The Answer: good enough for Paul?

The Answer:  This statement is usually made in a sarcastic manner in order to embarrass Bible believers in their belief. The FACT is, the King James Bible WAS good enough for Paul. (See Question #11) But for now I’d like you to see that it was the only Bible that Luke would use.

The Explanation:

In Acts 1: 1,2 Luke makes the following statement:  “The former treatise have I made, 0 Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:”

“The former treatise” is of course the Gospel of Luke which Luke wrote to a believer named Theophilus. Theophilus was apparently an early Christian who had never personally met the Lord while He was on this earth. Considering, though, that he was the recipient of both the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles, he was most certainly one of the best informed.

Luke, in what may have been a passing comment, in the second verse of Acts chapter one, rings the death blow to the famous Nestle’s Greek New Testament and also the New American Standard Version. Luke states that his “former treatise” told of all that Jesus began to do, and continued, “until the day in which he was taken up.” The things which Jesus began to do are first recorded in Luke 2:41-52 in which He was left behind in Jerusalem when Joseph and His mother left to return to Nazareth. This correlates with Acts 1:1. Luke’s gospel is the only one of the four gospels which records any of Christ’s actions prior to His baptism at the age of thirty years old. (Matthew 3:16, Mark 1:9 and John 1:29-34)

Luke’s gospel ends with Christ being “carried up into heaven ” in Luke 24:51. This correlates with Acts 1:2 “Until the day in which he was taken up.”

Thus, Luke states that his gospel begins with the earliest acts of Christ and ends with His ascension. Therefore, any Greek manuscript or manuscripts, no matter what their age, containing the Gospel of Luke which omits either of these accounts is not authentic. In an examination of the 23rd Edition of Nestle’s Greek Text we find that the Greek words, “Kai anepheroto eis ton huranon,” “and was carried up into the heaven” are not found in this text.

The footnote in the critical apparatus indicates that the authority for removing this phrase is no more than manuscript (MS) Sinaiticus, D, one majuscule MS known as number 52 and one 5th century palimpsect (a MS which has been erased and written over top of). The phrase “and carried up into heaven” is found in B, C, E, F, G, H, L, S, T, V, Y, Z, Delta, Theta, Psi, and Omega plus papyrus p75, and most remaining witnesses. Yet on the basis of only two MSS the conservative scholars of the secret Lockman Foundation have omitted this phrase from Luke 24:51 in the New American Standard Version (NASV). Hence, the NASV is not truly a reliable translation. In fact, of most modern versions, only the “liberal” scholars of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) agreed with the “conservative” scholars of the NASV in omitting the phrase. Thus the known Communistic liberals of the RSV and the conservatives of the NASV are in full agreement that Christ did not ascend bodily into heaven.

So we see that if Luke, the writer of the Gospel of Luke and the book of the Acts of the Apostles, could examine a King James Bible and a New American Standard Version he would declare the New American Standard Version a fraud and promptly proclaim the King James Bible as authentic.

Well, quite frankly, if it’s good enough for Luke, it’s good enough for me.

©All material is copyright of Dr. Sam Gipp. Used with permission.

Advertisements

Posted on July 26, 2011, in The Answer and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 8 Comments.

  1. Well, I can’t say I can argue with him. I haven’t seen all those manuscripts to come to a firm conclusion. But I will have to say that even though it sounds convincing, Dr. Gipp’s track record makes me a little skeptical of his evidence. He may be right on this one, but I don’t know. All I know is that so many of his other arguments have not convinced me. Maybe my head is just too hard (that’s why the hair won’t stick).

  2. Um…there are no words. That was a convoluted mess. This is where literal reading of the text becomes literalism and we start straining gnats and swallowing camels. Unfortunately, these sorts of gymnastics is not what Scripture was created to do.

    Would Dr. Gipp attribute the same sort of authoritativeness to Dr. Luther’s translation of the Bible for the German people? I doubt it, based on his one language at a time theory. But if he were a German, would he come to the same conclusions he does as a WASP (White, Anglo-Saxon Protestant)? I doubt it. Highly.

  3. Based on Gipp’s theory, if the text contains Luke 24:51 then the ENTIRE text is good enough for Luke and Paul, and by default the English translations that come from those text as this is his entire argument to say the KJV was good enough for Paul based on Luke 24:51.

    Gipp says, “Yet on the basis of only two MSS the conservative scholars of the secret Lockman Foundation have omitted this phrase from Luke 24:51 in the New American Standard Version (NASV). Hence, the NASV is not truly a reliable translation. In fact, of most modern versions, only the “liberal” scholars of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) agreed with the “conservative” scholars of the NASV in omitting the phrase. Thus the known Communistic liberals of the RSV and the conservatives of the NASV are in full agreement that Christ did not ascend bodily into heaven.”
    So let’s look at the NASV (which is formally called the NASB)

    New American Standard Bible (NASB) Luke 24:51 “51 While He was blessing them, He parted from them and was carried up into heaven”

    Here is Luke 24:51 in the RSV: “While he blessed them, he parted from them, and was carried up into heaven.”

    Gipp said, “So we see that if Luke, the writer of the Gospel of Luke and the book of the Acts of the Apostles, could examine a King James Bible and a New American Standard Version he would declare the New American Standard Version a fraud and promptly proclaim the King James Bible as authentic.” So, Gipp is wrong here. As a matter of fact, based on Gipp’s argument, if Luke were to examine the KJV and the NASB he would declare neither a fraud. But if Luke, a historian and a man devoted to accuracy, we to read Sam Gipp’s book, he would definitely declare Gipp to be fraudulent at worst and grossly mislead at best.

    But, just for kicks, let’s look at some other translations, shall we?

    New International Version (NIV)

    51 While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven.

    Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)

    51 And while He was blessing them, He left them and was carried up into heaven.

    American Standard Version (ASV)

    51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he parted from them, and was carried up into heaven.

    English Standard Version (ESV)

    51While he blessed them, he parted from them and was carried up into heaven.

    Amplified Bible (AMP)

    51And it occurred that while He was blessing them, He parted from them and was taken up into heaven.

    Oh, and the N/A Text 23rd edition may the phrase in question was omitted. That is true, but it was not due to anyone being a theological liberal or communist, it was purely textual and their attempts to be as faithful to what they believed to be the closest to the original text as possible. Here is their reasoning for some of the things left out: (note: cited from wikipedia.org but you can check references there to verify what is being said)

    “The “Western non-interpolations” were not included to the main text of Westcott-Hort edition (1881), but were instead moved to the footnotes. In the same way followed editions of Nestle and Nestle-Aland. In 1968, “the editorial committee (or more precisely its majority) decided to abandon the theories of Westcott-Hort and the Western non-interpolations.” [3] Since 1968 they are included to the main text but marked with brackets.

    Western non-interpolations are readings in the Western text-type that are shorter than those of other New Testament text types. The term was coined by F. J. A. Hort.[1] The Alexandrian text is generally terse; the Western text is enlarged and paraphrased at places; the Byzantine text is a combination of the two. Nevertheless, the Western text is in certain places shorter than the Alexandrian text. All these shorter readings Hort named western non-interpolations. Since the 18th century scholars have preferred the shorter reading. It was the authentic text for B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort. When they printed The New Testament in the Original Greek (1882), in almost all cases, it followed the Alexandrian text with a few exceptions — including Western non-interpolations. According to Westcott and Hort, on some rare occasions Western textual witnesses have preserved the original text, against all other witnesses.[2]”

    Modern critics have abandoned this idea now as they have done further study, which is why the N/A 27th has it in the main text

    24:51 κaι eγeνetο eν tω eυλογeιν aυtον aυtους dιestη ap aυtων κaι aνefeρetο eις tον ουρaνον

    There is no conspiracy of the Devil to corrupt the bible through modern translations

    Seeing as Luke would find the NASB, NIV, ESV, AMP, NKJV, and RSV all authentic translations of his gospel as they include Luke 24:51 I say, “Well, quite frankly, if it’s good enough for Luke, it’s good enough for me.”

    • Dude, that was good, I must admit. Ever considered being a lawyer? Really embarrasses me, though, because I could have looked up those other translations, also.

    • Sounds like a strawman to me. You said, “Based on Gipp’s theory, if the text contains Luke 24:51 then the ENTIRE text is good enough for Luke and Paul….” Sam Gipp did not say that. He said, “Therefore, any Greek manuscript or manuscripts, no matter what their age, containing the Gospel of Luke which omits either of these accounts is not authentic.”

      Gipp did not say that if they contain those accounts they were definitely authentic. He said if they didn’t contain those accounts then they were not authentic. There is a huge difference.

      What if Gipp’s theory was that if the pool doesn’t have water, then it’s not fit for swimming. Someone shouldn’t say, “Based on Gipp’s argument, if the pool has water, then it’s fit for swimming.” What if the water wasn’t healthy? What if there were only 12 inches of water? What if the pool had plenty of water but there were also pirannahs? It’s just a big difference in the statements is all.

      I also don’t think it’s accurate to say Gipp was wrong about Luke 24:51 being ommitted in the NASB. I don’t know when Gipp wrote his book, but I think it was when the NASB was still in its 1977 edition, which would mean that the NASB did omit the phrase in question. You even showed that NA23 did omit the words. You could argue over Gipp’s points behind it (communism, liberalism) or that he needs to make a revision to his book, but you have to at least credit the man with using the best texts available to him at the time.

  4. Pilgrim,
    Gipp did say, ” any Greek manuscript or manuscripts, no matter what their age, containing the Gospel of Luke which omits either of these accounts is not authentic.” you are correct in that, but he did not ONLY say that. He also did in fact say that because it is included in his translation it is authentic. He tried to make his case both ways. I realize Gipp has a sort of dizzying effect, but go re-read the last full paragraph of his article.

    At any rate, let me explain why I said I was using Gipp’s argument, and why I do not believe it is a staw-man, as you say. The thrust of Gipp’s article was concerning the lack of a phrase in the other translations that is in the KJV. After going on and on about how the lack of this phrase shows the text is not authentic he positively asserts that BECAUSE the KJV contains this phrase it IS authentic. He ends his article by stating saying, “So we see that if Luke, the writer of the Gospel of Luke and the book of the Acts of the Apostles, could examine a King James Bible and a New American Standard Version he would declare the New American Standard Version a fraud and promptly proclaim the King James Bible as authentic.” Thus, to use one of your illustrations, Gipp not only says a pool with no water is not fit for swimming; he positively states that HIS PARTICULAR pool is fit for swimming because it does in fact have water. He placed no other qualification aside from whether the verse as there or not. That’s it!
    Again, his article doesn’t merely say the other versions aren’t authentic because they omit the phrase in question, he attempts to make the case that because the KJV does have the phrase it proves it’s authenticity. So if it is offered as an argument for verifying the authenticity of one version then it applied to all. (the truth is, deep down, we know it’s deeper than that, as you pointed out. Gipp, however, doesn’t seem to grasp that. For instance, the TR has added verses (long story – I’ll just say study up on I John here’s a place to start: http://kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_simple_outline.htm). Added verses make a text just as non-authentic as missing verses. Just like adding pirannahs to the water… but Gipp doesn’t deal with that at all. He thinks simply: “if it doesn’t have the verse it’s bad, if it does have the verse it’s good. AHA! VICTORY!” But it is not that simple.
    So I see no straw man here. I clearly interacted with Gipp’s theory exactly how it was presented and showed how it was inept.
    As for his using old translations, lets just give him the benefit of the doubt and say that was the case. His argument is worthless now isn’t it? The entire point he tries to make is ultimately to justify an English translation over others using the verse in Luke. Since they have it now, what’s his beef? and since he doesn’t specify what edition of the NASB he is referring to (yet another lack of accuracy) then that is his fault.
    So we see: 1. Gipp says any text not containing Luke 24:51 is not authentic. 2.Gipp also says the KJV would be found to be authentic by Luke based upon the inclusion of Luke 24:51 (see? here it is – the “My pool is the good for swimming because it has water” argument. (so there IS NO STRAW-MAN… there are too many real erros in the KJV movement for me to waste my time creating false ones. ) and 3. Gipp’s entire argument is pointless today as the other translations also include Luke 24:51

    I really do not wish to argue this anyway. Most of the people buying Gipp’s stuff aren’t interested in fact, they just want something to feed their biased, unbiblical agenda. My commenting on things like this is to try to demonstrate how inaccurate, unfounded, and shallow the KJVO arguments are, particularly Gipp. KJVO is a relatively new that exalts an translation of the Scriptures to an idolatrous level.
    The KJV is a mere translation of the Scriptures. It’s not perfect, and doesn’t need to be. No translation is perfect.
    I hope this causes all to dig deeper and do a bit of homework instead of taking the word of men like Ruckman, Gipp, Riplinger (okay ol’ Riplinger is a women, not a man), etc.

    • Let me respectfully say that I believe you are still making a strawman. All I’m doing is saying take the guy’s argument as it is. His argument is that if the text omits Luke 24:51 or Luke 2:41-52, then it isn’t reliable.

      It’s a no brainer that Gipp advocates the KJV, but he is not saying that it is a good text ONLY because it has Luke 24:51 (the pool/water thing). He’s got a whole book to show why he thinks the water in the KJV is fit for swimming. This article is only saying if it doesn’t have water at all (Luke 24:51), then it isn’t a good text. The last paragraph of his article is in context of why he thinks NA23 is a faulty text because of its ommission.

      You also said, “The entire point he tries to make is ultimately to justify an English translation over others using the verse in Luke. Since they have it now, what’s his beef?” Who said he had a beef? Since you gave him the benefit of the doubt that his book was written against the NA23, you would also have to accept that he never said he had a beef against NA26 on the point of Luke 24:51 (at least as far as this article is concerned), because NA26 was not being used at the time for the NASB.

      By the way his book was written against NA23. I missed it the first time too. Gipp said, “In an examination of the 23rd Edition of Nestle’s Greek Text….” So, he had in mind the NASB of 1977. It looks like a problem with our accuracy on this one, not his.

      Basically, Gipp says that an authentic text will not omit Luke 24:51. I guess in one sense you could say the NA editors agreed with Gipp (at least about the need for Luke 24:51 and not the communism/liberalism part) since they added the verse to NA26.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: