[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Above, I think some of the points of Herb's article were missed, misunderstood or misrepresented. And I will just look at one right now.

Originally Posted by TheBibleSender quoting Herb Evans

Just because you have second and third century Manuscripts that are written in Greek, does not mean that they were originally written in that language.

And I agree 100%. Even while gladly proclaiming and acknowledging that most, or most all (and possibly fully all) of the NT was written in Greek.

The simplest example is that the Gospel of Mark may very well have been written in Latin or a Graeco-Latin dialect, there are solid grammar and historical indicators for this possibility.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

This is both baseless

No, this is clearly not "baseless". Herman Hoskier wrote a full section on the Markan original language question in Codex B and its Allies. Afaik his analysis and conclusions have never been refuted nor even strongly countered. As for other books, there are interesting possibilities with Hebrews (perhaps being transcribed directly from Hebrew to Greek, a type of dual-language 'original') and maybe a couple of other books.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

and a slur upon the learning of the King James Bible translators.

Not at all. This is their main comment on the question in the Preface.

• 10 If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New.
• 11 These are the two golden pipes, or rather conduits, wherethrough the olive branches empty themselves into the gold.
• 12 Saint Augustine [S.August. 3. de doct. c. 3. etc.] calleth them precedent, or original, tongues; Saint Hierome, fountains.

The King Jame Bible Preface is referencing the transmission and preservation being primarily accomplished through the Hebrew and Greek. This should not and can not be seen as the end of their understanding of autograph languages. In fact they do not even mention here that sections of the OT were likely written and preserved in Aramaic, although of course they were 100% aware of this fact. Why not go into every such detail and theory ? They were simply not writing a treatise on 'the languages of the original autographs'.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

The front page of the King James Bible says “out of the original tongues”.

Imho this should best be seen as the original tongues of the received manuscripts, the Reformation Bible. The critics of the King James Bible will make a big thing about the usage of the term "originals" in various places in the 1611 when we point out that the originals (their supposed one valid Bible source) are no longer extant.

And the King James Bible translators were not subject to the puerile argumentation common today from the no-pure-Bible crew. (e.g. The doctrine of "inerrancy only in the original autographs" was about 250 years in the future.) Thus their language may be a bit different than ours today in describing the Bible history, especially the "originals" question. We have to take account of the phoney and false conceptions and principalities that deceived many in order to help 'justify' using the ultra-corrupt alexandrian versions and have a new doctrine that we really do not have the word of God in tangible form. That view essentially was non-existent in 1611.

However one point should be emphasized. The KJB Preface is not the inerrant word of God. The Preface gives us an excellent history, however we are not bound to every historical understanding expressed therein.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

It wasn’t Greek for the OT and it wasn’t Hebrew or so-called “Aramaic” for the NT.

Matthew, do you actually see a difficulty anywhere at all if Mark was written in Latin or Graeco-Latin "originally". If so, where and why ?

NT transmission and preservation has been kept primarily through the Greek line, with the Received Text being providentially brought forth leading to the pure and perfect King James Bible.

As an note I will mention that we should not forget that all extant Greek NT manuscripts before the Reformation have some significant lacks. (Generally the preservation in those verses was maintained through the Latin.)

God's hand was at all shortened to bring forth to every ploughman, and even the seminarian, the pure and perfect word of God, first through the Reformation Bible, and then in full precision and purity through its majestic result, the King James Bible.

Shalom,
Steven