Fred's Historical Landmark, Part 3

Actually, I don't think the possibilities in Coulter's BAR ad could be exhausted even if this series extended to the lengths of War & Peace, but there certainly would be a danger we'd all end up as bored out of our minds as if we'd had to listen to one of Fred's interminably redundant sermons, so let's try and tie up the loose ends.

(1) The book that inspired it all, Ernie Martin's Restoring the Original Bible, is online. Coulter talks up Martin's reputation:

"Before his death in January 2002, Dr. Ernest L. Martin was recognized as one of the leading scholars and authorities of the canonical study of the Bible."

In reality Martin's doctorate was an unaccredited AC one, with the same validity as Meredith's, Hoeh's or Garner Ted Armstrong's. While a much-liked figure with a strong following among disillusioned WCG members, Martin had little clout in academia.

Martin's arguments on canonical order enabled him to pull this rabbit out of the hat. Impressed?

(2) No mention in the BAR ad of Fred himself, the glorious author/scholar/translator. For all the wide-eyed BAR reader knows, this translation has been prepared by a committee of scholars instead of one guy who pastors a series of living room congregations. Why so coy?

(3) What's the issue with the Stephens Greek text? Stephens (or Stephanus), whose proper name was Robert Estienne, was a printer in Paris. Among his claims to fame was to be the first to break the Bible text into bite-sized chicken McNuggets - the verse system we use today. Stephanus collaborated on the Greek text with the gifted Catholic scholar Erasmus, an achievement which became known (misleadingly) as the Textus Receptus. Erasmus himself recognized that the manuscripts available to him were defective, but he did the best with what he had. Better manuscripts have meant better Greek texts. Fred is nearly 500 years out of date, Masoretic red herrings not withstanding.

(4) As for an inspired or original order for the New Testament, Fred is out on a limb. His arrangement can't be justified chronologically (the first off the block may well have been Paul with 1 Thessalonians), or the earliest list of canonical books (the Muratorian canon.) Fred continues to bravely defend the primacy of Matthew's gospel, but he's spitting into the wind of Markan priority. The general epistles initially appeared together, for example, because they were obviously distinct from Paul's (and others wrongly attributed to Paul.) Anything particularly original and inspired in that?

But there's a more basic point. To restore an original order requires that there be an original order to restore. Sadly for Fred, there is no evidence that the early church produced its own triple-bound codex with handcrafted lambskin cover and gold lettering, or anything remotely resembling it. It isn't till the fourth century that complete NT manuscripts turn up. That's 300 years of Christianity without a New Testament - in any order.

Of course that doesn't stop Fred from arguing long and monotonously for his arrangement. Even if he's not very convincing, it's not a big deal... unless Fred himself makes it a big deal, which he does.

(5) A final aside. Also following Doc Martin's vision is James Tabor. This is a project that possibly predates Fred's efforts, and is still a long way off seeing the light of day. Tabor's Transparent English Bible will pack a lot more credibility than Fred's, assuming it ever gets into print (a PDF sample is available here.) I'm not sure whether Tabor intends to use the same NT arrangement, but if so one can only hope that the publicity doesn't overextend into the kind of wild claims Fred obviously relishes (the name "Original Bible Project" may indicate otherwise.)