Perfection Of God.

  3. Of The Blessedness Of God. 26 Of The Unity Of God.

  1. Of A Plurality In The Godhead, Or, A Trinity Of Persons In The Unity Of The

    Divine Essence.

  2. Of The Personal Relations; Or, Relative

    Properties, Which Distinguish The Three Divine Persons In The Deity.

  3. Of The Distinct Personality, And Deity Of The Father.

  4. Of The Distinct Personality, And Deity Of The Son.

  5. Of The Distinct Personality, And Deity Of The Holy Spirit.

Available as a Paperback (click to view) £7.00

----------------- (click to view) $8.99


CreateSpace eStore (Direct $8.99)

----------------------- (Read on Line)


A Body of Doctrinal Divinity II, II,IV


A System Of Practical Truths

Authored by Dr John Gill DD, Created by David Clarke Cert.Ed

The contents of Book II treats the subject of Of The Acts and Works of God

Chapter I Of The Internal Acts And Works Of God; And Of His Decrees In General

Chapter II Of The Special Decrees Of God, Relating To Rational Creatures, Angels, And Men; And Particularly Of Election.

Chapter III Of The Decree Of Rejection, Of Some Angels, And Of Some Men.

Chapter IV Of The Eternal Union Of The Elect Of God Unto Him.

Chapter V Of Other Eternal And Immanent Acts In God, Particularly Adoption And Justification.

Chapter VI Of The Everlasting Council Between The Three Divine Persons, Concerning The Salvation Of Men.

Chapter VII Of The Everlasting Covenant Of Grace, Between The Father, And The Son, And The Holy Spirit.

Chapter VIII Of The Part Which The Father Takes In The Covenant. Chapter IX Of The Part The Son Of God, The Second Person, Has Taken In The Covenant.

Chapter X Of Christ, As The Covenant Head Of The Elect

Chapter XI Of Christ, The Mediator Of The Covenant

Chapter XII Of Christ, The Surety Of The Covenant. Of Christ, The Testator Of The Covenant

Chapter XIV Of The Concern The Spirit Of God Has In The Covenant Of Grace.

Chapter XV Of The Properties Of The Covenant Of Grace

Chapter XVI Of The Complacency And Delight God Had In Himself, And The Divine Persons In Each Other, Before Any Creature Was Brought Into Being.

Book III Treats The Subjects Of The External Works Of God.

Chapter 1 Of Creation In General Chapter 2 Of The Creation Of Angels Chapter 3 Of The Creation Of Man Chapter 4 Of The Providence Of God

Chapter 5 Of The Confirmation Of The Elect Angels, And The Fall Of The Non-Elect.

Chapter 6 Of The Honour And Happiness Of Man In A State Of Innocency.

Chapter 7 Of The Law Given To Adam, And The Covenant Made With Him In His State Of Innocence; In Which He Was The Federal Head And Representative Of His Posterity.

Chapter 8 Of The Sin And Fall Of Our First Parents.

Chapter 9 Of The Nature, Aggravations, And Sad Effects Of The Sin Of Man.

Chapter 10 Of The Imputation Of Adam’s Sin To All His Posterity

Chapter 11 Of The Of The Corruption Of Human Nature.

Chapter 12 Of Actual Sins And Transgressions.

Chapter 13 Of The Punishment Of Sin

Contents Book IV.

Of The Acts Of The Grace Of God Towards And Upon His Elect In Time

Chapter 1 Of The Manifestation And Administration Of The Covenant Of Grace

Chapter 2 Of The Exhibitions Of The Covenant Of Grace In The Patriarchal State

Chapter 3 Of The Exhibitions Of The Covenant Of Grace Under The Mosaic Dispensation

Chapter 4 Of The Covenant Of Grace, As Exhibited In The Times Of David, And The Succeeding Prophets, To The Coming Of Christ

Chapter 5 Of The Abrogation Of The Old Covenant, Or First Administration Of It, And The Introduction Of The New, Or Second Administration Of It.

Chapter 6 Of The Law Of God

Chapter 7 Of The Gospel

Table of Contents Book V

Chapter 1 Of The Incarnation Of Christ

Chapter 2 Of Christ’s State Of Humiliation

Chapter 3 Of The Active Obedience Of Christ In His State Of Humiliation

Chapter 4 Of The Passive Obedience Of Christ, Or Of His Sufferings And Death

Chapter 5 Of The Burial Of Christ Chapter 6 Of The Resurrection Of Christ From The Dead.

Chapter 7 Of The Ascension Of Christ To Heaven Chapter 8 Of The Session Of Christ At The Right Hand Of God

Chapter 9 Of The Prophetic Office Of Christ

Chapter 10 Of The Priestly Office Of Christ

Chapter 11 Of The Intercession Of Christ

Chapter 12 Of Christ’s Blessing His People As A Priest

Chapter 13 Of The Kingly Office Of Christ

Chapter 14 Of The Spiritual Reign Of Christ

Available as a Paperback (click to view) £8.19

------------------ (click to view)


Bierton Strict And Particular Baptists Includeing The Bierton Chrisis


By David Clarke

This book tells a remarkable true story, David Clarke was sent to Borstal at 17 and he had no real knowledge of Christianity or the gospel as he was not brought in a Christian home. On leaving Dover Borstal on 1968 he had a 3-year career of undetected crime and On 16th January 1970 he had a sudden conversion to Christianity after a bad experience on LSD and turned his back on his criminal past and sinful way of life. He Learned to read through reading the Bible and classical literature as he wanted to learn all about the Lord Jesus Christ, as he was virtually illiterate. One year after his conversion he was able to make a Confession to the police telling of 24 crimes that he had committed since leaving Dover borstal in 1968. He went on to higher education joined the Bierton Strict and Particular Baptist church and was later called by the Lord and sent by the church to preach the gospel. He graduated with a Cert Rd awarded by Birmingham University and lectured in electronics, for over 20 years, in colleges of Further and Higher education Sadly he discovered unresolvable errors and bad practice in the church and sought to defend the truth of particular redemption and other serious errors. All of which were unresolved due to long-standing traditions of man which opposed the way of Christ. This led him to secede from the church, in 1984. He continues his work seeking to follow the Lord Jesus Christ by writing and publishing seeking to help others who may value and benefit from his learning. This book Bierton Strict and Particular Baptist Includes The Bierton Crisis and tells the whole story.

Available for and

A Body Of Practical Divinity , Book I, II


A System of Practical Truths

Authored by Dr John Gill DD, Created by David Clarke Cert.Ed

ISBN-13: 978-1545542088 (CreateSpace-Assigned)

ISBN-10: 1545542082

BISAC: Religion / Christian Theology / Systematic This reproduction of Dr John Gill’s Body of

Divinity is book I and II of Practical Divinity of total of IV books.


Book I

Chapter I Of The Object Of Worship

Chapter 2 Of Internal Worship; And Of Godliness The Groundwork Of It.

Chapter 3 Of The Knowledge Of God Chapter 4 Of Repentance Towards God Chapter 5 Of The Fear Of God

Chapter 6 Of Faith In God And In Christ Chapter 7 Of Trust And Confidence In God Chapter 8 Of The Grace Of Hope

Chapter 9 Of The Grace Of Love Chapter 10 Of Spiritual Joy

Chapter 11 Of Peace And Tranquility Of Mind Chapter 12 Of Contentment Of Mind Chapter 13 Of Thankfulness To God

Chapter 14 Of Humility Chapter 15 Of Self-Denial

Chapter 16 Of Resignation To The Will Of God Chapter 17 Of Patience

Chapter 18 Of Christian Fortitude

Chapter 19 Of Zeal

Chapter 20 Of Wisdom Or Prudence Chapter 21 Of Godly Sincerity Chapter 22 Of Spiritual Mindedness Chapter 23 Of A Good Conscience Chapter 24 Of Communion With God

Book II Of External Worship, As Public

Chapter 1 Of The Nature Of A Gospel Church, The Seat Of Public Worship

Chapter 2 Of The Duties Of The Member Of A Church To Each Other

Chapter 3 Of The Officers Of A Church, Particularly Pastors

Chapter 4 Of The Duties Of Members Of Churches To Their Pastors

Chapter 5 Of The Office Of Deacons

Chapter 6 Of The Discipline Of A Church Of Christ

Available as a Paperback (click to view) £818

------------------ (click to view) £10.35


The Cause of God And Truth, Part 1


Authored by Dr John Gill DD, ISBN-13: 978-1544094670

ISBN-10: 1544094671

BISAC: Religion / Christian Theology / Systematic The following work was undertaken and begun

about the year 1733 or 1734, at which time Dr. Whitby’s Discourse on the Five Points was reprinting, judged to be a masterpiece on the subject, in the English tongue, and accounted an unanswerable one ; and it

was almost in the mouth of every one, as an objection to the Calvinists, Why do not ye answer Dr. Whitby ? Induced hereby, I determined to give it another reading, and found myself inclined to answer it, and thought this was a very proper and seasonable time to engage in such a work.

In the year 1735, the First Part of this work was published, in which are considered the several passages of Scripture made use of by Dr. Whitby and others in favour of the Universal Scheme, and against the Calvinistical Scheme, in which their arguments and objections are answered, and the several passages set in a just and proper light. These, and what are contained in the following Part in favour of the Particular Scheme, are extracted from Sermons delivered in a Wednesday evening’s lecture.


Sections 1-60 Scriptural Passages Genesis 4:7

Genesis 6:3.

Deuteronomy 5:29.

Deuteronomy 8:2.

Deuteronomy 30:19.

Deuteronomy 32:29.

Psalm 81:13, 14.

Psalm 125:3.

Psalm 145:9.

Proverbs 1:22-30.

Isaiah 1:16, 17.

Isaiah 1:18, 19.

Isaiah 5:4.

Isaiah 30:15.

Isaiah 55:1.

Isaiah 55:6.

Isaiah 55:7.

Jeremiah 4:4.

Ezekiel 18:24.

Ezekiel 18:30. Ezekiel 18:31&32. Ezekiel 24:13.

Matthew 5:13.

Matthew 11:21, 23.

Matthew 23:37.

Matthew 25:14-30.

Luke 19:41, 42.

John 1:7.

John 5:34.

John 5:40.

John 12:32.

Acts 3:19.

Acts 7:51.

Romans 5:18.

Romans 11:32.

Romans 14:15.

1 Corinthians 8:11.

  1. Corinthians 10:12.

  2. Corinthians 5:14,15.

2 Corinthians 5:19.

2 Corinthians 6:1.

2 Corinthians 11:2, 3.

Philippians 2:12.

1 Timothy 1:19, 20.

1 Timothy 2:4.

  1. Timothy 4:19.

    Titus 2:11, 12.

    The Epistle to the Hebrews. Hebrews 2:9.

    Hebrews 6:4-6.

    Hebrews 10:26-29.

    Hebrews 10:38.

  2. Peter 1:10.

2 Peter 2:1.

2 Peter 2:20-22.

2 Peter 3:9.

1 John 2:2.

Jude 1:21.

Revelation 2 and Revelation 3.

Revelation 3:20.

Available as a Paperback (click to view) £4.77

------------------ (click to view) £9.00


The Cause of God And Truth, Part II


Authored by Dr John Gill DD.

ISBN-13: 978-1544648729 (CreateSpace-Assigned)

ISBN-10: 1544648723

BISAC: Religion / Christian Theology / Systematic This is volume 2 of this 4 part series and it should

be known that the following work was undertaken and begun about the year 1733 or 1734, at which time Dr. Whitby’s Discourse on the Five Points was reprinting, judged to be a masterpiece on the subject, in the English tongue, and accounted an unanswerable one ; and it was almost in the mouth of every one, as an objection to the Calvinists, Why do not ye answer Dr. Whitby ? Induced hereby, I determined to give it another reading, and found myself inclined to answer it, and thought this was a very proper and seasonable time to engage in such a work. In the year 1735, the First Part of this work was published, in which are considered the several passages of Scripture made use of by Dr. Whitby and others in favour of the Universal Scheme, and against the Calvinistical Scheme, in which their arguments and objections are answered, and the several passages set in a just and proper light. These, and what are contained in the following Part in favour of the Particular Scheme, are extracted from Sermons delivered in a Wednesday evening’s lecture. The Second Part was published in the year 1736, in which the several passages of Scripture in favour of special and distinguishing grace, and the arguments from them, are vindicated from the exceptions of the Arminian, and particularly from Dr. Whitby, and a reply made to answers and objections to


Contents Chapter 1


Proverbs 16:4.

John 12:39, 40.

1 Peter 2:8.

Jude 1:4.

Revelation 13:8.

Chapter 2


  1. Peter 2:9.

    Romans 9:10-13.

    Colossians 3:12.

    Ephesians 1:4.

    Romans 8:28, 29.

    John 6:37.

    Acts 8:48.

    Romans 8:29, 30.

  2. Timothy 2:19.

Romans 5:19.

Chapter 3


Matthew 20:28.

John 10:15.

John 17:9.

Romans 8:34.

Romans 8:32.

Romans 5:10.

John 15:13.

Chapter 4


Ephesians 1:19, 20.

1 Corinthians 5:17.

John 3:5.

Ephesians 2:1.

  1. Corinthians 2:14.

  2. Corinthians 3:5.

John 15:5.

John 6:44.

Acts 11:18.

Acts 16:14.

Jeremiah 31:18.

Jeremiah 31:33.

Ezekiel 11:36:26.

Philippians 2:13.

1 Corinthians 4:7.

Ephesians 2:8, 9.

Chapter 5


John 14:4

Psalm 51:5.

Genesis 6:5.

John 3:6.

Romans 7:18, 19.

Romans 8:7, 8.

Chapter 6


John 13:1.

John 17:12.

Romans 11:29.

Matthew 24:24.

John 6:39, 40.

Romans 11:2.

Romans 8:38, 39.

Ephesians 1:13, 14.

1 Peter 1:5.

1 John 2:19.

1 John 3:9.

Isaiah 54:10.

Isaiah 59:21.

Hosea 2:19, 20.

Jeremiah 32:40.

John 14:16.

John 10:28.

1 Corinthians 1:8, 9. Available as a Paperback (click to view) £8.14

------------------ (click to view) $9.99


Dr John Gills Sermons


Volume 1: Sermons And Tracts Authored by Dr. John Gill D.D..

ISBN-13: 978-1979253376

ISBN-10: 1979253374

BISAC: Religion / Christian Theology / Eschatology This is volume 1 of 4 volumes of Dr John Gills sermons and are reproduced for the benefit of Bierton Particular Baptists Pakistan with a view to promote the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is the view of the publisher that Dr. J Gill is the clearest and most faithful in preaching and teaching the doctrines of grace. We dismiss the charges, that those who do not his writings, and call him a Hyper-Calvinist and ask you to read or your self and learn from a master in Israel. Bierton Particular Baptists have republished the whole of Dr. Gills Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity, e Cause of God And Truth. Sermons and Tracts in several


  1. The Doctrine Of The Saints Final Perseverance, Asserted And Vindicated

  2. A Discourse On Prayer

  3. Neglect Of Fervent Prayer

  4. Dissenter’s Reasons For Separating From e Church Of England,

  5. Doctrine Of The Wheels, In The Visions Of Ezekiel, Opened And Explained.

  6. Solomon’s Temple A Figure Of The Church; And, Two Pillars, Jachin And Boaz, Typical Of Christ.

  7. A Discourse On Singing Of Psalms As A Part Of Divine Worship

  8. A Declaration Of The Faith And Practice Of The

Church Of Christ, In Carter Lane, Southwark 9 A Dissertation Concerning The Rise And Progress Of Popery

  1. Baptism: A Divine Commandment To Be Observed

  2. Baptism: A Public Ordinance Of Divine Worship

  3. The Ancient Mode Of Baptizing, By Immersion, Plunging, Or Dipping Into Water;

  4. The Divine Right Of Infant Baptism, Examined And Disproved;

  5. The Divine Right Of Infant Baptism, Examined And Disproved.

Christ Alone Exalted


52 Sermons 1643 Authored by Dr Tobias Crisp D.D.

ISBN-13: 978-1977733160 (CreateSpace-Assigned)

ISBN-10: 1977733166

BISAC: Religion / Christian Theology / Soteriology Tobias Crisp was a preacher of the gospel in England

in the 17 century. He was born in 1600 and died in 1643 at which time these sermons were published.

He lived at the time when the First London Particular Baptist Confession of 1644 was published and it is clear from these sermons he taught Calvinists truths.

He preached the doctrines of grace and was charged with being an Antinomian and provoked opposition from various quarters.

Dr. John Gill republished these sermons along with comments, in his defense, showing that Tobias Crisp clearly taught the truths of the Lord Jesus Christ.

This republication is by www.

William Gadsby


Sermons: 1838 to 1843 Authored by William Gadsby

ISBN-13: 978-1976503696 (CreateSpace-Assigned)

ISBN-10: 1976503698

BISAC: Religion / Christian Theology / Soteriology

This volume contains a tribute of high esteem, given by J.C Philpot on the death of William Gadsby, in 1844 and contains series of sermons preached between September 1838 and 14th June 1843.

William Gadsby becamea Particular Baptist minister in 1798 and went on to preach to many thousands of people. He later published Hymns, in a hymn books still used today by Particular Baptists.

He was born in Attleborough, Warwickshire in 1773. He had little or no education. In 1790, he went to see men hanged, and the horrid spectacle had such an effect on his mind that he was never afterward like the same youth. His memoirs tell of the lengths of folly into which he ran prior to this time and were often related by him in his ministry These memoirs were published shortly after his death.

William Gadsy preached the distinguishing doctrines of grace that gave all the glory to the Lord Jesus Christ for his salvation.

John Warberton


Mercies Of A Covenant God

Authored by John Warburton, Created by Bierton Particular Baptists

ISBN-13: 978-1976527562 (CreateSpace-Assigned)

ISBN-10: 1976527562

BISAC: Religion / Christianity / Baptist

God be merciful to me a sinner was the cry of John Warburton on discovering and realizing he ruined lost condition before God. He knew and felt the condemnation of God against him. He knew of no way but to mend his ways, repent to find mercy. He could think of no other way to save his soal but by mending his life, doing his duty and pleasing God.

This is recommended read for Preterits as it is important, in order to have a correct understanding of Last things, we must have a correct view of first things,

i.e. the beginnings to understand last things.

The Soteriology of John Warburton, like all Particular Baptists in the, is Calvinistic, but not textbook Calvinism. It is felt that a correct view of the

way of salvation is important to understand eschatology, correctly and not in a dry textbook way. True religion is more than notion, Something must be known and felt.

This book also contains short bibliographies of the hymn writers that are quoted in this book


Memorials Of The Mercies OF A Covenant God

John Kershaw (1792-1870) was a Particular Baptists pastor for fifty-two years of Hope Chapel, Rochdale. He exercised a powerful ministry among the church, and became an influential preacher across the country. Few ministers remain faithful to a single congregation for an extended period—Kershaw committed himself to the same church he attended as a boy. This autobiography “Memorials of the Mercies of a Covenant God while Traveling through the Wilderness”, is one of the best written of its genre.

He preached and taught the doctrines of grace along with his contemporaries William Gadsby, John Warburton, J.C. Philpot.

These men were all Calvinists maintaining the bible to be the word of God and giving all the praise and glory to the Lord Jesus Christ for their salvation

God’s Operations Of Grace but Not Offers Of His Grace



ISBN-10: 1979551847

BISAC: Religion / Christian Theology / Soteriology

This work of Joseph Hussey treats the subject of preaching the gospel in light of the distinguishing doctorins of grace. This is as relevant today as it was in the 18 century as there are those who call themselves Calvinists but are not and advocate “Duty Faith” and “Duty Repentance”, terms that are used to express a belief that it is the duty of all men, every where, to receive and accept the Lord Jesus Christ as their own

personal saviour.

There are those historically, such as Richard Baxter and Andrew Fuller, who advocated, “Duty Faith” and ‘Duty Repentance’, in the UK and as a result brought about a great division the among Particular Baptists and Presbyterians and evangelicals. I am not sure about America.

This work of Joseph Hussey denies “Duty Faith”

and “Duty Repentance” and demonstrates that saving faith is a free grace gift of God, bestowed upon those being effectually called by the Spirit of God, and who are stilled the elect. That is those for who the Lord Jesus died.

This book is published to assist Preterits’ studying eschatology and all Calvinists, as it is important to have a correct understanding of the nature of the fall of Man and the corruption of human nature in order to see the glory of free grace.

Published 1707 Authored by Joseph Hussey

List Price: $11.99

8.5” x 11” (21.59 x 27.94 cm)

Black & White on White paper 226 pages

ISBN-13: 978-1977848956 (CreateSpace-Assigned)

ISBN-10: 1977848958

BISAC: Biography & Autobiography / Personal Memoirs

The Certain Efficacy of The Death Of Christ, Asserted


Authored by John Brine Created

ISBN-13: 978-1973922254 (CreateSpace-Assigned)

ISBN-10: 1973922258

BISAC: Religion / Christian Theology / Soteriology

This work declares the Glory of God in all his Perfections, the Honour of Christ, and the eternal Happiness of his People, all of which are intimately concerned in them. This is treated in four parts: In the First John Brine endeavours to prove the limited Extent of the Death of CHRIST, and the certain Salvation of all those for whom he died.

In the Second, the Objections which are usually urged by the Arminians, and others, will be answered.

In the Third shall attempt to prove the Impossibility

of the Salvation of the Non-Elect, upon the Supposition of no other than a conditional Provision of Salvation being made for them.

In the Fourth Part shall attend to what he delivers on the Subjects of the Imputation of original Sin to Men, the Charge of Sin on CHRIST, and the Imputation of his Righteousness to his People.

This has been republished by Bierton Particular Baptists to further the cause of God and truth, it opposes Arminianism, Islam, and duty faith.

Available as a Paperback (click to view) £6.13

------------------ (click to view) $7.99


William Huntington Volume 1 Of a 20 Volume Set.


Authored by William Huntington S.S.

8.5” x 11” (21.59 x 27.94 cm)

Black & White on White paper 142 pages

ISBN-13: 978-1983933820 (CreateSpace-Assigned)

ISBN-10: 1983933821

BISAC: Religion / Christianity / Calvinist

William Huntington S.S. (2nd February 1745- 1 July 1813) was an English preacher and the man who preached to the Queen of England as well as the Prime Minister, and signed his letters William Huntington,

S.S. (Saved Sinner). He taught that the moral law, or the 10 commandments, as published by Moses, was not the rule of life for the believer but rather the gospel, which is the Law Christ. He delighted in talking of the everlasting love of God, blessed redemption, all conquering grace, mysterious providence, the Spirit’s work in mens souls and many other good news themes. He was charge with being an Antinomian although his writings and sermons do not bear this out. Huntington was a strict Calvinist who believed some were predestined to eternal life and some were not. He founded or opened chapels throughout England

many of which survive to this day.

There are 20 volumes of his works that were published in 1811, this is volume 1 of that series.

This volume contains the Kingdom Of Heaven Taken By Prayer and The Spiritual Sea Voyage.

The Death Of Death In The Death OF Christ


John Owen

ISBN-13: 978-1544793733

ISBN-10: 1544793731

BISAC: Religion / Christian Theology / Soteriology The Death of Death in the Death of Christ is a polemical work, designed to show, among other things, that the doctrine of universal redemption is unscriptural and destructive of the gospel. There are many, therefore, to whom it is not likely to be of interest. Those who see no need for doctrinal exactness and have no time for theological debates which show up divisions between so-called Evangelicals may well regret its reappearance. Some may find the very sound of Owen’s thesis so shocking that they will refuse to read his book at all; so passionate a thing is prejudice, and so proud are

we of our theological shibboleths. But it is hoped that this reprint will find itself readers of a different spirit. There are signs today of a new upsurge of interest in the theology of the Bible: a new readiness to test traditions, to search the Scriptures and to think through the faith. It is to those who share this readiness that Owen’s treatise is offered, in the belief that it will help us in one of the most urgent tasks facing Evangelical Christendom today—the recovery of the gospel.

This last remark may cause some raising of eyebrows, but it seems to be warranted by the facts. There is no doubt that Evangelicalism today is in a state of perplexity and unsettlement. In such matters as the practice of evangelism, the teaching of holiness, the building up of local church life, the pastor’s dealing with souls and the exercise of discipline, there is evidence of widespread dissatisfaction with things as they are and of equally widespread uncertainty as to the road ahead. This is a complex phenomenon, to which many factors have contributed; but, if we go to the root of the matter, we shall find that these perplexities are all ultimately due to our having lost our grip on the biblical gospel. Without realising it, we have during the past century bartered that gospel for a substitute product which, though it looks similar enough in points of detail, is as a whole a decidedly different thing. Hence our troubles; for the substitute product does not answer the ends for which the authentic gospel has in past days proved itself so mighty. The new gospel conspicuously fails to produce deep reverence, deep repentance, deep humility, a spirit of worship, a concern for the church. Why? We would suggest that the reason lies in its own character and content. It fails to make men God-centred in their thoughts and God-fearing in their hearts because this is not primarily what it is trying to do. One way of stating the difference between it and the old gospel is to say that it is too exclusively concerned to be “helpful” to man—to bring peace, comfort, happiness, satisfaction—and too little concerned to glorify God. The old gospel was “helpful,” too—more so, indeed, than is the new—but (so to speak) incidentally, for its first concern was always to give glory to God. It was always and essentially a proclamation of Divine sovereignty in mercy and judgment, a summons to bow down and worship the mighty Lord on whom man depends for all good, both in nature and in grace. Its centre of reference was unambiguously God. But in the new gospel the centre of reference is man. This is just to say that the old gospel was religious in a way that the new gospel is not. Whereas the chief aim of the old was to teach men

to worship God, the concern of the new seems limited to making them feel better. The subject of the old gospel was God and His ways with men; the subject of the new is man and the help God gives him. There is a world of difference. The whole perspective and emphasis of gospel preaching has changed.

Available as a Paperback (click to view)

------------------ (click to view) $9.99

Difficulties AssociatedAmong Particular Baptists


By David Clarke

Articles of Religion are important when dealing with matters of the Christian Religion, however problems occur when churches fail to recognize there is a growth in grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ in any believer. When a person first believes in the Lord Jesus Christ they cannot possibly have a comprehensive knowledge of a churches constitution or its articles of religion, before solemnly subscribing to them. The author David Clarke has introduced the Doctrines of Grace to Bierton Particular Baptists Pakistan, situated in Rahim Yar Khan, Pakistan and bearing in mind his own experience with articles of religion he has compiled Bierton Particular Baptists Pakistan articles of religion from the first Bierton Particular Baptists of 1831,of which he is the sole surviving member, the First London Baptist Confession, 2nd edition 1646, and those of Dr John Gill, in order to avoid some of the difficulties encounter by Particular Baptist during the later part of the 19 century and since. This booklet highlights the

problem and suggests the Bierton Particular Baptists Pakistan is as step in the right direction.

Isaiah 52:8 Thy watchmen shall lift up the voice; with the voice together shall they sing: for they shall see eye to eye, when the LORD shall bring again Zion.

ISBN-13: 978-1532953446

BISAC: Religion / Christianity / Baptist Contents


Articles of Religion Important Authors Testimony

Bierton Particular Baptist Church

A Diffculty Over Articles Of Religion Written From Experience

Bierton Particular Baptists History

1 First London Particular Baptists Confession 1646, 2nd Edition

The Development of Articles Of Religion

Act of Toleration 14 Additions That Are Wrong 2 London Baptist Confession 1689 1

Notes on The London Baptists Confession 1689

  1. Bierton Particular Baptists Articles of Religion, 1831

    Diffculties Over Articles of Religion Notes on Bierton Particular Baptists 1831

  2. The Gospel Standard Articles of Religion 1878

    Observations of the Gospel Standard Articles of religion

    Letter to Mr Role’s of Luton Added Articles

    My comments Article 32

    The Diffculties Of these Articles Proved Serious Doctrinal Errors Held Recommendation for Serious Minded

  3. Bierton Particular Baptists Pakistan 2016

  4. Appendix 60

Gospel Standard 31 Articles.

The West And The Quran


Translation of The Quran

Authored by David Clarke, Authored with Abdullah Yusuf Ali

List Price: $9.99

8.5” x 11” (21.59 x 27.94 cm)

Black & White on White paper 248 pages

ISBN-13: 978-1548914042 (CreateSpace-Assigned)

ISBN-10: 1548914045

BISAC: Religion / Biblical Criticism & Interpretation

/ General

This Publication treats the subject of the Quran and the reason for presenting this is due to a rise in Islamic terrorism which has caused great concern to many in the West. So with the current massive influx of Muslim’s migrating from the various parts of the world into Europe, Great Britain and the USA, it seems reasonable to discover the roots of Islam in order to deal with the problems that have occurred. Our Politicians seem clueless on how to deal with this enemy and when they are questioned they appear to know relatively little about Muhammad and his teaching. One of our greatest Prime-ministers in Britain William Gladstone declared the Quran an “Accursed book” and once held a copy of Muhammad’s Quran up in Parliament, declaring: “So long as there is this book there will be no peace in the world”.

Winston Churchill was one of the greatest leaders of the 20th Century, who served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom during World War II and again from 1951 to 1955.

As an officer of the British Army in 1897 and 1898, he

fought against a Pashtun tribe in the north west frontier of British India and also at the Battle of Omdurman in Sudan. In both of those conflicts, he had eye-opening encounters with Muslims. These incidents allowed his keen powers of observation and always-fluid pen to weigh in on the subject of Islamic society.

While these words were written when he was only 25-years-old (in 1899), they serve as a prophetic warning to Western civilisation today.

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism (Islam) lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.”

Churchill apparently witnessed the same phenomenon in several places he visited. “The effects are apparent in many countries: improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.”

He saw the temporal and the eternal tainted by their belief system. “A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity,” he wrote.

The second-class status of women also grated at the young officer. “The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men,” he noted.

“Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.”

Well before the birth of modern Israel, its terror tactics and drive for world domination were felt. “Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step, and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it (Islam) has vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”

With the influx of Muslim people from the various parts of the continent along with their culture all of which is shaped by the teachings of Muhammad in the Quran.

Some objections and Observations are as follows: Islam means submission

Islam does not mean peace Multiculturalism is a failure.

Islam denies the natural rights of women An Objection Halal Meat

An Objection To Shari-ah Law

Objects to Female Genital Mutilation (FGM)

An objection to Jihad which seeks over throw Western culture through education, Social activity, political activation and Law.

For this reason, this publication is made available for education purposes. With this prayer that God may grant us all wisdom as to how we may respond to the rise and threat of Islam.

Available as a Paperback (click to view)

------------------ (click to view)


Mary, Mary Quite Contrary


Second Edition: Does The Lord Jesus Want Women To Rule As Elders In His Church ? ?

Authored by Mr David Clarke Cert E List Price: $8.99

5.25” x 8” (13.335 x 20.32 cm)

Black & White on White paper 154 pages

ISBN-13: 978-1514206812 (CreateSpace-Assigned)

ISBN-10: 1514206811

BISAC: Religion / Christian Theology / General When treating the subject of women elders in the

church we are not dealing with the affairs of a secular society and so it has nothing to do with women’s rights, equality of sex or race in the world. This matter only relates to men and women in a Christian church. It is about the rules of the house of God, which is the church of the living God and rules for those who are members of the body of Christ and members of an heavenly county.

The Suffragettes

Emmeline Pankhurst 1858 -1928) was a Suffragette and worked very hard to bring equal rights for women to vote as men. In the year of her death all women over 21 gained the right to vote. The Suffragette movement brought about many changes for the better in a secular society but not so for women seeking to follow Christian principles. One of her famous quotes was, “Trust in God She shall provide”. Terms which do not reflect Christian beliefs. We know God will provide and He is not a she. In the USA and the UK, women’s political rights were brought into general political consciousness by the suffragettes and since then there have been legal rights granted to the Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender groups, same sex marriages, along with the development of the feminist movement and the appointment of persons from the LBGT community to responsible positions in the Church of England. All of this has caused conflict in the Christian community due

to differences beliefs of right and wrong.

This book seeks to show what the bible has to say about the role of women in the church and family. Since these rules are taught by the Apostles of Christ they are the word of God to us and we should obey. The secular world may differ and turn from the narrow path taught in scripture but we should follow the word of God, this is our wisdom. (click to view)

------------------ (click to view)


Trojan Warriors


Setting Captives Free

Authored by Mr David Clarke CertEd, Authored by Mr Michael J Clarke

List Price: $15.99

5.25” x 8” (13.335 x 20.32 cm)

Black & White on White paper 446 pages

ISBN-13: 978-1508574989 (CreateSpace-Assigned)

ISBN-10: 1508574987

BISAC: Religion / Christian Life / General

Trojan Warriors is a true story of two brothers, Michael and David Clarke, who are brought up in Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, England. They became criminals in the 60’s and were sent to prison for malicious wounding and carrying a fire arm without a license, in 1967.

They both turned from their lives of crimes in remarkable ways but some 25 years apart, and then they worked together helping other prison inmates, on their own roads of reformation.

David the younger brother became a Christian, after a bad experience on LSD, in 1970, and then went on to educate himself and then on to Higher Education. He became a baptist minister and taught electronics for over 20 years, in colleges of Higher and Further Education. Michael however remained untouched and continued his flamboyant life style ending up serving a 16 year prison sentence, in the Philippines, in 1996, where he died of tuberculosis in 2005.

When David heard the news of his brothers arrest on an ITN television news bulletin he felt compelled to

wrote their story. And then when he heard of his own brothers conversion from crime to Christ, after serving 5 year of his sentence, he published their story in his book, “Converted on LS Trip”, and directed a mission of help to the Philippines to assist his brother. This book tells the story of this mission.

They then worked together with many former notorious criminals, who were inmates in New Bilibid Prison, who too had become Christians and turned their lives around. This help was to train them to become preachers of the gospel of Jesus Christ .

This book contains the 66 testimonies of some of these men who convicted former criminals, incarcerated in New Bilibid Prison. They are the, “Trojan Warriors”, who had turned their lives around and from crime to Christ. Twenty two of these testimonies are men who are on Death Row scheduled to be executed by lethal injection.

Revelation 12 verse 11: And they overcame him by the blood of the lamb and the word of their testimony and they loved not their lives unto the death.

Available as a Paperback (click to view)

------------------ (click to view)


The Parousia 2nd Edition


The Second Coming Of Christ

Authored by James Stuart Russell, Preface by Mr David Clarke, Preface by Dr Don K Preston DD

ISBN-13: 978-1519610942

ISBN-10: 1519610947

BISAC: Religion / Theology

A reformation – indeed – a revolution of sorts is taking place in modern evangelical Christianity. And while many who are joining in and helping promote this movement are not even aware of it, the book you hold in your hand has contributed greatly to initiating this new reformation. This “new” movement is sometimes called Full Preterism, (Also, and preferably by this writer, Covenant Eschatology). It is the belief that all Bible prophecy is fulfilled. The 19th century was a time of tremendous academic vigor and research. Unfortunately, it was also a time of numerous speculative end times movements, such as the Millerites, that spawned the Seventh Day Adventist church, The Millennial Dawn Bible Study movement of Charles Taze Russell, that gave rise to the Jehovah’s Witness cult, and a host of miscellaneous other movements. Amidst that speculation, this book first appeared in 1878 (anonymously), and again in 1887 with author attribution. The book was well known in scholarly circles primarily and attracted a good bit of attention, both positive and negative. The public, however, seemed almost unaware of the stunning conclusions and the research supporting those conclusions, until or unless they read of Russell’s work in the footnotes of the commentaries. There were exceptions. Famous evangelist Charles H. Spurgeon was deeply impressed with the scholarly, solid research in the book, although he did not accept the “final” conclusions reached by Russell. In modern times, this work has, and continues to impress those who read it. The reason is simple, the New Testament is emphatic and unambiguous in positing Christ’s coming and the end of the age for the first century generation. To say this has troubled both scholars and laymen alike is an understatement of massive proportions. Scholars have recognized and grappled with this imminence element, seldom finding satisfactory answers. Scholars such as David Strauss accused Jesus of failure. Later, Bultmann said that every school boy knows that Jesus predicted his coming and the end of the world for his generation, and every school boy knows it did not happen. Bertrand Russell rejected Christianity due to the failed eschatology - as he perceived it - of Jesus and the Bible writers. As a result of these “skeptical” authors, modern Bible scholarship has followed in their path and Bible commentaries today almost casually assert the failure of the Bible writers - and Jesus - in their eschatological predictions. As a result of that perceived failed eschatology, for many, the Bible has lost its power and authority. After all, if Jesus made false predictions, can he truly be the Son of God? Jesus himself said that if he did not do what the Father gave him to do - which included the judgment and the resurrection - then men are not to believe in him! If the apostles followed their Master in making false (failed) predictions of his return, can we truly trust them in regard to His promises of salvation and redemption? A failed Savior is no Savior! (I have personally corresponded with numerous individuals who had at one time, before discovering the truth of Covenant Eschatology, lost their faith because of this very perceived failure!) This is where Russell’s work is of such importance. While Russell was not totally consistent with his own arguments and conclusions, nonetheless, his work is of tremendous importance and laid the groundwork for the modern revolution known as the preterist movement. Russell systematically addressed virtually every New Testament prediction of the eschaton. With incisive clarity and logical acumen, he sweeps aside the almost trite objections to the objective nature of the Biblical language of imminence. With excellent linguistic analysis, solid hermeneutic and powerful exegetical skills, Russell shows that there is no way to deny that Jesus and his followers not only believed in a first century, end of the age parousia, but, they taught it as divine truth claiming the inspiration of the Holy Spirit as their authority. Russell not only fully established the undeniable reality of the first century imminence of “the end,” he powerfully and carefully shares with the reader that “the end” that Jesus and the N.T. writers were anticipating was not the end of the time space continuum (end of the world). It was in fact, the end of the Old Covenant Age of Israel that arrived with the cataclysmic destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in AD 70. Russell properly shows how the traditional church has so badly missed the incredible significance of the end of that Old Covenant Age. Russell’s work is a stunning rejection – and corrective -- of what the “Orthodox” historical “Creedal” church has and continues to affirm. The reader may well find themselves wondering how the “divines” missed it so badly! Further, the reader will discover that Russell’s main arguments are an effective, valid and true assessment of Biblical eschatology. And make no mistake, eschatology matters. In the 19th, 20th and now in the 21st century Christianity has been plagued by a host of false prophets affirming that “without doubt” the end of the world is near. From those groups mentioned above, to Hal Lindsay’s failed predictions of Armageddon, Jack Van Impe’s repeated false prophecies, to Tim LaHaye’s misguided claims, to John Hagee’s lamentable Four Blood Moon prognostications, to Harold Camping’s embarrassing predictions, the landscape of Christianity is littered with the confident yet false predictions of the end. And as a result, believers are disappointed and disillusioned and skeptics have a field day. We live in dangerous times, and much of that danger comes directly from a misguided and false eschatology. The Zionist movement’s claims that Israel remains God’s chosen people today, and that the land belongs to them “forever” (in spite of their rejection of Jesus) is a major influence on American politics. Dispensational Premillennialism is insistent that America must support the exodus of Jews to Israel. And why? So that the end may come! The Temple must be rebuilt, the Man of Sin must be revealed, the Great Tribulation must take place (killing two thirds of all Jews) so that Jesus will appear on the clouds and “all Israel shall be saved.” The eschatological base of modern religious Zionism is the driving force of much of what happens in our world today– and what happens is dangerous! Modern Christianity must find a Biblical solution to this problem, and Russell’s book, while not the final solution, it nonetheless provides a great spring board for finding a solution. As I write this, the radical Islamic group ISIS is a very real danger in the Middle East. They are killing hundreds and thousands of those who refuse to convert to their brand of Islam. What is the motivation for their military advances? Is it because they are simply economically challenged young men who don’t have good paying jobs? Such ludicrous claims ignores the truth. Their motivation is eschatology! They believe– much like religious Zionists of the day - that they can help “hasten the day” the final battle. And that end is at hand– or so we are told! It is imperative that the modern church comes to grips with the false and failed eschatologies of Judaism, Zionism and Islam– and Christianity. Russell’s book is a great place to begin to find that solution. Russell could not find for himself a fulfilled view of the Millennium, and therefore still affirmed a future fulfilment of Revelation 20. In spite of that futurist element of “The Parousia” this book lays the groundwork for the full preterist (fulfilled) view of eschatology. Many - if not most - who have read this book will attest to this. This book can be a great tool for equipping the modern church to confront the false eschatologies that dominate the day and threaten world peace. In spite of the one futurist element of Revelation that Russell posited, his work stands today as a tremendously influential work that will offer the reader a wealth of evidence to counter the skeptics and nay sayers who reject Jesus and the Bible. Acceptance of Russell’s persuasive arguments and exegesis will lay to rest the fear inspiring, constant barrage by the tel-evangelists claiming that the end is near. There are those, the present writer included, who have written explanations for what perplexed Russell– the idea of a forty year millennium. With that said, I urge serious Bible students to carefully and thoughtfully read this book. When you do, you will, most likely, join the modern revolution to bring sanity to the entire study of eschatology, and perhaps, just perhaps, help our world to finally find solutions to the constant fighting and pain caused by false eschatology. Don K. Preston (D. Div.) President, Preterist Research Institute

The Bondage Of The Wil


On The Enslaved Will Authored by Martin Luther DD

ISBN-13: 978-1547044207

ISBN-10: 1547044209

BISAC: Religion / Christian Theology / Systematic This work of Martin Luther is very relevant today as

so many who profess a knowledge of God in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ are unable to discern the error of so-called Free Will. So for any who find a problem with Calvinism and Arminianism it is important they grasp the issues discussed in this book. This was first published in 1525 and was Luther’s reply to Desiderius Erasmus on Free Will, which had appeared in 1524 and was his first public attack on Luther. The issue raised by Erasmus was human beings, after the fall of Man are free to choose good or evil. The debate between Luther and Erasmus is one of the earliest of the Reformation over the issue of free will and predestination.

Available as a Papeback



Who Is This Babylon


by Don K. Preston

When the first edition of this work was introduced, it was called “ground breaking” and even “definitive” by scholars and laymen alike. The logical, analytical, and most of all textual approach to understand Revelation has helped thousands to better understand this enigmatic book. Preston’s continued research has now resulted in this revised, enlarged, and vastly improved second edition. Here is a small sampling of what is added to the new version: 1.) A comparison between 1 Peter and Revelation. Everyone agrees that 1 Peter was written before A.D. 70. What is so important to realize is that Peter and John wrote to the same audiences. John predicted certain things to happen, but Peter, speaking of those identical things, said the things were present! This amounts to a very powerful argument in favor of the pre-A. D. 70 dating of the Apocalypse. 2.) The 144,000. Did you know that the the 144,000 out of the 12 tribes comprise a veritable irrefutable argument that the Revelation is about the fall of Jerusalem and was written before that event? This is one of the simplest, but powerful elements in the Revelation! 3.) A comparative study between the book of Lamentations, and the Apocalypse! You may have never thought of this relationship before, seemingly, few have. Yet, I produce 21 parallels between Jeremiah’s historical lament over the fall of Jerusalem, and John’s prophetic vision of the fall of Babylon. You will not find this material anywhere else! 4.) Special material on the millennium. Without doubt, the millennium is one of the most perplexing aspects of Revelation. Many use that reference as proof for the late date, and other speculations. However, I have added a lot of material on the millennium that proves conclusively that John was standing near the end of the millennium, and anticipating the end of the millennial period! The millennium is not the Christian Age, nor did the millennium begin in A. D. 70. The millennium ended in A.D. 70!

Before Jerusalem Fell


by Kenneth I. Gentry. Jr.

Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation” is a doctoral dissertation seeking to demonstrate that Revelation was written prior to the destruction of the Jewish Temple in AD 70 and that it was prophesying that event. It proves this early date for Revelation by providing both internal evidence from within Revelation and external evidence from Church history and tradition. It provides much exposition of the text of Revelation. A large part of the argument deals with the identity of the beast (666) as Nero Caesar, the first imperial persecutor of the Church.

Available as a Paperback

Josephus: The Wars Of The Jews


The History of The Destruction Of Jerusalem

Authored by Titus Flavius Josephus, Designed by Translated by William Winston

ISBN-13: 978-1985029132 (CreateSpace-Assigned)

ISBN-10: 1985029138

BISAC: Religion / Christianity / History / General Josephus was an eye witness to those events that

he records in this book, ‘The Wars of The Jews’, or ‘The History of The Destruction Of Jerusalem’.

He records historic events that took place during and after the times of the New Testament scriptures.

The book of Revelation was a prophecy, given to Jesus Christ, and published by the Apostle John, about those things that were shortly to come to pass in his day. From the internal evidence of the book Revelation was written before the Neuronic persecution, of 66 A.D. and before the fall off Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, in 70. A.D. This is because the book records that the temple in Jerusalem was still standing at the time the book was written and not around 95 A.D. as Eusebius mistakenly says.The historic events that Josephus records are remarkable as they give evidence to the fulfilment of Prophecy given by the Lord Jesus in his Olivet prophecy. In fact the book of Revelation was a prophecy of those events that were shortly to come to pass when Jesus spoke to John who wrote the Revelation. Jesus had informed his Apostles about future events and they lived in expectation of their fulfilment in their day. Josephus gives the historic evidence of the fulfilment of those prophecies and that confirms scripture fulfilment. We recommend the James Stuart Russell’s book, ‘The Parousia’ as a very good introduction to this subject and advertised at the back of this book in our Further Publications.

Book Of Books

As an appropriate conclusion to this volume we quote an editorial that appeared recently in a daily newspaper {The Boston Herald, Aug. 1, 1923), in which some striking facts concerning “the Bible” are put together (and let it be remembered that it is the A. V. which is here re garded as “the Bible”) : —

The Best Of Books

“Every day 80,000 copies. Every year 30,000,000 copies. And the presses day and night straining their bolts to supply the demand. “A new book? No, a very old one. Indeed, the first book ever put on the press. It never has been off since. An oriental book with a vast occidental circulation. An ancient book, but fitting modern needs, if the demand for it is any criterion. A book so cheap that a copy may be had for a few cents, yet for a single copy $50,000 was paid a few years ago, and many other copies have sold for large sums.

“A book of universal circulation. Translated into 700 languages and dialects. Put into raised type for the blind. Placed in all the guest rooms of the hotels, aboard all the ships of the navy, in all the barracks of the army. A newspaper recently stated that the captain of one of the vessels of the shipping board having died that it was found when his funeral service was held that no copy of the book was on board. Next day a hundred copies were on the way to the port where the ship would dock.

“The world’s best seller. Outstripping all the novels with their occasional records of 100,000, even 200,000, occasionally more, in a single year. Every body knows what the book is —

“And I saw, and behold, the Lamb standing on The mount Zion, and with him a hundred and forty and four thousand, having his name, and ihe name of his Father, written on their foreheads’’ — Rev. xiv, /. (Reviesed version.)