Sorenson's new book Neither Oldest Nor Best

[Logos1560]

This alphabetical list of the KJV translators is compiled from the lists given by others such as Gustavus Paine, Olga Opfell, Geddes MacGregor, and Alexander McClure. It may include some claimed to have taken the place of some who died during the translating or some claimed to be overseers.

Abbot, George (1562- 1633) Oxford N. T. group
Aglionby, John (? - 1611) Oxford N. T. group
Andrewes, Lancelot (1555- 1626) Westminster O. T. group
Andrewes, Roger (? -1618) Cambridge O. T. group
Barlow, William ( ? - 1613) Westminster N. T. group
Bedwell, William (1563 - 1632) Westminster O. T. group
Bilson, Thomas (1546-7 - 1616) co-editor
Bing [or Byng], Andrew (1574 - 1652) Cambridge O. T. group
Bois [or Boys], John (1561- 1644) Cambridge Apoc. group
Branthwaite, William (1563 -1620) Cambridge Apoc. group
Brett, Richard (1560 - 1637) Oxford O. T. group
Burleigh, Francis (? - 1619?) Westminster O. T. group
Chaderton [or Chatterton], Laurence (1536-7 -1640) Cambridge O. T. group
Clarke [or Clerke], Richard ( ? - 1634 Westminster O. T. group
Dakins, William ( ?- 1607) Westminster N. T. group
Dillingham, Francis ( ? - 1611) Cambridge O. T. group
Downes, Andrew (1549 - 1628?) Cambridge Apoc. group
Duport, John ( ? - 1617) Cambridge Apoc. group
Edes, Richard (1555 - 1604) Oxford N. T. group
Featley [or Fairclough], Daniel (1582 - 1645) Oxford O. T. group
Fenton, Roger (1565 - 1616) Westminster N. T. group
Harding, John Oxford O. T. group
Harmer [or Harmar], John (1555?- 1613) Oxford N. T. group
Harrison, Thomas (1555 - 1631) Cambridge O. T. group
Holland, Thomas (1538? - 1612) Oxford O. T. group
Hutchinson [or Huchenson], Ralph (1553? -1606) Westminster N. T. group
Hutten, Leonard (1557? -1632) Oxford N. T. group
Kilby, Richard (1561? - 1620) Oxford O. T. group
King, Jeffrey [or Geoffry] ( ? -1630) Westminster O. T. group
Lake, Arthur (1569 -1626) one of 6 or 12 revisers
Layfield, John (? - 1617) Westminster O. T. group
Lively, Edward (1545?-1605) Cambridge O. T. group
Montagu [or Montague], James (1568? -1618) Oxford N. T. group
Overall, John (1560 - 1619) Westminster O. T. group
Perin [or Perne], John (? -1615) Oxford N. T. group
Rabbett, Michael Westminster N. T. group
Radcliffe, Jeremy (? - 1612) Cambridge Apoc. group
Rainolds [or Reynolds], John (1549 - 1607) Oxford O. T. group
Ravens, Ralph (? - 1616) Oxford N. T. group
Ravis, Thomas (1560? - 1609) Oxford N. T. group
Richardson, John (1564? - 1625) Cambridge O. T. group
Sanderson, Thomas Westminster N. T. group
Saravia, Hadrian (1531 - 1613) Westminster O. T. group
Savile, Henry (1549 - 1622) Oxford N. T. group
Smith, Miles ( ? - 1624) Oxford O. T. group, co-editor
Spalding, Robert Cambridge O. T. group
Sparke, Thomas (1548 - 1616)
Spenser, [or Spencer] John (1559 - 1614) Westminster N. T. group
Thomson [or Thompson], Giles (? - 1612) Oxford N. T. group
Thomson, Richard [or "Dutch"] (? - 1613) Westminster O. T. group
Thorne, William (1568? - 1630) Oxford O. T. group
Tigue [or Tighe or Teigh], Robert (? - 1620) Westminster O. T. group
Ward, Robert [or William or John] Cambridge Apoc. group
Ward, Samuel (1572? - 1643) Cambridge Apoc. group

 

[Rippon]

In that list you discovered just 30 with their ages given -- I got 32.

 

[TCassidy]

I searched and searched and could find only the ages of 32 of the translators. The average age at death was 66 among these men. Lawrence Chaderton lived to be 103! But on the other side, one was just 39 and two were 49.

Five of the 32 died before 1611.

Yeah. Nothing "mysterious" about those deaths.

 

[rsr]

I apologize for unwittingly having derailed this thread. My point was that the Sorenson/Cooper conspiracy theories are akin to the Chick/Rivera nonsense. The kernel of truth is that, yes, the Jesuits did attempt to undo the Reformation in England. The fallacy is that they had such influence that they could do so.

The Elizabethan Settlement ensured that the realm would be "Protestant." Catholic priests would be executed if found. And they were. But many non-Anglicans also would be persecuted, for example, Thomas Helwys, who died in prison.

My chief objection is that the KJVO-only folks ignore the reductionism involved in proclaiming that the KJV is a product of pure Christianity. History is much more complicated.

 

[Rippon]

My chief objection is that the KJVO-only folks ignore the reductionism involved in proclaiming that the KJV is a product of pure Christianity. History is much more complicated.

The same could be said of the Trail of Blood pure baptist heritage myth.

 

[TCassidy]

Of all the people commenting on this thread I am probably the only one who actually knows David Sorenson. He graduated from the same seminary I attended, and I worked with his younger brother, Steve, when he was in seminary.

David is not strictly KJVO, but is probably somewhere between Byzantine Preferred and TRO. He repeats many of the KJVO criticisms of the NKJV (most of which are, in my opinion, without merit).

However, I would hesitate to call the theory of the late date of Codex Sinaiticus a "myth." Constantine Simonides was a notorious forger in the mid to late 1800s and he did claim to have forged Codex Sinaiticus.

The primary opponent to that claim was a man who, himself, had a vested interest in both Simonides and Codex Sinaiticus (Henry Bradshaw).

Personally I really don't care one way or another. The Alexandrian textform is sufficiently attested to by the manuscript evidence that we pretty much understand its history. It is only those who elevate the Codex above all others, who have a vested interest in its traditional place in the textucopia.

 

[TCassidy]

What Mr. Bradshaw actually said regarding his "proof" that Simonides didn't forge the Codex was, "I first replied that it was really difficult to define; that it seemed to be more a kind of instinct than anything else" (A Memoir of Henry Bradshaw: Fellow of King's College, p.95)

On the other hand, Fredrick Kenyon, fellow at Oxford and long time curator of the British Museum and expert on bible manuscripts said:

“The romance of the Codex Sinaiaticus was not yet over, however. Since the year 1856 an ingenious Greek, named Constantine Simonides, had been creating a considerable sensation by producing quantities of Greek manuscripts professing to be of fabulous antiquity, - such as a Homer in an almost prehistoric style of writing, a lost Egyptian historian, a copy of St. Matthew’s Gospel on papyrus, written fifteen years after the Ascension (!), and other portions of the New Testament dating from the first century. These productions enjoyed a short period of notoriety, and were then exposed as forgeries. Among the scholars concerned in the exposure was Tischendorf; and the revenge taken by Simonides was distinctly humourous. While stoutly maintaining the genuineness of his own wares, he admitted that he had written *one* manuscript which passed as being very ancient, and that was the Codex Sinaiaticus, the discovery of which had been so triumphantly proclaimed by Tischendorf! The idea was ingenious, but it would not bear investigation. Apart from the internal evidence of the text itself, the variations in which no forger, however clever, could have invented, it was shown that Simonides could not have completed the task in the time that he professed to have taken; and this little cloud on the credit of the newly-discovered manuscript rapidly passed away.”

Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts (4th ed.), Kenyon, Frederick G. (1939), Pages 123-124.

 

[Yeshua1]

What Mr. Bradshaw actually said regarding his "proof" that Simonides didn't forge the Codex was, "I first replied that it was really difficult to define; that it seemed to be more a kind of instinct than anything else" (A Memoir of Henry Bradshaw: Fellow of King's College, p.95)

On the other hand, Fredrick Kenyon, fellow at Oxford and long time curator of the British Museum and expert on bible manuscripts said:

“The romance of the Codex Sinaiaticus was not yet over, however. Since the year 1856 an ingenious Greek, named Constantine Simonides, had been creating a considerable sensation by producing quantities of Greek manuscripts professing to be of fabulous antiquity, - such as a Homer in an almost prehistoric style of writing, a lost Egyptian historian, a copy of St. Matthew’s Gospel on papyrus, written fifteen years after the Ascension (!), and other portions of the New Testament dating from the first century. These productions enjoyed a short period of notoriety, and were then exposed as forgeries. Among the scholars concerned in the exposure was Tischendorf; and the revenge taken by Simonides was distinctly humourous. While stoutly maintaining the genuineness of his own wares, he admitted that he had written *one* manuscript which passed as being very ancient, and that was the Codex Sinaiaticus, the discovery of which had been so triumphantly proclaimed by Tischendorf! The idea was ingenious, but it would not bear investigation. Apart from the internal evidence of the text itself, the variations in which no forger, however clever, could have invented, it was shown that Simonides could not have completed the task in the time that he professed to have taken; and this little cloud on the credit of the newly-discovered manuscript rapidly passed away.”

Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts (4th ed.), Kenyon, Frederick G. (1939), Pages 123-124.

So the Codex was really old and geniune, but he tried to pose as its creator?

 

[Logos1560]

David is not strictly KJVO, but is probably somewhere between Byzantine Preferred and TRO. He repeats many of the KJVO criticisms of the NKJV (most of which are, in my opinion, without merit).

I do not know if David Sorenson has changed or modified his view through the years. At times some of his statements may seem to be Textus Receptus-only. Perhaps like D. A. Waite he may try to be not-KJV-only and KJV-only at the same time.

In my opinion, David Sorenson has made some assertions that can properly be considered a form of KJV-only view. Do you think that these statements display KJV-only reasoning?

David H. Sorenson wrote: "The Traditional Text and the King James Version reflect the purified verbal transmission of God's very words. Though the King James Version as a translation is not inspired, verbal preservation has carried the results of inspiration through to this hour in the King James Version. The results are inerrancy and infallibility. Though technically the King James Version is not inspired as a translation, we can still effectually say, 'I hold in my hands the inspired Word of God' because of God's providential work of preservation" (God's Perfect Book, p. 211).

David Sorenson wrote: "Without question, the greatest manifestation of the Bible in history has been the King James Version, based upon the preserved Traditional Text. It too has undergone the purifying and refining process of preservation even in English. God inspired the very words of Scripture and He has diligently worked to preserve the same over the centuries. We have the fruit thereof in the King James Version to this day. It is inerrant, infallible, and is the preserved Word of God in the English language" (p. 212).

 

[John of Japan]

Of all the people commenting on this thread I am probably the only one who actually knows David Sorenson. He graduated from the same seminary I attended, and I worked with his younger brother, Steve, when he was in seminary.

David is not strictly KJVO, but is probably somewhere between Byzantine Preferred and TRO. He repeats many of the KJVO criticisms of the NKJV (most of which are, in my opinion, without merit).

At a bare minimum, he appears to be TR only. He says in a footnote on p. 39 of Touch Not the Unclean Thing that "the Majority Text of both Farstad and Hodges as well as that of Robinson and Pierpont were developed following the same rationalistic philosophy as that of the critical text." That is absolute poppycock (to use a technical term). So he is nowhere near a Byz. preferred position, according to that.

Also, I have to note that he wrote, "A thesis of this writer is that the critical text is unholy through its manifold associations with apostasy" (ibid, 224). I find this statement to be incredible. To carry it out to its logical conclusion, when I take a look at a verse every morning from the UBS3, I am reading an unholy NT. That's just plain wrong, and terribly wrong. I don't remember the figures, but if the UBS has 95% of the TR of Pierpont/Robinson, then it is holy, not unholy.

However, I would hesitate to call the theory of the late date of Codex Sinaiticus a "myth." Constantine Simonides was a notorious forger in the mid to late 1800s and he did claim to have forged Codex Sinaiticus.

The primary opponent to that claim was a man who, himself, had a vested interest in both Simonides and Codex Sinaiticus (Henry Bradshaw).

My primary objection to the forgery theory is this: Simonides had nothing to gain from such a forgery, but much to gain from claiming it. I mean, for crying out loud, Sinaiticus has all of the NT, half of the LXX and a couple of other books besides. To forge all of that would be a huge task with little return to it. You know Greek--what would it take to forge just one Gospel, never mind all of Sinaiticus? It would just not be worth it.

Personally I really don't care one way or another. The Alexandrian textform is sufficiently attested to by the manuscript evidence that we pretty much understand its history. It is only those who elevate the Codex above all others, who have a vested interest in its traditional place in the textucopia.

And here we agree.

 

[TCassidy]

At a bare minimum, he appears to be TR only.

Yes. And he seems to be moving closer to a KJVO position, which is odd considering he is a Central grad.

He says in a footnote on p. 39 of Touch Not the Unclean Thing that "the Majority Text of both Farstad and Hodges as well as that of Robinson and Pierpont were developed following the same rationalistic philosophy as that of the critical text." That is absolute poppycock (to use a technical term). So he is nowhere near a Byz. preferred position, according to that.

He thinks all textual criticism is an example of "higher criticism" attacking the very foundations of the faith. He seems to suggest we simply accept what has been passed down through the ages without critical examination. But as all of what has been passed down differs in some way, which readings do we accept without critical examination?

I will be the first to agree that the methodology of Westcott and Hort is designed to point to their preferred manuscripts, but when we use a more rational method I think we can closely examine the evidence and come to a conclusion regarding the original reading. I am not quite at the point where I agree with Pickering (the othe guy, not our old friend) that Family 35 is identical to the autographs, for all practical purposes, but I certainly agree with Pickering that the Byzantine textform is the closest text to the autographs when those rational rules of textual criticism are used.

I don't remember the figures, but if the UBS has 95% of the TR of Pierpont/Robinson, then it is holy, not unholy.

I agree. Although my final authority is the Byzantine textform (right now Robinson/Pierpont's 2005 edition which Dr. Robinson gifted me with on the occasion of his visit to San Diego several years ago) I still have a NA 27 on the table right beside me as a go to "quick and dirty" Greek NT.

My primary objection to the forgery theory is this: Simonides had nothing to gain from such a forgery, but much to gain from claiming it.

Yes. That is why I included the paragraph by Kenyon regarding Simonides' motive, to get back at Tischendorf for exposing so many of Simonides' forgeries. I agree with Kenyon in that it was a humorous thing to do.

And here we agree.

Psalm 133:1 Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!

 

[John of Japan]

Yes. And he seems to be moving closer to a KJVO position, which is odd considering he is a Central grad.

But then Waite was a Dallas grad, eh, what?

He thinks all textual criticism is an example of "higher criticism" attacking the very foundations of the faith. He seems to suggest we simply accept what has been passed down through the ages without critical examination. But as all of what has been passed down differs in some way, which readings do we accept without critical examination?

Kind of following Edward Hills, then, only radicalized.

I will be the first to agree that the methodology of Westcott and Hort is designed to point to their preferred manuscripts, but when we use a more rational method I think we can closely examine the evidence and come to a conclusion regarding the original reading. I am not quite at the point where I agree with Pickering (the othe guy, not our old friend) that Family 35 is identical to the autographs, for all practical purposes, but I certainly agree with Pickering that the Byzantine textform is the closest text to the autographs when those rational rules of textual criticism are used.

Yeah, Pickering has taken a quite untenable position on Family 35. Loved the other Pickering, though--a true gentleman and scholar. As you know, he worked with BWM, my mission board, in his later years.

I agree. Although my final authority is the Byzantine textform (right now Robinson/Pierpont's 2005 edition which Dr. Robinson gifted me with on the occasion of his visit to San Diego several years ago) I still have a NA 27 on the table right beside me as a go to "quick and dirty" Greek NT.

Yeah, same here with my UBS3. It's the one with a dictionary in the back, so it's quite handy.

Yes. That is why I included the paragraph by Kenyon regarding Simonides' motive, to get back at Tischendorf for exposing so many of Simonides' forgeries. I agree with Kenyon in that it was a humorous thing to do.

That's what I love about the history of textual criticism--you just can't invent this stuff!

Psalm 133:1 Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!

Amen and amen.

 

[TCassidy]

But then Waite was a Dallas grad, eh, what?

Even DTS makes an error now and then. (And I am not thoroughly convinced DAW actually believes all the non-sense he says. Some of it is probably to appease his constituency.)

Kind of following Edward Hills, then, only radicalized.

Yep. What seems odd to me is that, if I remember correctly, David's father was Henry Sorenson, one of the first officers of BWM. How did he grow up in a good church, attend a good seminary, and still come to where he is.

I am listening to a message he preached a year or so ago where he says he is not KJVO. He is "Traditional Text Only" and that being TTO leads, not to KJVO, but to "Only King James." I suspect that is a distinction without a difference.

He mentions a bible college in south east Wisconsin. Sound familiar?

Yeah, Pickering has taken a quite untenable position on Family 35.

Dr. Robinson and I had a rather long discussion about this very thing last November a ETS in San Antonio. Really opened my eyes. Even pointed out which edition of his book was most reliable. I got a lot of good information from Picking Dr. Robinson's brain. Too bad I don't understand all of it.

Loved the other Pickering, though--a true gentleman and scholar. As you know, he worked with BWM, my mission board, in his later years.

Yes, he was. He was Dean at Central from 1959 to 1965 then President from 1988 through 1993.

He certainly did bring BWM back to the forefront of Baptist Mission Agencies.

Yeah, same here with my UBS3. It's the one with a dictionary in the back, so it's quite handy.

I used UBS3 in Seminary and loved it. Misplaced my copy (with the red plastic cover) many years ago. Now rely on a UBS5 and an NA-27, after Robinson/Pierpont's Byzantine NT, of course.

That's what I love about the history of textual criticism--you just can't invent this stuff!

I know! A lot of it is like an Abbot and Costello routine!

Amen and amen.

And amen!

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes. And he seems to be moving closer to a KJVO position, which is odd considering he is a Central grad.


He thinks all textual criticism is an example of "higher criticism" attacking the very foundations of the faith. He seems to suggest we simply accept what has been passed down through the ages without critical examination. But as all of what has been passed down differs in some way, which readings do we accept without critical examination?

I will be the first to agree that the methodology of Westcott and Hort is designed to point to their preferred manuscripts, but when we use a more rational method I think we can closely examine the evidence and come to a conclusion regarding the original reading. I am not quite at the point where I agree with Pickering (the othe guy, not our old friend) that Family 35 is identical to the autographs, for all practical purposes, but I certainly agree with Pickering that the Byzantine textform is the closest text to the autographs when those rational rules of textual criticism are used.
I agree. Although my final authority is the Byzantine textform (right now Robinson/Pierpont's 2005 edition which Dr. Robinson gifted me with on the occasion of his visit to San Diego several years ago) I still have a NA 27 on the table right beside me as a go to "quick and dirty" Greek NT.
Yes. That is why I included the paragraph by Kenyon regarding Simonides' motive, to get back at Tischendorf for exposing so many of Simonides' forgeries. I agree with Kenyon in that it was a humorous thing to do.


Psalm 133:1 Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!

Seems that the KJVO position comes from the TR only one also!
And I think those who were involved in the Ubs/KA Greek text would find his views on them and their work as "amusing, but sad"

 

[John of Japan]

Even DTS makes an error now and then. (And I am not thoroughly convinced DAW actually believes all the non-sense he says. Some of it is probably to appease his constituency.)

I'm convinced that with his background DAW has to wince occasionally when he thinks of the characters he's gotten involved with. I mean, he used to sell Riplinger's silly stuff until he found out about her divorces.

Yep. What seems odd to me is that, if I remember correctly, David's father was Henry Sorenson, one of the first officers of BWM. How did he grow up in a good church, attend a good seminary, and still come to where he is.

The problem there is that he now has to oppose what his father and other spiritual ancestors believed. I'm reminded of Jack H. who said in a sermon, "Don't come to me with your stinking ‘only the original is inspired’! You’re not intellectual... you’re retarded!” So then, according to Hyles, his mentor and father-figure, John R. Rice, was “retarded.”

I am listening to a message he preached a year or so ago where he says he is not KJVO. He is "Traditional Text Only" and that being TTO leads, not to KJVO, but to "Only King James." I suspect that is a distinction without a difference.

He mentions a bible college in south east Wisconsin. Sound familiar?

Why...hmm. Let me think about that.

Dr. Robinson and I had a rather long discussion about this very thing last November a ETS in San Antonio. Really opened my eyes. Even pointed out which edition of his book was most reliable. I got a lot of good information from Picking Dr. Robinson's brain. Too bad I don't understand all of it.

Hopefully we'll all become wiser when Dr. R.'s textual commentary is finally out.

Yes, he was. He was Dean at Central from 1959 to 1965 then President from 1988 through 1993.

He certainly did bring BWM back to the forefront of Baptist Mission Agencies.

He and Monk Parker. Interestingly, when I was doing my research in TX I found a letter from John R. Rice recommending Parker for president of Piedmont.

I used UBS3 in Seminary and loved it. Misplaced my copy (with the red plastic cover) many years ago. Now rely on a UBS5 and an NA-27, after Robinson/Pierpont's Byzantine NT, of course.

Don't want to spend the money for the UBS5. I only have one copy of Robinson/Pierpont--need another one to have at home. I do have a couple of old TRs at home--Scholz from about 1835 and an old Scrivener.

 

[Yeshua1]

I'm convinced that with his background DAW has to wince occasionally when he thinks of the characters he's gotten involved with. I mean, he used to sell Riplinger's silly stuff until he found out about her divorces.

The problem there is that he now has to oppose what his father and other spiritual ancestors believed. I'm reminded of Jack H. who said in a sermon, "Don't come to me with your stinking ‘only the original is inspired’! You’re not intellectual... you’re retarded!” So then, according to Hyles, his mentor and father-figure, John R. Rice, was “retarded.”

Why...hmm. Let me think about that.
Hopefully we'll all become wiser when Dr. R.'s textual commentary is finally out.

He and Monk Parker. Interestingly, when I was doing my research in TX I found a letter from John R. Rice recommending Parker for president of Piedmont.
Don't want to spend the money for the UBS5. I only have one copy of Robinson/Pierpont--need another one to have at home. I do have a couple of old TRs at home--Scholz from about 1835 and an old Scrivener.

Is there any practical reasons to go from the Ubs3 to Ubs5, if not a translator, but using it in bible studies?

 

[Rippon]

I will be the first to agree that the methodology of Westcott and Hort is designed to point to their preferred manuscripts, but when we use a more rational method I think we can closely examine the evidence and come to a conclusion regarding the original reading.

Hmm....using your logic one could say:
I will be the first to agree that the methodology of Robinson and Pierpont is designed to point to their preferred manuscripts, but when we use a more rational method I think we can closely examine the evidence and come to a definitive conclusion regarding the original reading.

 

[TCassidy]

I will be the first to agree that the methodology of Robinson and Pierpont is designed to point to their preferred manuscripts,

Except it's not.

 

[robycop3]

While ALL "one-version-only" doctrines are wrong, the KJVO myth is the most-prominent of them. This whole Sorensen thingie is part of the industry and the genre of literature developed from this myth. it's all man-made and wrong, designed by Satan to distract people from focusing on the CONTENT of the KJV or whatever Bible version(s) they use. I hope everyone here spends time every day READING Scripture, while asking the HOLY SPIRIT to teach and guide them as they read.

I, myself, am reading the MEV, which is supposed to be the KJV in modern English-not a new translation, but simply a modernization of the KJV's Elizabethan English.

 

[Yeshua1]

While ALL "one-version-only" doctrines are wrong, the KJVO myth is the most-prominent of them. This whole Sorensen thingie is part of the industry and the genre of literature developed from this myth. it's all man-made and wrong, designed by Satan to distract people from focusing on the CONTENT of the KJV or whatever Bible version(s) they use. I hope everyone here spends time every day READING Scripture, while asking the HOLY SPIRIT to teach and guide them as they read.

I, myself, am reading the MEV, which is supposed to be the KJV in modern English-not a new translation, but simply a modernization of the KJV's Elizabethan English.

Abd even that would be bad per KJVO, as that way of expressing English from time of 1611 was inspired!