The "Inconvenient Tale" of the Original King James Bible

Handsonapologetics ^ | Gary Michuta

[GonzoII]

The "Inconvenient Tale" of the Original King James Bible

By Gary Michuta

King James I at the Hampton Court Conference

"Dr. Reynolds...insisted boldly on various points ; but when he came to the demand for the disuse of the apocrypha in the church service James could bear it no longer. He called for a Bible, read a chapter out of Ecclesiasticus, and expounded it according to his own views ; then turning to the lords of his council, he said, " What trow ye makes these men so angry with Ecclesiasticus ? By my soul, I think Ecclesiasticus was a bishop, or they would never use him so."

(John Cassell’s Illustrated History of England, text by William Howitt, (W. Kent & Co.:London), 1859, vol. 3p. 15)

In 1604, the Church of England commissioned a new English translation of the Scripture, which later became known as the King JamesVersion. According to it dedication to the king, the hope was that this new version would “counteract the barbs” of Catholics and a foil to the “self-conceited” Protestants “who run their own ways, and give liking unto nothing but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their anvil…” [Preface and dedication to the King, 1611 King James Bible], namely religious dissenters like the Baptists and others. Ironically, the Church of England had moved to other translations and the King James Bible (K.J.V.) had become, at least for a time, the translation for those groups that would have been considered dissenters. Today, the New International Version has become the best selling translation among Protestants, but the King James is still widely used and revered by non-Catholics.

Bible translations are interesting in that they can provide a snapshot of the beliefs of their translators at that time. The Latin Vulgate, for example, can show us how certain words were understood in the fourth century when it was translated by St. Jerome. The King James Bible is no exception. When one compares the original 1611 edition with subsequent editions, one can discern some very important changes in viewpoints. If you own a King James Bible, the first and biggest change you will notice is that the original 1611 edition contained several extra books in an appendix between the Old and New Testaments labeled “The books of the Apocrypha.” The appendix includes several books, which are found in the Catholic Old Testament such as the books of  Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1st and 2nd Maccabees and others.

Table of Contents KJV 1611

Some may be tempted to dismiss the omission of these books from the King James Bible as superfluous “add on” to the translation and that its omission really does not change anything important about the King James Bible. On the contrary, the so-called "Apocrypha” formed an integral part of the text, so much so that the Protestant scholar E. G. Goodspeed once wrote:

“[W]hatever may be our personal opinions of the Apocrypha, it is a historical fact that they formed an integral part of the King James Version, and any Bible claiming to represent that version should either include the Apocrypha, or state that it is omitting them.  Otherwise a false impression is created.” [Story of the Apocrypha (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939, p. 7]

If you pick up a modern copy of the King James Version and open to the title page, chances are you’ll not see any mention of the deliberate omission of these books (e.g. “The King James Version without the Apocrypha”). After all, who would want to put a negative statement about a product on the title page? However, perhaps to avoid false advertising, publishers do notify you that books are missing by cleverly stating the contents in a positive fashion like “The King James Version Containing the Old and New Testaments.” If you didn’t know that the Apocrypha was omitted, you’d probably assume that complete King James Bible since most modern Protestant Bibles contain only the Old and New Testaments anyway. Hence, as Goodspeed warns “a false impression is created.”

The Cross-references

The King James “Apocrypha” had a much more integral roll in its early editions than simply being an appendix unconnected to the two Testaments. Instead, the 1611 King James Bible included (like the Geneva Bible) cross-references from the Old and New Testaments to the so-called “Apocrypha.” Like modern cross-references, these were meant to refer the reader back to the text cited in order to provide further light on what had just been read. There were 11 cross-references in the New Testament and 102 Old Testament that referred Protestant readers back to the “Apocrypha.” The New Testament cross-references were:

	Mat 6:7	Sirach 7:14
	Mat 27:43	Wisdom 2:15-16
	Luke 6:31	Tobit 4:15
	Luke 14:13	Tobit 4:7
	John 10:22	1 Maccabees 4:59
	Rom 9:21	Wisdom 15:7
	Rom 11:34	Wisdom 9:13
	2 Cor 9:7	Sirach 35:9
	Heb 1:3	Wisdom 7:26
	Heb 11:35	2 Maccabees 7:7





1611 KJV Heb. 11:35 - 2 Mac. 7:7

1611 KJV Matt. 27:43 - Wisdom 2:15-16





1611 KJV Heb. 11:3 - Ws. 7:26

1611 KJV Luke 14:13 - Tobit 4:7

Like the early editions of the Geneva Bible, the editors of the Authorized Version believe that the non-Catholic readers should aware of what the “Apocrypha” had to say in regards to these passage. While some are mere correspondences of thought, others point to an awareness or even a dependence upon the “Apocrypha” by inspired New Testament writers. I detail these important passages in Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger: The Untold Story of the Lost Books of the Protestant Bible (Grotto Press, 2007).

In addition to the eleven cross-references in the New Testament, the 1611 King James also sported 102 cross-reference  in the Old Testament as well bringing to total up to 113 cross-references to and from the Apocrypha overall. No wonder Goodspeed could say that the "Apocrypha" was an integral part of the King James Bible!

The King James Bible was not the only early Protestant Bible to contain the “Apocrypha” with cross-references. As we have seen in a previous article (Pilgrims’ Regress: The Geneva Bible and the “Apocrypha”), the "Apocrypha" also played an integral role in other Protestant Bibles as well.

As I mentioned earlier, translations serve as historical snapshots of the beliefs of the translators and readers. The very presence of these cross-references shows that the translators believed that the "Apocrypha" was at work within the New Testament writings and that Protestant Bible readers would benefit from reading and studying the New and Old Testaments in light of these books. Sadly, today this noble heritage has been lost.

Now You Read Them, Now You Don’t…

Those who viewed the "Apocrypha" as somehow being the last vestige of "popery" pressed for the Apocrypha appendix and its cross-references to be removed altogether from the Bible. In 1615, George Abbott, the Archbishop of Canterbury, went so far as to employ the power of law to censure any publisher who did not produce the Bible in its entirety (i.e. including the "Apocrypha") as prescribed by the Thirty-nine Articles. However, anti-Catholic hatred and the obvious financial advantages of printing smaller Protestant Bibles began to win out against the traditionalists who wanted the Bible in the form that was given in all previous Protestant translations up until that point (in the form of Luther's Bible - with the Apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments). The "Apocrypha" remained in the King James Bible through the 1626, 1629, 1630, and the 1633 editions. By 1632, public opinion began to decidedly turn against the "bigger" Protestant Bibles. Of the 227 printings of the Bible between 1632 and 1826, about 40% of Protestant Bibles contained the "Apocrypha." The Apocrypha Controversy of the early 1800's enabled English Bible Societies to flood the bible-buying market with Apocrypha-less Protestant Bibles and in 1885 the "Apocrypha" was officially removed with the advent of the Revised Standard Version, which replaced the King James Version.

It is hard to pin point the exact date where the King James Bible no longer contained the "Apocrypha." It is clear that later editions of the KJV removed the "Apocrypha" appendix, but they continued to include cross-references to the "Apocrypha" until they too (like the Geneva Bible) were removed as well. Why were they removed? Was it do to over-crowded margins? The Anglican scholar William H. Daubney points out the obvious:

“These objectionable omissions [of the cross-references] were made after the custom arose of publishing Bibles without the Apocrypha. These apparently profess to be what they are not, entire copies of the Authorized Version … Plainly, the references to the Apocrypha told an inconvenient tale of the use which the Church intended should be made of it; so, either from dissenting influence without, or from prejudice within the Church, these references disappeared from the margin.” [The Use of the Apocrypha In the Christian Church (London: C. J. Clay and Sons, 1900), 17]

What was the inconvenient tale these cross-references told? They showed that the so-called Apocrypha actually plays a much greater role that most modern Protestants are willing to admit. Moreover, the cross-references showed that the church believed that knowledge of the so-called "Apocrypha" and their use in the New Testament benefited Christians who wished to understand the Bible. Sadly today, many Protestants use the King James Bible have been handed on to them in an unaltered and uncompromised form. The reality is that its contents had undergone several substantial changes beginning with Martin Luther's gathering together the Deuterocanon and placing it in an "Apocrypha" appendix and later when that appendix (and its cross-references) were removed altogether from Protestant Bibles.

 

[D-fendr]

I think salvation by election is accurately applied to Calvinist predestination, as is damned before birth.

How would you disagree?

[D-fendr]

The Bible is our final rule for faith and conduct.

The Bible according to whom?

[boatbums]

When silly statements are made to the effect that anything Paul says (on the gleeful assumption that God is Paul's ventriloquist) matters absolutely to Christians, and at the same time,anything that the Incarnated Christ said doesn't matter to Christians whatsoever, why then we have a number of this 'imagined bunch' posting right here even on this thread.

Since you seem convinced this "group" is represented in this thread, perhaps you wouldn't mind pointing us to the post(s) that actually say what you claim. Just to clarify this scavenger hunt, believing that the Apostle Paul spoke under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit when he composed his letters is in no way saying "God is Paul's ventriloquist" and, that you would put it that way, only proves that you reject your OWN catechism. Maybe you should get a handle on what you really believe before you try criticizing those that may or may not be "coincident" here.

[Natural Law]

It’s Roman Catholics who have so little understanding of the Bible that when they are challenged, they can do nothing but fall back on rote responses from their aging, insular magisterium."

Where do you turn to get the meaning of "Epiousios" ( Επιούσιος) since it is a hapax legomenon (a Greek phrase meaning 'a word used only once') within the Gospels within the Lord's Prayer?

Even before the Gospels were written the Early Christians and Early Church Fathers, whom you referred to as an aging insular magisterium, used the phrase "ho artos hēmōn ho epiousios", within the liturgy as a name for the Eucharist. St. Jerome translated it as "Pamem Supersubstantiālium, which was translated as "supersubstantial" bread in the Douay Rheims Bible.

[boatbums]

Even before the Gospels were written the Early Christians and Early Church Fathers, whom you referred to as an aging insular magisterium, used the phrase "ho artos hÄ“mōn ho epiousios", within the liturgy as a name for the Eucharist. St. Jerome translated it as "Pamem Supersubstantiālium, which was translated as "supersubstantial" bread in the Douay Rheims Bible.

Can you explain why the "Early Church Fathers", or the early Christians for that matter, would have used a completely different word for "bread" than the one used by Jesus Christ in the Lord's Prayer as well as the other references to it throughout Scripture? The Greek word is "artos" and it means: food of any kind; food composed of flour mixed with water and baked; loaves which were consecrated to the Lord; of the bread used at the love-feasts and at the Lord's Table. As to Jerome's translation from Greek to Latin (the Vulgate), he may have tried to insert Catholic understanding for the word, but even in the Douay-Rheims Bible, the word is STILL translated as "bread" (see Luke 11:3). It would not be the only mistake Jerome made. But, besides all that, the word JESUS used is no different than all the other 400+ times the word "bread" was used throughout Scripture. I don't disagree that the bread used in the observance of the Lord's Supper is regarded as "set apart", but it remains bread, nevertheless. Even the "shewbread" used in the Jewish Temple used the common word in Hebrew (lechem) for bread.

Perhaps the same dynamic happened with the early use of the word "presbyteros", meaning Elders. The Greek word sympresbyteros, meaning "a fellow elder" is used in I Peter 5:1 and is the only time that word is used. But the root word for elder is "presbyteros".

The word episkopē is used for bishop or bishoprick (Acts 1:20, I Tim.3:1) and it means "Overseer" or one who has oversight as elders or "visitation". Another word, episkeptomai, is also used in several places to mean "visit" or "visitor". In Acts 6:3, it is translated as "to look out for" and was used by the Apostles when they called together the disciples and said, "Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.". The Apostles appointed men to take over for them in the sense of some of their duties so that the Apostles could devote their time to prayer and the ministry of the word. Verse 5-6 says, after prayer and agreement, "And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch: Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid [their] hands on them.". The word, Episcope, that Roman Catholics interpret to mean "priest", did NOT have that meaning until much later.

[Natural Law]

"Can you explain why the "Early Church Fathers", or the early Christians for that matter, would have used a completely different word for "bread" than the one used by Jesus Christ in the Lord's Prayer as well as the other references to it throughout Scripture?"

”Can you explain why the "Early Church Fathers", or the early Christians for that matter, would have used a completely different word for "bread" than the one used by Jesus Christ in the Lord's Prayer as well as the other references to it throughout Scripture?”

There are two renditions of the Lord’s Prayer in the Gospels; Matthew 6:9-13 and the shorter version in Luke 11:2-4. Since both are different the logical conclusion is that no ONE form of the two versions records the ipsissima vox Jesu (exact words of Jesus). It is likely that the prayer was given in Aramaic and that the Greek versions were attempting to give the intent of the prayer.

Being neither a fluent speaker of Aramaic or Koine Greek I can’t comment on the idiomatic practices and conventions of the first three centuries only to say that the word translated “Artos” is used allegorically to mean food, the necessities of life, wisdom, the living bread and the body of Christ. It is always a challenge and often points of disagreement to determine when the word is literal and when it is allegorical. As these forums demonstrate daily there is no universally accepted “obvious.

When we read the earliest Greek manuscripts (Codex Sinaiticus, AD 325) we see the use of Epiousion to describe the nature or substance of the bread. Early Christians associated this with the Eucharist. The Eastern Catholics still use this Greek version in their liturgy. The Coptics use the phrase "bread of tomorrow".

All of this points to the need for an extra-biblical sources to understand the “simple and clear” Scripture. We Catholics believe that Jesus gave the Church with its Magisterium to satisfy this need. Non-Catholics seek to satisfy that need with a variety of sources, not all honest or reliable.

[metmom]

Mary is no one's mother but the baby Jesus.

I'll go with the title given Mary by the Holy Spirit Himself in the Scripture He breathed out and inspired......

Acts 1:12-1412 Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day's journey away. 13 And when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James. 14 All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.

[metmom]

Mary is no one's mother but the baby Jesus.

I'll go with the title given Mary by the Holy Spirit Himself in the Scripture He breathed out and inspired......

Acts 1:12-1412 Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day's journey away. 13 And when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James. 14 All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.

[MarkBsnr]

Feeling hopelessly mired in confusion? That's to be expected when 2 Tim. 2:15 isn't followed.

The only confusion I have is why anyone would follow anything from Darby or Scofield. If you divide the word properly, you will arrive at what the Church has taught for 2000 years, not oddities that amateurs in their cups arrive at in the wee hours.

In the first place, I didn't say it. Paul said it. Through the Holy Spirit. Meaning God said it. Paul laid the foundation of the dispensation of the grace of God, of which Paul was the Apostle. How much clearer can it be made? The Twelve did not. Paul did. With Christ as the chief cornerstone. Just like Christ being the chief cornerstone of the Messianic Church of the Kingdom, of which the Twelve were the Apostles. They are both built on the foundation of Christ. One being for a KINGDOM OF BELIEVERS, and one being for a BODY OF BELIEVERS. BOTH on Christ. As Messiah AND the head of the Body.

Right. Paul is the person of Christ who really matters to Christians. The actual person of Christ is a precursor and is only to the Jews. Gotcha.

"Besides those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the CARE OF ALL THE CHURCHES." 2 Cor. 11:28. Which CHURCHES? Certainly not the Messianic Church, that was the job of the Twelve. Preaching Christ as Messiah, to persuade the Nation of Israel to accept Christ as Messiah, so He would return to set up His Kingdom. So, what CHURCHES did Paul have care of? The churches of the body of Christ, founded on the grace of God and the finished work of Christ, where Gentiles were saved apart from the covenants of promise made to Israel. Both preached Christ, one for Kingdom Jews, and one for Gentiles. Until Israel is blinded and set aside in Acts 28. Then it was to Jew and Gentile alike, without preference, all based on the reconciliation of God and man.

Each bishop individually is responsible for the care of his own flock. All of the bishops together are responsible for the care of all of their flock. Paul is reminding the miscreants in Corinth that he started them and is responsible for them and many more. But I appreciate the extent of the explanation that you guys have moved beyond Christianity and into Paulianity. It is something that I noted some years ago, but with much denial on your part. I appreciate that you have chosen this point in time to come out from the closet, as it were.

If you would take the time to read Galatians, Chapter 2, you would see the gospel of the CIRCUMCISION and the gospel of the UNCIRCUMCISION being discussed, and agreed upon by the Twelve and Paul.

If you would take the time to read all of Galatians, you would see what Paul is trying to tell them. These Galatians were beseiged by the Judaizers who are trying to subvert them. Paul is trying to tell them of his Apostolic authority and setting it up as the main argument to sway them back to the Faith.

All things to all men, remember? Paul is preaching the Gospel of Christ. If you deny the Gospel as preached by Christ, what makes you Christian?

[smvoice]

I think I’ll just turn this post on low and let it simmer slowly for awhile...you are doing more to show people God’s Word of truth, WRONGLY divided, than I could possibly begin to address right now. Let’s just see what kind of Scripture Stew you are attempting to make. A little chopping here, a little dicing there, a couple of unknown ingredients added for texture.. :)

[MarkBsnr]

Very good.

We believe that Christ’s Incarnation is the pinnacle of God’s word to man. If you would believe else, then we do part ways theologically.

I do appreciate your candor, though, after all these years.

[MarkBsnr]

Since you seem convinced this "group" is represented in this thread, perhaps you wouldn't mind pointing us to the post(s) that actually say what you claim. Just to clarify this scavenger hunt, believing that the Apostle Paul spoke under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit when he composed his letters is in no way saying "God is Paul's ventriloquist" and, that you would put it that way, only proves that you reject your OWN catechism. Maybe you should get a handle on what you really believe before you try criticizing those that may or may not be "coincident" here.

Read the last 150 posts and see what I mean. Inspiration does not mean ventriloquism. Those who substitute and subordinate Christ in the Gospels, to Paul in his letters to his flock are not Christian.

[smvoice]

What's this? I come back to check on your Scripture Stew and find that it has boiled over and burned beyond recognition. What in the name of pete are you talking about? Do you not understand that Christ has a CONTINUING mission, even in His absence on earth? Do you think He just stopped His plan when He ascended to sit at the Father's right hand? What in the world is the rest of the Bible for, if that is what you believe? It should have ended at Acts 1:9, when He was taken up in a cloud, if that is your belief.

And BTW, Christ's death on the cross for OUR SINS, His burial, and His resurrection for our salvation is the pinnacle of God's word and reconciliation to man. It is ALL about the Cross. Without that, nothing else matters. The Law, the Beatitudes, the promises, the covenants. Nothing matters without the Cross. And Christ's finished work on our behalf. Do you believe that Christ paid the FULL penalty for your inability?

[CynicalBear]

>>I think I’ll just turn this post on low and let it simmer slowly for awhile...<<

Yeah, no kidding. Post 449 was so far off the mark I’m not sure where one would start.

[Iscool]

Do you think He just stopped His plan when He ascended to sit at the Father's right hand? What in the world is the rest of the Bible for, if that is what you believe? It should have ended at Acts 1:9, when He was taken up in a cloud, if that is your belief.

They don't have a clue...They can't intelligently comment on it...They don't know what it means...

Their extremely limited commentaries end at the beginning of Acts and pick up again in James...And then it's just a few random verses that they think they can apply with their philosophical wisdom...

One of the biblical underachievers even claimed that Paul never saw Jesus...That's how much they know of scripture...

They have built their religion upon a few out of context scriptures and a boat load of human philosophy...Man's wisdom...

A great portion of the Old Testament is a prophecy of the time of the Millennial reign of Jesus Christ on earth and what do THEY say??? "Well I don't neccessarily believe that Millennium means a thousand years...I don't believe in the Millennium"...

The OT is just as foreign to them as the NT...

[Natural Law]

"I think I’ll just turn this post on low and let it simmer slowly for awhile...you are doing more to show people God’s Word of truth, WRONGLY divided, than I could possibly begin to address right now."

I've seen the reference to "rightly dividing Scripture" and "rightly dividing God's truth" on these threads many times, but it is completely misapplied. The only place in all of Scripture that the phrase is used is 2 Timothy 2:15. If you read all of 2 Timothy it says nothing about dividing the Word, it is a reference to dividing falsehoods from the Truth.

For Catholics the Word is indivisible because it is Jesus incarnate and must be taken as a whole. The idea of dividing it into portions, one for the Jews, one for the Gentiles is abhorrent.

[Natural Law]

"It is ALL about the Cross."

Actually, the Cross is important, but only in the context of the Resurrection. There were numerous claimants to the identity of the Messiah. Most notable was Simon bar Kokhba who lead a short lived revolt as was crucified by the Romans. By all historical accounts there many thousands of persons crucified by the Romans so the cross itself was nothing special. Scripture points out that there were two other persons crucified with Jesus, one clearly not deserving of Salvation.

The cross became a Christian symbol because it was a way to effectively give the finger to the might of Rome. It was a way of saying; you gave Him the worst, most excruciating (from a Latin word meaning from the cross) death that the Roman Empire could imagine and He overcame it.

Jesus referred to Himself numerous times as the "Resurrection and the Life" and the Apostles preached more about the fact of the Resurrection than they did of Jesus' actual teachings. Easter, the most Holy Day in the Catholic Liturgical Calendar celebrates the Resurrection, not the cross.

[Natural Law]

"They don't have a clue...They can't intelligently comment on it...They don't know what it means..."

Jesus gave us the commandment to love one another and cited this as His second greatest commandment. With the persecution of the Church today and the HHS mandate a thought crossed my mind; if you were arrested tomorrow for being a Christian would there be any evidence to convict you beyond a few anonymous posts?

"And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will. - 2 Timothy 24:26

[boatbums]

When we read the earliest Greek manuscripts (Codex Sinaiticus, AD 325) we see the use of Epiousion to describe the nature or substance of the bread. Early Christians associated this with the Eucharist. The Eastern Catholics still use this Greek version in their liturgy. The Coptics use the phrase "bread of tomorrow".

Not to be nit-picky, but there ARE manuscripts that date far closer to the first century than the 325 AD Codex Sinaiticus. From http://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/scriptorium/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html we read of:

In the 30's and 60's of the twentieth century a number of other, very important manuscripts have become available. We owe this to the efforts of two wealthy book collectors, Chester Beatty and Martin Bodmer. These manuscripts are of a special class for two reasons. They are written on papyrus and date from well before the fourth century. The earliest papyrus manuscripts come very close to the time when the New Testament was written. Of course, manuscripts on papyrus were known before, but these dated from a much later period and tended to be rather fragmentary. For almost all New Testament books we now have manuscripts earlier than the fourth century.

How do we know these manuscripts are so very early? How do we know their dates for certain? Some of you may think "scientific" tests on the physical structure of the papyrus may yield such dates. In fact they cannot, because such tests are very inaccurate. No, we can date papyrus manuscripts, any manuscript for that matter, simply by looking at the way it is written. Handwriting is a product of human culture and as such it is always developing. Differences in handwriting are bound to appear within one generation. Just compare the handwriting of your parents with your own. Or look at your own scribblings of a few years ago. It is the same handwriting as today but an expert, a paleographer, can distinguish not unimportant differences. He cannot establish the exact date but he can confidently place one handwriting in the 30's and another in the 80's. Even printed texts can easily be dated according to the outward appearance of the type or font used by the printer.

For such an ancient period as that between A.D. 100 and 300 it is of course much more difficult to be confident about the date of a manuscript. There is infinitely less comparative material. Nevertheless we are now in a fairly comfortable position to date papyrus manuscripts according to their handwriting. We do not have to rely on manuscripts of the New Testament only. We have hundreds of papyrus manuscripts of Greek pagan literary texts from this period and again hundreds of carefully written papyrus documents that show the same types of handwriting. These documents are very important for paleographers because they are often exactly dated. As a rule New Testament manuscripts on papyrus are not. A careful comparison of the papyrus documents and manuscripts of the second and third centuries has established beyond doubt that about forty Greek papyrus manuscripts of the New Testament date from this very period. Unfortunately only six of them are extensively preserved.

Even within the period that runs from c. A.D. 100-300 it is possible for paleographers to be more specific on the relative date of the papyrus manuscripts of the New Testament. For about sixty years now a tiny papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John has been the oldest "manuscript" of the New Testament. This manuscript (P52) has generally been dated to ca. A.D. 125. This fact alone proved that the original Gospel of John was written earlier, viz. in the first century A.D., as had always been upheld by conservative scholars.

All of this points to the need for an extra-biblical sources to understand the “simple and clear” Scripture. We Catholics believe that Jesus gave the Church with its Magisterium to satisfy this need. Non-Catholics seek to satisfy that need with a variety of sources, not all honest or reliable.

In your mind, I guess it would, but, though I have never stated having a "teaching authority" is a bad thing, it must always be understood that it will always be fallible man that comprises it and Scripture must ALWAYS remain the standard authority. I fully believe Jesus' promises that the Holy Spirit would be our teacher and will illuminate the words of God to the hearts and minds of those surrendered to Him.

There is no escaping the facts that the magesterium of the Roman Catholic Church has proved itself fallible in many areas where they have ventured past the revealed word into the realm of imagination. Did the early church leaders get things right when they pontificated upon the Bible? Yes, they did on many things. Were they 100% right? No, some, whose ideas were not as strong as their influence, STILL propagated those ideas and, others who had a closer Biblical interpretation, failed to have the votes necessary to ensure their views were counted within what was called "orthodoxy". As time went by, we see this same dynamic being played out over and over again so that, when the Reformation HAD to happen (Again. As we know it was not the first one.) many of the major tenets of the standard Christian faith were unrecognized as originating from Scripture nor held by the Apostles and their immediate disciples.

I realize that the Roman Catholic answer is that the magesterium has a "protection" from error so that the faithful can be assured whatever is deemed de fide can be held without doubt. But, if we are being honest here, there HAVE been numerous errors and changes that, though euphemistically they have been called "developed doctrines", are really just one group overruling another's wrongly declared "truth" and substituting it with their more popular version. To me, that does not sound as if there can be unquestioning obedience to an "infallible" magesterium that has proved itself to be quite fallible. That is why Holy Scripture MUST be the authority over and above human institutions. It is the ONLY divinely-inspired and, therefore, infallible authority we have been given by God and the "church" is tasked with being the support of and upholder of that truth.

[Natural Law]

"Not to be nit-picky, but there ARE manuscripts that date far closer to the first century than the 325 AD Codex Sinaiticus."

Papyrus is very perishable and possession of manuscripts was often illegal with severe penalties for those in possession. There are certainly many fragments, but none that contain intact Gospels of Matthew and Luke before the Codex Sinaiticus. Most experts believe that it predates the Codex Vaticanus by a few years.

"I fully believe Jesus' promises that the Holy Spirit would be our teacher and will illuminate the words of God to the hearts and minds of those surrendered to Him."

One only need ask why so many who so sincerely believe and earnestly seek His Truth arrive at different interpretations and conclusions to have doubts about that.

"There is no escaping the facts that the magesterium of the Roman Catholic Church has proved itself fallible in many areas where they have ventured past the revealed word into the realm of imagination."

A point of clarification; the Church teaches that Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium are inerrant. The Pope, only under very limited conditions is infallible. There have been no instances of the Church changing a dogma or doctrine, although practices have changed. I have never found any errors in doctrines or dogmas. I have had numerous difficulties with certain portions of the Church's teachings, but have always been able, through prayer and study, to reconcile those and realize the Church has been right."

"To me, that does not sound as if there can be unquestioning obedience to an "infallible" magesterium that has proved itself to be quite fallible."

Within Catholic teaching the term "unquestioning obedience" is an oxymoron. The Church defines obedience as:

CCC 144 - To obey (from the Latin ob-audire, to "hear or listen to") in faith is to submit freely to the word that has been heard, because its truth is guaranteed by God, who is Truth itself.

The Church does not compel me to accept blindly, but to grow in my knowledge and love of God. We call this "conversion".

CCC 160 - Indeed, Christ invited people to faith and conversion, but never coerced them. "For he bore witness to the truth but refused to use force to impose it on those who spoke against it. His kingdom... grows by the love with which Christ, lifted up on the cross, draws men to himself".

Thanks for the opportunity to explain my faith.

May the Peace of Christ be with you.