Tag: textual criticism

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 18.3

What manuscripts did the KJV scholars use? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Okay. It looks like we’re finally getting into some substance, but I suspect that even what should be substantial will not be. As always, the original material can be found here.

“… it was … the principle of the numerical majority of the readings which gave us the … Textus Receptus” [S13P17].

“Dean Burgon a learned textural critic and collator of Manuscripts, Presbendary Miller, Dr. Scrivener and others, uphold the Textus Receptus because of the immense number of manuscripts which are in agreement with it” [S4P28].

Good for them. Okay. Why did they? Unfortunately, Johnson doesn’t tell us this. Instead it’s more of the “Godly man in authority” argument.

The KJV agrees with the massive amount of witnesses (more than 5,000 Greek manuscripts) and also: “Virtually no [KJV] MSS are known to be copies of any others …” [S6P57].

This doesn’t really make sense. This would mean that none of the KJV manuscripts are alike and thus all of them would have variants. This also doesn’t say anything about the Old Testament manuscripts.

Thus, when we say that the majority of the 5,000 witnesses agree with the King James Bible, we are saying that these 5,000 witnesses are ‘INDEPENDENT’ witnesses.

I am still wondering how this makes sense. The manuscripts disagree and yet all are witnesses? I do understand how that works in general, but saying it applies to only one school doesn’t make sense.

“We can safely conclude from scholars on both sides of the issue that the vast majority of manuscripts agrees with the readings in the King James Version … [And] Not only does the KJV have a firmer foundation numerically, but also geographically. It comes from numerous localities …” [S3P479].

It would be nice to hear those scholars on the other side. Color me suspicious that one side will say “Yes, the manuscripts agree, but I prefer the other version.”

Thus, the testimony to the validity of the King James Bible is deep: 5,000 independent witnesses. And, the testimony is wide: these witnesses come from a variety of locations.

Quite likely true, but what of it? Versions today use all manuscripts as well.

But what about the corrupted minority of Greek texts? Did the King James translators know about these manuscripts? Did they use them?

History documents that:

“… the translators of 1611 had available ALL of the variant readings of these manuscripts and rejected them” [S2P254].

All? Doubtful. New manuscripts are being uncovered regularly. Furthermore, why was any particular variant rejected? According to the above, it looks like the manuscripts the KJV translators used themselves had variants.

Thus, the King James translators knew about the corrupted minority of manuscripts and they rejected this corruption.

Corrupted implies intention. That needs to be shown.

The KJV translators went on to make a Bible which has been shown to be in agreement with the majority of the Greek texts.

To make the King James Bible, the translators selected and used a representative sample of the majority texts. This was easy to do because the majority texts agree with one another.

They agree, but they aren’t copies, and a sample was used. If you’re confused by now, you’re not the only one.

Specifically:

“The [KJV] translators drew on the earlier 16th century translations, such as the Bishop’s Bible and the Geneva Bible, but especially on Tyndale’s translation. His was a very great influence on the Authorised Version – it has been said that some 80% or more of the AV derives from Tyndale. In a sense the AV was the culmination of nearly a century of Bible translation … it came out of the Reformation which was the greatest revival since the first Christian Pentecost” [S13P8].

As for the Geneva Bible, it: “… was the first English Bible to have verse numbers; the first to use italics for words that were not in the original languages, but necessary for understanding the English; the first to use the Roman type, rather than the Gothic (Old English); and they were small and inexpensive” [S9P2].

The King James Bible followed the example of the Geneva Bible. In other words, in the KJV: “All words which were not found in the Hebrew and Greek Manuscripts, were placed in italics. In this way these men [the KJV translators] made a vast difference between the words given by inspiration of God, and the words originating in the thoughts of men. This is the way it should be” [S4P103].

( Reader note: ‘Modern’ versions DO NOT separate God’s Words from man’s words. Instead the two are mixed together ).

Gotta love this final comment here. The translators of modern translations have to be corrupt after all.

“In conclusion, recent scholarship demonstrates that the majority of manuscripts, as seen in the traditional Greek Textus Receptus, and its translation, the King James Version, represent the earliest, broadest (numerically and geographically) and most consistent edition of the New Testament” [S3P503].

Without citing any of the scholars on the other side, we can tell what scholarship thinks! Incredible!

So we had something that should have been substantial, and now we see there was no substance.

We’ll continue next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 4.3

How did we get the New Testament? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So today, we’re going to see what Jeff Johnson has to say about the New Testament. Of course, we expect no scholars of textual criticism to be cited here. If you want the source material, you can go here.

“The books which make up the Bible were written over a period of 1700 years from 1650 B.C. to 90 A.D. by men who were directly inspired by God” [S4P96]. (These dates include both the Old and New Testaments).

As to the New Testament:

“The last of the Apostles to pass away was John. His death is usually placed about 100 A.D. In his closing days he co-operated in collecting and forming of those writings we call the New Testament” [S4P94].

The information about John is possible. We don’t really know how or when a lot of the apostles died. Sean McDowell’s book is the go-to on this one. Also, I don’t know of any evidence we have that John gathered these writings.

“John the Apostle was said to be about the only writer of the New Testament who did not die a violent death as a martyr. Then, following the completion of the New Testament, most of the men who translated the Bible manuscripts into the language of the common people were put to death. History reveals the surprising fact that it was members of the clergy, those supposed to be ministers of Christ, who directed and carried out the cruel deeds of martyrdom” [S4P96].

Again, it would have been nice to have some sources for what history reveals. The problem here with Johnson is not so much the passing on of these ideas, but that he accepts them uncritically, just like many of us, myself in the past included, do so with the deaths of the apostles. We should always check into our claims to the best of our ability.

We now have about 5,000 manuscripts of the New Testament. These manuscripts were written in Greek. And, as we have said earlier; the Greek Text used in the King James Bible, agrees with 90-95% of these 5,000 manuscripts.

This number on agreement could be right as far as percentages go, though I wonder how you get a 100% text from a 95% set of documents. The number of manuscripts could be accurate depending on when this was written, but that date is not known.

Later, we will discuss the 5-10% of the manuscripts and why they are different.

And we hope some textual scholars will be cited, but we are not holding our breath.

Because the King James New Testament agrees with the majority of these 5,000 manuscripts, it is called the ‘Majority Text’. It has also been referred to as the ‘Traditional Text’ and it is also called ‘The Textus Receptus’.

The New Testament of the KJV got its name ‘Textus Receptus’ because; in 1624 the Elzevir brothers printed, in the preface of their 1624 edition of the Greek New Testament, the following words (translated into English):

“Therefore thou hastthe text (textum) now received (receptum) by all, in which we give nothing altered or corrupt. From Textum Receptum came the words we now use as the Textus Receptus, or Received Text” [S4P96].

So the King James Bible is called the ‘Majority Text’, the ‘Traditional Text’, the ‘Textus Receptus’ and the ‘Received Text’. All of these names refer to the SAME Greek New Testament Text. All of these names refer to the King James Bible.

Nothing really problematic here.

For this report I will be use the term ‘Traditional Majority Text’ to describe the text which underlies the King James Bible.

And, I will use the term ‘Corrupted Minority Text’ to describe the substitute text used in ‘modern’ versions.

Nothing like poisoning the well for an argument.

Now, let’s trace the history of both the ‘Traditional Majority Text’ and the ‘Corrupted Minority Text’ and their translations into various languages.

And I am sure it will be full of scholarly and accurate information!

We’ll continue next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 4.2

How did we get the Old Testament? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

We saw yesterday a statement that I could not describe as anything less than blasphemous. Today, Johnson is going to tell us some about textual transmission. (Perhaps if you wanted to write about Bible translation this would have been a better place to start.) The link can be found here.

“The Bible was written from 1650 BC to 90 AD” [S4P96]. (These dates include both the Old and New Testaments). As to the Old Testament:

“The Hebrew Scriptures were written by Moses and the prophets and other inspired men to whom God had given prophetic gifts” [S8P7].

The Old Testament text (Hebrew scriptures) were passed down both orally and in the written form. As to the oral tradition, we know the following:

“The original Hebrew manuscripts were not ‘pointed’, that is, the written text was made up of consonants, without the vowel sounds that make words pronounceable. The spoken text was passed down through the centuries by the Hebrew priests, who by their public reading of the Scriptures gave full understanding to the consonantal text” [S15P7].

Okay. Nothing really objectionable so far.

This oral tradition continued until:

“… a Jewish sect known as the Massoretes, concerned that the demise of this oral tradition would make the Hebrew Scriptures incomprehensible, set out to produce a standardized copy of the Hebrew Old Testament complete with vowel sounds” [S15P7].

Thus, the Massoretes standardized the Hebrew Text, giving us the ‘written tradition’.

The Masoretes did a valuable service, but we should not ignore the Dead Sea Scrolls either. Those were people trying to be faithful to the text as well.

In Alfred Levell’s book “The Old Is Better”; we are told how the Old Testament was copied and passed down in written form:

“For the Old Testament, the copying was done with extreme care by the Jewish priesthood in the centuries before Christ … After the time of Christ, copies were made by Jewish scribes, and especially by those from the 6th century onward called the Massoretes, who took extraordinary pains to ensure the correctness of their copies” [S13P17].

I tried to find the scholarly credentials of Levell. I found none. We have a KJV-onlyist quoting another KJV-onlyist.

The extraordinary pains that the Massoretes used included:

“… many complicated safeguards … such as counting the number of times each letter of the alphabet occurs in each book” [S8P13].

David Fuller expands on the care which went into copying the Hebrew manuscripts. He says:

“The Jews cherished the highest awe and veneration for their sacred writings which they regarded as the ‘Oracles of God’. They maintained that God had more care of the letters and syllables of the Law than of the stars of heaven, and that upon each tittle of it, mountains of doctrine hung … In the transcription of an authorized synagogue manuscript, rules were enforced of the minutest character. The copyist must write with a particular ink, on a particular parchment. He must write in so many columns, of such a size, and containing just so many lines and words. No word to be written without previously looking at the original. The copy, when completed, must be examined and compared within thirty days; if four errors were found on one parchment; the examination went no farther – the whole was rejected” [S2P112-113]

Fuller is at least a scholar, but he wrote this book back in 1970 and we have learned more sense then. He is also another KJV-onlyist. Still, there is really nothing wrong with this statement.

In his book “God Wrote Only One Bible”, Jasper James Ray also speaks about the carefulness of the scribes:

“In making copies of the original manuscripts, the Jewish scribes exercised the greatest possible care. When they wrote the name of God in any form they were to reverently wipe their pen, and wash their whole body before writing ‘Jehovah’ lest that holy name should be tainted even in writing. The new copy was examined and carefully checked with the original almost immediately, and it is said that if only one incorrect letter was discovered the whole copy was rejected. Each new copy had to be made from an approved manuscript, written with a special kind of ink, upon skins made from a ‘clean’ animal. The writer had to pronounce aloud each word before writing it. In no case was the word to be written from memory. They counted, not only the words, but every letter, and how many times each letter occurred, and compared it to the original” [S4P94-95].

I can find nothing on Ray, but once again, Johnson is only echoing his own side. He has thus far not studied anyone on something as simple as textual transmission except those who agree with him.

Notice: These 2 previous historical accounts differ slightly in a couple of places: namely did 1 or 4 errors cause the rejection of the whole copy; and did the copy get examined almost immediately or within 30 days. Suffice it to say that, even though these 2 quotes differ somewhat, the copies were made with extreme care. And, that is the point.

Therefore, we can have confidence in the Massoretic Old Testament text, because of what we have just learned, as well as:

“… the extreme reverence with which the Jews regarded their Scriptures affords a powerful guarantee against any deliberate corruption of the text” [S2P118].

And the Massoretic Old Testament has also been confirmed through other means, namely the:

“… many secondary witnesses … including translations into other languages, quotations used by friends and enemies of biblical religion, and evidence from early printed texts” [S18P153].

Again, still no problem.

Additionally, David Fuller points out (about the Massoretic Old Testament text):

“The Old Testament, precisely as we have it, was endorsed by Jesus Christ, the Son of God … The Old Testament was our Lord’s only study book …. Five hundred and four times is the Old Testament quoted in the New” [S2P113-114].

In the booklet “God’s Inspired Preserved Bible” the author says (of the Massoretic Text):

“As a summary we may say that 10% of Christ’s words were taken directly from the Old Testament” [S7P7].

Thus, the Massoretic Old Testament Text has been carefully reproduced and has been attested to by Jesus Christ. It is this Massoretic Text, which forms the Old Testament, of our King James Bible.

I have no problem with using the Masoretic text, but I have no desire to throw out the Dead Sea Scrolls.

We shall continue next time with the New Testament.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Spiritual Deception in the Highest Part 8

What do we confess? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So we’re back to looking at the trainwreck of KJV-onlyism. This time, we’re going to finish up the first part of this travesty. As always, you can find the source material here.

 

Bible Question #18: What did Jesus say we are to do relative to each other?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For the answer see: James 5:16. Many ‘modern’ versions say something similar to:

“… confess your sins to one another …”

( Notice this could lead to gossip and further sinning ). But the King James says:

“… confess your FAULTS one to another …”

Notice the 2 different words. The Bible says that ONLY God can forgive sins. We are supposed to confess our SINS to Him. We should confess our FAULTS to one another, but SINS are confessed to God. Faults and sins are entirely different.

Can you see how ‘modern’ versions have led Catholics astray? And, if it has led Catholics astray; couldn’t the same thing happen to us if we, our spouse, our children, or our pastor, uses a ‘modern’ version?

The word here is paraptoma. In all honesty, I was expecting hamartia, but either way, it doesn’t matter. As I looked at the way this word is translated in other places in the KJV, I saw it is still read the same way as sins, such as in the Lord’s prayer about forgiving our trespasses.

Now the problem here is that no one is saying that you confess your sins to others to earn forgiveness, although in some sense you do. If I have wronged a fellow man and I need him to forgive me, I confess to him and he forgives me. He can do that. That doesn’t forgive me before God, but it forgives me before my fellow man.

The verse later on says to pray for one another that you may be healed. Now if I read that like Johnson reads this part, I could say “See? You are to pray for one another to be healed? Only God can heal!”

Not only this, but people in accountability programs will tell you that confessing your sins to one another can be a good practice. These are found in 12-step programs where if someone screws up, they have to go and talk to their sponsor about what they did. That requires humility and is a good deterrent if the person is being honest to not messing up.

I also like how the boogeyman of Catholicism was thrown out there in the end. I am not a Catholic, but they don’t get everything wrong and I personally think a confessional is a good idea. It’s not because a priest forgives you, but because confessing to someone can help mean you don’t carry the burden alone. I have had a number of struggles that I have had greatly lightened because I talked to someone. They didn’t even give me great advice many times. They just listened. That was enough.

Bible Question #19: Do modern ‘versions’ of the Bible have anyother problems?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Unfortunately, the answer is yes. In the Bible, the New Testament sometimes re-quotes the Old Testament. An example of this is in Mark 1:2

Compare the two Bibles again. In a ‘new version’ it says:

“As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, …”

Compare this to the King James, it says:

“As it is written IN THE PROPHETS, … ”

Comment: The scripture quoted in Mark 1:2 DID NOT come from Isaiah as stated in these ‘modern’ versions of the Bible. The scripture quoted is from Malachi 3:1 ! Check it out.

Not only do ‘modern’ versions misquote God; they even misquote themselves!

The KJV reading of: “As it is written IN THE PROPHETS, … ” is correct, because the verse is from Malachi 3:1, and Malachi was a prophet!

So far we have seen all kinds of problems in these ‘new’, ‘modern’, ‘more easily readable’, ‘more up to date’, etc. etc. versions of the Bible. This leads to the last Bible question:

Folks. This one is easy. Composite quotations were something that were done in ancient literature and when that was done, two quotes would be meshed together and often they would be attributed to the most well-known figure. You can listen to my interview with Seth Ehorn on this one.

Bible Question #20: Why is it important to have the true Word of God (vs. a corruption)?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The answer, to our question, is found in 1 Peter 2:2. Please turn there now.

In a ‘modern version’ it says:

“… long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up to salvation; ”

The King James Bible tells us to:

“… desire the SINCERE milk OF THE WORD, that ye may GROW thereby:”

My comment is that this verse, in ‘new’, ‘modern,’ versions, contains 2 problems:

First, we are to desire the sincere milk OF THE WORD. The purpose is “to grow thereby”. Modern versions leave out “OF THE WORD“. It’s God’s word that feeds us. If, like the modern verse, we leave out “the word” how can we grow? Or, if we get a corrupted translation, how can we grow on ‘junk food’?

Second, contrary to ‘modern’ versions, we DO NOT grow up to salvation. That says salvation is by works! We are saved by grace, and not of works, lest any man should boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9) Think about it.

In this chapter, we reviewed the doctrine contained in a “broad” array of ‘new’, ‘modern’, ‘more easily readable’, versions of the Bible. We compared ‘modern’ doctrine to the KJV. And, we have found significant error.

But, all ‘modern’ versions do not follow this ‘broad’ profile. So, in the next chapter, we will analyze 3 versions of the Bible which need an individual, case by case, analysis.

Again, this comes down to different textual variants. However, one thing I consider is that we have an emphasis in our culture on referring to Scripture as the Word of God and think whenever we see the term “Word” that it refers to the Bible. Hebrews 4:12 is an example. I think it is more likely that this refers to the words spoken to the Israelites in the wilderness. Now this certainly did become part of Scripture, but I don’t think Hebrews is telling us something about Scripture as a whole here.

An ancient reader hearing about sincere milk in this case would easily fill in the missing gaps and the author would realize that. In the same way, saying that it means growing to salvation does not mean works salvation. What it means is more akin to growing in the salvation and being developed into a saved person. If we use the milk analogy, a baby drinks his mother’s milk not so he can grow into a human, but so he can grow as a human.

I wish that this was the most nonsense, but I’ve already looked ahead some and, yep, it doesn’t get any better from here.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

Book Plunge Part 2: Politely Rejecting the Bible

What does Kapr have to say about textual criticism? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

This book is an odd read. The second chapter is about textual criticism. Now what would have helped this case even more would have been to have had a description more on how textual criticism works. There was some of this, but I would have liked to have seen more. Again, Kapr is surprisingly friendly to the Bible and doesn’t seem to think arguments from textual criticism to break down the Bible really work at all.

However, what made this into a more surreal experience was the fact of who Kapr goes after the most in this chapter. It’s not fundamentalist atheists. While it is Christians, which is expected, it’s the group of Christians that he goes after the most that is most surprising.

Kapr has a long and sustained argument against the King James Only movement in this chapter. Ironically, he does a lot of work to undermine the position and has the data from the translators of the KJV at this disposal as well. There is no demeaning of the KJV as it is a fine translation, but it is not a perfect translation sent down from Heaven. (I suspect at this point anyone who is a follower of the blog who is a KJV onlyist has hit unsubscribe.)

The argument I think actually works. If I had been told that I was reading a Christian author, I would not have been surprised. Kapr’s way of approaching this I think is more often fair and even-handed than the majority of atheists out there.

I know this is short for a blog for me, but there’s really not much to say. Right now, I’m leaning towards thinking if an atheist wanted to read a non-scholarly work from their position, this could be a good one to start with. So far, I am under the impression that I could have a reasonable conversation with the author. It’s rare and refreshing.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Did Constantine Change The New Testament?

Is the favorite bad boy of ancient history at it again?

When talking about Christian history, it seems like every vile and evil thing in church history goes back to Constantine. Before too long, I’m anticipating I will hear that Constantine was responsible for the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Salem Witch Trials. Most people have no real historical idea of what Constantine did and just know what they have read about him in popular media.

Yesterday I was talking to an atheist on Facebook who gave me the line of “Who knows what Constantine took out of the New Testament?” Well, anyone who knows anything about church history and textual criticism knows the answer to that question. Nothing.

You don’t have to take my word. Listen to what Bart Ehrman says on his blog.

One of the reasons I’m excited about doing my new course for the Teaching Company (a.k.a. The Great Courses) is that I’ll be able to devote three lectures to the Arian Controversy, the Conversion of the emperor Constantine, and the Council of Nicea (in 325 CE). It seems to me that a lot more people know about the Council of Nicea today than 20 years ago – i.e., they know that there *was* such a thing – and at the same time they know so little about it. Or rather, what they think they know about it is WRONG.

I suppose we have no one more to blame for this than Dan Brown and the Da Vinci Code, where, among other things, we are told that Constantine called the Council in order to “decide” on whether Jesus was divine or not, and that they took a vote on whether he was human or “the Son of God.” And, according to Dan Brown’s lead character (his expert on all things Christian), Lee Teabing, “it was a close vote at that.”

That is so wrong.

There are also a lot of people who think (I base this on the number of times I hear this or am asked about it) that it was at the Council of Nicea that the canon of the New Testament was decided. That is, this is when Christian leaders allegedly decided which books would be accepted into the New Testament and which ones would be left out.

That too is wrong.

So here’s the deal. First, the canon of the New Tesatment was not a topic of discussion at the Council of Nicea. It was not talked about. It was not debated. It was not decided. Period. The formation of the canon was a long drawn-out process, with different church leaders having different views about which books should be in and which should be out. I can devote some posts to the question if anyone is interested (I would need to look back to see if I’ve done that already!).

https://ehrmanblog.org/widespread-misconceptions-council-nicea-members/

For Constantine to do this, he would really have to know more about the New Testament than we do today. He would have to know where every copy of every New Testament manuscript could be found and then he would have to have soldiers or other servants who could go and track down all those copies and somehow either destroy them or edit them so that no hint of them was left behind. It they were destroyed, then there could be no evidence that this happened since we cannot point to evidence that was destroyed.

People who say this really demonstrate that they don’t know what they’re talking about and play their hand. It was kind of ironic since this was in a conversation where I said too many atheists online refuse to read what disagrees with them. I stand by that. This is not to say that none of them do, but when I meet an atheist who actually engages, it’s a refreshing exception.

So what evidence is there Constantine edited the New Testament? Really, none. It’s a popular myth in the world of internet atheism and really, internet atheism does itself no service as saying it is a position of reason and evidence. To paraphrase Jesus, these people honor reason with their lips, but their heads are far from it. If you are such a person, you owe it to yourself to read contrary thought and see where you might be wrong.

And if you don’t, you don’t have a commitment to reason and evidence. You have a commitment to your own personal faith.

No. Constantine did not edit the New Testament. He did not determine the vote at Nicea. He did not pick the NT canon. None of those are true. If you are an atheist who wants to go about eliminating what you see as myths, start with your own house first.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Deeper Waters Podcast 12/162017: Andy Bannister

What’s coming up? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

The Qur’an is a book many Christians aren’t really familiar with. Muslims and Muslim apologists will often talk about the perfection of the Qur’an. The Bible after all supposedly has so many textual difficulties and which version do you read? Not the case with the Qur’an after all! There’s only one Qur’an! There aren’t manuscript difficulties with it! This book came from Allah Himself through the angel Gabriel and delivered to Muhammad.

But what if it’s not true?

Could it be that there has been study done into the Qur’an and found that these claims are lacking? Could it be that we know more about the formulation of the Qur’an than is realized? Could it be the Qur’an is much more human than realized? While the authors of the Bible having their humanity influence the way it was written has been understood, is it the same with the Qur’an?

To discuss this, I have asked someone to come on who understands the Bible very well. I asked someone who has studied this at the highest level and has written about it to help explain it. He’s been on the show before and this time he’s on to talk about the Qur’an. His name is Andy Bannister.

So who is he?

According to his bio:

I am the Director of the Solas Centre for Public Christianity and an Adjunct Speaker for Ravi Zacharias International Ministries, speaking and teaching regularly throughout the UK, Europe, Canada, the USA, and the wider world. From universities to churches, business forums to TV and radio, I regularly address audiences of both Christians and those of all faiths and none on issues relating to faith, culture, politics and society.

I hold a PhD in Islamic studies and have taught extensively at universities across Canada, the USA, the UK and further afield on both Islam and philosophy. I am also an Adjunct Research Fellow at The Arthur Jeffery Centre for the Study of Islam at Melbourne School of Theology.

I am the author of An Oral-Formulaic Study of the Qur’an (a groundbreaking and innovative study that reveals many of the ways the Qur’an was first composed) and Heroes: Five Lessons From Whose Lives We Can Learn, an exciting and fast-moving look at the lives of five incredible giants of the Christian faith. My latest book, The Atheist Who Didn’t Exist (or: The Dreadful Consequences of Really Bad Arguments), is a humorous engagement with the New Atheism. I also co-wrote and presented the TV documentary, Burning Questions.

When not travelling, speaking, or writing, I am a keen hiker, mountain climber and photographer. I am married to Astrid and we have two children, Caitriona and Christopher.

I hope you’ll be interested as we have this hour-long discussion on the nature of the Qur’an. Please be watching your podcast feed for this episode. If you can also, go and leave a positive review of the Deeper Waters Podcast on iTunes. I love to see them!

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Deeper Waters Podcast 5/13/2017: Craig Blomberg

What’s coming up on the Deeper Waters Podcast? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

The New Testament is a good-sized work and there are many questions about it. For skeptics, the main ones are why should this group of books be given any trust whatsoever? To take on all of it would be a daunting task indeed, but perhaps that has been done.

Indeed, it has been done. It has been done by my next guest on the Deeper Waters Podcast. He is a very well-known New Testament scholar and one who is certainly qualified to talk about this material. He’s been on the show twice before and was nice enough to write the foreword to Defining Inerrancy. He is none other than Dr. Craig Blomberg. The book we’ll be talking about is The Historical Reliability of the New Testament.

So who is he?

According to his bio:

Dr. Craig Blomberg is Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary in Littleton, Colorado.  He holds the B.A. from Augustana College in Rock Island, Illinois, the M.A. from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, and the Ph.D. from the University of Aberdeen, Scotland.

 

            Craig is the author of fifteen books and has co-authored or co-edited ten more, along with more than 150 journal articles and chapters in multi-author works.  His books include four on the historical reliability and interpretation of parts or all of the Bible (esp. the Gospels), two on interpreting and preaching the parables, three commentaries (on Matthew, 1 Corinthians and James), a textbook on Jesus and the Gospels and another on Acts through Revelation, a handbook on exegetical method, and three books on material possessions in the Bible.  He is a member of the Committee on Bible Translation for the New International Version and of the committee tasked with producing the 35th anniversary edition of the NIV Study Bible, to be released in 2020.

 

On Sunday mornings Craig occasionally preaches or teaches in various churches. On Sunday evenings, he attends Scum of the Earth Church in urban Denver, an outreach ministry to “the right-brained and left out” young adults of the metro area.

 

Craig’s wife, Fran, is a retired pastor. She has her Ph.D in Missiology from the International Baptist Seminary in Amsterdam.  Craig and Fran have two daughters: Elizabeth (Little), who has an M.A. in Christian Studies from Denver Seminary, is married and works as a circuit preacher for the British Methodists in West Sussex, England, where she lives with her British husband, Jonathan, and their son, Joshua; and Rachel, who is studying for her Ph.D. in molecular biology at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

 

The Blombergs love to travel, often combining vacation and ministry opportunities at other colleges and seminaries.  Craig has enjoyed three Broncos’ Super Bowl victories in his thirty-plus years in Denver, but as a native of northern Illinois his lifelong sports dream came true in 2016 when the Chicago Cubs won the World Series.

This book is a big one, but one you’ll want to go through to have a thorough understanding of how to defend the New Testament. I hope you’ll be looking forward to this new episode coming out soon. Please also go on ITunes and leave a positive review of the Deeper Waters Podcast.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Book Plunge: Textual Criticism and Qur’an Manuscripts

What do I think of Keith Small’s book published by Lexington Books? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

At an event recently, I was involved in a debate with Muslims who brought up claims about differences in the Bible and how this isn’t a problem with the Qur’an. On its face, I considered this a ridiculous claim. After all, any manuscript copied by hand from the ancient and medieval world will undergo some change. Still, I didn’t have a real source for that. That led me to searching for a book on the topic. (Yes. It is possible to go to a source for information besides Wikipedia.)

Keith Small’s book was the one I saw that looked like the one to get. After reading it, I think my prediction was correct. One interesting aspect is after reading it, you can’t tell where Small stands in a debate. Is he a Christian? Is he a Muslim? You don’t know. That’s how even-handed he is.

It doesn’t take long for the common Muslim claim to be put to rest. There are documents of the Qur’an all over the world in different museums that have differences in them. To be fair, a lot of what Small says is hard to understand without knowing the Arabic, which I do not know. What can be understood is that there are differences.

Small also points out that this was acknowledged by early Muslim scholars and Christian apologists responding to Islam would also mention some of the differences. Small doesn’t get into any of the possible theology behind this nor does he say anything about any possible ramifications for Islam. This would be a much more serious problem I think for Islam than for Christianity since the Qur’an is also said to be eternal if my understanding is correct.

Also, much of Christianity began with the written document first and then that document was handed down so the document became primary. The Qur’an was stated as a tradition many many times beforehand and then that tradition was handed down, but often it would have many of the changes, albeit minor, that came with oral tradition. We might not be able to speak about the original Qur’an. Instead, we could need to speak about original Qur’ans.

Interestingly, there are some major differences. Some saw the second Sura, the Cow, as it’s own book. Some copies don’t include some Suras. Some have extra Suras. While we can say that Muslims will point to Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11, Muslims have their own problems. Unfortunately, many of them will not realize this. Just as Christians have often not really interacted with the evidence of their position too many times, so it is that many Muslims have not done the same.

While I am a critic of Islam obviously, I do think that for the most part, it has likely been handed down fairly well much like any other ancient document, but there can be no support for the common myth of no variants whatsoever. Anyone wanting to study this issue should take advantage of Small’s book. It is sure to be a staple in this field for some time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Book Plunge: The Historical Reliability of The New Testament

What do I think of Craig Blomberg’s book published by B&H Academic? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Craig Blomberg has recently written a rather large tome on the reliability of the New Testament and it is one that is definitely in-depth. There is hardly a major issue of New Testament studies that you won’t find here. Blomberg has extensive footnotes as he wrestles with most issues that are alive today in discussion.

Want to know about the Gospels and who wrote them? It’s there. When were they written? It’s there. What about the epistles? There. What about forgery in the epistles? Blomberg has you covered. There’s even a section on Revelation. Why? Because much of Revelation does fit into a historical setting. (This could also be an area I disagree with Blomberg some on as he prefers what he calls a Preterist-Futurist approach. I prefer just an Orthodox Preterist approach. I’m pleased to see he rightly condemns neohymenaeanism.

Blomberg also writes on issues related to textual criticism and the canon. How do we know that the New Testament has been handed down accurately? Even if it has been, there were a lot of other books that could have gone into the canon. Right? Wasn’t this just a decision made at Nicea? (I would also go against Blomberg here saying that this largely comes from Dan Brown. Brown popularized it, but this claim was going on long before Dan Brown.)

If you want to know about those other accounts, there’s a section on them too. Like I said, Blomberg is thorough. It’s hard to think of a way that he could be more meticulous than this.

The final section is on miracles and the resurrection. Again, this is one area where I would disagree on the use of the term supernatural. I have a hard time with this because it is never clearly defined and I think it in fact gives the atheist a free pass with thinking that the natural doesn’t really need an explanation. While it’s not in his area, Blomberg starts off by pointing to others who have written on the existence of God (And I do wish he’d mentioned the Thomistic arguments, in my opinion, the best.) and then goes on to make the case for miracles largely using the work of Craig Keener.

The positives of this volume are that despite it being large, it is also easy to understand. A layman will get a lot out of this volume. If the reader only wants to know about one area, say the synoptic Gospels, for instance, no problem. Just go there. If you want to know about the formation of the canon, no problem. Just go there.

A work like this is also a good response to people who immediately decide there is no evidence for anything in the New Testament. Sadly, few of them will ever bother to pick up a work like this and will instead run to internet sites that already agree with them. Those who do manage to work their way through Blomberg’s book will be blessed for it.

If you want a go-to book on the reliability of the New Testament as a whole, this is the one to go to. In New Testament courses on apologetics even at a Seminary’s level, Blomberg’s book should be a staple for a long time to come. He has also said he will be having a theology book coming out next. We eagerly look forward to it.

In Christ,
Nick Peters