What do KJV only and Samaritans Have in Common?

The Old Testament was actually written in two distinct types of writing/scripts – one older and one much newer. The Samaritans continued on the tradition of keeping the Torah written in the older text type even when other Jews transitioned to the newer. According to Wurthwein they viewed the newer text types as “a flagrant innovation” (p.6).

The KJV only crowd and the Samaritans both have the view that you aren’t really doing it right or reverently unless you are using the older forms. This was not even about versions. This was about which type of letters you use to write the exact same words. Imagine if people started arguing it was sin to read a Bible that was printed or generated by a computer because the originals were hand written and also that it couldn’t be written in cursive. That would be the kind of debate they were tied up in.

Here is another interesting tidbit from Wurthwein in talking about the newer script types,

“The Jews were aware, however, that this script was not their earliest. One Jewish tradition attributes its introduction to Ezra about 430 B.C. The later rabbis were embarrassed by the implication that it was a post-exilic innovation. Accordingly they told how the Torah was first given in the square script, but because of Israel’s sin the script had been changed, and then in Ezra’s time the original form was restored.” (p.4)

Isn’t it funny how even back then people were reverse engineering history to make their way the best and oldest? They retold history so their script would be the earliest and the the actual earlier script was due to sin. There is nothing new under the sun as some groups of Christians try to use that same trick today.

0 Responses to What do KJV only and Samaritans Have in Common?

  1. Preacherman says:

    I think this is a great and funny post.
    I had a great laugh and enjoyed your thoughts.
    I hope you have a great weekend Matt.
    God bless!
    🙂

  2. Darin says:

    History does repeat itself doesn’t it.

  3. Frank says:

    Oh, so the Ezra script was the result of a Restoration Movement. That settles it for me. . . .

  4. markharrell says:

    Hey,

    The real issue about the reliability of an english Bible (version) rests in which text was used for translation. Was it the Alexandrian Text found in a trashcan in 1844 (St. Catherine’s Monestary) waiting to be burned. Or was it the Antioch text, used my Erasmus, when he put together the RT. It (the RT) was used from the Tyndale Bible all the way to 1881. We know which text was used for that debacle (and every english translation thereafter).

    There is good reason why the Alexandrian Text was rejected by great men of God (Psalm 12:6-7)

    Just food for thought,
    Mark

  5. mattdabbs says:

    Mark,

    Thanks for stopping by. I appreciate your perspective. If you look at the Bible translations category on the left side of the blog you can read more about these textual issues. I think you might find that interesting. Thanks again.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Follow

Follow this blog

Email address