Sorenson's new book Neither Oldest Nor Best

[Logos1560]

Sorenson, David H. Neither Oldest Nor Best--How the Foundational Manuscripts of Modern
Bible Translations are Unreliable. Duluth, MN: Northstar Ministries, 2017.

I just received and read Sorenson's new book in which he alleges that Codex Sinaiticus was made by Constantine Simonides around 1839 to 1840 and in which he suggests that Vaticanus is of medieval origins.

David Sorenson asserted: "And where there have been changes made in the NKJV in relation to the original KJV, the changes have largely followed the Critical Text. So much for it being based exclusively upon the Textus Receptus. It moreover uses the Biblia Hebraica Hebrew text for the Old Testament which is analogous to the Critical Text of the New Testament. In reality, the NKJV is thoroughly adulterated with critical readings in both the Old and New Testaments" (p. 35).

Sorenson's allegations against the NKJV in this book are misleading and inaccurate.

 

[rsr]

I would assume that Sorenson knows practically nothing about Simonides except what he's picked up from KJVO sources.

 

[Rippon]

I would assume that Sorenson knows practically nothing about Simonides except what he's picked up from KJVO sources.

He probably picked it up from Chris Pinto of Noise Of Thunder broadcast.
James White took him to task on his positively wild speculations. Pinto is "off" in other areas as well.

 

[Rippon]

I just received and read Sorenson's new book in which he suggests that Vaticanus is of medieval origins.

Well that time period started in the 5th century. Codex Vaticanus was made between 300-325 --the early 4th century.

 

[Logos1560]

He probably picked it up from Chris Pinto of Noise Of Thunder broadcast.

Sorenson does list Chris Pinto's film "Tares Among the Wheat" in his bibliography. He also lists a 2016 Kindle ebook entitled The Forging of Codex Sinaiticus by Bill Power, which seems to a source from which he may have learned about a few articles and books from the 1840-1870's. He also cites a 1859 book or memoir about Constantine Simonides by Charles Stewart along with several other sources.

 

[Logos1560]

Sorenson's new book has endorsements or recommendations by the following four men:

David Brown, pastor and author of a KJV-only book
James Stringer
Dell Johnson, formerly at Pensacola Christian College and involved in the making of its KJV videos around 1998
Randall King

One of James Stringer's comments was "a real lesson about being careful where you get your information."

Some may wonder if David Sorenson was being careful by getting information from Chris Pinto.

 

[Logos1560]

After citing Luke 2:33 in the ESV, David Sorenson asserted: "The context clearly is of Joseph and Mary. But virtually all other Critical Text translations refer to Joseph as the father of Jesus. That is absolute heresy and directly undercuts the doctrine of the Virgin Birth of Christ" (Neither Oldest Nor Best, pp. 22-23).

Anyone who has researched and studied the Bible translation issue or KJV-only issue should know that the reading "father" is not exclusive to the Critical Text since this reading was found in some Textus Receptus editions because it is found in a number of the Greek New Testament manuscripts on which those TR editions were based.

Perhaps KJV-only advocates such as David Sorenson are unaware of the fact that several of the early Bibles on the KJV-only view's pure stream of Bibles have "his father" at Luke 2:33 including Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, Whittingham's, and Bishops'. The 1543 Spanish Enzinas New Testament has "padre" [father] at Luke 2:33. Luther's German Bible has "Vater" [father] at Luke 2:33. An edition of Erasmus’ Latin New Testament has “pater” [father] at Luke 2:33.

Erasmus' Greek edition of the TR had the Greek word for "father" at Luke 2:33. Concerning Luke 2:33, Jan Krans translated Erasmus as stating the following: “In some Greek manuscript I read ‘Joseph’ instead of ‘father’; in my opinion it has been changed by someone who feared that Joseph be called Jesus’ father” (Beyond What is Written, p. 44, footnote 65).

The Anglo-Saxon (995 A.D.) has "his father" at Luke 2:33 (Bosworth, Gospels, p. 280). The West Saxon Gospels also have “his father” [“faeder”] at Luke 2:33. The Anglo-Saxon rendering above the Latin at Luke 2:33 in the Lindisfarne Gospels is “father” [“fader”].

Would KJV-only advocates in effect claim that the KJV is a revision of earlier good English Bibles that attacked the deity of Christ and denied the virgin birth with an inexcusable, heretical, or blasphemous reading? Would a consistent application of their own accusations imply that the KJV is a translation of some Textus Receptus editions and a revision of some earlier English Bibles that were "perversions?" In their attempts to allege or show corruption in their other line or stream of Bibles, have KJV-only authors in effect shown corruption in their own good or pure line or stream of Bibles?

 

[Yeshua1]

After citing Luke 2:33 in the ESV, David Sorenson asserted: "The context clearly is of Joseph and Mary. But virtually all other Critical Text translations refer to Joseph as the father of Jesus. That is absolute heresy and directly undercuts the doctrine of the Virgin Birth of Christ" (Neither Oldest Nor Best, pp. 22-23).

Anyone who has researched and studied the Bible translation issue or KJV-only issue should know that the reading "father" is not exclusive to the Critical Text since this reading was found in some Textus Receptus editions because it is found in a number of the Greek New Testament manuscripts on which those TR editions were based.

Perhaps KJV-only advocates such as David Sorenson are unaware of the fact that several of the early Bibles on the KJV-only view's pure stream of Bibles have "his father" at Luke 2:33 including Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, Whittingham's, and Bishops'. The 1543 Spanish Enzinas New Testament has "padre" [father] at Luke 2:33. Luther's German Bible has "Vater" [father] at Luke 2:33. An edition of Erasmus’ Latin New Testament has “pater” [father] at Luke 2:33.

Erasmus' Greek edition of the TR had the Greek word for "father" at Luke 2:33. Concerning Luke 2:33, Jan Krans translated Erasmus as stating the following: “In some Greek manuscript I read ‘Joseph’ instead of ‘father’; in my opinion it has been changed by someone who feared that Joseph be called Jesus’ father” (Beyond What is Written, p. 44, footnote 65).

The Anglo-Saxon (995 A.D.) has "his father" at Luke 2:33 (Bosworth, Gospels, p. 280). The West Saxon Gospels also have “his father” [“faeder”] at Luke 2:33. The Anglo-Saxon rendering above the Latin at Luke 2:33 in the Lindisfarne Gospels is “father” [“fader”].

Would KJV-only advocates in effect claim that the KJV is a revision of earlier good English Bibles that attacked the deity of Christ and denied the virgin birth with an inexcusable, heretical, or blasphemous reading? Would a consistent application of their own accusations imply that the KJV is a translation of some Textus Receptus editions and a revision of some earlier English Bibles that were "perversions?" In their attempts to allege or show corruption in their other line or stream of Bibles, have KJV-only authors in effect shown corruption in their own good or pure line or stream of Bibles?

The basic truth on KJVO is that if they would apply towards their version the exact same standards levelled against a;; other versions, would not have the KJVO position!

 

[rsr]

Sorenson does list Chris Pinto's film "Tares Among the Wheat" in his bibliography. He also lists a 2016 Kindle ebook entitled The Forging of Codex Sinaiticus by Bill Power, which seems to a source from which he may have learned about a few articles and books from the 1840-1870's. He also cites a 1859 book or memoir about Constantine Simonides by Charles Stewart along with several other sources.

Materials that have come to light in this century shed new light on the Tischendorf/Simonides controversy, so sources limited to the 19th century are not up to date.

 

[HankD]

The basic truth on KJVO is that if they would apply towards their version the exact same standards levelled against a;; other versions, would not have the KJVO position!

Yes for a short time there was a KJVO mantra : "Things which are different are not the same".
Didn't last long.

HankD

 

[rsr]

He also lists a 2016 Kindle ebook entitled The Forging of Codex Sinaiticus by Bill Power, which seems to a source from which he may have learned about a few articles and books from the 1840-1870's.

Did you mean Bill Cooper?

 

[Logos1560]

Did you mean Bill Cooper?

In his bibliography, David Sorenson had listed that book as having the author Bill Powers, and he has no book listed for Bill Cooper.

However, in one of his footnotes, he does list the same book title with Bill Cooper (p. 158) and in the text he referred to "Bill Cooper in his book The Forging of Sinaiticus" (p. 101). The footnote [number 11] for this mention on page 101 has "Bill Powers, The Forging of Codex Sinaiticus, Kindle edition, 2006" (p. 112)

Perhaps the entry in his bibliography is mistaken unless both men are somehow associated with it. It is listed right under his entry for Chris Pinto's film (p. 197).

Pinto, Chris. Tares Among the Wheat.
Powers, Bill. The Forging of Codex Sinaiticus. Kindle Version, 2016. location 669.

 

[rsr]

Sorenson's allegations against the NKJV in this book are misleading and inaccurate.

And so it has been argued repeatedly on this forum. And really, to say the differences between the Ben Asher text and Ben Chayyim text are equivalent to the differences between the Byzantine and Critical Texts is just silly. Someone with no sense of proportion.

 

[rsr]

In his bibliography, David Sorenson had listed that book as having the author Bill Powers, and he has no book listed for Bill Cooper.

However, in one of his footnotes, he does list the same book title with Bill Cooper (p. 158) and in the text he referred to "Bill Cooper in his book The Forging of Sinaiticus" (p. 101). The footnote [number 11] for this mention on page 101 has "Bill Powers, The Forging of Codex Sinaiticus, Kindle edition, 2006" (p. 112)

Perhaps the entry in his bibliography is mistaken unless both men are somehow associated with it. It is listed right under his entry for Chris Pinto's film (p. 197).

Pinto, Chris. Tares Among the Wheat.
Powers, Bill. The Forging of Codex Sinaiticus. Kindle Version, 2016. location 669.

Bill Cooper, so far as I can tell, is the author of the cited work. You can get it on Amazon and other places.

 

[rsr]

Basically, so far as I can tell, Cooper's thesis (and Sorenson's) is that Tischendorf was set up by the Jesuits to "discover" a false edition of the Bible, thereby bringing discredit upon Sola Scriptura.

Here's a sample:

"Through the Jesuits, who had been set up in the 16th century expressly for the purpose of overturning the Reformation, the Vatican had tried unsuccessfully for three hundred years to overthrow the Reformation Bible. That Bible had been translated into many languages from the Received Text of the Greek New Testament – the Textus Receptus. The closest they ever came to dislodging this Bible was with the printing of the Douay-Rheims Bible of 1610, translated out of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. But alas for the enterprise, though its English loosely mimicked that of William Tyndale’s New Testament, it was based on a very faulty translation - the Latin Vulgate - and it showed."

"The short answer to it all, as we shall presently see, is that the Vatican, through the Jesuits, funded his journeys in order to funnel him towards the ‘discovery’ which they intended him to make after his papal audience. It is they who supplied him with money, travel arrangements, accommodations, letters, and anything else that he might need for the ‘quest’ to be successful, as well as the necessarily fat purse with which to make his purchases of so many ancient manuscripts."

Of course, the DR did not loosely mimic Tyndale. Read it and see. If anything, the KJV translators borrowed at times from the Rheims NT or from the Vulgate. It may be that Cooper is unaware that the original DR is very little like the Challoner revision, which does read like the KJV but is, for all intents and purposes, an entirely different version.

I wonder why the author did not acknowledge that the Rheims NT appeared many years before the KJV; but that, of course, wouldn't fit into his scheme. Of course, it also would not do to point out that the Vulgate of Jerome, because of carelessness copyists, did not exist in standard form until the Latin Rite folks had to redact their Bible in the Clementine Vulgate, spurred on by Erasmus' translation (and it must be remembered that Erasmus' chief aim was not to create a Greek NT but to correct the Vulgate.)

In short, it is a mess of misinformation and tangled conspiracies, not unlike Jack Chick's claim that guards had to be posted with the translators of the KJV to keep the Jesuits from corrupting the KJV and that many KJV translators mysteriously died during the process, assumably from Jesuit poisons.

 

[TCassidy]

differences between the Ben Asher text and Ben Chayyim text

They differ in only 8 places that might affect translation: 1 Kings 20:38, Proverbs 8:16, Isaiah 10:16, Isaiah 27:2, Isaiah 38:14, Ezekiel 30:18, Zephaniah 3:15, and Malachi 1:12.

 

[Ziggy]

Is KJVO endorser "James Stringer" the same as KJVO Phil Stringer? or a relative? Just curious.

 

[TCassidy]

many KJV translators mysteriously died during the process,

54 were originally appointed to the translation committees, of which 47 actually worked on the project. 7 men in late middle age dying in a 7 year period is not what I would call "mysterious" in view of the average age at death (52) and the state of health care at that time (blood letting, etc.).

 

[Logos1560]

They differ in only 8 places that might affect translation: 1 Kings 20:38, Proverbs 8:16, Isaiah 10:16, Isaiah 27:2, Isaiah 38:14, Ezekiel 30:18, Zephaniah 3:15, and Malachi 1:12.

James D. Price wrote: "I have been able to account for only nine differences that affect translation."

1 Chronicles 15:2, Proverbs 8:16, Isaiah 10:16, Isaiah 27:2, Isaiah 38:14, Jeremiah 34:1, Ezekiel 30:18, Zephaniah 3:15, and Malachi 1:12
(King James Onlyism: a New Sect, pp. 222-223)

His nine does not include one that you list (1 Kings 20:38) while he includes two not in your list (1 Chronicles 15:2 and Jeremiah 34:1).

1 Chronicles 15:2 ark of the LORD (Stuttgart) ark of God (Bomberg)
Jeremiah 34:1 Nebuchadrezzar (Stuttgart) Nebuchadnezzar (Bomberg)

 

[Rippon]

54 were originally appointed to the translation committees, of which 47 actually worked on the project. 7 men in late middle age dying in a 7 year period is not what I would call "mysterious" in view of the average age at death (52) and the state of health care at that time (blood letting, etc.).

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.