What’s The Big Deal with Sam Gipp?
We have no need of the originals, even if they were available. (“The Answer Book”)
This is Sam Gipp’s statement about the non-necessity of the original texts of the Scriptures. He openly admits that the King James Version of the Bible has replaced the original texts (and does so with a very poor, allegorical exegesis of Jeremiah 36). This kind of teaching is dangerous. It parades around with a thin veneer of academic respectability.
Over the past eight months or so, Sam Gipp has released three well produced videos supported the King James Version Only position. These videos, available on their own website have been circulating all over the internet.
I have to be honest. When the videos first came out, I had no idea who Sam Gipp was. He runs in camps that I was never a part of, even when I was King James Only. As I have learned more about him, there have been some serious questions that have come to mind.
Sam Gipp’s Questionable Ethics
On the surface, Gipp appears to be a well-intentioned man who just wants people to have the “perfect Word of God”; but underlying most of his argumentation is a distrust of anything or anyone who disagrees with him that manifests in a kind of academic bait and switch. He intentionally oversimplifies things, creating false dichotomies in which only his position has the “right answer.”
What’s more, the staged and often stiff questions presented to him by his interlocutors create straw man arguments for him to demolish. Particularly, his anti-everybody else position becomes evident at the end of his third video. He challenges his listeners and essentially states that if you use any version of the Bible other than the KJV, including Greek and Hebrew, then you are in danger of heresy because you’re clearly just looking for reasons to doubt the Scriptures.
Gipp pulls this bait and switch over and over again, both in the videos and on his website. In his “Answer Book” section, Gipp deals with “If King James did not authorize the Bible for use in churches, who was it translated for?”
Ignoring the fact that Gipp does not acknowledge the rich heritage of translations from which the King James Version was revised and acts like it appeared in a vacuum devoid of accurate English translations, Gipp’s logic works something like this:
- The Bible belongs in the hands of the common man.
- The Roman Catholic Church does not want the Bible in the common man’s hands.
(Both are true statements, as far as they go.)
- The Roman Catholics did not translate the King James Version.
- The modern versions keep people from knowing God’s Word.
- The Roman Catholics are using modern versions to brainwash the common man.
Subtly, Gipp pulls the bait and switch. He conveniently ignores that the man behind the Greek text used for the KJV was Roman Catholic. He never mentions that the Anglican Church that produced the KJV was violently opposed to dissenters, like Puritans and Baptists. He never mentions that the Roman Catholic Church openly allows the use of the King James Version of the Bible, even if recommending you use a modern version.
(Incidentally, the Vatican recently held an exhibit of the Catholic roots of the King James Version. Check it out.)
If you watch the way Gipp argues in his videos, he does this constantly. Particularly, in the second video he uses the fact that modern versions are updated from time to time as an argument for trusting the KJV; but he does not acknowledge in any way that there have been several updates of the KJV text for spelling, grammar and word choice.
Sam Gipp’s Dualistic World
His three videos can be distilled to these three arguments:
- The KJV comes from the Antioch text. Other translations come from Egypt. Antioch=good. Egypt=bad.
- Modern translations cut things out of the KJV. They get updated. KJV=complete. Modern translations=edited.
- Using modern versions is looking for errors in the Bible. Only KJVO people don’t question the Bible. Acceptance=faith. Academic rigor=hatred of God’s Word.
Each argument is made in a bait and switch way. For example, in the first video he asks a series of questions about “What do you know about…?” He uses these questions to set a “principle” that anything coming from Egypt is evil and gnostic; and that anything coming from Antioch is good and healthy. He does this using proof texting and questionable hermeneutics.
James White does a great job of destroying these arguments in his response to Gipps’ video, so I won’t respond. I will just post the link.
While I don’t agree with James White on some minor things, I think he does a great job here of exposing the fallacies that Gipp presents.
The reality is that Sam Gipp has created a very Gnostic, neo-Platonic view of the world. While claiming that Gnosticism influenced the church in Egypt, Gipp is unaware that he has himself employed this world view. Since, in his mind, Egypt represents the world and sin, he has marked anything that comes out of Egypt as evil. It is corrupted and broken. Then he proceeds to label anything from Antioch as good and healthy. This is Gnosticism draped in pseudo-history.
A simple study of the Scriptures will refute this dualistic, Gnostic worldview.
And here lies another hint of Gipp’s unethical approach to the topic. While he claims that the Scriptures are for all men, he sets himself up as an authority on the interpretation of Scripture and has developed a scheme for presenting the Scriptures while withholding information through his method of oversimplification as well as bait and switch.
Sam Gipp’s Confusing Academic Situation
On his website, he gives his name as Evangelist Samuel C. Gipp, Th.D. There is very little information about Gipp’s degree, but from all indications, his Doctor of Theology (Th.D.) is an honorary degree from Pensacola Bible Institute, presented to him by Peter Ruckman.
This is a bit confusing since the Doctor of Theology is generally considered to be a research degree and not an honorary one. In most academic fields, it is considered roughly equivalent to a Doctor of Philosophy.
But this is what Gipp has written about honorary degrees, on his own website:
An honorary doctorate is just that. It is bestowed upon the recipient by some college or university as a way of honoring him or her for some outstanding merit, or service to that school. It must be remembered though that an honorary degree cannot bestow an “instant” expertise in the area named…Their opinion on Bible questions certainly wouldn’t outweigh the findings of an earned degree. Or even of someone who holds no degree but has thoroughly investigated all of the available evidence. (“The Answer Book”)
He also makes it quite clear that one does not need Bible college or advanced degrees, and that such things often detract from your understanding of the Scriptures:
A Bible college education seldom strengthens a student’s faith that the Bible is perfect. (“The Answer Book”)
There is a strange irony then that the first of Gipp’s “What’s the Big Deal About the KJV?” videos shows him in a clearly academic setting. Bible college is apparently acceptable if it is 1) taught by someone with an honorary Th.D. and 2) presents the KJV as the only authoritative version of the Scriptures. Otherwise, you should not trust it and you don’t need it.
Fight the Ignorance!
Don’t listen to Sam Gipp and receive what he says passively like his sock puppet listeners do in the videos he is making. He is presenting textual, historical and doctrinal errors. He is teaching a false dichotomy and painting a very complex issue with broad brushes to cast his own position as authoritative and any other position as sinful and evil.
I have no doubt that Sam Gipp believes he is right. He accepts his own oversimplified view of the world and believes in his “research” and his own credentials.
But he is wrong – on many fronts; and he is using deceptive, manipulative practices to make himself look correct.
KJB, KJV, KJV-onlyism, KJVO, Textual Criticism, Textual Variant, Theological Illusions of KJV Onlyism, Unbelievable Claims, Weighing the Evidence
Great post, Erik. Thanks.
Does the NKJV pass brother Gipp’s test?
Andrew, no.
Gipp is a Ruckmanite. Only the King James Version is the inspired Word of God. They even translate the KJV into other languages.
Bob,
Speaking of degrees, whether earned or honorary: where and how did James White get his “Dr.” degree?
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
James,
I wrote this article, not Bob. James White’s degree is from Columbia Evangelical Seminary.
I won’t quibble as to the fact that CES is a non-accredited, non-traditional, distance education institution. I have no frame of reference for the course load involved in his Th.M. degree. Whether or not that course load corresponds to an equivalent degree at a traditional institution is a matter of debate.
But the fact is that people who receive honorary degrees do not customarily style themselves “doctor.” Honorary degrees are recognition of work, not the granting of a title. I could be named Honorary Mayor of my town, but that does not give me the right to call myself “Mayor DiVietro.”
I am familiar with both Peter Ruckman and Sam Gipp. For the record, Peter Ruckman claimed that Sam Gipp earned his Th.D. from Ruckman’s institute based on work that Sam Gipp pursued that would become the basis for “An Understandable History of the Bible.” Therefore, according to the statement I have heard from Ruckman, Gipp’s qualifications to discuss the matter are the equal of James White’s qualifications; an apparently earned degree from a non-accredited academic institution. Whether “An Understandable History of the Bible” is doctoral-level, I will leave it to the reader to decide. It is worth noting, however, that the book underwent a major editorial revision a few years ago that gave it a more scholarly feel than the book had in its earlier incarnation. Hmmm….
Personally, I hold Gipp and White in contempt for different reasons.
I think that coloring book counts as post-doctoral research.
Apparently both schools are unaccredited. From looking at these two opponents, I don’t think the argument could be made that both are on the same level academically. In order to be KJVO, you must bypass principles of logic. Scholarship is not based on the quantity of information read, but the ability to use principles of logic to form a cogent argument from the information. This doesn’t permeate Samuel Gipps’ writings.
Erik,
Regarding the statement in the opening sentence of this entry: Gipp says, “We have no need of the originals, even if they were available.” You then describe this as a statement “about the non-necessity of the original texts of the Scriptures.” However, do you think that another interpretation is plausible, namely, that when Gipp refers to “the originals” he is referring to the autographs?
If he *is* referring to the autographs, then if his statement were re-worded accordingly, so as to produce the sentence, “We have no need of the autographs, even if they were available,” then would that be significantly different from claims that other, more mainstream writers have stated, to the effect that it is not necessary to possess the autographs to be able to discern the message that the autographs conveyed?
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
I would agree, James, but in this case he means the original languages. Gipp believes the KJV replaces the original languages.
I have been blogging a series of responses, question by question, to Gipp’s “Answer Book.” Some of the things he writes in that book are absolutely astounding. As much as I disagree with the KJV Onlyist position in general and believe it is intellectually indefensible, it is not fair to paint them all with the broad brush of the Ruckman/Riplinger/Gipp end of the spectrum. That particular group have no problem just making things up to suit their position even when they know it is not true.
For those interested, my series can be read at:
http://labarum.net/category/kjv-onlyism/questioning-sam-gipps-answers/
Indeed, Albert. Gipp is an extremist.
Erik,
Exactly where in these videos does Sam Gipp express the belief that you atriiribute to him that the KJV replaces the original languages?
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
It is not in the videos. It is on his website. Click the citation on the quote.
http://samgipp.com/answerbook/?page=07.htm
According to Gipp, in order for peoples of the world to read the Bible, they have to learn English first. A Greek New Testament is NOT the Bible. The Luther translation is NOT the Bible. Only the KJB is the Bible.
It’s all over his books. He is a follower of Peter Ruckman who teaches the KJV is “advanced revelation” and superior to any Greek and Hebrew text. He also believes the Septuagint was invented in the third century AD by Origen. In other words, we are dealing with a complete crackpot.
According to Gipp, there are inspired translations. Of course, he believes the KJB to be inspired based on 2 Tim 3:16.
Since all Scripture is inspired, and since the KJB IS the Scriptures, then the KJB is inspired.
The link: http://samgipp.com/answerbook/?page=29.htm
At the following link, Gipp teaches that not only is the KJB an inspired translation, but it is actually an improvement over the original -
http://samgipp.com/answerbook/?page=30.htm
Haven’t been around in awhile, and I haven’t delved back into Textual Criticism for quite some time either, but I did want to stop by and make a quick comment.
I know I have said this before, but the back and forth on this topic just continues to frustrate me because all we ever hear are the positions of either KJV_Onlyism or the Minority Text. One day the debate is going to move out beyond these two positions, and the Majority Text position is going to get the recognition it deserves. It is my belief that James White and Daniel Wallace are completely satisfied and content to keep this debate on the level of the Minority Text vs. KJVO because it keeps the MT position in the background and even worse, it keeps it in the shadows of the KJVO position where most people still think that if you advocate for the MT then you’re advocating for the TR and KJV.
James White’s positions are almost as illogical as Gipp’s, but White’s have been glossed with scholarly and academic acceptance over time giving them a false pretense of being settled and fact. As I’ve said many times before, once the lay people in the Body of Christ get a full look at all positions you’re going to see the MT position take off like a rocket, and once the veneer is stripped off the Minority Text position and shone for just how unreliable it is they’re also going to feel like they’ve been duped all this time.
I think a case could be made for the Byzantine text but it might depend upon how it is defined. One could, for example, argue that the Alexandrian text has a better chance of being preserved because of climatic conditions in Egypt and hence why it has all the earlier mss. However, the argument must then be to emphasize the earliest state of the Byzantine text and not what might end up as the “majority.”
Some of the arguments made by some MT supporters are, in my opinion, counterproductive and ahistorical. For example, there are arguments that hypothesize an almost “survival of the fittest” whereby the best text wins out in the long run. This is quite silly as what would win out is determined by historical factors. We will have the most mss from the later centuries simply because something made five to ten centuries ago is more likely to survive than something made ten to fifteen centuries ago. Since the only Christians still using primarily the Greek language in the later period was the Byzantine Empire, the text favored in those areas would predominate. Thus the later mss favor one recension just as the earliest mss (i.e., those in Alexandria) favor another recension. The important thing is that the position favoring Byzantine readings need to concentrate on the earliest examples of the Byzantine tradition.
Egypt was part of the Byzantine Empire until the Muslims conquered it in the 7th century. The same applies for most of Syria and Palestine. ALL Greek manuscripts were created and perpetuated within the orthodox traditions. Text typing is a poor excuse for the classification of manuscripts. The entire system needs to be overhauled.
Walter,
Good point again as White is not a text critic either and valid points were raised concerning the Byzantine text position he seems to carefully avoid.
To Albert, the critical text advocates do not see the Alexandrian text (if there is one in reality) as a recension. But they do see the Byzantine text as one. Also, the earliest preserved or “oldest text” manuscripts are not necessarily the “best manuscripts” contra critical text advocacy claims. See Burgon and later Wisse on this point. The Byzantine scribes were engaged in correcting earlier serious errors even granting possible harmonizations or emendation made along the way.
The sorting and or classification of continuous text, lectionary groupings and the production of Byzantine critical text editions is exactly the type of work and research we are currently engaged in at CSPMT.
In Christ,
Paul Anderson
http://www.cspmt.org
The Majority Text position is a relatively recent innovation, helped along by the advances in technology of the past couple of decades. Prior to this, collating something akin to a “majority reading” would have required enormous resources. In time, I am sure it will find its place in the menagerie.
The Majority Text position is a critical text position. it still requires the comparison of manuscript evidence and and textual reading decisions. It is important to note that really it is a variant of the critical text position, not a variant of the Textus Receptus position.
Paul,
I am not a critical text advocate as much as a find the best reading advocate. As I mentioned, there can be legitimate arguments that can be made for some Byzantine readings but there needs to be some evidence for those readings. Something that does not show until a millennia or more after the New Testament was written is not that impressive – even if it does end up in the majority of manuscripts.
On the other hand, something that appears in earlyByzantine texts should be taken more seriously than is currently fashionable. I think it can be legitimately argued that Alexandrian readings have ended up in earlier mss because things are preserved a lot better in the desert than moist climates. The point I made was the “majority” argument is useless as a reason to back a reading since these were selective readings from a particular area.
Erik,
Yes, Egypt was part of the Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire but the term “Byzantine” for textual types usually refers to the city of Constantinople (Byzantium) rather than the empire as a whole. I don’t think it can be seriously argued that different readings ended up being dominant in different areas of the empire. Constantinople, a capital created out of thin air, may have ended up with texts from different areas of the empire.
Why would texts in Constantinople be different from the rest of the Empire? Washington DC is a capital invented out of thin air, but copies of the Constitution that were made there are the same as the copies of the Constitution made in Philadelphia. That argument doesn’t hold water.
Be cautious about compressing history to satisfy a theory. I’m not saying that you’re doing that, but it is very common with people who try to interpret the Byzantine Empire and the text that came out of it.
Erik,
This is true. We are working on a complete classification overall as you mentioned. Collation and manuscript digitization has allowed for study of the manuscripts themselves rather than to rely on worn out Hotian text theory and long held critical text bias. This is somewhat of a revolution within the field. At CSPMT we are encountering a large increase in the audience following not only our work but the MT priority position in general.
One of my two papers to be presented at SBL this year will be the first given by a Byzantine text advocate at he NT-TC session. Though I will be addressing the textual identification of the lectionary manuscripts more specifically, I will deal with some overall MT issues of course to some extent.
In Christ,
Paul Anderson
http://www.cspmt.org
Erik,
When Washington D.C was invented out of thin air, they had already produced something called a printing press. It made a big difference.
Let’s say an early copy of the Gospel of John was then copied for ten different locations. There is one thing I can guarantee: there will be textual variants. So ten different locations will have ten different versions of the Gospel of John; Then these are copied and so on. Now some of these variants (misspellings, etc.) are not that big a deal and cause little confusion. Other variants over the years were the result of (depending on your view) additions or subtractions from the text. At some point the texts in Alexandria and Constantinople did seem to solidify (probably when real scribes rather than just anyone made copies) but there are differences. Now I don’t think any of these differences are critical but they are there and to deny such is to put one’s head in the sand.
I know the theory, Albert.
What exactly do you think my view is?
“What exactly do you think my view is?”
Since I am fairly new to this place I wouldn’t presume to know.
Let me then summarize.
Too much is made about Alexandrian text types and the Alexandrian vs. Byzantine arguments. Personally, I don’t believe text typing is a valid classification system. The Four Great Uncials (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus and Ephraemi) follow any number of “text types” in various places and yet they are considered “Alexandrian”? It just does not make any sense.
The inherent issue in discussing the criticism of the New Testament Greek text is NOT age or style or even theology. The real issue is whether one is willing to trust the Greek Church with the preservation of the Greek text or not.
The so-called Textus Receptus deviates from the text used and copied in the Greek Church. In places, Erasmus’ text follows the Latin Vulgate instead of any Greek text. Why? Because Erasmus believed that the Vulgate was the Word of God. He believed it needed to be redacted to be sure, but he believed that the preservation of the text of the Scriptures had been entrusted to the Western Church.
By contrast, the so called Critical Text was originally developed from the idea that NO church had preserved the text of the Greek New Testament and therefore the original had to be “discovered” from amongst the textual evidence. It begins with the assumption that we do not possess the Scriptures unless we can somehow reclaim the original readings.
These are two opposite ends of the spectrum, and they are the basis from which most people will frame their arguments on the Greek text. They both have some merit, but I hold to a middle ground position that has a bias to the Greek Church. By nature a summary will oversimplify, but let me try to distill it. This is a framework for thinking that assumes knowledge of the conversion of the Western Roman Empire from its Latin root to primarily Germanic cultures that picked up Latin as their ecclesiastic and scholastic language after 450 CE. It also assumes knowledge of the ebbs and flows of the Roman Empire after this transition in the West. (I refuse to use the term Byzantine because it was invented by the Enlightenment historians who wanted to claim all things Roman as their own rather than accepting that Roman society had continued.)
1. The Greek Church (Greece, Turkey) copied and maintained the text of the New Testament in its original language as it was known in the eastern part of the Roman Empire.
2. The Latin Church (Western Europe) copied and maintained the text of the New Testament in Latin translation from slightly different texts than the Greek Church.
3. Other smaller Christian groups in Africa ceased producing texts during the period because they were conquered by the Muslims.
4. As a result, texts found in Africa are generally much older than those found in the northern regions that continued in their majority Christian traditions. This does not make them better, but it does make them a vital resource.
I caution against historical compression because we must be aware of the intervening events, political changes within the Greek church and the nature of the schism between Greek and Latin churches, as well as the minority position of the African churches.
I believe the text of the New Testament is the extant corpus of texts from these traditions. The “best” reading is not determined by one’s bias or by counting manuscripts. It must be determined by careful comparison, not by debate and argument. As someone once told me, the problem is not that we have 90% of the text and are trying to figure out what the other 10% is. The problem is that we have 115% and we are not sure what of the 15% does not belong.
We have the Greek text of the Scriptures. We do not need to “discover” it. I have long called for the type of comparison and study that Paul is working on with CSPMT. I do not believe it should result in a single published text. I believe it should result in a tool for comparing texts.
Erik,
Your hesitation on strict types is valid as INTF is not supporting this description for the so-called Alexandrian early uncials any more. However, there is no proof the old uncials Aleph and B were produced in Egypt anyway. Much to the contrary, T. Skeat held to a Caesarean origins which I do as well rather than African origins. Origen moved to there in the early 200s locating his library there. Pamphilus and Eusebius of Caesarea his supporters likely carried on his textual proclivities by possibly producing Aleph and B for Constantine.
On the other hand, the Byzantines or manuscripts on the MT side have far greater unity than Aleph and B or B and the papyri for that matter. Yes they are rather close but far less close than the most distant groupings for the “core” Kappa groups on the MT side i.e 3,000 plus variants in John alone between Aleph & B.
Regarding the use a related term for Byzantine type, the Greeks occasionally utilize a textual term for description of various textual groupings preserved in their tradition so it is not entirely of Latin Western origins. The main problem with the old uncials especially Aleph and B is that they had inferior or corrupt readings introduced along the way likely from Origen’s exemplars brought from Caesarea and the modern eclectic English versions have incorporated these numerous readings into the text as well.
In Christ,
Paul Anderson
http://www.cspmt.org
Erik,
Thanks for the clarification but humor me as I make a few points you may have answered elsewhere. First of all, it is not true the four great uncials are considered Alexandrian. This is true of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus but Alexandrinus is considered Byzantine (Category III) in the Gospels while Alexandrian (Category I) elswhere in the NT. Ephremi is considered mixed textual type (Category II) throughout.
On the matter of whether the Greeks could be trusted with a Greek text, I think this is a bit misleading. At best you might ask if the Greeks could be trusted with a Greek text written by Greek speakers not of Greek descent. The point made here is that the center of power and intellectual life in the Church in the first few centuries were not in Greece but in Syria, Israel, and Egypt. These areas were Greek speaking as Greek was the universal language of the early years of the Church. The only reason Greek areas became a center of power later was the whim of an emperor but this did not occur until the fourth century.
I am in absolute agreement on the state of the TR as the Greek texts in the West were often diaglots or Byzantine texts checked against the Vulgate as it stood at the time (which itself was far from uniform).
The question here is: Do we have any reason to believe the Byzantine choices as a group existed prior to the founding of Constantinople in the fourth century?
Note that I am not asking whether individual readings existed but whether the choices between readings that were prominent in the Byzantine text existed as a group prior to that time.
I also agree in examining the Greek texts as we have it more carefully. My point is that readings that suddenly appear late in the game and ended up in the majority of texts have no priveleged place. I am perfectly willing to take the readings as we have them up to the point where we have a representative sample from different areas. My criticism of the critical text position is they ignore the factor of climate in favoring one set of readings. My criticism of the Majority Text position is their downplaying the bias given by historical factors that limit their choices to one particular area that was not a major player until most of the readings were already on the table.
I think we are essentially in agreement then.
Albert,
I’d like to know an example of what you’d consider “a reading that appeared late in the game” that is in the MT and not the CT?
The most famous example is the Comma Johannieum that does not appear in any Greek text until the medieval period. Even the earliest appearance (~12th century) is in a Latin/Greek diaglot and was likely rendered on the spot by the Latin scribe (as it was rather poorly done with the Latin use of articles that does not match Erasmus’ later rendering that appears elsewhere). It may have been anaddition to the Old Latin text but certainly was never part of the Greek text. Another example would be the “through his blood” claus in Colossians 1:14 that does not appear until somewhere in the ninth century or so.
Obviously in the above response, I misread your question. For some reason, I thought you had asked for something that appeared in the TR and not the MT. You can, however make the case in a few readings according to which of the MT editions you use. In this case, the Colossians 1:14 “in the blood” clause is included in the Hodges/Farstad but not the Robinson/Pierpont. My point was more in response to KJV Onlyists who insist on the TR reading no matter how late in the game it arrived. My argument is that the CT should be compared against the earliest form of the Byzantine text rather than just that which ends up beig the majority.
I really do not understand the position of these KJVO’s that the Greek is somehow not available to us or unnecessary. Even if someone believes the TR is the only legitimate Greek text, we still have the printed editions that the KJV translators worked from (not to mention Scrivener’s edition which “reverse engineered” to cull the readings they chose from these seven editions). Do they believe that even the TR itself is corrupt now?