Chapter 12
NIV AND CONSTANTINE
N.I.V. AND CONSTANTINE’S BIBLES.
It is proudly claimed by N.I.V. defenders that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are two of the "oldest manuscripts." They date back to the fourth century of the Christian era. There is much truth in these claims, but what do they mean to us?
The evidence indicates that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were two of the fifty Bibles that Emperor Constantine asked Bishop Eusebius to produce. The evidence all points that way and is taken for granted. For instance a few days ago I read this statement from "the Scripture of Truth," by Sidney Collett. When dealing with the Sinaic manuscript, he wrote:
"Dr. Tischendorf believed that this and the Vatican manuscript were two of the fifty copies of the Bible which were made in Greek, by command of the Emperor Constantine, about the year A.D. 331, under supervision of Bishop Eusebius, the historian of Caesarea." p. 28.
These Bibles for Constantine, contained the Apocrypha which are uninspired books, that were rejected by Christ, His Apostles and even the Jewish Church. The liberals amongst us do not like to admit to this. The reason for this is all too apparent. But the evidence and witnesses are abundant.
As Constantine wanted to unite the pagan philosophers with apostate Christians, he would naturally choose a Bible corrupted by Origen.
Eusebius, as admitted by all historians, was an admirer and close follower of Origen. Note this statement by Dr. F. C. Cook. Dr. Cook was invited to be on the New Testament Revision Committee, but he declined.
"That Eusebius was an enthusiastic admirer, a devoted adherent of Origen, no one need to be reminded who knows aught of the history of that age, or who has read, however hastily, his history of the early church; that in all questions he would defer absolutely to the authority of Origen, especially in questions of criticism, is almost equally undeniable; nor do I hesitate to state my immovable conviction that in that influence is to be found the true solution of the principal phenomena which perplex or distress us in considering the readings of the Vatican and Sinaitic Manuscripts," "History of the Revised Version," pp. 155, 157. by Dr. F. C. Cook.
Notice Dr. Cook ties Origen to Eusebius and to the Vatican and Sinaitic Manuscripts.
Other authorities testify the same:
Dr. Robertson on page 80 of his book entitled "Introduction to Textual Criticism" states:
"Constantine himself ordered fifty Greek Bibles from Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, for the churches in Constantinople. It is quite possible that Aleph and B are two of these fifty."
"But in connecting B and Aleph with the Library at Caesarea we are not left only to conjecture or inference. In a well-known colophon affixed to the end of the book of Esther in Aleph by the third corrector, it is stated that from the beginning of the book of Kings to the end of Esther the MS was compared with a copy ‘corrected by the hand of the holy martyr Pamphilus,’ which itself was written and corrected after the Hexapla of Origen. And a similar colophon may be found attached to the book of Ezra. It is added that the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Pamphili manifested great agreement with one another. The probability that Aleph was thus at least in part copied from a manuscript executed by Pamphilus is established by the facts that a certain ‘Codex Marchalianus’ is often mentioned which was due to Pamphilus and Eusebius; and that Origen’s recension of the Old Testament, although he published no edition of the text of the New, possessed a great reputation. On the books of the Chronicles, St. Jerome mentions manuscripts executed by Origen with great care, which were published by Pamphilus and Eusebius. And in Codex H of St. Paul it is stated that that MS was compared with a MS in the library of Caesarea ‘which was written by the hand of the holy Pamphilus.’ These notices added to the frequent reference by St. Jerome and others to the critical (akribe) MSS, by which we are to understand those which were distinguished by the approval of Origen or were in consonance with the spirit of Origen, shew evidently the position in criticism which the Library at Caesarea and its illustrious founder had won in those days. And it is quite in keeping with that position that Aleph should have been sent forth from that "school of criticism’." "The Traditional Text", pp 164,165.
Abbo Martin, a well-known Catholic textual critic claims that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were "fabricated" by Origen and other. (See Schaff, (Companion to Greek Text.")
It is very apparent, and the evidence confirms, that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus originated through the efforts of Origen, Eusebius and Jerome. And that these two corrupted manuscripts were two of the fifty supplied to Constantine by the Catholic Bishop Eusebius.
Now may I cite several Authorities that clearly show that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were corrupted.
I will first quote from Dr. F. C. Cook, textual critic who was invited to sit on the Revision Committee, but refused. He said:
"But it is precisely on this ground that I have throughout maintained the wrongfulness of the innovations introduced into the Revised Version, so-far as they affect leading facts and great words recorded in the first three Gospels. The reader need but look at the passages enumerated in the classification given above, p. 136 seq., to be convinced that so far from resting upon the consentient testimony of ancient manuscripts, Versions, and Fathers by far the greater number of innovations, including those which give the severest shocks to our minds, are adopted on the authority of two manuscripts (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus), or even of one manuscript, against the distinct testimony of all other manuscripts, uncial and cursive." Revised Version of First Three Gospels p. 227.
And again:
"I cannot but maintain that if the majority of those readings, which we call omissions, are subjected to any external test, if tried by any other measure than that of the manuscripts themselves, they will be convicted as defects, or blunders, or innovations more or less erroneous, to whatever cause the mischief be attributable. The tests to which I would refer are, first, the more ancient and trustworthy Versions; secondly, citations in anto-Nicene Fathers; and thirdly, the consensus of manuscripts., including those which in doubtful cases so generally coincide with Alep and B as to leave little room for doubt that their text was founded on the same original authorities."—Idem, p. 171
Dr. Cook also says:
"Reiche then observes that he fully admits the value of these MSS, A, B, C. D, which often retain true readings, either alone or in combination with a few other authorities; but that it is equally true that it is impossible to deny that in very many places (permultis locis) they have false readings, partly atributable to negligence, partly intentional; . . . Moreover that those MSS, to which critics in Germany attach exclusive importance, are of Egyptian, or rather Alexandrian origin, so that all belong to one family, a fact evidenced by their singular consent in peculiar readings; and lastly that all documents of the N.T. coming from Alexandria, at that time the home of ever-bold criticism, abound in readings which are manifestly false."—Idem, page 7.
Dr. Miller says:
"The marks of carelessness spread over them, especially in Aleph, (Sinaiticus) are incompatible with perfection. Tischendorf, after collating B, speaks of the blemishes that occur throughout. Dr. Dobbin reckon 2,556 omissions in B as far as Heb.9:14, where it terminates. Vercellone, the editor, tells of ‘perpetual omissions,’ ‘of half a verse, a whole verse, and even of several verses.’ This is just what examination reveals: and Aleph is unquestionably worse." —Miller’s "Textual Guide", p. 56.
With regard to Codex B (Vaticanus) Dr. Scrivener says:
One marked feature characteristic of this copy, is the great number of its omissions, which has induced Dr. Dobbin to speak of it as presenting an abbreviated text of the New Testament’: and certainly the facts he states on this point are startling enough. He’ calculates that Codex B leaves out words or clauses no less than 330 times in Matthew, 365 in Mark, 439 in Luke, 357 in John, 384 in the Acts, 681 in the surviving Epistles; or 2556 times in all. That no small proportion of those are mere oversights of the scribe seems evident from the circumstance that this same scribe has repeatedly written words and clauses twice over, a class of mistakes which Mai and the collators have seldom thought fit to notice, inasmuch as the false addition has not been retraced by the second hand, but which by no means enhances our estimate of the care employed in copying this venerable record of primitive Christianity." Scrivener, "Introduction", Vol.1, p. 120.
With regard to the Sinaiticus Dr. Scrivener published a book entitled,
"A full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus," and in his introduction he states:
"The Codex is covered with such alterations," alterations of an obviously textual character) "brought in by at least ten different revisers, some of them systematically spread over every page, others occasional or limited to separate portions of the manuscript, many of them being contemporaneous with the first writer, far the greater part belonging to the sixth or seventh century. . ." "A Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus," p. XIX, Introduction
I will now add a quotation from Mr. Philip Mauro, as follows:
"But there are other characteristics of this old MS (Sinaiticus) which have to be taken into consideration if a correct estimate of its evidential value is to be reached. Thus, there are internal evidences that lead to the conclusion that it was the work of a scribe who was singularly careless, or incompetent, or both. In this MS the arrangement of the lines is peculiar, there being four columns on each page, each line containing about twelve letters—all capitals run together. There is no attempt to end a word at the end of a line, for even words having only two letters as en, ek are split in the middle, the last letter being carried over to the beginning of the next line, though there was ample room for it on the line preceding. This and other peculiarities give us an idea of the character and competence of the scribe." — "Which Version", p. 45.
A few more words from Dr. Scrivener on the character of the Sinaiticus:
"This manuscript must have beef derived from one more ancient, in which the lines were similarly divided, since the writer occasionally omits just the number of letters which would suffice to fill a line, and that to the utter ruin of the sense; as if his eye had heedlessly wandered to the line immediately below. Instances of this want of care will be found Luke 21:8; 92:25, perhaps John 4:45; 12:25, where complete lines are omitted; John 19:26; Heb.13:18 (partly corrected); Apoc.8:16; 19:12; 22:2, where the copyist passed in the middle of a line to the corresponding portion of the line below. It must be confessed, indeed, that the Codex Sinaiticus abounds with similar errors of eye and pen, to an extent not unparalleled, but hapily rather unusual in documents of first-rate importance; so that Tregelles has freely pronounced that ‘the state of the text, as proceeding from the first scribe, may be regarded as very rough." —"Collation on the Codex Sinaiticus," P. XV
Now see the verdict which Dr. Hoskier passes on the Codex Vaticanus:
"That B is guilty of laches, of a tendency to ‘improve,’ and of ‘sunstroke’ amounting to doctrinal bias. That the maligned Textus Receptus served in large measure as the base which B. Tampered with and changed, and that the Church at large recognized all this until the year 1881—when Hortism, in other words Alexandrianism, was allowed free play—and has not since retraced the path to sound traditions."—"Codex B and Its Allies " Part 1, p. 465.
With regard to the corruptions of these two manuscripts, Dean Burgon says:
"(1) The impurity of the Texts exhibited by Codices B and Aleph is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact. These are two of the least trustworthy documents in existence . . . . Codices B and Aleph are, demonstrably, nothing else but specimens of the depraved class thus characterized. Next:
(2) We assert that, so manifest are the disfigurements jointly and exclusively exhibited by Codices B and Aleph that instead of accepting these codices 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." "Revision Revised," pp. 315-318.
BIBLE CORRUPTORS.
D. Jacobus writes:
"Jerome was an earnest Christian, but at the same time a polemical theologian, with strong opinions as to the interpretation of prophetic passages; and he allowed his polomics and his prejudices to warp his translation in a way that Catholics frankly admit." "Roman Catholic and Protestant Bibles Compared." p.42.
Again, "Now some of those may be simply blunders, but not all; and to say that those are ‘serious defects’ is less than the truth! They betoken a willingness to tamper with the text." Idem, Appendix, Note 200.
Helvidius, the famous scholar of Northern Italy, accused Jerome to his face of using corrupted Greek manuscripts. Of Jerome, the article of his name in the McClintock and Strong’s Encyclopaedia says:
"Easily offended vanity," "a fanatical apologist of monkish extravagances", "Romanizing," "pride, often concealed under the garb of humility" and "antichiliastic" that is against the millennium as we believe it.
Now listen to Phillip Mauro, a New York Lawyer and writer of several excellent books on the Scriptures:
"It is easy to understand why this particular MS (Vaticanus) is cherished at the Vatican; for its corruptions are what make it valuable to the leaders of the papal system. We can conceive therefore the satisfaction 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 God, in His over-ruling providence, has frustrated the attempt to displace the AV by a new version based upon such a sandy foundation?" — "Which Version?" Note p.50.
These are authorities who are convinced that the reason why these two beautiful and well preserved manuscripts have survived is because of their corruptions, they have not been worn out by use.
The N.I.V. is based mainly on these two Roman Catholic manuscripts.
An interesting note appears in the N.I.V. after Mark 16:8. It states:
"The two most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20."
The authors of the N.I.V. do not say, in this note, which are the supposed "two most reliable early manuscripts."
However the "New King James Version" gives us this footnote on Mark 16:9-20:
"They are lacking in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, although nearly all other manuscripts of Mark contain them."
To the authors of the N.I.V. "the two most reliable early manuscripts" are the two catholic manuscripts from the Vatican and Catholic Monastry at Sinai.
They were both written in the style of the fourth century, namely in capitals or "Uncials."
They contain the Apocrypha. That is the uninspired books such as Tobit, Judith, Bel and the Dragon, and the epistle of Barnabas.
They came to light at a very convenient time. They had been used very little. That is apparent by their excellent condition. They both were written on the finest vellum—tanned antelope skins. This made them very expensive, well beyond the means of any but the very wealthy. They were both used by the Popes as weapons in the defense of the Latin Vulgate, and the downgrading of the King James Version and for the decisions of the Council of Trent. The timing of the discoveries of these two manuscripts is certainly significant. They were both "discovered" (?) just in time for Rome’s council of Trent. They both were discovered in Catholic buildings. They both came from "the fourth century." The statement of inspired history rings in my mind as I write.
"The nominal conversion of Constantine, in the early part of the fourth century.. ..Now the work of corruption rapidly progressed.... This compromise between paganism and Christianity resulted in the development of ‘the man of sin’,...the representative of Satan—the bishop of Rome." G.C. 49,50.
The fourth century was the time of forgery, "suggested by the father of lies" when "writings were forged by monks ." G.C. 56.
The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were available, but rejected by the reformers.
"Tyndale was impelled by the Spirit of God" G.C. 245.
Tyndale rejected the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as Roman corruptions. Erasmus, rejected the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as corrupt. Inspired history states:
"In 1516, a year before the appearance of Luther’s theses, Erasmus had published his Greek and Latin version of the New Testaments. . . In this work many errors of former versions were corrected, and the sense was more clearly rendered." G.C.245
Erasmus’ New Testament is the same as the King James Version. This is the Bible of the Advent Message, of the Waldenses, Tyndale, Luther, the reformers and the martyrs. It is the only known Bible ever printed by Seventh-day Adventists. (editor: maybe not now)