Are Ruckman's claims concerning editions of the KJV in agreement with each other and factually correct?
- Thread starter logos1560
- Start date
Origen had some influence on the Textus Receptus by means of Erasmus. Erasmus quoted from Origen in his Annotations in defense of some of his textual decisions.
Peter Ruckman even acknowledged that the hero of Erasmus was Origen (King James Onlyism, p. 10).
Irena Backus observed that Theodore Beza often referred to Erasmus as being "too much under the influence of Origen" (Reformed Roots of the English N.T., p. 39). Diarmaid MacCulloch referred to “Erasmus’s discreet fascination with Origen” (Reformation, p. 111). Eugene Rice pointed out that we "find Erasmus relying on the authority of Origen when he attacked Luther in 1524" (Saint Jerome, pp. 91-92). John Jortin maintained that Erasmus “declares that he found more Christian philosophy in one page of Origen, whom Jerome had much studied, than in ten pages of Augustine” (Life of Erasmus, Vol. I, p. 133). John Gleason asserted that "Erasmus thought one page of Origen worth ten of Augustine" (John Colet, pp. 262-263). William Campbell wrote: “For Erasmus, Origen was first and Augustine last in preference” (O’Sullivan, Bible as Book: the Reformation, p. 104). Campbell also cited a quotation from Peter Gorday that the favourite patristic authority of Erasmus was “Origen” (Ibid.). In his Paraclesis to the N. T., Erasmus wrote: 'If you refer to commentaries, choose out the best, such as Origen (who is far above all others)" (Hexter, Traditions, II, p. 301). Leon-E. Halkin maintained that “the Paraphrase on the Gospel of St. Matthew” written by Erasmus “was strongly inspired by Origen” (Erasmus, p. 164). Arthur Pennington quoted Erasmus as writing: “With regard to commentators on the sacred volume, none will teach him better than Origen” (Life, p. 125). Louis Bouyer noted that Erasmus "showed repeatedly a strong liking for the Greek Fathers, particularly for Origen" (Erasmus and his Times, p. 149). MacCulloch maintained that Erasmus “frequently turned both to Origen and Jerome’s analysis” of Paul’s epistles to the Romans and Galatians (Reformation, p. 110). Rummel claimed that Erasmus in his Annotations cited "Origen most often to confirm a reading different from the standard text" (Erasmus' Annotations, p. 67). William Estep pointed out: "At the time of his last illness, Erasmus was living in Froben's home and working--as much as his waning strength permitted--on a new edition of Origen's works, a task that his death interrupted" (Renaissance, p. 92). Robert Sargent claimed that "the most influential agent in the corruption of the Biblical text" was Origen (English Bible, p. 115). What do the facts concerning Erasmus and Origen say for the spiritual discernment of Erasmus?
Would you suggest that believers should stay away from the Textus Receptus and the KJV because of its connections to Origen through Erasmus?
Dean John William Burgon as edited by Edward Miller maintained that “the influence of Origen may be traced” in some passages and one example listed is “in the substitution of Bethabara for Bethany (John 1:28)” (Green, Unholy Hands, I, p. 91). John William Burgon wrote: “It is not a little remarkable that even when an attempt was confessedly made on a grand scale to alter a single word of Scripture, (as by Origen,--who is the cause that we read at the present day ‘Bethabara’ instead of ‘Bethany’ in S. John 1:28,) the MS. evidence still accessible to us overwhelmingly establishes the fact that ‘Bethany’ is the true reading” (Treatise on the Pastoral Office, p. 73).
F. W. Farrar asserted: “Bethany is the most ancient and best supported reading. It was conjecturally altered by Origen, in the second century, into Bethabara, because he only knew of one Bethany” (Texts, p. 90). Ralph Earle also maintained that Origen “tells us that he could not find any Bethany near the Jordan River, although he admits that Bethania is the reading of ‘nearly all the manuscripts.’ So he deliberately changed Bethania to Bethabara, and the latter became the dominant reading in the late manuscripts” (Word Meanings, p. 83). In the volume on John in The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, A. Plummer wrote: “The true reading is Bethany, which was changed to Bethabara owing to the powerful influence of Origen, who could find no Bethany beyond Jordan in his day” (p. 74). M. Ernest Bengel asserted that “Bethabara was a conjecture of Origen” (Gnomon of the N. T., II, p. 257). Metzger wrote that “at John 1:28 Origen altered Bethania to Bethabara in order to remove what he regarded as a geographical difficulty” (Text, p. 199). Metzger commented: “Origen’s well-known preference for the reading ‘Bethabara’ instead of ‘Bethany’ was adopted on geographical and etymological grounds” (p. 152). A. T. Robertson wrote “not ‘in Bethabara’ as Origen suggested . . . under the mistaken notion that the only Bethany was that near Jerusalem” (Word Pictures, V, p. 22). Robertson also wrote: “The interesting thing about this reading is the fact that Origen tells that he himself changed the reading of the ancient manuscripts from Bethany to Bethabarah” (Studies, p. 73). David Johnson claimed: “In deference to a groundless conjecture of Origen, quite unwarranted by manuscript authority, Bethabara, has been inserted in the received text of John 1:28, instead of the true reading, Bethany” (Plea, p. 28). McClintock and Strong wrote: “Instead of Bethabara in John 1:28 (where the text was altered since Origen’s time), the reading in the oldest and best MSS is Bethany” (Cyclopedia, I, p. 772). Spiros Zodhiates also asserted that “some of the best MSS read Bethany” at John 1:28 (Complete Word Study Dictionary, p. 333). Concerning this verse, Vincent maintained that “the correct reading is Bethany” (Word Studies, II, p. 65). George Whitney claimed “in John 1:28, the best MSS have Bethany” (Hand-book of Bible Geography, p. 59).
Do KJV-only advocates prefer the reading said to be advocated by Origen?
F. W. Farrar asserted: “Bethany is the most ancient and best supported reading. It was conjecturally altered by Origen, in the second century, into Bethabara, because he only knew of one Bethany” (Texts, p. 90). Ralph Earle also maintained that Origen “tells us that he could not find any Bethany near the Jordan River, although he admits that Bethania is the reading of ‘nearly all the manuscripts.’ So he deliberately changed Bethania to Bethabara, and the latter became the dominant reading in the late manuscripts” (Word Meanings, p. 83). In the volume on John in The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, A. Plummer wrote: “The true reading is Bethany, which was changed to Bethabara owing to the powerful influence of Origen, who could find no Bethany beyond Jordan in his day” (p. 74). M. Ernest Bengel asserted that “Bethabara was a conjecture of Origen” (Gnomon of the N. T., II, p. 257). Metzger wrote that “at John 1:28 Origen altered Bethania to Bethabara in order to remove what he regarded as a geographical difficulty” (Text, p. 199). Metzger commented: “Origen’s well-known preference for the reading ‘Bethabara’ instead of ‘Bethany’ was adopted on geographical and etymological grounds” (p. 152). A. T. Robertson wrote “not ‘in Bethabara’ as Origen suggested . . . under the mistaken notion that the only Bethany was that near Jerusalem” (Word Pictures, V, p. 22). Robertson also wrote: “The interesting thing about this reading is the fact that Origen tells that he himself changed the reading of the ancient manuscripts from Bethany to Bethabarah” (Studies, p. 73). David Johnson claimed: “In deference to a groundless conjecture of Origen, quite unwarranted by manuscript authority, Bethabara, has been inserted in the received text of John 1:28, instead of the true reading, Bethany” (Plea, p. 28). McClintock and Strong wrote: “Instead of Bethabara in John 1:28 (where the text was altered since Origen’s time), the reading in the oldest and best MSS is Bethany” (Cyclopedia, I, p. 772). Spiros Zodhiates also asserted that “some of the best MSS read Bethany” at John 1:28 (Complete Word Study Dictionary, p. 333). Concerning this verse, Vincent maintained that “the correct reading is Bethany” (Word Studies, II, p. 65). George Whitney claimed “in John 1:28, the best MSS have Bethany” (Hand-book of Bible Geography, p. 59).
Do KJV-only advocates prefer the reading said to be advocated by Origen?
I'm convinced you're on drugs.
They're the same? The same. Then this statement must be true: all dividers are heretics and all heretics are dividers.
What happened to the heresy of false unity? "One love" under a "one world" order, "one religion", "Coexist". Is that heresy divisive?
I think you need to go back to high school.
Last edited:
"logos" over here copy pasting full pages to argue "Bethabara" should have been translated "Bethany".
Then this David Johnson guy "claimed" in deference to Origen it was inserted into the Received Text. Which version of the Received Text? Even if it was the first two, does this guy "claim" to know Origen was the only one using the variation of Bethabara at the time? He said there were no Bethany's around back then. Uh, maybe everyone decided on the variation of Bethabara if that name was not being used.
Noah is sometimes translated Noe in the KJV too. Oh, where should we use James instead of Jacob? What about Jim. Jim or James, WHICH DO YOU PREFER, KJV GUY?
Wait a second, what happened to all the other verses we were talking about that actually affect doctrine? Now "Bethany" vs "Bethabara" is the best you've got? Sad. A sad position to take, the New Versionist stance is (I got this "style" of syntax from Yoda, does that mean I'm also a Jedi like Yoda).
Then this David Johnson guy "claimed" in deference to Origen it was inserted into the Received Text. Which version of the Received Text? Even if it was the first two, does this guy "claim" to know Origen was the only one using the variation of Bethabara at the time? He said there were no Bethany's around back then. Uh, maybe everyone decided on the variation of Bethabara if that name was not being used.
Noah is sometimes translated Noe in the KJV too. Oh, where should we use James instead of Jacob? What about Jim. Jim or James, WHICH DO YOU PREFER, KJV GUY?
Wait a second, what happened to all the other verses we were talking about that actually affect doctrine? Now "Bethany" vs "Bethabara" is the best you've got? Sad. A sad position to take, the New Versionist stance is (I got this "style" of syntax from Yoda, does that mean I'm also a Jedi like Yoda).
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2019
- Messages
- 1,034
- Reaction score
- 491
- Points
- 83
Fascinating - so the AV1611 text of John 1;28 was "corrupted" by the notorious heretic Origen. Who knew?
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2012
- Messages
- 9,117
- Reaction score
- 1,134
- Points
- 113
WWGRS?
What Would Gail Riplinger Say?
What Would Gail Riplinger Say?
That he had enough of it to reject Vaticanus:
"Erasmus references the Vaticanus manuscript in the Preface to his 1535 edition of the Textus Receptus, and he condemns it. 350 readings from it were made available to him, and he rejected it on the ground that it did not follow the Scripture citations of the orthodox fathers like Chrysostom, Gregory Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa. I cite Erasmus’ own remarks in my book. I might add that John Owen cites the Vaticanus manuscript as well, in his book defending the integrity of Ecclesiastical manuscripts of the Hebrew and the Greek: namely, the Textus Receptus and the Masoretic Text. With respect to the Greek text: Erasmus strongly favoured the text that was supported by the Cappadocian Fathers. But he also amended it to follow minority readings in the Textus Receptus stream, where the overwhelming majority of Latin manuscripts favoured that reading – as is the case with Acts 8.37." -Al Hembd, Trinitarian Bible Society, Jerusalem, Israel
More importantly, you quoted Ruckman. Let's quote him in context.
"When your future “pastor” gets to Reformation Hermeneutics, he runs into Luther (1483–1546), John Colet (1466–1519), Erasmus (1466–1536), and Calvin (1509–1564). He is now told that Erasmus and Colet rediscovered the “priority of the literal sense.” They did nothing of the kind. They used the correct Latin (Old Latin, not Jerome) and the correct Greek (Antiochan Syrian texts) for publishing Bibles, but neither man believed that ONE verse of Revelation 13; Job 40, 41; Isaiah 34; Matthew 25; or Revelation 20 was literal. Erasmus’ “hero” was Origen." -Dr. Peter S. Ruckman, King James Onlyism versus Scholarship Onlyism
Here we see even though Erasmus did not take some scripture literally, a problem Origen shared (though Erasmus did not share other major problems with Origen: very important to note), he still used the correct texts that were not all in alignment with Origen. And you might want to read my breakdown of this before you rush to respond:
The New Versions are in closer alignment with Origen's overall theology (don't even try James White's amateur style of nitpicking at exceptions of lower priority than the greater importance of the big picture, constantly abandoning the forest for the trees. A professional analyst keeps both in view at all times) AND the New Versions include textual readings that even Erasmus, who was sympathetic in some areas to Origen, rejected! This means Erasmus rejected them while having a bias in favor of Origen and portions of the Alexandrian, Allegorical school of thought: meaning he must have had a good reason to go against them in that area. Conversely, if Erasmus either didn't like or was impartial to Origen, one might argue that the reason he didn't go with readings that aligned with Origen's theology could've been because he held a bias against Origen, but the fact that Erasmus was sympathetic in some areas to Origen's theology, while still rejecting more of his preferred readings than the New Versions did, is stronger evidence in support of the KJV user's position.
Last edited:
In the context of Titus 3:9-10 they are the same.
But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.
As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him,
If you are involved in foolish controversies, genealogies (did Jesus come from the line of David?), Quarrels about the law (Scripture) you are questioning the established doctrines of the church. Verse 10 says what to do with those who stir up division in such a way. So if one questions the doctrine of a church whether speaking truth or not what are they?
Merriam-Webster definition of Heretic provided below:
"one who differs in opinion from an accepted belief or doctrine"
The posts of KJV-only advocates may suggest that they have no final authority greater than their own subjective, biased, non-scriptural opinions.
The Bible does not say controversies, it says foolish questions. Then it says avoid heated arguing (contention). Conversely, a controversy is a dispute, an open disagreement that is not necessarily emotionally driven like a heated argument is.
Controversies are sometimes necessary to solve problems. The opposite would be denying the problem exists, excessive use of cold shoulder, or sweeping things under the rug hoping they will go away on their own, very unhealthy. The LORD had a controversy with his own people. Paul had a controversy with Peter and the Grecians.
The ESV was designed for passive, compliant, one-world Socialist soy boys. You might want to check out some of the people who were on the translating board and what they believe.
Verse 10 does not say "stir up division", it says a "heretic". There is no guarantee that verse 10 absolutely must correlate to verse 9 anyway, it is possible that it is the next bullet point in a short list of instructions. Even if it is related to verse 9, nothing in verse 9 says anything about division: foolish questions for example can sneak in heresies like ecumenical tolerance and "unity with the world" into the church. Such is a far more dangerous problem than dividing yourself away from heretics.
Your thought-for-thought subjective eisegetical twisting of the text to force it to say what you want is evidence of the danger of having a hundred versions to mix and match readings from.
You make your broad-sweeping generalization without providing any specifics that prove what your statement suggests.
Do you attempt to smear specific evidence by throwing out bogus wrong conclusions?
The fact that believers can wisely choose to disagree with inconsistent, erroneous, human KJV-only reasoning would not lead to the conclusion that they should go become an atheist.
You earthlings still argue over the superiority of the blessed word of God, the King James Version?
Take my advice, go soul-winning instead.
Take my advice, go soul-winning instead.
Excellent advice. Let me grab my NIV and head on out.
Let's do it!
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2018
- Messages
- 71
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 8
Remember, Sportzz fanzz, in Ruckman, you're dealing with a gent who wrote, in his book Mark Of The Beast, that the antichrist will be a 10-foot-tall alien with huge black lips who will land a huge spaceship in St. Peter's Square, & impart the mark of the beast with a kiss from those huge black lips. Sound like a rational feller to YOU ?