Restoring the Original Bible - by Ernest L. Martin

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey Ram,

I see you can't let go of ignoring the sources that show there were 22 books of the OT. So far you've knocked Jerome, who said there was, Eusebius, Josephus, and a bunch of others.

Hey there student,

Your statement is ridiculous. I have never "ignored" the 22 books. I've never "knocked" Jerome. What are you talking about?

I wondered how long it would be for you to bring up Judges, Ruth, etc.

Yep, another fact of history you have to ignore if you want to believe Martin's assertions.

I also noticed how you avoided the 22 books by saying neither you nor I could prove it. That is a blatant cop-out, for anyone who has done any studying knows the books were 22, and then expanded to 24 later. Although, that is not to say 2 new books were added, just that books already there were divided to give a count of 24.

Stating an obvious and incontrovertible fact is not "avoiding" and it's not a "cop out." Neither you nor I can prove that the 22 books were "original." Many scholars in this field note that the mystical significance of the 22 letters was strong motivation for the Jews to attempt to squeeze the ORIGINAL 24 books into a pattern of 22. Here is what I wrote about it in that article I'm pretty sure you have not read. You might find it interesting that it's title is "The 22 Books of the Jewish Canon" considering you have falsely asserted that I have "ignored" the 22 books! Go figure. Here's the quote:

In their efforts to force fit the Old Testament Canon into the alphabetic pattern, the Jews had to combine certain sets of books. This was very natural in most cases because some books, like First and Second Kings, were originally undivided. Likewise, the Twelve Minor Prophets, known since ancient times as the Book of the Twelve because they were written on a single scroll, could naturally be counted as one book. But when all such books were combined and the tally taken, the total came to twenty-four. To arrive at the desired set of twenty-two books, they had to combine two more pairs, which turned out to be Judges with Ruth, and Jeremiah with Lamentations according to Jerome in his Prologue to Samuel and Kings . The first pair made some sense because they treated the same time period (whihc is the reason given by Jerome), and the latter pair made some sense because they were written by the same prophet. But the combination just would not stick. McDonald, in his very thorough analysis called The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon , explains the probable reason for its failure:

There are strong reasons to believe that the twenty-four-book list actually preceded the twenty-two-book list and that the latter was fashioned after the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet. This appears to be more reasonable, since the twenty-four-book collection is more simple than the twenty-two-book collection's awkward and arbitrary combination of Ruth and Lamentations with Judges and Jeremiah. ... The practice of doubling up several books in the list in order to arrive at the number twenty-two suggests that the number, more than its precise contents, was what was considered most important. Perhaps ... the number twenty-two was a holy number and thus all of the scriptures had to fit within that number. Hence we have the doubling up of books that do not naturally belong together (for example, Judges and Ruth).

The failed effort to force fit the Jewish Bible into the alphabetic pattern bears eloquent witness to the incomparable grace and wisdom of God’s hidden hand that guided the long, complicated, and often confused historical process that culminated in what Scroggie called the "glorious superstructure" of the sixty-six book Christian Canon. And now the ancient intuition that the Hebrew alphabet should encompass God's Word as a symbol of the completeness of its Divine Wisdom is effortlessly realized by simply "rolling up the Bible like a scroll" (see Chapter 1 of the Bible Wheel book) to reveal the direct correlation of the Twenty-Two Letters with the Twenty-Two Spokes. This is the glory of God's Work in His design of Holy Scripture.

There's a lot of solid scholarship backing up my assertions.

And, Dr. Martin as you should have known if you read his book showed that the Byzantine Text still to this day has the order Dr. Martin mentions. I suppose they got it from Dr. Martin who must have created it out of whole cloth and then somehow sent it back in time a bunch of centuries. When you claim this is his order you are blatantly making a falsehood my friend. You seem to want to argue against Martin as a person. And, you saying you do that because he was a teacher you claim is wrong, and of course you are right, doesn't hold water. If Martin made it all up why is that Text in the order he presents, and if it is made up, how did the four you wish to ignore come up with it? Did they jump into the future and read Dr. Martin and then run back in time and present that? No, I don't think so. It is you at fault here.

How many times are you going to repeat that false statement? I NEVER SAID THAT MARTIN INVENTED THE ORDER HE PREFERED! Got it? Sheesh.

Now, Dr. Martin was an honest man. You say otherwise. I knew him for decades, you read his book rapidly. His research, like all research in this world of fighting Christians is not accepted by everyone. Nor, I suspect is your BibleWheel.

I grant that point. But there is one very significant difference. I have been presenting this information for years here on the internet. To date, not one person this little planet of ours has successfully demonstrated any fundamental flaw or systematic error in my presentation of the Bible Wheel. Furthermore, not one person has ever taken the Bible Wheel Challenge and proven that the Bible Wheel is not perfect.

Martin's work is different. It is riddled with fundamental errors.

I suppose that is enough for the moment. With the above in mind, and more to come, one begins to wonder then, why Jerome admitted the 22 books, and that the Hebrew text was superior, but went with 39 instead.

I don't know ... some folks like to speculate about such things. Others like to build doctrines from such unknowns.

But if I had to guess, I would guess it was divine insipiration.

Good to be chatting student. Maybe some day you will share you name and we can pretend to be friends until we really are.

Many blessings to you and yours,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey Ram,

I see you can't let go of ignoring the sources that show there were 22 books of the OT. So far you've knocked Jerome, who said there was, Eusebius, Josephus, and a bunch of others.

Hey there student,


Speaking of "ignoring the sources" why do you keep citing Jerome when the fact is that he directly contradicts Martin's thesis? When he wrote about the order of the 22 books according to the Jews, he said this in his Introduction to Samuel and Kings:

The second class is composed of the Prophets, and they begin with Jesus the son of Nave, who among them [the Jews] is called Joshua the son of Nun. Next in the series is Sophtim, that is the book of Judges; and in the same book they [the Jews] include Ruth, because the events narrated occurred in the days of the Judges.

Thus we have historical evidence that the Jews counted Judges with Ruth, whereas the is no historical evidence that Joshua was ever counted with Judges as Martin asserted.


Jerome also dealt with the difference between 22 and 24 books:

And so there are also twenty-two books of the Old Testament; that is, five of Moses, eight of the prophets, nine of the Hagiographa, though some [not everyone] include Ruth and Kinoth (Lamentations) amongst the Hagiographa, and think that these books ought to be reckoned separately; we should thus have twenty-four books of the old law.

There is no way anyone can prove which came first, the 22 or 24 book reckoning. But prominent scholars have noted that if there were originally 24 books, there would be a natural desire to squeeze them into alphabetic pattern of 22. And there is evidence to support this view, though no one has ever presented any proof. And it seems much less likely that they would begin with a 22 book canon and then introduce new ways of counting to arrive at 24 since there is no motivation for that. It is an unfortunate fact that Martin contributed nothing of any significance to this discussion when he invented a new, novel, and non-historical method of counting when he asserted that the Jews reckoned Joshua with Judges "before the 2nd century."

Richard

[student1]

Hey there student,


Speaking of "ignoring the sources" why do you keep citing Jerome when the fact is that he directly contradicts Martin's thesis? When he wrote about the order of the 22 books according to the Jews, he said this in his Introduction to Samuel and Kings:

The second class is composed of the Prophets, and they begin with Jesus the son of Nave, who among them [the Jews] is called Joshua the son of Nun. Next in the series is Sophtim, that is the book of Judges; and in the same book they [the Jews] include Ruth, because the events narrated occurred in the days of the Judges.

Thus we have historical evidence that the Jews counted Judges with Ruth, whereas the is no historical evidence that Joshua was ever counted with Judges as Martin asserted.


Jerome also dealt with the difference between 22 and 24 books:

And so there are also twenty-two books of the Old Testament; that is, five of Moses, eight of the prophets, nine of the Hagiographa, though some [not everyone] include Ruth and Kinoth (Lamentations) amongst the Hagiographa, and think that these books ought to be reckoned separately; we should thus have twenty-four books of the old law.

There is no way anyone can prove which came first, the 22 or 24 book reckoning. But prominent scholars have noted that if there were originally 24 books, there would be a natural desire to squeeze them into alphabetic pattern of 22. And there is evidence to support this view, though no one has ever presented any proof. And it seems much less likely that they would begin with a 22 book canon and then introduce new ways of counting to arrive at 24 since there is no motivation for that. It is an unfortunate fact that Martin contributed nothing of any significance to this discussion when he invented a new, novel, and non-historical method of counting when he asserted that the Jews reckoned Joshua with Judges "before the 2nd century."

Richard

You are getting closer. Just 2 "off", and those two are so easy to solve. As this seems to be your "key" to "knock" the 22 number and order. But, you are getting closer to the answer.

[student1]

Has Dr. Martin on his own concocted a "hybrid" order? Absolutely not.

'The Christian scholar need not speculate widely regarding the
original form of the Greek New Testament text. That text can be
recognized and established in its basic integrity by the application of
proper and sound critical principles that take into consideration the
consensus of the preserved evidence. The Byzantine Textform
presented in this edition fulfills that goal: the Byzantine Textform is
that which was transmitted and maintained as the dominant stream of
manual Greek transmission within Christian history. Now, at the
culmination of twenty-seven years of intense collaboration
(1976-2003), the editors here present the newly edited Byzantine
Textform as the strongest representative of the canonical autographs
of the Greek New Testament text. It has been toward the fulfillment
of this most noble and sacred goal that the editors have labored and
now present the completion of their task.' ( p. 31, The New Testament in the Original Greek, 2005, Robinson, Pierpont)

Individual manuscripts present the New Testament books in
various arrangements; nevertheless, a particular Greek .canonical
order. seems to have been popular during early transmissional history.
This order is partially evidenced within various early papyri and
manuscripts,24 and occurs in the fourth-century Festal Letter of
Athanasius (AD 367) and the list of canonical books attributed to theLaodicean Council (AD 360/363).25 The present edition reproduces
that early .canonical order. for the Greek New Testament books.
According to the .canonical order,. the New Testament books
are grouped as follows: Gospels, Acts and General Epistles, Pauline
Epistles, and Revelation. The individual books within each category
follow the familiar order, except that in the Pauline Epistles, Hebrews
stands between Second Thessalonians and First Timothy, intentionally
separating Paul's local church epistles from those written to
individuals.26 (ibid, p. 25, 26

Now, I suppose these men are as duped as Dr. Martin? And, are creating a 'hybrid' NT?

I think not. Moffatt was right in his chart by exposing the various groups, and the two with the correct order are those Dr. Martin recognized as the correct order by history, transmission, etc. So, yes, just as the above men, along with the four others that recognized the same, we have the correct order of the NT. And, Martin didn’t start it, just reported the results. Hybrid? Absolute nonsense.

Again, Martin is right.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

You are getting closer. Just 2 "off", and those two are so easy to solve. As this seems to be your "key" to "knock" the 22 number and order. But, you are getting closer to the answer.

Hey there student,

I'm not trying to "knock" the number 22 or the order of the books in that arrangement. My point is very simple, and as yet unrefuted: No one can prove which was primary - the 22 or 24 book pattern. But there is good evidence and solid reasons to believe that the 24 book pattern was primary, and then adjusted to fit the pattern of the Alphabet which Jerome rightly refered to as the "alphabet of divine wisdom."

But none of that matters when it comes to the question of the "proper" order because "older" does not mean "correct." The canon went through a process of development before it settled down in either the Christian or the Jewish pattern. And no one knows the exact pattern of the "original" Jewish OT, but if we know anything, it is that Martin's grouping of Joshua and Judges has no support whatsover in the literature or in history. This means that of all patterns, Martin's is the least likely. In contrast with this, we have solid evidence for the grouping of Judges with Ruth and Lamentations with Jeremiah.

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Has Dr. Martin on his own concocted a "hybrid" order? Absolutely not.

“The Christian scholar need not speculate widely regarding the
original form of the Greek New Testament text. That text can be
recognized and established in its basic integrity by the application of
proper and sound critical principles that take into consideration the
consensus of the preserved evidence. The Byzantine Textform
presented in this edition fulfills that goal: the Byzantine Textform is
that which was transmitted and maintained as the dominant stream of
manual Greek transmission within Christian history. Now, at the
culmination of twenty-seven years of intense collaboration
(1976-2003), the editors here present the newly edited Byzantine
Textform as the strongest representative of the canonical autographs
of the Greek New Testament text. It has been toward the fulfillment
of this most noble and sacred goal that the editors have labored and
now present the completion of their task.” ( p. 31, The New Testament in the Original Greek, 2005, Robinson, Pierpont)

Individual manuscripts present the New Testament books in
various arrangements; nevertheless, a particular Greek .canonical
order. seems to have been popular during early transmissional history.
This order is partially evidenced within various early papyri and
manuscripts,24 and occurs in the fourth-century Festal Letter of
Athanasius (AD 367) and the list of canonical books attributed to theLaodicean Council (AD 360/363).25 The present edition reproduces
that early .canonical order. for the Greek New Testament books.
According to the .canonical order,. the New Testament books
are grouped as follows: Gospels, Acts and General Epistles, Pauline
Epistles, and Revelation. The individual books within each category
follow the familiar order, except that in the Pauline Epistles, Hebrews
stands between Second Thessalonians and First Timothy, intentionally
separating Paul's local church epistles from those written to
individuals.26 (ibid, p. 25, 26

Now, I suppose these men are as duped as Dr. Martin? And, are creating a “hybrid” NT?

I think not. Moffatt was right in his chart by exposing the various groups, and the two with the correct order are those Dr. Martin recognized as the correct order by history, transmission, etc. So, yes, just as the above men, along with the four others that recognized the same, we have the correct order of the NT. And, Martin didn’t start it, just reported the results. Hybrid? Absolute nonsense.

Again, Martin is right.

Hey there student,


Are you deliberately trying to misinterpret what I have written? I have never written a single word about Martin's NT order being a "hyrbid." That doesn't even make sense becuase a "hybrid" is by definition a mixing of two differernt things.

I used the word "hybrid" in reference to Martin's new and never-before-seen in the history of the world combination of the Jewish OT with one particular version of the Greek manuscript order. That is the "hybrid." How could I have written anything with greater clarity? Again, here is what I wrote:

He advocated the creation of a novel hybrid Bible in which the New Testament would be patterned on his so-called "original manuscript order" and the Old Testament would be patterned on the modern Jewish Tanakh that was fixed in its present form by medieval Rabbis.

You have not yet responded to the FACT that there are many variations in both of the "orders" of the Tanakh and the NT manuscripts. The oldest extant copy of the Tanakh has a different order than that fixed by the medieval Rabbis which Martin chose to elevate (without any justification) to the level of the one and only "correct" and "original" order. Likewise, he chose one amongst many possibilities for the pattern of the NT. His "restored Bible" is truly a HYBRID of these heterogeneous elements.

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I own a 662 page book edited by McDonald and Sanders called The Canon Debate which contains 32 articles by the leading scholars who study the origin, content, and concept of the "biblical canon." It contains an appendix listing all the known lists of the Old and New Testament canons up through the 5th century. There are 18 canon lists for the OT. Here are the statistics:

Seventeen of the eighteen lists mention the books of Joshua, Judges, and Ruth together and in that order. The only one missing is from Siniaticus which is damaged and does not contain those books.

Of the seventeen that list Joshua, Judges, and Ruth together and in that order, there are seven that list Judges and Ruth as a single book.

There is not one canon list on the planet that supports Martin's assertion that Joshua was combined with Judges. It appears he simply made that up.

These are the facts that must be dealt with by anyone who wants to support Martin's work.

Richard

[student1]

Quote from Review on Restoring the Original Bible by RAM:

'This new arrangement of Jerome had the advantage in Jerome's eyes and to some western theologians of exalting the position of Paul (the apostle to the Gentiles) to a primal authority of rank above the Jewish apostles who were commissioned to go to the Jews. Jerome's new and radical placement of Paul’s epistles before the seven "Catholic Epistles" in his Latin Vulgate also placed the Book of Romans and the city of Rome (the city to whom the first epistle of Paul's collection of books was sent) into a first rank position ahead of the Jewish apostles who once had Jerusalem for their top rank position. This rearrangement by Jerome (to exalt the Gentile section of the Christian Church, and the city of Rome in particular) does not have the slightest justification when one consults the majority of the early Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. -- RTOB, chapter 1

From a scholastic point of view, Martin's errors are simply incomprehensible. He cited no documentary evidence for any of his assertions about Jerome's motivations. He seems to be pretending to be some kind of "psychic archeologist" who can read the undocumented secret motivations hidden in the hearts of men long dead. And even if his accusations were true, they would not prove which order was "proper" because such ad hominem This link takes you off the Bible Wheel site and opens a new window argumentation is logically fallacious.'

The question is, to read the book or not to read the book. Evidently, it was 'skimmed' not read.

In light of the false critique above of Dr. Martin’s comment, I wonder why the author did not pay attention to the particular pages in Martin’s book, pages 9 and 10?

The critic says: 'He cited no documentary evidence for any of his assertions about Jerome's motivations' I suppose these comments from men before Dr. Martin don’t count.

1. 'Our English Bibles follow the order as given in the Latin Vulgate. This order, therefore, depends on the ARBITRARY JUDGMENT OF ONE MAN, Jerome (A.D. 382-429). All theories based on this order REST ON HUMAN AUTHORITY, AND ARE THUS WITHOUT ANY TRUE FOUNDATION.' (Companion Bible, Appendix 95, p. 139.

Of course, I suspect the critic either did not read this, OR ignores it as below consideration as he seems to do with others quoted that do not go along with his personal preference.

2. 'The Western Church ... as represented by Jerome and Augustine, and their successors, gave priority of position to the Pauline epistles. The TENDENCY of the WESTERN CHURCH to recognize Rome as the center of authority may perhaps, in part, account for this departure from the custom of the EAST. The order in the Alexandrian, Vatican and Ephraem manuscripts gives precedence to the Catholic Epistles, and as this is also recognized by the Council of Laodicea, Cyril of Jerusalem and Athanasius, it would appear to have been characteristic of the Eastern churches.' (CBTEL, vol. I, kp. 800)

Now, this brings up the question of how many quotes are necessary for the average adult mind to see that a point being made has reason behind it without quoting a whole encylopedia. Only the critic demands the ency. Page 11 and more give enough quotes I believe for the average adult mind to comprehend that Martin did not make up an absurd statement about Jerome, nor is he a 'psychic archeologist' as again, falsely asserted by someone who has not really read Martin’s work, but seemingly pulled out what could be made to appear to those only reading a review to believe Dr. Martin was a 'psychic archeologist'. I knew him. He wasn’t.

Dr. Martin was much more accurate than given credit by this review.

I again suggest that all who are interested in this thread to read Martin’s material completely from the first page at least through chapter 1, and tell me he made absurd statements. I believe it is the other side doing that.

By the way, by saying a new HYBRID BIBLE just happens to include the New Testament. So, you called it a "hybrid". Thank you.

[student1]

Dr. Martin wrote there were seven divisions to the Scriptures. And, also that the number seven held significance in the Scriptures. His correct understanding of accepting the books of the Hebrew Bible in their combinations to equal 22 books, or better, scrolls, plus the 27 books of the NT give a perfect presentation of sevens, whereas the twisting of things to make 39 appear harmonius does not.

Even to the eye, with the 22 books of the Hebrew on one side, the 27 on the other, right in the MIDDLE of it all are the books about the Messiah, 5. The four Evangels and Acts. Interestingly, that particular number of books about the Messiah puts Him in the central core of the Bible, and just so happens includes the remaining 22 for harmony on the end.

If one looks at this another way, one sees the SEVEN candle candlestick shining brightly with the trunk of the candlestick representing the central, and brightest light, the Messiah standing in the Middle, as pictured in Rev.

Also, this goes along with the pattern in the first verse of Genesis. It has 7 words with the MIDDLE word, number 4, also representing the Messiah right smack in the center. The AT, or Aleph, Taw, or as some might recognize, the Alpha and Omega, representing the Aleph and Taw.

So, the pattern continues in favor of Dr. Martin's presentation, and don't forget, the new complete Bible is now a reality. I have two copies myself now as of about two months ago.

No matter what, the truth of the matter will end up having positive results no matter the criticisms and false reviews.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The question is, to read the book or not to read the book. Evidently, it was 'skimmed' not read.

In light of the false critique above of Dr. Martin’s comment, I wonder why the author did not pay attention to the particular pages in Martin’s book, pages 9 and 10?

The critic says: 'He cited no documentary evidence for any of his assertions about Jerome's motivations' I suppose these comments from men before Dr. Martin don’t count.

1. 'Our English Bibles follow the order as given in the Latin Vulgate. This order, therefore, depends on the ARBITRARY JUDGMENT OF ONE MAN, Jerome (A.D. 382-429). All theories based on this order REST ON HUMAN AUTHORITY, AND ARE THUS WITHOUT ANY TRUE FOUNDATION.' (Companion Bible, Appendix 95, p. 139.

Of course, I suspect the critic either did not read this, OR ignores it as below consideration as he seems to do with others quoted that do not go along with his personal preference.

Hey there student,

I read every word very carefully. Bullinger made exactly the same error as Martin. He merely ASSERTED that the Vulgate order was due to the "arbitrary judgment of one man." Neither Martin nor Bullinger provided any EVIDENCE to support their assertions, and they IGNORED the evidence that the order used in the Vulgate already existed before Jerome was born.


The question is NOT whether the manuscript order usually had the catholic epistles first - that is a fact of history. But another FACT is that the manuscript orders have a HUGE number of variations. Here is what a real scholar who analyzed pretty much everything factually known about the "orginal manuscript order" has to about it (from article 27 of The Canon Debate by Daryl Schmidt):

The variety of actual arrangements is quite surprising, and rarely mentioned by current textual critics. After noting that the sequence varies within each group [Gospels, Acts+Catholic, Paul, Rev], the Alands state: "The only characteristic common to the whole manuscript tradition ... is that the Gospels stand at the beginning and Revelation at the end" with "all variations of sequence to occur" in the middle sections. As we will see, even these characteristics vary.

Martin's assertions are completely untenable given the actual factual knowledge we have of the manuscript order.


And there is another fundamental fact that Martin ignored. Do you have any idea of the age of the oldest complete manuscript from which we can determine the order? I hope you are sitting down: the oldest manuscript is very recent (in terms relevent to our dicussion). Here is what Schmidt wrote:

The earliest two "complete New Testament" codices on our list, ninth/tenth century and tenth/eleventh century, are both pecular in having the Pauline Epistles last. ... The next oldest codex (175) is a Vatican manuscript that has never been cited in any critical edition of a printed Greek New Testament and apparently never carefully studied. It has the unique distinction of being the only codex with Revelation located between Acts and the Catholic Epistles.

Schmidt went on to document the extremely wide set of variations amongst the existing ancient Greek codices. His conclusion, based on solid scholarship with a huge amount of real evidence directly contradicts Martin's assertions. Schmidt concludes that there probably never was an "original order" of the Greek manuscripts, and that the order Martin selected was probably established ...

possibly in the eleventh or twelfth century, but apparently did not become at all widespread before the thirteenth, if surviving manuscripts are a reliable indication. Even then, the Athanasian sequence [followed by Martin] had not become fixed [as the order of the Greek manuscripts].

In contast with the very late date of the Greek manuscripts with many many variations from which Martin based his thesis, we have many witnesses from the fifth century and before that support the Christian order. Of course, there are also witnesses that support Martin's order. Thus, if you want to claim that one is the "original" then you need to provide evidence. Martin never did that, and so his entire house of cards has fallen to the ground.

2. 'The Western Church ... as represented by Jerome and Augustine, and their successors, gave priority of position to the Pauline epistles. The TENDENCY of the WESTERN CHURCH to recognize Rome as the center of authority may perhaps, in part, account for this departure from the custom of the EAST. The order in the Alexandrian, Vatican and Ephraem manuscripts gives precedence to the Catholic Epistles, and as this is also recognized by the Council of Laodicea, Cyril of Jerusalem and Athanasius, it would appear to have been characteristic of the Eastern churches.' (CBTEL, vol. I, kp. 800)

Now, this brings up the question of how many quotes are necessary for the average adult mind to see that a point being made has reason behind it without quoting a whole encylopedia. Only the critic demands the ency. Page 11 and more give enough quotes I believe for the average adult mind to comprehend that Martin did not make up an absurd statement about Jerome, nor is he a 'psychic archeologist' as again, falsely asserted by someone who has not really read Martin’s work, but seemingly pulled out what could be made to appear to those only reading a review to believe Dr. Martin was a 'psychic archeologist'. I knew him. He wasn’t.

It's not the number of quotes that matters, it is the quality of those quotes and how well they represent the scholastic concensus, and more importantly, whether they contain any EVIDENCE or are merely a statement of someones UNSUPPORTED OPINION. Neither of the quotes that Martin cited contain any evidence whatsoever for his assertions. My criticism that he failed to support his assertions with evidence stands.

And let's look at the works that Martin cited in chapter 1:

• 1 F.H.A. Scrivener, Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 4th ed., vol. 1 (London, 1894), p. 72.
• 2 It ought to be stated that the word 'Catholic' in Scrivener’s statement does not refer to any Christian denomination. It only signifies that the epistles in content are reckoned by scholars as being 'Universal' or 'General,' which is what the word 'Catholic' means.
• 3 James Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible Dealing, vol. 1 (New York: Scribener, 1911–12), p. 360.
• 4 John M'Clintock and James Strong, eds., Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (New York, Arno Press, 1969 [original 1871–1881 ed.]).
• 5 Thomas Hartwell Horne, An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, 8th ed., corr. and enl. Edition, vol. IV (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, [1807]), p. 253.
• 6 Horne, Introduction, vol. IV, p. 253.
• 7 James Moffatt, Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, 3rd ed. (T&T Clark Ltd, 1981), p. 13.
• 8 'Synod of Laodicea,' Canon LX, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers [hereafter NPNF], 2nd Series, vol. XIV, p. 159.
• 9 Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, First Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 4, §36, 'Of the Divine Scriptures,' in NPNF, 2nd Series, vol. VII.
• 10 Nathaniel Lardner, Credibility of the Gospel History, vol. V (London, 1788), p. 147.
• 11 Moffatt, Introduction, p. 14.
• 12 Lardner, Credibility, vol. V, pp. 89, 154–155.
• 13 Lardner, Credibility, vol. IV, pp. 437–438
• 14 Lardner, Credibility, vol. IV, pp. 483–484.
• 15 Lardner, Credibility, vol. IV, p. 487.
• 16 Lardner, Credibility, vol. IV, p.586)
• 17 Lardner, Credibility, vol. V, p. 76.
• 18 Lardner, Credibility, vol. IV, pp. 292–293.
• 19 New York: Harper, 1882.
• 20 Ivan Panin, ed., The New Testament from the Greek Text as Established by Bible Numerics, 2nd ed. (Niagra Falls, Ontario, Canada: Bible Numerics, 1935).
• 21 Jerome, 'Preface to Daniel,' in NPNF, 2nd Series, vol. VI, p. 493.
• 22 Jerome, 'Preface to Samuel and Kings,' in NPNF, 2nd Series, vol. VI, p. 489.
• 23 Westcott & Hort, Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek, pp. 320–321.
• 24 Caspar Renee Gregory, Canon and Text of the New Testament (Edinburgh: Clark, 1924), pp. 467–469.

Look at that! Almost all citations are from very old sholarship dating back to the 18th and 19th centuries. He seemed to avoid modern research like the plague it was to his false assertions. Here are the stats for the scholars that he cited:

1788 - 8 citations
1807 - 2
1881 - 1
1882 - 1
1894 - 1
1912 - 1
1924 - 1
1935 - 1
1981 - 2

Martin cited only one contemporary scholar, and only four that wrote in the twentieth century! A weighted average gives the average "age" of his scholastic sources as 1850 AD. In other words, most of Martin's citations were written by people who were ABSOLUTELY IGNORANT of everything learned in the twentieth century concerning the origin of the New Testament.

By the way, by saying a new HYBRID BIBLE just happens to include the New Testament. So, you called it a "hybrid". Thank you.

You still don't understand. Neither the Jewish Tanakh nor Martin's order of the NT are in and of themselves a "hybrid." I was talking about his comination of those two items into a single book called "The Restored Bible." It is that combination that is the "hybrid" formed by combining the two pieces. It is absolutely meaningless to assert that a single thing not mixed with anything else is a "hybrid." My point stands.

Richard