Admin
|
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance and the Textus Receptus
Posted : 26 May, 2013 09:54 AM
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance and the Textus Receptus
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance was created under James Strong (1822�1894) and was first published in 1890.
Though dispensationalism had begun to take over the Niagra Bible Conference by 1890, and Westcott and Hort in England had by 1881 created and published their Greek text based upon the Alexandrian texts which were rejceted by Erasmus and the Reformation, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance was not based upon dispensationalist theology and remained loyal to the Textus Receptus.
First of all, Strong's allows people to find a particular verse of scripture by looking up a word remembered from that verse. Like shorter concordances, Strong's has a list of words used in scripture, but Strong's provides an exhaustive reference to every English word which appears in the King James version. The Concordance lists 8674 Hebrew root words used in the Old Testament, and the 5624 Greek root words used in the New Testament. Each word is given a number.
Strong's word list - the Main Concordance - is arranged alphabetically by English words, from A to Z. For every English word in the Old and New Testaments, the number for the Hebrew or Greek word is listed.
But Strong's is more that just a way to find a particular Bible text from one word used in that text. It also has a Dictionary of the Words In the Hebrew Bible and A Greek Dictionary of the New Testament. Each Hebrew and Greek word translated into English in the King James Version is given the number which is listed in the loner Main Concordance, or list of English words.
Strong's Hebrew Dictionary gives you the number of an English word, for example "down" in Isaiah 29: 16 which is number 2017, hophek ho'-fek, from 'haphak' (2015); an upset, i.e. (abstract) perversity:--turning of things upside down." I am using an online Strong's here. The Strong's Dictionary often gives one or more sources or root words for a particular word. For 2017, the source given is Hebrew word 2015, haphak, "to turn about or over, by implication to change, overturn, return, pervert..."
So, Strong's Dictionaries provide the reader with some understanding of the meaning or meanings of particular Hebrew and Greek words that appear in scripture. The Strong's word definitions are not necessarily created to provide alternative translations of Hebrew or Greek words to that given in the King James Version. However, the Strong's word definitions allow a reader to learn a greater depth of understanding of the meaning
of Hebrew and Greek words.
And - importantly, Strong's word definitions can be used as a way of determining if an English translation, other than the King James Version, has translated a word wrongly. Remember that the translation procedure for the King James Version is more of a word for word type of translation, while some of the more recent English translations are based upon the broader meaning the of the verse, that is, the meaning the translation committee thought the verse has, which is moving toward interpretation rather than a word for word tranlation.
Here is an example of how Strong's word definitions can be used to identify a problem in a recent English translation, in this case of a Hebrew word.
Isaiah 29: 16 in the King James Version: "Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?"
Isaiah 29: 16 in the New King James Version says:
"Surely you have things turned around!
Shall the potter be esteemed as the clay;
For shall the thing made say of him who made it,
�He did not make me�?
Or shall the thing formed say of him who formed it,
�He has no understanding?"
Go to the online Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, at
http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/index2.htm
Strong's gives you the number of the English word, here "down," which is number 2017, hophek
ho'-fek, from 'haphak' (2015); an upset, i.e. (abstract) perversity:--turning of things upside down."
The translation of the Hebrew word Number 2017 (online Strong's) by the New King James Version has a meaning that is different that that in the King James Version for Isaiah 29: 16, and different from the meanings given in the Strong's word definitions. "Surely you have things
turned around" is different in meaning than "Surely your turning of things upside down." I just noticed that the New King James "Shall the potter be esteemed as the clay;" has a different meaning also than the King James Version's "shall be esteemed as the potter's clay." The King James Version meaning that "Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay" can be seen to refer to Jeremiah 18: 1-6. "The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying,
2. Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words.
3. Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels.
4. And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.
5. Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying,
6. O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel."
The New King James "Shall the potter be esteemed as the clay" does not make the connection to Jeremiah 18: 1-6 that the King James translation does by "shall be esteemed as the potter's clay." The potter's clay in Jeremiah 18 is esteemed because the parable of the potter there is about a very important change in physical Israel, from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant, to Israel in the physical to that spiritual house of I Peter 2: 5, and to Jesus Christ then being in that spiritual house reborn in him and no longer in physical Israel ("Behold, your house is left unto you desolate" Matthew 23; 38).
The New King James "Surely you have things turned around" also fails to connect in meaning to II Kings 21: 13. "And I will stretch over Jerusalem the line of Samaria, and the plummet of the house of Ahab: and I will wipe Jerusalem as a man wipeth a dish, wiping it, and turning it upside down." "Things tuned around" does not connect with II Kings 21: 13, "turning it upside down" as does the King James "Surely your turning of things upside down" in Isaiah 29: 16.
For the New King James Version on Isaiah 29: 16, and for other differences in translation of specific words between the King James Version and newer versions, Strong's can act as a resource to determine if an English translation of a Hebrew or Greek word has departed from the original meaning of that word. But the point in so using Strong's word definitions is not just to find out if some particular verse has been wrongly translated in a newer English translation, but to determine that the newer English versions are not the preserved word of God (Psalm 12: 6-7, Psalm 119: 89).
Whether or not the Strong's word definitions are heavily influenced by the translation of Hebrew and Greek words in the King James Version depends upon whether the Strong's word definitions are based on honest and accurate scholarship. The meanings of Greek words used in the New Testament has been under study by Biblical and language scholars for many centuries. And the issue of honest and accurate scholarship - and the dialectic mind - comes up in the quarrels about the attempt of Westcott and Hort to overthrow both the King James Version and the Textus Receptus. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance is based upon the Textus Receptus and not upon the Alexandrian Greek texts, the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Strong's is not based on the Westcott-Hort 1881 Greek text, derived from the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
By 1881 there was a major revolt against the Textus Receptus and the King
James Version as being the authorized and received texts for Christians. The received text is the Greek Texus Receptus, and the authorized English text is the King James Version. Westcott
and Hort had the dialectic mind and argued against the long accepted Greek and English
New Testament texts, in favor of the Alexandrian texts, which had been rejected at the time of the
Reformation.
"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.7. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." Psalm 12: 6-7
God promised to preserve his words. The dialectic mind of our age wants to argue against that which is absolute truth or absolute morality. God's word for those with faith is absolute truth and it is fact. So, Westcott and Hort in their writings in the late eighties
of the 19th century argued against that absolute
truth of Psalm 12: 6-7 that God has preserved his word. In starting from the assumption that the Bible should be treated in textual criticism as any other ancient text, they, in effect, argued against Psalm 12; 6-7. that God has preserved his word, in this case the Greek New Testament.
Why were there two Greek texts that Westcott and Hort argued
about, the Textus Receptus, from the Byzantine text type, and the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, or Alexandrian text type? Vaticanus was available to Erasmus when he created the Textus Receptus, but he rejected it because he believed the Byzantine texts were closer to the word of God has written by the Apostles.
According to http://www.biblebelievers.net/bibleversions/kjckjv1s.htm
"Has 140,521 Greek word Changes, 5,604 places in the N.T."
"Scrivener set down all of the Greek words used by the KJV, but he did something else as well. He put in bold face type all of the alterations made by editors Westcott and Hort in their 1881 English Revised Version. He inserted the exact alterations in the footnotes. These consisted of either additions of Greek words, subtractions of Greek words, or changes of Greek words in some other way."
My note: The 1881 English Revised Version is the first English translation of the New Testament made from the Wescott-Hort Greek text, from the Alexandrian texts.
"In each of the 5,604 places, compared to the Textus Receptus that underlies the KJV, Westcott and Hort either added Greek words, subtracted Greek words, or changed the Greek words in some other way."
"They say, in effect: "If all of the variant readings between the Westcott and Hort-type text and the Textus Receptus-type text were assembled together in one place, they would amount to a little over one half a page in the Greek New Testament."
"They" are the followers of Wescott and Hort. If it were true that there are only a very few changes in the Westcott-Hort Greek text, compared to the Textus Receptus, then why all the zeal, or intense feelings of the followers of Westcott and Hort for that text and all the zeal and intense feelings against the Textus Rceptus?
No, Westcott and Hort argued that the Alexandrian Greek texts were superior to the Textus Receptus and therefore Christians should use the Alexandrian texts as the basis for English translations. This rationale would justify the many differences between the Textus Receptus and the Westcott-Hort 1881 Greek text.
ASSUMPTIONS OF WESTCORT AND HORT:
1. Earlier Greek manuscripts are closer to the original writings of the Apostles
2. A scribe usually went about blending the texts available to him trying to make improvements to the text; This is what they call conflation.
3. Older manuscripts have fewer corruptions.
4. Shorter readings are preferred.
5. More awkward sentence grammar is preferred.
Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were from the
fourth century, according to experts, while the Byzantine manuscripts
that Erasmus used to create the Textus Receptus were from the 11th to the 15th century. But scholars say that there are many verse wording differences between the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Scholars say that the verse wording differences between the many available Byzantine type text manuscripts are not substantial. There is that issue of the longer wording of I John 5: 7-8, on the Trinity.
But the assumptions listed above of Westcott and Hort did not lead them to honest and accurate scholarship, even based upon the Greek texts available to them in the late 19th century. Harry A. Sturz and the Existence of Byzantine Wordings In the Second Century,
http://www.themoorings.org/doctrine/issues/versions/WH.html
" In reviewing this book, George D. Kilpatrick, Professor Emeritus of New Testament at Oxford, says,
'His conclusions can have revolutionary consequences for the text of the Greek New Testament. The Byzantine text is not just a later recension, but contains distinctive readings, going back to the second century...'
The work of Harry A. Sturz is based largely on papyri discovered after Westcott and Hort wrote in the late 19th century.
The issue of "conflation" raised by Westcott and Hort is not supported much by scholarship. Although most of these papyri are fragmentary, they contain several of the readings that Westcott and Hort identified as late conflates."
Conflate means to merge two texts together into one text.
http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/CriticalTexts/dbs2695.htm
"The False Argument of "Conflation" Answered. The following eight verses are the only ones offered as alleged examples of "conflation" in Westcott and Hort's Introduction: (1) Mark 6:33; (2) Mark 8:26; (3) Mark 9:38; (4) Mark 9:49; (5) Luke 9:10; (6) Luke 11:54; (7) Luke 12:18; (8) Luke 24:53. Dean Burgon shows clearly that the above ##1, 2, 5, 6, & 7 don't even exhibit the phenomenon. Dean Burgon wrote: "The interpretation put upon them by Drs. Westcott and Hort, is purely arbitrary: a baseless imagination,--a dream and nothing more." [Dean John W. Burgon, Revision Revised, pp. 258-262]. "
Westcott and Hort assumed that older Greek texts are less corrupted because the texts were copied fewer times giving scribes less opportunity to change the texts. But the considerable agreement between the existing texts of the Byzantine type can be seen to support the idea that the Byzantine scribes who copied the manuscripts in the more humid climate were faithful in not making mistakes or in changing words. The Sinaiticus and Vaticanus created in the dry climate of Egypt survived much better than the Greek texts of the Byzantine text type, apparently created in Antioch, Syria and copied in the area which is now Turkey. In addition, there is another assumption quote possible, that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus survived in fairly good condition since the fourth century because they were not used very much. Even in Egypt Christians may have known that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were not to be trusted as much as another New Testament text type, which is now identified as being the Byzantine type.
The assumption that "Shorter readings are preferred" by Westcott and Hort favors the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus over the Textus Receptus which has more elaboration and therefore contains more words. The assumption that
those who copied the Byzantine Greek texts added elaboration to the text is not necessarily accurate - if the scribes had faith and wanted to obey God and preserve his word.
And the assumption that "More awkward sentence grammar is preferred" suffers from the same problem as does the assumption that shorter verse wordings are preferred because those who copy manuscripts tend to make elaborations on them.
There are some indications that Westcott and Hort did not engage in honest scholarship. For example,
http://www.wayoflife.org/database/differencesinkjv.html
On the site listed above David Cloud writes that
"There are many myths that are perpetuated today by the defenders of the modern versions, and one of those is that there is very little difference between the Received Text underlying the King James Bible and other ancient Protestant versions and the Westcott-Hort Greek text underlying most of the modern versions. Westcott and Hort themselves made this claim in their day, and it is widely repeated today.' He then quotes Hort as saying:
�... the amount of what can in any sense be called
substantial variation is but a small fraction of the whole residuary
variation, and can hardly form more than a thousandth part of the
entire text� (F. J. A. Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek,
1882, vol. II, p. 2)."
"The following is from Dr. Donald Waite�s book Defending the King James Bible:
�The Westcott and Hort Text changes the Textus Receptus in over 5,600 places.
�Do you know how many changes they made? My own personal count, as of
August 2, 1984, using Scrivener's Greek New Testament referred to
above, was 5,604 changes that Westcott and Hort made to the Textus
Receptus in their own Greek New Testament text. Of these 5,604
alterations, I found 1,952 to be OMISSIONS (35%), 467 to be ADDITIONS
(8%), and 3,185 to be CHANGES (57%). In these 5,604 places that were
involved in these alterations, there were 4,366 more words included,
making a total of 9,970 Greek words that were involved. "
Again, if the differences between the Textus Receptus and the Westcott-Hort 1881
Greek text amount to "hardly...more than a thousandth part of the
entire text� than why try to substitute the Westcott-Hort for the Textus Receptus?
Why make all the assumptions that favor the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus over the Textus Receptus?
The fact that most seminary professors and their students accepted the Westcott-Hort Greek text over the Textus Receptus is an indication that the falling away of II Thessalonians 2: 3-4 had begun by the late 19th century and early 20th century, and that soon after more and more Christians got the dialectic mindset from the larger culture surrounding them. Most joined in the arguments, in effect, against scripture as absolute authority in saying that God has preserved his word, applied to the Textus Receptus rather than to the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus which Erasmus rejected in favor of the Byzantine text type.
Post Reply
|
